Let's talk about "the Spark" in TLJ.

I don't know what to tell you at this point because you've been peddling this argument over and over and over and over and over again since the movie came out. You keep asking for responses, then ignoring them and repeating the question.
Have you considered the option that the answers weren't particularly pertinent, or perhaps I wanted to have a more focused discussion?

Are you *gasps in horror*... thread whining?



There is nothing fake about saying Luke confronted he FO or that he showed up or that he risked his life, because he did. Just not in the conventional, superhero, roundhouse kick to the face way that fucked the order up physically. And it's especially jarring to say he didn't risk his life while simultaneously acknowledging that his specific action of confronting the order is what killed him. And even if it hadn't, I wouldn't have viewed it as cowardice so much as cleverness since then Luke would have managed to save the Resistance without sacrificing any more lives, including his own.
This makes the thing you're missing the point of the thread.

This isn't about how awesome or cool Luke was, the extent of his jedi superpowers or the effectiveness of roundhouse kicks against Imperial Walkers. Nobody in his right mind would assume Luke could have had any impact on the conflict on a military level. He tells us so in the movie, literally.

The discussion is about how the "Spark" plotline is meant to pan out - how did the Resistance learn of the events on Crait, who broadcasted or leaked the news to the Galaxy, how quickly they spread, and most importantly what version of the story reaches the Galaxy. The big question is: does the Galaxy know Luke on Crait was a force projection? Do they know he died in the process?

But the meat of your concerns is the idea that Luke lets the galaxy think he is letting the galaxy think he is a superhero type who can kick ass and doesn't afraid of anything when in reality he could only confront the order through trickery that actually cost his life.
I think you should be extremely careful about second guessing people and putting words in their mouths. It's rude...

And, in your mind, this is not a hopeful outcome, because mere trickery just delays destruction, it doesn't give you reason to believe that there is an actual chance at victory. Which is fine, both as a criticism or just raw reaction to the movie, because all it means is that your just kinda cynical. In fact, it's probably realistic to say that many also had a reaction like yours where if Luke doesn't kill atleast 100 walking tanks with his laser sword, then he's worthless to them.
... and more importantly, you're absolutely terrible at it. You're arguing against a strawman you must have created along the way and that has nothing to do with my point.

I'll try to bullet point a few things you don't seem to understand:

- I don't think Luke had any chance of providing aid to the Resistance in virtue of his Jedi powers and I would have aggressively disliked a superheroistic representation of his figure; in fact, I strongly dislike the entire Force Projection stunt because it's an escamotage to actually portray Luke going Super Sayan on screen, which is precisely what I didn't want to see - fake or not.
- I often question the validity of Luke's action as the trigger that changes the opinion of the galaxy for reasons that don't pertain his eventual display of power. In particular, whether he was present or not, that it was done through brute force or deception, what Luke actually achieved on Crait was saving a couple dozen people and one ship, and destroying precisely zero First Order assets. Considering the two days that preceded this saw events like the annihilation of the most important star system in the galaxy, the destruction of the biggest superweapon the galaxy has ever seen, the destruction of the Resistance's fleet and half the First Order's military forces, the death of the Supreme Leader and the rise of one of the most powerful Jedis the galaxy has ever known, the significance of Luke actions seems overstated.
- once again, the entire question is about what version of the story gets spread in the fiction. There is no moral or qualitative implications. It's simply about discussing whether the Galaxy is told Luke actually faced the First Order or he tricked them, and whether he's alive or dead. Both answers are valid and work fine, but have different implications in the fiction and could lead to different developments, which is what we're meant to discuss.


Better now?

But the thing that the people in the movie are celebrating is what happens when one person is brave enough to stand up to the FO. It makes them fail.
Once could object that there's a whole lot of people standing up to the FO, and it's the story of the ST. Rey is standing up to the FO and she's getting tremendous results (including the destruction of Starkiller base and the death of Supreme Leader Snoke). Poe is achieving incredible military results (and if we want to blame him for people dying during a desperate escape, how isn't Luke culpable for his inaction?). Holdo struck a blow to the FO that makes Luke's efforts look like a fart in the wind a matter of minutes before the events on Crait.

What makes Luke's intervention so significant in the fiction is either the magnitude of his actions (but considering what Holdo and expecially Rey - who is as important as he is in saving the Resistance on Crait, since she saves their butts twice, that's questionable) or the magnitude of his figure (a more effective argument).

And those two things are precisely the reason why it's interesting to discuss how the news and the legend about the events on Crait are spread, and which version of them reaches people.

They were here to destroy the last of the resistance and they had them and even the mere ghost of Luke walking up caused them to miss their victory. Luke is celebrated the way the man from Tienanmen Square is. Did the Tienanmen Square man stop China's fascism? Is he probably still alive today? No and no. But he is still remembered and iconified and celebrated as someone who was brave and righteous and giving people hope. And, thematically, hope is what the Last Jedi is about in a way few movies are, since we don't get the immediate satisfaction of our hope being rewarded. No, hope itself is the thing, because that's all the Resistance has to go on by the end of the movie, so damaged they are. Yet it's powerful, since it is spreading throughout the galaxy.
Again, here we go on a tangent that isn't really the point of the thread, but in short I don't really see how any of this is compatible with the Galaxy being indifferent to what Holdo had just achieved. The Galaxy is scared of taking military action against the FO because of their horribly powerful superweapon, their force-wizard leaders and their massive fleet. Rey, Finn and Poe destroy the superweapon, defeat and kill the force-wizards. Holdo destroys half the FO's military might. None of this is significant enough. Luke Skywalker appears on Crait, spends 10 minutes there and disappears and that's going to propagate hope?

If the point was an heroic act of courage and some heroic sacrifice, then I don't see any reason that makes Luke's intervention more significant than Holdo's. Holdo's character and her death incarnate all the values you describe, to greater effect than Luke.
Luke's intervention as the spark of hope doesn't really work if people assume he showed up to buy his sister time to flee and died in the process. It works if people actually believe blaster fire couldn't stop him and he defeated and humiliated Kylo Ren.

And this is why it's important to discuss how the story of the event of Crait affect the Galaxy within the fiction (and not the audience, which is free to like or dislike the plotline).

And now we have a new Jedi Knight, who is going to be where she needs to be and do what she needs to do to save the galaxy, like she was at the end of the movie, lifting rocks to open a path for the resistance. That's the message.
You're barking at the wrong tree. I've been saying for a while that TLJ does an excellent job at showing how the Resistance doesn't really need Luke because they have a stronger Jedi in their ranks.

And this is all stuff that I and others have said before. Again and again, you keep wondering how people can 'celebrate fake news', but ignore the answers when someone tells you them. I don't see it as fake news at all. But you're free to, even if I think that's a very cynical take on things. But why do you keep asking if you don't want to hear the answers?
Not reiterating on the above, but I think you're absolutely misunderstanding the questions here.

Try to answer the incredibly simple base question: which version of the story does the galaxy know, and how does it affect them? And move from there. There's no "wrong" or "right" answer. Neither answer disqualifies the movie or its fiction.

It's simply about discussing what's actually happening within the story.
 
"Oh shit the First Order just fucking nuked the entire Senate star system... but its okay. There's a rumor going around that Luke Skywalker survived a bunch of AT ATs. Yeah. First Order aren't defeated, galaxy is still in their chokehold and theres no actual tangible positive consequences to his 'sacrifice' in this story or anything but yeah we're feeling hopeful because WHY

Is the legend a story about Luke Skywalker being killed by FO or Luke Skywalker beating the FO? Or escaping the FO? Whichever it is, the ending of the fucking story would not inspire hope because the First Order is still around. Right? Surely it'd inspire hopelessness that even Luke superpowersmcgee Skywalker couldn't defeat them? Right?!!

I think it's absolutely possible that Luke's reappearance, combined with an epic tale of how he wooped the FO's ass and saved the Resistance, coming on the tail of 10 years of propaganda drums announcing the glorious return of the great hero of the war against the Empire and his inevitable rise to arms against the FO would be a fantastic trigger for hope and enthusiasm across the galaxy.

They just need to omit the part where he died.



Basically, the point is understanding where the movie stands on what can influence the mood of the galaxy.

If this is all about the idea of an heroic individual standing up to overwhelming odds and fighting for what is right, sacrificing himself in the process (the Leonidas example), then why do we need Luke when we got Holdo? She did exactly what he did, with greater effect. In the balance of a galactic war, saving Leia and a few Resistance leaders matters a lot less than destroying half the FO's fleet.

If it's about Luke's significance as a symbol and how his heroism and personal power galvanizes people, than it's incompatible with the idea of him dying a few moments later.

Again, it's not about "it's good storytelling", "I liked it/I didn't like it". It's simply about answering: what actually happened? What story reached people and sparked hope? Why?
 
Have you considered the option that the answers weren't particularly pertinent, or perhaps I wanted to have a more focused discussion?

Are you *gasps in horror*... thread whining?
*shrug* Fair enough, I guess, but I don't see how you're gonna get any different answers than the ones you have already gotten. I'm not objecting to the thread or anything like that, I just don't understand why you ask this question when it's already something you've discussed a thousand times over.

And if I came off a bit bitchy in my response, it wasn't intentionally so, which is why I am assuming you responded in bitchiness in turn. My being flippant in some aspects of my post wasn't a dig at you so much as it was just comedic shorthand, so I'm not gonna take the tone of your post personally.

This makes the thing you're missing the point of the thread.
I wasn't responding to the OP, I was responding to the specific post you made later on, which is why that's the one I quoted. If you didn't want that element to enter the discourse, then why did you write it into the thread?

And, in any case, I think it's where the dissatisfaction you have is coming from and what is ultimately the root cause of the issue. The premise of the thread, by which how the information is spread and so forth isn't something I'm especially concerned with. Personally, I imagine that the FO broadcast an 'official' story but people who were there give secret accounts as to what really happened that got out. Leaks, basically. Other than that, I'm not sure how the story is conveyed because I'm not sure what technology level that SW is operating at, because it's always been kind of a mess. ANH wouldn't have had to go through all the trouble of the Death Star plans if they had an internet they could just send info over, so that implies they don't, but I can't imagine how else intercommunication would work if the galaxy is as connected as the movies imply it is, for instant like the fact that 99% of species seem to understand 99% of every other species language. Star Wars is just nonsensical in this regard.


I think you should be extremely careful about second guessing people and putting words in their mouths. It's rude...

... and more importantly, you're absolutely terrible at it. You're arguing against a strawman you must have created along the way and that has nothing to do with my point.
I'm not saying you literally said that and that you just want Luke to be a super jedi badass, but honestly, I don't see how it's innacurate to say that Luke not being able to do something significantly damaging to the FO is what it comes down to. Even the bullet points you lay down below mention the bolded and underlined....

- I don't think Luke had any chance of providing aid to the Resistance in virtue of his Jedi powers and I would have aggressively disliked a superheroistic representation of his figure; in fact, I strongly dislike the entire Force Projection stunt because it's an escamotage to actually portray Luke going Super Sayan on screen, which is precisely what I didn't want to see - fake or not.
- I often question the validity of Luke's action as the trigger that changes the opinion of the galaxy for reasons that don't pertain his eventual display of power. In particular, whether he was present or not, that it was done through brute force or deception, what Luke actually achieved on Crait was saving a couple dozen people and one ship, and destroying precisely zero First Order assets. Considering the two days that preceded this saw events like the annihilation of the most important star system in the galaxy, the destruction of the biggest superweapon the galaxy has ever seen, the destruction of the Resistance's fleet and half the First Order's military forces, the death of the Supreme Leader and the rise of one of the most powerful Jedis the galaxy has ever known, the significance of Luke actions seems overstated.
- once again, the entire question is about what version of the story gets spread in the fiction. There is no moral or qualitative implications. It's simply about discussing whether the Galaxy is told Luke actually faced the First Order or he tricked them, and whether he's alive or dead. Both answers are valid and work fine, but have different implications in the fiction and could lead to different developments, which is what we're meant to discuss.
So I don't think it's an exaggeration or a strawman to say that you're working from the premise that if Luke plausibly is going to be seen the superstar legend that the galaxy, then he needs to have wrecked the FO's shit in some way physically. Which is also the source of your confusion as to why Holdo isn't getting equal or more significant credit, when she did wreck the FO's shit physically. So, it is about wrecking shit, when you get down to it.

As for that last bullet point, it seems disingenous to say that when, again, I was replying to a post that specifically emphasized the moral implications of using lies and fake news as a triumphant point for the resistance. I get that you want to isolate it for the sake of argument here, but it clearly comes from a place that isn't morally comfortable with the idea that that's what happened.

Now, the rest of this I will condense a bit since it gets at the other point your making.

If the point was an heroic act of courage and some heroic sacrifice, then I don't see any reason that makes Luke's intervention more significant than Holdo's. Holdo's character and her death incarnate all the values you describe, to greater effect than Luke.
Again, not trying to strawman or whatever, but this is the point the other parts of your argument circles around: Why isn't Holdo more significant because she did more stuff?

Well, I imagine she is also significant and revered by the allies of the resistance for her sacrifice for her heroic sacrifice. But it's human nature to remember things more simplified where they were. We say "Obama killed Bin Laden", when it was actually a team, coordinated by hundreds of people working together. Obama was part of it and not a small part, but it wasn't just him...but that's how it's talked about and remembered. And he's specifically the one remembered because he's the president, the title in which we associate with leaders. And this is a phenomon that has happened throughout history. Who built Rome? Why, the Brothers Romulus and Remus, not hundreds of thousands of people working together to build a city. Who built Stone Hedge? Why, Merlin the Wizard. And so on.

Holdo was a second in command and became a defacto leader, Luke is the legendary jedi knight that toppled an empire. People are just gonna naturally gravitate to wanting to hear what he did. If you want to argue that, objectively, others did have more physical impact, that's true, but in terms of hearing stories, Luke the Legend is gonna be the one people fixate on.

You're barking at the wrong tree. I've been saying for a while that TLJ does an excellent job at showing how the Resistance doesn't really need Luke because they have a stronger Jedi in their ranks.
I don't think I am because that's kinda not what I'm getting at. It's not about strength. It's about the fact that there is a Jedi Knight who is going to be there to fight. And yeah, Rey is powerful, this is something everyone agrees on, but that just circles back around to the idea of "We have a hulk" aka, that the resistance has a superpowered space wizard that is going to wreck the FO's shit, like Luke was gonna do.

The actual idea of having a Jedi Knight is the hope that they are going to win because they have someone who is going to do what they need in order to win, whether that's lifting rocks or doing something a completely mundane person could do like Holdo. The idea of hope here isn't "We're hurt, but we have a super powerful person that gives us a chance." The idea is "We will find a way to win. I don't know how, but we will. That's what the Jedi do."

In that context, Rey could be straight up weaker than Luke or Kylo Ren, but she's a Jedi Knight, and she'll do what she needs to do to win, odds be damned.

Try to answer the incredibly simple base question: which version of the story does the galaxy know, and how does it affect them? And move from there. There's no "wrong" or "right" answer. Neither answer disqualifies the movie or its fiction.
Just one last time, for emphasis, I was responding to a later post in the thread, not the OP...but since you want to hear my answer, it's this:

I have no fucking idea, because I have no idea through what means the story was conveyed through to them. It's a version of the story that gives them hope, which is demonstrated by how those kids react to it, and that's thematically appropriate to the climax of the movie, but in terms of what the specific tale they heard was, that's unanswerable until the next movie if at all.
 
Last edited:
I have no fucking idea, because I have no idea through what means the story was conveyed through to them. It's a version of the story that gives them hope, which is demonstrated by how those kids react to it, and that's thematically appropriate to the climax of the movie, but in terms of what the specific tale they heard was, that's unanswerable until the next movie if at all.
i'm in a bit of a rush, so forgive the hasty reply, I'll try to get to the other points later.

But... don't you feel it's at least bizzarre that such an important detail that completely alters the perception of Luke's legacy can go down as "either way, it's indifferent"?

People fixate on the most inane things as "plot holes", debating whether the fact that we don't see a character collect the keys from his pocket before starting an engine is a fatal flaw in moviemaking, and then we completely gloss over something that should be crucial in evaluating the meaning and the message of a strong part of the movie itself?

I understand people taking a stance like BossAttack who said "We don't know for sure, maybe we'll get a better answer later, it's up to you to interiorize and evalute this". But saying it doesn't matter? That feels wrong to me.
 
i'm in a bit of a rush, so forgive the hasty reply, I'll try to get to the other points later.

But... don't you feel it's at least bizzarre that such an important detail that completely alters the perception of Luke's legacy can go down as "either way, it's indifferent"?

People fixate on the most inane things as "plot holes", debating whether the fact that we don't see a character collect the keys from his pocket before starting an engine is a fatal flaw in moviemaking, and then we completely gloss over something that should be crucial in evaluating the meaning and the message of a strong part of the movie itself?

I understand people taking a stance like BossAttack who said "We don't know for sure, maybe we'll get a better answer later, it's up to you to interiorize and evalute this". But saying it doesn't matter? That feels wrong to me.
Well, to be more accurate, I don't think we will ever get an answer because it's anti-antithetical to Star Wars. This sort of gets into the weird aspect of the Sequel Trilogy, but is also in-tune with the general themes of Star Wars. By that I mean, TLJ carries forward on the meta-textual aspect of TFA, something I wasn't exactly a fan of in TFA. If you look back at the OT and the PT they have basis in older works and myths. We all know that the OT is based around the Monomyth, it's the classic Hero's Tale and riffs heavily from the classic adventure serial from Lucas' youth (Flash Gordon, WWII reels, etc.). Meanwhile, the Prequels have more a basis in classic Shakespearean and Greek literature. It's why the prequels, especially ROTS can be so perfectly described as "operatic." They are indeed based heavily upon classic theater/play acting, complete with their accompanying tropes and bombastic writing and score. The Padme-Anakin romance is just pure Shakespearean, this is intentional even if it's not exactly compelling in the 21st Century.

However, TFA and the Sequel Trilogy are the first Star Wars movies not based upon older outside works. Rather, they are based upon Star Wars itself. Whereas the text of the OT and PT were built upon the classic Monomyth/Serial Adventures and Shakespearean plus Greek plays, the Sequels are built upon the text of Star Wars itself. This is why particularly in TFA the characters, especially the new ones, don't exactly act as if they live in and grew up in this fictional world. Instead, they feel like characters that grew up watching the Star Wars movies. And, the film itself follows this by offering up essentially a retelling of ANH to a new generation. TLJ continues this meta-textual basis of the new movies and takes a more self-reflective look at the series. Thus, we get things such as the analysis and deconstruction of the Myth of Luke Skywalker and the Jedi.

You see, prior to the prequels we had no idea what exactly the Jedi were or what they were capable of. We had no idea what a "fully trained Jedi Knight with the Force as his ally "looked like. We had no idea how they dressed or even governed themselves. The prequels dropped much of this mystery as we got a look at the Old Republic prior to its fall. But, it also unknowingly introduced "power levels" of Jedi/Force Users and even seemed to essentially codify the powers of The Force (Jumping, Running, Lightning, etc.). In effect, it demystified the Jedi and moved them further from the "myths" they were in the OT. TLJ seeks to bring the Jedi back to this Mythical status, of actually being Space Wizards/Knights. Thus, we get to Luke's final moment the entire situation is a commentary of the Myth of the Jedi and what we ourselves see them as. For Kylo Ren and much of the audience, we believed that a lone Luke Skywalker could survive such an onslaught alone before the reveal. After the reveal, we are left pondering what exactly is possible for a Jedi. And, that is precisely what the film wants and does not seek to answer. Because, to do so would be to demystify he Jedi and the meta-stories we had built in our heads following the OT.

I don't think any future film would try to definitively answer such a question because, as I've stated, it's antithetical to Star Wars. It's a series about Myth and Legend, not facts. Each entry starts with "A long time ago, in a Galaxy far, far away..." Which is simply another way of saying, "Once Upon a Time..." The entries start like fairy tales, so to treat them with hard, immutable facts would be to diminish them.
 
The fact that the slave kids knew what Like did told nothing but bad story telling.

Nothing more.
Theres nothing to imply he heard THE story of what happened on Crait, this scene exists to show how Luke is a folk hero and icon of goodness to even the most isolated/downtrodden people of the galaxy.

The fact that this little boy has some version of Luke - even if its wrong - in his head means the myth of Luke Skywalker remains to inspire those who would ever dream of fighting back against “evil.”

Its also a perfect eulogy for a character who came from nothing and spiralled into depression with worry about the fate of the galaxy on his shoulders; he remains their hero, even if the “real” Luke might have temporarily retreated from the mantle.

So either you are wrong or its “bad storytelling” lol.
 
People there witnessed it on both sides. They told their spouses and friends. Then those people told their people.

The same way legends have been spread since the dawn on time: word of mouth.
But its a pretty lame legend. He stalled them so the resistance could escape yes, but they lost like 300 people and were down to like 20 due to that lazer canon.
 
Theres nothing to imply he heard THE story of what happened on Crait, this scene exists to show how Luke is a folk hero and icon of goodness to even the most isolated/downtrodden people of the galaxy.

The fact that this little boy has some version of Luke - even if its wrong - in his head means the myth of Luke Skywalker remains to inspire those who would ever dream of fighting back against “evil.”

Its also a perfect eulogy for a character who came from nothing and spiralled into depression with worry about the fate of the galaxy on his shoulders; he remains their hero, even if the “real” Luke might have temporarily retreated from the mantle.

So either you are wrong or its “bad storytelling” lol.
It's not "bad storytelling". It's bad storytelling.

It's not hard to understand the scene. It just doesn't make sense. A lot of them don't. That, along with Leia's space walking, the entire slow chase, all of Canto Bight, Snoke, Holdo, Luke's sacrifice for 6 people... Christ I could go all day.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film. But the writing was fucking bad.
 
I don't think any future film would try to definitively answer such a question because, as I've stated, it's antithetical to Star Wars. It's a series about Myth and Legend, not facts. Each entry starts with "A long time ago, in a Galaxy far, far away..." Which is simply another way of saying, "Once Upon a Time..." The entries start like fairy tales, so to treat them with hard, immutable facts would be to diminish them.
I think I get what you're going for. It doesn't matter that people know exactly how Luke did what he did, or even exactly what he did - Luke Skywalker exists and he faced the FO so people will believe once again in the old legends.


And I absolutely agree that this is absolutely coherent with what SW ultimately is. In the vacuum, the idea of a galaxy that has forgotten the Jedis and lost hope where an old Luke Skywalker appears and provides the example that makes people believe in heroes and the Force again is perfect Star Wars.

I remain perplexed by the implementation because this perfect nutshell of SW themes is bolted on a narrative structure that suffers from massive pacing issues and the fact that it's never allowed to breathe for a second. We're led to believe that the galaxy has forgotten about Jedis not once but TWICE over the span of less than 40 years, and that's before we get to a ST who doesn't even let days pass between different events. The idea of legends and myths being born loses some steam when they do over hours instead of years.
The second aspect that somewhat devalues this type of narrative is the high octane fast paced storytelling of the new trilogy. In a matter of hours planets explode, fleets are vanquished, central characters are assassinated, fated rivals face each other - there's no time to let things sink in, evolve, mature.

In the OT you'd have people mention legends and you'd hear the theme music faintly in the background while the characters look full of wonder. In the ST it's BLAM BLAM BLAM EXPLOSION PEW PEW SNOKE'S DEAD PEW PEW MEGAEXPLOSION BLAM BLAM oh and here's Luke BLAM BLAM and now he's dead! Legends!

Things move way too fast, honestly. But that's maybe just me. RJ's hands were kind of tied here, I feel. TLJ pays for a lot of TFA's sins.
 
But its a pretty lame legend. He stalled them so the resistance could escape yes, but they lost like 300 people and were down to like 20 due to that lazer canon.
...Pretty lame legend? As far as either the First Order guys or the Resistance guys are concerned, Luke single-handedly took an entire First Order ground force's full artillery without taking a scratch and then took on their leader, making him look like a joke. I guarantee you those troopers are going to be letting it slip how sad and pathetic Kylo looked as he screamed angrily over it.
 
i'm in a bit of a rush, so forgive the hasty reply, I'll try to get to the other points later.

But... don't you feel it's at least bizzarre that such an important detail that completely alters the perception of Luke's legacy can go down as "either way, it's indifferent"?

People fixate on the most inane things as "plot holes", debating whether the fact that we don't see a character collect the keys from his pocket before starting an engine is a fatal flaw in moviemaking, and then we completely gloss over something that should be crucial in evaluating the meaning and the message of a strong part of the movie itself?

I understand people taking a stance like BossAttack who said "We don't know for sure, maybe we'll get a better answer later, it's up to you to interiorize and evalute this". But saying it doesn't matter? That feels wrong to me.
If you'll permit a bit of a tangent, I feel the well is somewhat poisoned when it comes to this line of criticism. I remember back when Iron Man came out, I was talking to a mechanical engineer student, and he said that he was somewhat taken out of the movie at the start because he knew Tony couldn't have made that kind of suit in a cave (WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS). It has nothing to do with intelligence - he would need circuitry that is really, really small. Like, microscopic, to create the kind of machine that would do all that for him, and a terrorist cave just wouldn't have that kind of equipment. Moviebob once defined it as "Plotholes are not a problem in my eyes except in cases where they are so absurdly glaring that it takes a normal person not looking to start something out of the movie." The Mech. Eng. student was a perfectly normal person who wasn't trying to start something, but he has a certain knowledge base that informs him when something is being handled wrong in fiction in regards to engineering. That's just how it works, if you know how something works, you'll be able to spot it when it's being used wrong, sending a blaring alarm off in your head of "That is fictional", taking you out of whatever fictional world your trying to be in.

Due to that, I'm of the belief that there aren't details that are truly insignificant. Ideally, you want everything in your movie to be as structurely sound as possible. If Tony needed to make microscopic circuits, it'd be nice to have an potential explanation for that issue. At the same time, you're not going to, nor are you supposed to, have everything explained to you, as that's inefficient storytelling. To me, what isn't explained still needs a plausible, possible explanation you can assume for it to work. It doesn't have to be told, it just has to exist in the realm of possibility.

To get to your actual point about TLJ, is this a problem? Is this crucial information left unstated?

For me, no, not really. Thematically, the film is about hope, not strength, so the important thing to show is the galaxy being inspired. And BossAttack did a good write up on it as well. But I also recognize the subjectivity. If you feel this is vital information for you, then I can't really reason you out of feeling that. The best I can offer is "What kind of version of the story would it have to be for you to have that kind of reaction?" If the only answer to that is "Fake news, where the tales goes that Luke decimates the FO with his laser sword." then that's the answer for you. It just kinda reflects your cynical...or realist, if you prefer that.... outlook. I don't mean any offense, I'm just saying that this might be the fundamental incompatibility.
 
You just have to not dwell on it and understand Johnson was going to have what he wanted to have happen regardless of how much sense it made. I doubt JJ will even acknowledge this stuff in the next movie.
 
For me, no, not really. Thematically, the film is about hope, not strength, so the important thing to show is the galaxy being inspired. And BossAttack did a good write up on it as well. But I also recognize the subjectivity. If you feel this is vital information for you, then I can't really reason you out of feeling that. The best I can offer is "What kind of version of the story would it have to be for you to have that kind of reaction?" If the only answer to that is "Fake news, where the tales goes that Luke decimates the FO with his laser sword." then that's the answer for you. It just kinda reflects your cynical...or realist, if you prefer that.... outlook. I don't mean any offense, I'm just saying that this might be the fundamental incompatibility.

See, I feel this bit of information is important because the movie makes it important.

The movie is incredibly self aware about the expectations of the fans. Where was Luke Skywalker when the FO rose to power? Why did he allow it to happen? Why is he not fighting them? Why is he not using his power to pew pew them in the face and own that bratty kid Kylo?

People were expecting Luke to be a superhero of sorts, and TLJ addresses this, in a very "in your face" way. Luke telling Rey being a jedi doesn't make you invincible and that he's not capable of taking down the FO, that he defeated the Empire because he could get into Vader's heart, not because he was strong enough to face the Emperor (incidentally, we see that Rey isn't strong enough to face Snoke either) is a very important part of the message.

So when we get to the point where "power" isn't important (it shouldn't!) but legends and messages and symbols are, the way those symbols are shaped becomes - in my opinion - important.
If the movie assesses that Luke Skywalker wasn't in fact capable to defeat the FO single-handedly like people expected him to, but then tells you people will believe he did exactly that, the moral of the story is either contradictory or we need to accept there's some darkness in Luke's sacrifice because it becomes the most beautiful lie that people will cling to in order to find hope.


And mind you, I think interpreting the "Spark" as an exaggeration of Luke's myth that goes against what the character wanted as his legacy but at the same time he realizes is needed to shape the will of the people of the galaxy adds to the movie, in my opinion, rather than detract from it. I much prefer "Luke sacrificed himself fully knowing he'd become a Christ-figure and people would find strength in a tale that made him more than he actually was, exactly like the jedi of old" to "Luke was amazing and awesome and somehow everybody now think they can fight despite him being dead".
 
So when we get to the point where "power" isn't important (it shouldn't!) but legends and messages and symbols are, the way those symbols are shaped becomes - in my opinion - important.
If the movie assesses that Luke Skywalker wasn't in fact capable to defeat the FO single-handedly like people expected him to, but then tells you people will believe he did exactly that, the moral of the story is either contradictory or we need to accept there's some darkness in Luke's sacrifice because it becomes the most beautiful lie that people will cling to in order to find hope.
I don't think they believe that he single handedly defeated the FO either though. I am sure that Holdo is remembered as a hero and that Rey is viewed with reverence as well. Luke is not THE hero, he's just A hero, one of several in the resistance. As for the legend itself...

And mind you, I think interpreting the "Spark" as an exaggeration of Luke's myth that goes against what the character wanted as his legacy but at the same time he realizes is needed to shape the will of the people of the galaxy adds to the movie, in my opinion, rather than detract from it. I much prefer "Luke sacrificed himself fully knowing he'd become a Christ-figure and people would find strength in a tale that made him more than he actually was, exactly like the jedi of old" to "Luke was amazing and awesome and somehow everybody now think they can fight despite him being dead".
A lot of the movie was Rey struggling with the dissonance between what she expected from Luke the Jedi and who she found on that island, and I feel it's sorta understated how much Rey changed Luke. By the end of the movie, his more idealistic beliefs are reinvigorated and much of what he says at the end contradicts what he was trying to teach Rey. It's not hypocrisy or a lie, but the idea that Luke, as a human, is mutable.

So, in the end, I don't think this goes against what Luke would have wanted, only what Pre-Rey Luke would have wanted. End-movie Luke doesn't just see the value in legends, but also accepts that heroes come out and do what they need to do to save the day. And that's what Luke did. He saved the day. If you don't believe that you have a more cynical outlook on the whole thing, then why isn't that enough? Why do people need to believe that he kicked the FO's ass?

Why can't him being the reason that the Resistance got out alive be heroic or inspiring on it's own?
 
I much prefer "Luke sacrificed himself fully knowing he'd become a Christ-figure and people would find strength in a tale that made him more than he actually was, exactly like the jedi of old" to "Luke was amazing and awesome and somehow everybody now think they can fight despite him being dead".
That's exactly what I got from it. Luke wanted to die forgotten, along with the Jedi. But in the end, he finally confronted the concept that the idea of him was greater than himself, and finally accepted it.

It doesn't matter if the galaxy knows if he's dead or not.
 
I think I get what you're going for. It doesn't matter that people know exactly how Luke did what he did, or even exactly what he did - Luke Skywalker exists and he faced the FO so people will believe once again in the old legends.


And I absolutely agree that this is absolutely coherent with what SW ultimately is. In the vacuum, the idea of a galaxy that has forgotten the Jedis and lost hope where an old Luke Skywalker appears and provides the example that makes people believe in heroes and the Force again is perfect Star Wars.

I remain perplexed by the implementation because this perfect nutshell of SW themes is bolted on a narrative structure that suffers from massive pacing issues and the fact that it's never allowed to breathe for a second. We're led to believe that the galaxy has forgotten about Jedis not once but TWICE over the span of less than 40 years, and that's before we get to a ST who doesn't even let days pass between different events. The idea of legends and myths being born loses some steam when they do over hours instead of years.
The second aspect that somewhat devalues this type of narrative is the high octane fast paced storytelling of the new trilogy. In a matter of hours planets explode, fleets are vanquished, central characters are assassinated, fated rivals face each other - there's no time to let things sink in, evolve, mature.

In the OT you'd have people mention legends and you'd hear the theme music faintly in the background while the characters look full of wonder. In the ST it's BLAM BLAM BLAM EXPLOSION PEW PEW SNOKE'S DEAD PEW PEW MEGAEXPLOSION BLAM BLAM oh and here's Luke BLAM BLAM and now he's dead! Legends!

Things move way too fast, honestly. But that's maybe just me. RJ's hands were kind of tied here, I feel. TLJ pays for a lot of TFA's sins.
I won't disagree with any of this, though I think TLJ was far better than TFA in this regard. It's why I loved every moment with Luke because it wasn't PEW, PEW, EXPLOSION, JAKKU!!! RATHARS! I CAN DO THIS! The movie was allowed to fucking breathe at these moments. It's also why I liked the initial concept of a slow chase. I was like, "fuck yes, confine all the character to this one ship and force character exploration." Then Finn and Rose blasted away to go on a wholly separate adventure causing me to groan and running into the same problems you described, lack of ability to breath, too much shit happening at once.

I also agree with the whole "nobody remembers the Jedi" bit being a bit hard to swallow. But, it makes more sense in the ST than the OT. At least after the OT there was only one Jedi, Luke Skywalker. However, prior to the OT there was the whole Old Republic that had a thousand or so plus Jedi who were involved in a Galactic Civil War which touched nearly every corner of the galaxy, yet they are a forgotten old legend not a few decades later. Come on.
 
It's not "bad storytelling". It's bad storytelling.

It's not hard to understand the scene. It just doesn't make sense. A lot of them don't. That, along with Leia's space walking, the entire slow chase, all of Canto Bight, Snoke, Holdo, Luke's sacrifice for 6 people... Christ I could go all day.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film. But the writing was fucking bad.
I still don’t understand how some kid knowing about the legend of Luke Skywalker is bad storytelling - and legit, I’m not defending any of those other points, just this particular scene.
 
I feel like the question of how "the spark" would spread wouldn't be as much of a question if they had done a better job establishing the big-picture conflict. Probably the hardest thing TLJ had to deal with was the poor job TFA did of establishing the state of the world and the dynamic between the major forces at play: the way the First Order, the Republic and the Resistance all relate to each other, how well-known the events of the OT are, how the universe in general is faring, etc. The crawl effectively starts "With the support of GOLIATH, General Leia Organa leads a brave RESISTANCE against DAVID," and they scramble to reset the board so hastily that they forgot to lay down solid baseline for the subsequent movies to build on.

As to whether or not the legend of Luke Skywalker walking out with a laser sword and facing down the whole First Order includes the fact that he died, I don't personally think it'll wind up mattering very much, both on a meta level and on an actual narrative level. The kid having his "binary sunset" moment in the movie's final seconds isn't just inspired by the idea of fighting alongside Luke, he is Luke.

(I swear, every time I start thinking about this movie I just like it more and more.)
 
I think the "spark" will be the title of Episode 9.

"Spark of Hope" or something similar. What it actually is in context of the in-universe aspect will be completely ignored because JJ doesn't really do thematic stuff unless he has to.
 
It's dumb, but it works cause in Star Wars... stuff just works. Pretty much everything about the First Order is illogical, but hey, it just works, cause they say it does. The Resistance "victory spark" is stupid, but it works cause they say it does.
 
I see you, OP. You're just asking questions!

You gotta understand that not everyone cares about this level of narrative consistency, and that's totally fine. Movies can be and often are more than some documentary-style description of events, things can be embellished or left vague or truncated for the sake of other creative priorities.
No, these fatal plot holes need to be exposed! We must prove TLJ is garbage using the power of nerd logic.
 
Well yeah, Kylo and Rey thought they were really there when they first "projected" to each other. She tried to shoot him, they both ran out of their rooms trying to find each other and then he tried to use a mind trick on her before realising she wasn't really there. That whole scene was showing us how the Force can fool you into believing someone is right next to you when they are actually on the other side of the galaxy.






Having the courage to stand up is enough to inspire people to fight back against the odds. People around the galaxy had lost hope, the Jedi were gone, Luke had vanished and the FO had destroyed the Republic. Leia's allies were too scared to stand up. Luke suddenly reappeared, stared down the First Order and saved the Resistance. Who wouldn't take hope from that? Luke saved the Resistance from annihilation using his magic powers.
But... okay.

Okay, if thats what they're going for, then there 100% needs to be a scene where desperate people are in a hopeless situation and they're just like "haha we'll be fine, Luke Skywalker will save us!" and Rey/Finn/Poe having to deal with that.
 
I don't understand how a few rebels getting crushed down to like 20 people and 2 ships by an intergalactic war machine is a spark. Why should anyone align themselves with the resistance at this point? Lukes intervention at that moment yeah probably saved those 20 people, but likely many more would have been saved if it had happened sooner. If all 20 of the leftover resistance were killed on Crait, the galaxy would probably just create more rebels because FO is bad. I'm assuming that force kid at the end, plus Jedi books on the falcon means Rey will find and train new Jedi. Oh wait thats a plausible inference based on obvious story cues. So yeah something totally different will happen. Because coherent story telling is no longer what you get with SW. Seriously we have come to the point where literally anything can happen in 9 and it won't have any weight. All tension was diffused in 8. Rey will keep winning at everything, maybe even be revealed to have relevant parentage. Kylo will probably turn light and have to face his terrible past. Any other outcome for him is super boring. They'll probably come up with a NEW BADDER BIGGER villain, likely the arms dealer angle. Luke does force ghost stuff. yawn
 
I still don’t understand how some kid knowing about the legend of Luke Skywalker is bad storytelling - and legit, I’m not defending any of those other points, just this particular scene.
2 things. How do they even know Luke in the first place? How were they to find out about his fight against Ren?

It was a lazy badly written scene to show us there are other force sensitive people out there that could uprise.
 
2 things. How do they even know Luke in the first place? How were they to find out about his fight against Ren?

It was a lazy badly written scene to show us there are other force sensitive people out there that could uprise.
Lol how do you think information used to spread throughout history? Hell it still can spread the same way. People talk.

How do you think kids today know what James Bond is without seeing a movie? Or star trek? Cultural osmosis is a thing which we literally have and you can't imagine how a kid might have heard of a warrior that took on and beat one of the most infamous enforcers of the empire?

And that's putting aside your "it's lazy" comment which is ironic considering your comment.
 
2 things. How do they even know Luke in the first place? How were they to find out about his fight against Ren?

It was a lazy badly written scene to show us there are other force sensitive people out there that could uprise.
So, to be clear, in your version of a plausible intergalactic civilization “magic space knights with laser swords” exist but no one ever talks about them. (Especially not in what I imagine is a galaxy rife with propaganda given its near perpetual state of conflict, where each side would probably love to tout its “hero”)

How do little kids all over the world know who Santa is? How do little kids who cant vote know who Trump is? How do so many kids around the world have some version of the Boogeyman?

I have no idea why *this* is an issue you took with the film.

And I also completely disagree with your interpretation of the scene - the whole point of it was to show the “legend” of Luke Skywalker versus the real Luke we see elsewhere in the movie (who has shrugged his mantle as someone people can look up).

The fact that the boy is force sensitive at the end means that Luke’s legend will go on to inspire someone else, regardless of whether the Jedi truly die with Luke.
 
Why can't him being the reason that the Resistance got out alive be heroic or inspiring on it's own?

I think the answer for me is "the context".

If the galaxy had been under 15 years of cruel First Order rule, with nobody ever rising to the challenge and nobody even attempting to oppose their rule, then an isolated event where a Jedi master emerged from obscurity to prove standing up to the FO was possible would work, for me.

But Luke's appearance comes at the very beginning of the war, the day after the equivalent of both Pearl Harbour and Hiroshima on steroids, the same day when Napoleon was killed and half his fleet destroyed by Space Admiral Nelson, the same day another superheroic character achieved impossible feats. The significance of his gesture is lost in the middle of other much more significant events. People have definitely not even recovered from the destruction of an entire solar system, and the news of Snoke's death are still spreading. I can't see the galaxy stopping to consider that a guy wasted 15 minutes of the FO's time on some backwater planet and think "this changes everything".

The main issue is the frantic pacing.
 
I won't disagree with any of this, though I think TLJ was far better than TFA in this regard. It's why I loved every moment with Luke because it wasn't PEW, PEW, EXPLOSION, JAKKU!!! RATHARS! I CAN DO THIS! The movie was allowed to fucking breathe at these moments. It's also why I liked the initial concept of a slow chase. I was like, "fuck yes, confine all the character to this one ship and force character exploration." Then Finn and Rose blasted away to go on a wholly separate adventure causing me to groan and running into the same problems you described, lack of ability to breath, too much shit happening at once.

I also agree with the whole "nobody remembers the Jedi" bit being a bit hard to swallow. But, it makes more sense in the ST than the OT. At least after the OT there was only one Jedi, Luke Skywalker. However, prior to the OT there was the whole Old Republic that had a thousand or so plus Jedi who were involved in a Galactic Civil War which touched nearly every corner of the galaxy, yet they are a forgotten old legend not a few decades later. Come on.

I think I'm a bit biased towards TFA because I enjoy Finn much more in it than I do in TLJ, but it's definitely the inferior product and more importantly it creates a lot of its good parts opening debts that someone else will have to pay for (and TLJ did pay for a lot of JJ's mistakes).
 
As to whether or not the legend of Luke Skywalker walking out with a laser sword and facing down the whole First Order includes the fact that he died, I don't personally think it'll wind up mattering very much, both on a meta level and on an actual narrative level. The kid having his "binary sunset" moment in the movie's final seconds isn't just inspired by the idea of fighting alongside Luke, he is Luke.

So you're saying it's more of a wink to the audience rather than something significant in fiction? I feel the same way about broom-kid, but I wonder how IX will address it all.
 
So you're saying it's more of a wink to the audience rather than something significant in fiction? I feel the same way about broom-kid, but I wonder how IX will address it all.
I think it's less a "wink" and more inspiring in the sense of where greatness and heroes can come from.

One of the most common stories is the idea of the nobody rising up to the occasion, someone who otherwise might appear powerless.

I feel it was meant to show how such powerless people hear the story, and get hope and inspiration from it.

Also it seems pretty clear brpom boy won't be back because he didn't even have a name until the visual dictionary from what I recall, and that name was chosen by the author.
 
So, to be clear, in your version of a plausible intergalactic civilization “magic space knights with laser swords” exist but no one ever talks about them. (Especially not in what I imagine is a galaxy rife with propaganda given its near perpetual state of conflict, where each side would probably love to tout its “hero”)

How do little kids all over the world know who Santa is? How do little kids who cant vote know who Trump is? How do so many kids around the world have some version of the Boogeyman?

I have no idea why *this* is an issue you took with the film.

And I also completely disagree with your interpretation of the scene - the whole point of it was to show the “legend” of Luke Skywalker versus the real Luke we see elsewhere in the movie (who has shrugged his mantle as someone people can look up).

The fact that the boy is force sensitive at the end means that Luke’s legend will go on to inspire someone else, regardless of whether the Jedi truly die with Luke.
You've said a lot but not answered my questions. I've given you an example of where we see some bad writing and you've brought up how kids know about santa and Trump in the real world.

We see light sabers in the 1st movie so we accept them. We see the use of the force so we accept that too. We see people blown up in ships and die so we accept that and we've seen massive ships take out smaller ones and not be handicapped due to range. What we don't see is how the slave kids a) know about Luke in the first place considering he dissappeared waaaaay before they were born and b) how they found out about him saving a few people across the galaxy whilst fighting against Ren. Is the kid scene a day later? A week later? It's definately soon after because he's wearing the exact same clothes. Leia going from planet to planet telling the story? Jesus come on. She's in hiding with a handful of people and didn't even see what Luke done anyway. None of them did.

I don't have as much of an issue with this particular scene as you're making out. I've mearly provided you an example of bad storytelling just to make a point of Luke being a legend and providing hope. BTW, I really like the scene with the kid and the broom. That itself was a cool touch.
 
You've said a lot but not answered my questions
Actually it was answered, by me as well.

I've given you an example of where we see some bad writing and you've brought up how kids know about santa and Trump in the real world.
Yes because that answers the question.

We see light sabers in the 1st movie so we accept them.
Sure.
We see the use of the force so we accept that too.
Ok.

What we don't see is how the slave kids a) know about Luke in the first place considering he dissappeared waaaaay before they were born
???? This is the exact opposite of your examples. We see the kid knows, thus we accept it, same with the lightsabers.

Also, with the real world example, it's literally the same reason why kids know superman, or other superheros, or pick up quotes from shows they've never seen ("beam me up Scotty!")
This things get talked about to the point it essentially gets assimilated.

b) how they found out about him saving a few people across the galaxy whilst fighting against Ren. Is the kid scene a day later? A week later? It's definately soon after because he's wearing the exact same clothes.
Because slaves are known as fashionistas with a large selection of wardrobe? He's a slave boy, of course he'd be wearing the same stuff. The assumption that it's the next day is all on you, and doesn't really seem to make sense considering the area he was in was the place that had havoc happen with the loose animals etc, but everything looks completely normal at that point.

Leia going from planet to planet telling the story? Jesus come on. She's in hiding with a handful of people and didn't even see what Luke done anyway. None of them did.
You really need to look into history to see how rumours travel, because HOO BOY are you underestimating how shit travels. Literally a rumour was what caused a general to make a play for the position of ceaser (the rumour was that the emperor was dead, whoops). And that was a rumour that spread across a continent.
 
Top