I don't know what the young me would think--the one who saw OG Star Wars 12 times the year it came out--but Andor is now the current me's favorite Star Wars anything. I knew after 20 minutes it was better than anything since Empire, and it only got better.

I'm bored with so much that gets hyped these days, but Andor presented a masterclass in world-building, character-development, and TV storytelling. No fan service, no condescending explanations, no spectacle for spectacle's sake, no toy being marketed, no empty mystery boxes, no flat, utilitarian characters, no dialogue or plots oddly tuned to precisely echo current events (nothing ages shows or movies faster)--I'm a tough critic, and felt like I was I holding my breath the entire time waiting for them to screw up. Could I really stop grading on a curve? I'd got lots of practice doing that with the Halo series.

I'd gotten so jaded--especially in regards to big IPs. You don't expect superb writing, and you certainly don't expect it to be matched with the right talent to pull it off. This is very hard to do, people. In honor of Bungie, 7 stars.

People built this up as the best thing since sliced bread.

Andor is Season 4 of Star Trek: Enterprise, but less entertaining. They try to do the thing where you have multiple mini-arcs in a season, but the episodes that try to "flesh out characters" and "build tension" are so devoid of anything interesting and repetitive, that I struggle to think how anyone could keep engaged in this show on a week-to-week basis, aside from the performances.

Spoiler-free example: The Buyer gives a rousing speech at the conclusion of episode 2 an an attempt to recruit Cassian. It's very well acted and delivered. He then gives almost that exact same speech at the beginning of 3, to the same person.

The conclusions of these mini-arcs, when they finally happen, are good, but not enough to excuse all the filler that comes before-hand. Andor would easily be a much better series if it was compressed into 6 episodes instead of 12. This has been a recurring theme with every Disney+ show with the notable exception of the Mandalorian.

[/2Cents]

It’s okay to be wrong sometimes, I guess. (:

I’m not smart enough nor articulate enough to actually add anything substantial to a critical discussion about this show. But this isn’t just the best Star Wars I’ve seen in a long time, it’s the best show I’ve seen in a long time, period.

People built this up as the best thing since sliced bread.

It was unusual that I even tried it, because I'd heard nothing good about the last two shows. I started it only because Rogue One is my favorite Disney Star Wars movie. I hadn't heard any hype. After loving the first one I went looking and found a bunch people claiming this wasn't Star Wars, there's no lightsabers, stuff like that. What they didn't like about it was what I liked about it, and that might be the case here.

Andor is Season 4 of Star Trek: Enterprise, but less entertaining. They try to do the thing where you have multiple mini-arcs in a season, but the episodes that try to "flesh out characters" and "build tension" are so devoid of anything interesting and repetitive, that I struggle to think how anyone could keep engaged in this show on a week-to-week basis, aside from the performances.

Wow, well, didn't see Star Trek: Enterprise, but otherwise I have to agree to disagree. One of my favorite episodes was episode 5, where Cassian gets to know the heist crew. It's subtle, well-written, and believable. Most importantly, the things we learn about the characters are interesting and have significance that carries forward.

Spoiler-free example: The Buyer gives a rousing speech at the conclusion of episode 2 an an attempt to recruit Cassian. It's very well acted and delivered. He then gives almost that exact same speech at the beginning of 3, to the same person.

The Buyer actually doesn't meet him until the middle of episode 3, but regardless, if you're talking about their first two times they speak, they begin a conversation that is interrupted and picked up again in the next episode. I didn't find it repetitive, except it was the same subject that got fleshed out.

The conclusions of these mini-arcs, when they finally happen, are good, but not enough to excuse all the filler that comes before-hand. Andor would easily be a much better series if it was compressed into 6 episodes instead of 12. This has been a recurring theme with every Disney+ show with the notable exception of the Mandalorian.

Again, this might have come down to what kind of content each of us likes. The conclusions of the mini-arcs were good, but I would have been bored by them without all of the "filler," which I thought was superb, and gave the more kinetic sequences weight. I realize that this isn't a show for everyone--that's cool. Damn if it isn't a show for me.

[/2Cents]

Thanks!

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

Not trolling. Genuinely wondering.

Though I haven't finished the season yet. Watching with a friend.

...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.

Though I haven't finished the season yet. Watching with a friend.

By the end I found very little fat. Things that seem unimportant had a way of coming back around.

...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. The Last Jedi, at its core, addressed a lot of the issues I've always had with the series. It pulled up a bunch of elephants in the room from the prior films and held a mirror up to them. Perhaps people were happy to let those elephants chill for the sake of what the series did otherwise, but I personally appreciated the movies finally explicitly pointing out things like the Jedi's hypocrisy and especially the flawed "do or do not, there is no try" mentality. Yes, practically speaking, this is true, but failure is a necessary step in the process, and the Yoda of Episode 5 didn't seem to share that sentiment. (ironically, The Last Jedi fails in this regard by having Rey continue to fail at absolutely nothing lmao but that's another subject)

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).

Anyway, tl;dr, I think the movie could've been executed better but I liked the approach to the TLJ. The entire sequel trilogy is a mess, though, and I mostly ignore it anyway.

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.

...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.

I still lay everything at the feet of JJ. He made a lazy, if still serviceable, first film in a trilogy that set up mystery boxes with no good answers. How would you have handled Luke after The Force Awakens? There’s no good answer, because he’s in hiding not dealing with the problem he helped create (hey, just like Yoda and Obi-wan were doing in the OT!). That was JJ’s decision, and the reason for everything that follows.

the Jedi's hypocrisy and especially the flawed "do or do not, there is no try" mentality.

Yeah, those have long been ambitious words from a weird frog man hiding from his problems in a swamp.

I still lay everything at the feet of JJ. He made a lazy, if still serviceable, first film in a trilogy that set up mystery boxes with no good answers. How would you have handled Luke after The Force Awakens? There’s no good answer, because he’s in hiding not dealing with the problem he helped create (hey, just like Yoda and Obi-wan were doing in the OT!). That was JJ’s decision, and the reason for everything that follows.

Maybe so. I saw the Force Awakes as doing the safest thing possible, which was remake the original movie. I liked it okay. I think they screwed up the trilogy by making it up as they went along. From what I understand, that's Abrams' style.

People built this up as the best thing since sliced bread.

It was unusual that I even tried it, because I'd heard nothing good about the last two shows. I started it only because Rogue One is my favorite Disney Star Wars movie. I hadn't heard any hype. After loving the first one I went looking and found a bunch people claiming this wasn't Star Wars, there's no lightsabers, stuff like that. What they didn't like about it was what I liked about it, and that might be the case here.

I love lightsabers as much of the next person, but I went into this not expecting any of the classic star wars tropes, because of what people were saying about it; It's already been shown you can do really good SW stuff without them (and really bad SW stuff with them)

Andor is Season 4 of Star Trek: Enterprise, but less entertaining. They try to do the thing where you have multiple mini-arcs in a season, but the episodes that try to "flesh out characters" and "build tension" are so devoid of anything interesting and repetitive, that I struggle to think how anyone could keep engaged in this show on a week-to-week basis, aside from the performances.

Wow, well, didn't see Star Trek: Enterprise, but otherwise I have to agree to disagree. One of my favorite episodes was episode 5, where Cassian gets to know the heist crew. It's subtle, well-written, and believable. Most importantly, the things we learn about the characters are interesting and have significance that carries forward.

I hate that episode. There's nothing wrong with episodes building up the world or characters, but it can't JUST be that unless there's a satisfying story told within.

I say it's less entertaining than Enterprise S4, because S4 is when the writing on the show really started to kick into high gear, and each part of the two or three episode arcs had enough meat in it to justify being a standalone episode. IMO, that season is some of the best Trek out there, up with the peaks of TNG and DS9.

In contrast, even though I was binge-ing all of Andor last week, I gave an audible "That's it??" when the credits rolled on multiple episodes.

Spoiler-free example: The Buyer gives a rousing speech at the conclusion of episode 2 an an attempt to recruit Cassian. It's very well acted and delivered. He then gives almost that exact same speech at the beginning of 3, to the same person.

The Buyer actually doesn't meet him until the middle of episode 3, but regardless, if you're talking about their first two times they speak, they begin a conversation that is interrupted and picked up again in the next episode. I didn't find it repetitive, except it was the same subject that got fleshed out.

Right, I confused 2/3 with 3/4 here. I still maintain that you could have cut either of these speeches and the impact of the other would have been elevated.

The conclusions of these mini-arcs, when they finally happen, are good, but not enough to excuse all the filler that comes before-hand. Andor would easily be a much better series if it was compressed into 6 episodes instead of 12. This has been a recurring theme with every Disney+ show with the notable exception of the Mandalorian.

Again, this might have come down to what kind of content each of us likes. The conclusions of the mini-arcs were good, but I would have been bored by them without all of the "filler," which I thought was superb, and gave the more kinetic sequences weight. I realize that this isn't a show for everyone--that's cool. Damn if it isn't a show for me.

[/2Cents]

Thanks!

You too. I appreciate you responding and not just calling my opinions wrong :P

Looking forward to Season 2, if they make it.

I still lay everything at the feet of JJ. He made a lazy, if still serviceable, first film in a trilogy that set up mystery boxes with no good answers. How would you have handled Luke after The Force Awakens? There’s no good answer, because he’s in hiding not dealing with the problem he helped create (hey, just like Yoda and Obi-wan were doing in the OT!). That was JJ’s decision, and the reason for everything that follows.

Maybe so. I saw the Force Awakes as doing the safest thing possible, which was remake the original movie. I liked it okay. I think they screwed up the trilogy by making it up as they went along. From what I understand, that's Abrams' style.

Pretty much this. Trying to make a trilogy with no cohesive plan.

There are certainly large chunks of The Last Jedi I'd toss or rework. The long boring space chase. The casino planet side quest that went nowhere. But, I never thought it necessary to make big change's to Luke's story. The problems there were less what happened as how that part of the story was approached.

In The Force Awakens, the ultimate goal is to find Luke Skywalker. Making finding our old hero the beginning and end of the movie and doing that triumphant shot on the top of the cliffs set expectations of finding a hero or at least a mentor who was willing to help. When Luke tossed the lighsaber in The Last Jedi, it felt like a betrayal. Because he'd been built up in the previous movie as someone worth finding. There was also very little follow through. Luke saving the day on the salt planet saved our sequel heroes... but barely factored in beyond that. The third movie, beyond being an insulting mess of terrible writing, basically ignored everything in the 2nd one.

I liked Hermit Luke and his reasons for staying away. I liked that he addressed the idea that some of the Jedi Code and the whole "you're either Light or Dark" ideals were stupid. I liked his return where he actually did save the day as one Jedi holding a laser sword staring down the empire... or whatever that quote was. I really liked his scene with Yoda, where his somewhat goofy master reminded him that failure wasn't the end.

To me, it wasn't that Luke was taken in a direction I didn't expect. It was he was taken in a direction that nobody on the writing team thought was important enough to foreshadow. If Rey had been sent to find Luke but with the knowledge that she would need to be the light to pull him out of his self-imposed exile... it might have been a more interesting movie. If the whole Knights of Ren plot had first been given some screen time or a tv show or its own movie, MCU-style, I would have much better enjoyed where Luke was coming from. Instead, they went for the shock value of that lightsaber toss with nothing to support it.

All that said, the Sequel Trilogy is just soo messed up that it's hard to lay the blame at the feat of either director, entirely. It sure would have been nice to have a actual antagonist main villain. Instead of Snoke who barely got any screen time and who was discarded 2/3rds of the way in to make room for the villain from a generation ago who should have definitely been kept dead. It would have been nice if our side characters were given something important to do. It would have been nice if our new heroes were the stars instead of them always having to play second fiddle to Luke, Han, and Leia...

I'm glad Star Wars is able to find slots in its timeline to make cool shows and movies. There are shows and movies I adore... but on the whole, I kinda don't like the franchise!

I still lay everything at the feet of JJ. He made a lazy, if still serviceable, first film in a trilogy that set up mystery boxes with no good answers. How would you have handled Luke after The Force Awakens? There’s no good answer, because he’s in hiding not dealing with the problem he helped create (hey, just like Yoda and Obi-wan were doing in the OT!). That was JJ’s decision, and the reason for everything that follows.

Maybe so. I saw the Force Awakes as doing the safest thing possible, which was remake the original movie. I liked it okay. I think they screwed up the trilogy by making it up as they went along. From what I understand, that's Abrams' style.

Pretty much this. Trying to make a trilogy with no cohesive plan.

There are certainly large chunks of The Last Jedi I'd toss or rework. The long boring space chase. The casino planet side quest that went nowhere. But, I never thought it necessary to make big change's to Luke's story. The problems there were less what happened as how that part of the story was approached.

In The Force Awakens, the ultimate goal is to find Luke Skywalker. Making finding our old hero the beginning and end of the movie and doing that triumphant shot on the top of the cliffs set expectations of finding a hero or at least a mentor who was willing to help. When Luke tossed the lighsaber in The Last Jedi, it felt like a betrayal. Because he'd been built up in the previous movie as someone worth finding. There was also very little follow through. Luke saving the day on the salt planet saved our sequel heroes... but barely factored in beyond that. The third movie, beyond being an insulting mess of terrible writing, basically ignored everything in the 2nd one.

I liked Hermit Luke and his reasons for staying away. I liked that he addressed the idea that some of the Jedi Code and the whole "you're either Light or Dark" ideals were stupid. I liked his return where he actually did save the day as one Jedi holding a laser sword staring down the empire... or whatever that quote was. I really liked his scene with Yoda, where his somewhat goofy master reminded him that failure wasn't the end.

To me, it wasn't that Luke was taken in a direction I didn't expect. It was he was taken in a direction that nobody on the writing team thought was important enough to foreshadow. If Rey had been sent to find Luke but with the knowledge that she would need to be the light to pull him out of his self-imposed exile... it might have been a more interesting movie. If the whole Knights of Ren plot had first been given some screen time or a tv show or its own movie, MCU-style, I would have much better enjoyed where Luke was coming from. Instead, they went for the shock value of that lightsaber toss with nothing to support it.

All that said, the Sequel Trilogy is just soo messed up that it's hard to lay the blame at the feat of either director, entirely. It sure would have been nice to have a actual antagonist main villain. Instead of Snoke who barely got any screen time and who was discarded 2/3rds of the way in to make room for the villain from a generation ago who should have definitely been kept dead. It would have been nice if our side characters were given something important to do. It would have been nice if our new heroes were the stars instead of them always having to play second fiddle to Luke, Han, and Leia...

I'm glad Star Wars is able to find slots in its timeline to make cool shows and movies. There are shows and movies I adore... but on the whole, I kinda don't like the franchise!

I'm kinda surprised I'm saying this as at one point Ragashingo was proclaiming "TLJ FOREVER", or something along those lines, but hey! Time has allowed for nuance, and I really do agree with this take above. And I just think that's so cool.

One thing to add though, as it's been mentioned overall throughout this thread of "who is to blame" for the end result of the Sequel Trilogy. The thing that killed the Sequel Trilogy was arrogance. While such things are not uncommon to find in Hollywood, nor in the swankiest boardrooms, "Disney" took it to a whole 'nother level. The amount of pure arrogance from all those connected with Disney in the first years of their acquisition of Star Wars is simply radioactive. And, frankly, an indelible stain on it.

In The Force Awakens, the ultimate goal is to find Luke Skywalker. Making finding our old hero the beginning and end of the movie and doing that triumphant shot on the top of the cliffs set expectations of finding a hero or at least a mentor who was willing to help. When Luke tossed the lighsaber in The Last Jedi, it felt like a betrayal. Because he'd been built up in the previous movie as someone worth finding.

To me, it wasn't that Luke was taken in a direction I didn't expect. It was he was taken in a direction that nobody on the writing team thought was important enough to foreshadow. If Rey had been sent to find Luke but with the knowledge that she would need to be the light to pull him out of his self-imposed exile... it might have been a more interesting movie. If the whole Knights of Ren plot had first been given some screen time or a tv show or its own movie, MCU-style, I would have much better enjoyed where Luke was coming from. Instead, they went for the shock value of that lightsaber toss with nothing to support it.

Perhaps there's something wrong with me, but I see value in things that are not deliberately foreshadowed, but can be seen to make sense when you really think about it yourself. You're absolutely correct that Luke's intro in TLJ was a betrayal. It was as much a betrayal to the audience as it was to Rey herself. She thought he was someone worth finding, we thought he was someone worth finding...but arguably there was no actual reason to believe he was worth finding! Everyone, whether it be the characters in the TFA, or the audience, believed Luke was worth finding...for no reason other than he's Luke and we need him. No one had a specific reason they needed him, a plan that he filled a key role in, nada. Everyone just assumed we needed the hero.

But when you stop to think about it...this dude exiled himself. He ran. A dude who peace'd out and exiled himself has abdicated responsibility. Why did anyone think he'd be worth finding at the outset? The man we were going to find was never going to be a hero and we should've realized that was a very real possibility from the moment we knew he'd exiled himself.

...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.

Andor is great. I also still staunchly defend what RJ did with TLJ. The what we're getting in Andor is a really interesting case study on what it would look like to break a film (Rouge One) and stretch it over 20ish episodes). Cassian's arc is (at a high level) the same as Jyns, but the difference is 10x's the runtime to explore WHY they end up joining the cause. It's super refreshing, especially after The Book of Boba Fett and Kenobi.

Andor is great. I also still staunchly defend what RJ did with TLJ. The what we're getting in Andor is a really interesting case study on what it would look like to break a film (Rouge One) and stretch it over 20ish episodes). Cassian's arc is (at a high level) the same as Jyns, but the difference is 10x's the runtime to explore WHY they end up joining the cause. It's super refreshing, especially after The Book of Boba Fett and Kenobi.

Runtime isn't the be all end all. I haven't seen the show yet, but Cyber's comments ring pretty true to me about filler. Yes you have more time in TV for your story, but the majority of TV shows do not use it wisely. There's filler, plot blocking wheel spinning constantly in shows that I see. It seems to me like too many shows today try to be 8-10 hour movies (some creators have even literally said exactly this). But… an 8 hour movie would be unbearable. And if you watch the show all at once, well, it is.

Remember that we fell in love with Luke, Leia, Han, and the others 2 hours at a time. Time is not the metric which makes us care or expand our imaginations. I've spent less than 6 hours with Marty McFly, and yet his story and its impact on me is greater than any television show that spends 10 or 20 or 30 hours with its characters. How much of the Princess Bride's 98 minute runtime was spent on Inigo Montoya? How did we fall in love with him and cheer for him when he's on screen for less time than Cassian is in a single episode? Remember the beginning of UP, and how 4 minutes was all it took to give you the backstory, and you were completely invested and heartbroken in that time?

That's the trap for me with TV these days. We need less, not more. Very rarely do I see TV shows wisely use their time. I haven't seen Andor, but my gut says Cyber is right on the money.

Andor is great. I also still staunchly defend what RJ did with TLJ. The what we're getting in Andor is a really interesting case study on what it would look like to break a film (Rouge One) and stretch it over 20ish episodes). Cassian's arc is (at a high level) the same as Jyns, but the difference is 10x's the runtime to explore WHY they end up joining the cause. It's super refreshing, especially after The Book of Boba Fett and Kenobi.

Runtime isn't the be all end all. I haven't seen the show yet, but Cyber's comments ring pretty true to me about filler. Yes you have more time in TV for your story, but the majority of TV shows do not use it wisely. There's filler, plot blocking wheel spinning constantly in shows that I see. It seems to me like too many shows today try to be 8-10 hour movies (some creators have even literally said exactly this). But… an 8 hour movie would be unbearable. And if you watch the show all at once, well, it is.

Remember that we fell in love with Luke, Leia, Han, and the others 2 hours at a time. Time is not the metric which makes us care or expand our imaginations. I've spent less than 6 hours with Marty McFly, and yet his story and its impact on me is greater than any television show that spends 10 or 20 or 30 hours with its characters. How much of the Princess Bride's 98 minute runtime was spent on Inigo Montoya? How did we fall in love with him and cheer for him when he's on screen for less time than Cassian is in a single episode? Remember the beginning of UP, and how 4 minutes was all it took to give you the backstory, and you were completely invested and heartbroken in that time?

That's the trap for me with TV these days. We need less, not more. Very rarely do I see TV shows wisely use their time. I haven't seen Andor, but my gut says Cyber is right on the money.

I love each medium for its own merits. One is not better than the other (which I realize is what it may have sounded like I was saying). Some of my favorite storytelling currently has been limited series (Chernobyl for example) or single season TV (Midnight Mass). Personally Movies/TV comparison is kinda like going from an impressionist painting to a baroque. They're the same "medium" but I can get totally different things from each and its wonderful!

I love each medium for its own merits. One is not better than the other (which I realize is what it may have sounded like I was saying). Some of my favorite storytelling currently has been limited series (Chernobyl for example) or single season TV (Midnight Mass). Personally Movies/TV comparison is kinda like going from an impressionist painting to a baroque. They're the same "medium" but I can get totally different things from each and its wonderful!

Limited series has for me, so far struck the best balance for long form sequential storytelling.

Andor is great. I also still staunchly defend what RJ did with TLJ. The what we're getting in Andor is a really interesting case study on what it would look like to break a film (Rouge One) and stretch it over 20ish episodes). Cassian's arc is (at a high level) the same as Jyns, but the difference is 10x's the runtime to explore WHY they end up joining the cause. It's super refreshing, especially after The Book of Boba Fett and Kenobi.

Runtime isn't the be all end all. I haven't seen the show yet, but Cyber's comments ring pretty true to me about filler. Yes you have more time in TV for your story, but the majority of TV shows do not use it wisely. There's filler, plot blocking wheel spinning constantly in shows that I see. It seems to me like too many shows today try to be 8-10 hour movies (some creators have even literally said exactly this). But… an 8 hour movie would be unbearable. And if you watch the show all at once, well, it is.

Remember that we fell in love with Luke, Leia, Han, and the others 2 hours at a time. Time is not the metric which makes us care or expand our imaginations. I've spent less than 6 hours with Marty McFly, and yet his story and its impact on me is greater than any television show that spends 10 or 20 or 30 hours with its characters. How much of the Princess Bride's 98 minute runtime was spent on Inigo Montoya? How did we fall in love with him and cheer for him when he's on screen for less time than Cassian is in a single episode? Remember the beginning of UP, and how 4 minutes was all it took to give you the backstory, and you were completely invested and heartbroken in that time?

That's the trap for me with TV these days. We need less, not more. Very rarely do I see TV shows wisely use their time. I haven't seen Andor, but my gut says Cyber is right on the money.

Totally agree that much of what is on streaming channels is full of filler. I wouldn't be too quick to prejudge, though. I think long-form TV drama is currently the premier art form. It can do things that movies can't do, just as novels can do things that short stories can't do. I look forward to hearing your opinion.

Totally agree that much of what is on streaming channels is full of filler. I wouldn't be too quick to prejudge, though. I think long-form TV drama is currently the premier art form. It can do things that movies can't do, just as novels can do things that short stories can't do. I look forward to hearing your opinion.

Yes and no.

First of all, the economics of TV don't really let you say, put the audience inside the cockpit of an F-18 Super Hornet. Feature films will always have the advantage when it comes to this type of spectacle and experience.

Second of all, the runtime of a film can vary greatly. An 80 min horror movie is really different than a 210 minute epic with an intermission. One is a 'short story', while the other I think can absolutely approach a novel, with the benefit of preventing the filler that plagues TV.

But generally yes. TV is where you can really get into the characters and the world when done well.

However, Long Form TV is not the premiere artform. There is one other artform that can in theory do everything long form TV can, plus a bunch of stuff it can't:

Video Games.

Totally agree that much of what is on streaming channels is full of filler. I wouldn't be too quick to prejudge, though. I think long-form TV drama is currently the premier art form. It can do things that movies can't do, just as novels can do things that short stories can't do. I look forward to hearing your opinion.

Yes and no.

First of all, the economics of TV don't really let you say, put the audience inside the cockpit of an F-18 Super Hornet. Feature films will always have the advantage when it comes to this type of spectacle and experience.

Second of all, the runtime of a film can vary greatly. An 80 min horror movie is really different than a 210 minute epic with an intermission. One is a 'short story', while the other I think can absolutely approach a novel, with the benefit of preventing the filler that plagues TV.

But generally yes. TV is where you can really get into the characters and the world when done well.

However, Long Form TV is not the premiere artform. There is one other artform that can in theory do everything long form TV can, plus a bunch of stuff it can't:

Video Games.

"There is another." Heh.

When I say premier, I'm packing in a lot: audience and cultural reach plus quality of the narrative. Even then, I'd say only a handful qualify as S tier. The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad. Better Call Saul. I'm honestly shocked to include Andor on that list, but I think it's that good.

With the exception of The Last of Us [still avoiding spoilers for part ii], I've yet to see video games get to that level. I don't play enough of them these days to make any assertions, though.

With the exception of The Last of Us [still avoiding spoilers for part ii], I've yet to see video games get to that level. I don't play enough of them these days to make any assertions, though.

It's too limiting to think of 'good' game stories as stories that are simply cinematic. Because of interaction, good stories can take certain liberties non interactive stories can't.

Go try the metal gear solid series. 2 and 3 are just incredible feats of storytelling. 1 is good, but standard actiony fare, 4 is the video game equivalent of Springtime for Hitler, and 5 is more focused on the sandbox than the story.

Andor is great. I also still staunchly defend what RJ did with TLJ. The what we're getting in Andor is a really interesting case study on what it would look like to break a film (Rouge One) and stretch it over 20ish episodes). Cassian's arc is (at a high level) the same as Jyns, but the difference is 10x's the runtime to explore WHY they end up joining the cause. It's super refreshing, especially after The Book of Boba Fett and Kenobi.

Runtime isn't the be all end all. I haven't seen the show yet, but Cyber's comments ring pretty true to me about filler. Yes you have more time in TV for your story, but the majority of TV shows do not use it wisely. There's filler, plot blocking wheel spinning constantly in shows that I see. It seems to me like too many shows today try to be 8-10 hour movies (some creators have even literally said exactly this). But… an 8 hour movie would be unbearable. And if you watch the show all at once, well, it is.

Remember that we fell in love with Luke, Leia, Han, and the others 2 hours at a time. Time is not the metric which makes us care or expand our imaginations. I've spent less than 6 hours with Marty McFly, and yet his story and its impact on me is greater than any television show that spends 10 or 20 or 30 hours with its characters. How much of the Princess Bride's 98 minute runtime was spent on Inigo Montoya? How did we fall in love with him and cheer for him when he's on screen for less time than Cassian is in a single episode? Remember the beginning of UP, and how 4 minutes was all it took to give you the backstory, and you were completely invested and heartbroken in that time?

That's the trap for me with TV these days. We need less, not more. Very rarely do I see TV shows wisely use their time. I haven't seen Andor, but my gut says Cyber is right on the money.

Long form media more often than not endears me to characters far more than short form. I'd argue the endearment to the movies' characters came from rewatching it, which turns the short form media into long form engagement. Long form media can endear you to a character with a single watch-through and can provide more meaningful reasons for that endearment, deepening the substance of that endearment.

I cared far more about certain characters in LOST than I do about most characters in Star Wars, despite really loving Star Wars, because the movie characters don't actually have that much depth. It's simplified, we fill in gaps with our imagination, and create expectations that can often be unfulfilled for that very reason.

the Jedi's hypocrisy and especially the flawed "do or do not, there is no try" mentality.

Yeah, those have long been ambitious words from a weird frog man hiding from his problems in a swamp.

Exactly. And yet it was held true as a mantra by many fans. There was nothing in the films to suggest he was wrong; if anything the OT reinforced it.

Which, if you'll allow a brief segway into an addendum to my reply to Ragashingo, Kenobi and Yoda went into exile because they were literally being hunted by the newly coopted government and their army now set to kill on sight via engrained order. That exile was relatively justified. Everything TFA told us about Luke's exile smelled of much less justification. He created a problem but one that wasn't entirely out of the realm of fixing. The First Order was not the dominating force in the Galaxy and a counterforce (the government presently in charge) was already in place.

The pieces of his irreverence were there, we just overlooked them because we had the same naive belief in the idea of the man rather than the man that was implied he had become.

Totally agree that much of what is on streaming channels is full of filler. I wouldn't be too quick to prejudge, though. I think long-form TV drama is currently the premier art form. It can do things that movies can't do, just as novels can do things that short stories can't do. I look forward to hearing your opinion.

Yes and no.

First of all, the economics of TV don't really let you say, put the audience inside the cockpit of an F-18 Super Hornet. Feature films will always have the advantage when it comes to this type of spectacle and experience.

Second of all, the runtime of a film can vary greatly. An 80 min horror movie is really different than a 210 minute epic with an intermission. One is a 'short story', while the other I think can absolutely approach a novel, with the benefit of preventing the filler that plagues TV.

But generally yes. TV is where you can really get into the characters and the world when done well.

However, Long Form TV is not the premiere artform. There is one other artform that can in theory do everything long form TV can, plus a bunch of stuff it can't:

Video Games.

"There is another." Heh.

When I say premier, I'm packing in a lot: audience and cultural reach plus quality of the narrative. Even then, I'd say only a handful qualify as S tier. The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad. Better Call Saul. I'm honestly shocked to include Andor on that list, but I think it's that good.

With the exception of The Last of Us [still avoiding spoilers for part ii], I've yet to see video games get to that level. I don't play enough of them these days to make any assertions, though.

While I agree that games are the pinnacle medium of storytelling, I do agree with you that TV eeks out "the premiere form" due to a single, but important factor: accessibility.

Which, if you'll allow a brief segway into an addendum to my reply to Ragashingo, Kenobi and Yoda went into exile because they were literally being hunted by the newly coopted government and their army now set to kill on sight via engrained order. That exile was relatively justified. Everything TFA told us about Luke's exile smelled of much less justification. He created a problem but one that wasn't entirely out of the realm of fixing. The First Order was not the dominating force in the Galaxy and a counterforce (the government presently in charge) was already in place.

Luke's withdrawal was not a logical decision. The whole point of the film was that it was the result of a character flaw. Rewatch the scene between Luke and Yoda as the tree burns. That sums it up.

While I agree that games are the pinnacle medium of storytelling, I do agree with you that TV eeks out "the premiere form" due to a single, but important factor: accessibility.

Disagree. Look at a massive hit show like Game of Thrones. How many people were watching?

42 million at the peak worldwide.

How many copies did Red Dead Redemption 2 sell?

42 million.

Games are just as accessible. Fewer people watched the Witcher than played it.

- No text -

Okay, Hmmmmm.

This is true. Now I'm curious how many people start a TV season and don't finish, vs how many people start a game and don't finish. I wonder that the percentages are.

...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. The Last Jedi, at its core, addressed a lot of the issues I've always had with the series. It pulled up a bunch of elephants in the room from the prior films and held a mirror up to them. Perhaps people were happy to let those elephants chill for the sake of what the series did otherwise, but I personally appreciated the movies finally explicitly pointing out things like the Jedi's hypocrisy and especially the flawed "do or do not, there is no try" mentality. Yes, practically speaking, this is true, but failure is a necessary step in the process, and the Yoda of Episode 5 didn't seem to share that sentiment. (ironically, The Last Jedi fails in this regard by having Rey continue to fail at absolutely nothing lmao but that's another subject)

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).

I said I wasn't going to touch the tar baby again, but I keep thinking about it. Destruction or deconstruction, it doesn't matter. We still end up with pieces that mean less than the whole. To your point, I might have believed the Luke story line had it been given the time it deserved and had it been written well. But part of writing it well would've accounted for who Luke was, as a person. Who was Luke? An idealist and an optimist. Not someone burdened with a unique weakness for the dark side, but a normal person who is tempted (as we'd all be) by the dark side but who was able to summon uncommon strength of character to overcome that temptation and do the right thing. That was what made it satisfying, and that's what made it work. People don't change that much. I simply believe that Luke, facing failure, would not have become the aggressive pisser in the cereal bowl that TLJ made him out to be. I believe pissing in the cereal bowl was the point, though, and was prioritized over caring about who the characters were or what they had been. The director is talking to us, the fans, who so gullibly bought into all this good and evil mythology.

I don't want to overstate the value of George Lucas's warmed over Buddhism, but there's something predictable and juvenile about smugly picking apart Yoda-isms, and burning the holy books because someone smelled hypocrisy. (I'm sorry, but saying the books don't matter because Rey contains all their wisdom is an idiotic dismissal of the value of recorded wisdom and the process by which wisdom is acquired and maintained.) OG Luke or Yoda would've known better, and middle-aged aesthete directors should've, too. Star Wars became a phenomenon because of what it said when. In the gloom of 1977, Star Wars said, we can see evil clearly, and anyone, ANYONE can defeat it. Sadly, I can't get too worked up about people forgetting the beating heart of the original trilogy. The whole mythology was FUBAR the moment someone said the word midi-chlorians.

I don't want to overstate the value of George Lucas's warmed over Buddhism, but there's something predictable and juvenile about smugly picking apart Yoda-isms, and burning the holy books because someone smelled hypocrisy. (I'm sorry, but saying the books don't matter because Rey contains all their wisdom is an idiotic dismissal of the value of recorded wisdom and the process by which wisdom is acquired and maintained.) OG Luke or Yoda would've known better, and middle-aged aesthete directors should've, too. Star Wars became a phenomenon because of what it said when. In the gloom of 1977, Star Wars said, we can see evil clearly, and anyone, ANYONE can defeat it. Sadly, I can't get too worked up about people forgetting the beating heart of the original trilogy. The whole mythology was FUBAR the moment someone said the word midi-chlorians.

Without actually voicing any thoughts about this movie or the sequel trilogy as a whole, I just wanted to point out that the books didn’t burn. Rey kept them. Yoda was being pretty literal in his words to Luke. Luke just had no idea that the books weren’t in the burning tree, took Yoda’s words as pure wisdom, and accepted some things about life.

I don't want to overstate the value of George Lucas's warmed over Buddhism, but there's something predictable and juvenile about smugly picking apart Yoda-isms, and burning the holy books because someone smelled hypocrisy. (I'm sorry, but saying the books don't matter because Rey contains all their wisdom is an idiotic dismissal of the value of recorded wisdom and the process by which wisdom is acquired and maintained.) OG Luke or Yoda would've known better, and middle-aged aesthete directors should've, too. Star Wars became a phenomenon because of what it said when. In the gloom of 1977, Star Wars said, we can see evil clearly, and anyone, ANYONE can defeat it. Sadly, I can't get too worked up about people forgetting the beating heart of the original trilogy. The whole mythology was FUBAR the moment someone said the word midi-chlorians.

Without actually voicing any thoughts about this movie or the sequel trilogy as a whole, I just wanted to point out that the books didn’t burn. Rey kept them. Yoda was being pretty literal in his words to Luke. Luke just had no idea that the books weren’t in the burning tree, took Yoda’s words as pure wisdom, and accepted some things about life.

Well, I forgot that detail, and that's some solace I guess.

While I agree that games are the pinnacle medium of storytelling, I do agree with you that TV eeks out "the premiere form" due to a single, but important factor: accessibility.

Disagree. Look at a massive hit show like Game of Thrones. How many people were watching?

42 million at the peak worldwide.

How many copies did Red Dead Redemption 2 sell?

42 million.

Games are just as accessible. Fewer people watched the Witcher than played it.

Except the 42m that watched GoT is not the exact same 42m that bought RDR. Anyone who can play a game can watch a show. Not everyone who can watch a show can play a game. Therefore, it is objectively more accessible. It has nothing to do with how many people actually consume either or.

Which, if you'll allow a brief segway into an addendum to my reply to Ragashingo, Kenobi and Yoda went into exile because they were literally being hunted by the newly coopted government and their army now set to kill on sight via engrained order. That exile was relatively justified. Everything TFA told us about Luke's exile smelled of much less justification. He created a problem but one that wasn't entirely out of the realm of fixing. The First Order was not the dominating force in the Galaxy and a counterforce (the government presently in charge) was already in place.

Luke's withdrawal was not a logical decision. The whole point of the film was that it was the result of a character flaw. Rewatch the scene between Luke and Yoda as the tree burns. That sums it up.

One hundred percent, yes. It was an emotional decision driven by fear and an inability to face his mistakes, and it was a character flaw. The point I was making was that, compared to Yoda and Obi-wan's exile, Luke's didn't make logical sense when we'd heard the story in TFA as to why he'd left. The story we were given didn't seem to add up, logically speaking...because it wasn't logical.

This all reinforcing my point that we were going to find a broken Luke Skywalker at the end of the search, one who we wouldn't recognize as the exact same Luke we'd left in Episode 6. Just by the premise of Luke exiling himself over the loss of his Jedi trainees, there was never going to be a fulfillment of Luke Skywalker The Hero people had built up in their minds; that wasn't Rian Johnson pulling a fast one, that's the Luke TFA set us up to find.

I said I wasn't going to touch the tar baby again, but I keep thinking about it. Destruction or deconstruction, it doesn't matter. We still end up with pieces that mean less than the whole. To your point, I might have believed the Luke story line had it been given the time it deserved and had it been written well. But part of writing it well would've accounted for who Luke was, as a person. Who was Luke? An idealist and an optimist. Not someone burdened with a unique weakness for the dark side, but a normal person who is tempted (as we'd all be) by the dark side but who was able to summon uncommon strength of character to overcome that temptation and do the right thing. That was what made it satisfying, and that's what made it work. People don't change that much. I simply believe that Luke, facing failure, would not have become the aggressive pisser in the cereal bowl that TLJ made him out to be. I believe pissing in the cereal bowl was the point, though, and was prioritized over caring about who the characters were or what they had been. The director is talking to us, the fans, who so gullibly bought into all this good and evil mythology.

I guess the main difference between your view and mine is that I never saw Luke as someone averagely tempted by the Dark Side. He was very impulsive, and emotional, like his father. I think he had a greater strength of will than Anakin did, but I think he was more strongly tempted than you thought he was. And the truth is that he faced down that same temptation twice, it's not as if he actually went for the killing blow with Kylo. He'd had that same moment of realization that he'd had with Vader in the throne room. It was Luke doing something he'd already done, which, like you said, "people don't change that much." The temptation never went away, and he never fully mastered his control over that temptation, but he still stayed his hand at the end of the day.

In the gloom of 1977, Star Wars said, we can see evil clearly, and anyone, ANYONE can defeat it. Sadly, I can't get too worked up about people forgetting the beating heart of the original trilogy.

When this isn't exactly what you took from TLJ

I said I wasn't going to touch the tar baby again, but I keep thinking about it. Destruction or deconstruction, it doesn't matter. We still end up with pieces that mean less than the whole. To your point, I might have believed the Luke story line had it been given the time it deserved and had it been written well. But part of writing it well would've accounted for who Luke was, as a person. Who was Luke? An idealist and an optimist. Not someone burdened with a unique weakness for the dark side, but a normal person who is tempted (as we'd all be) by the dark side but who was able to summon uncommon strength of character to overcome that temptation and do the right thing. That was what made it satisfying, and that's what made it work. People don't change that much. I simply believe that Luke, facing failure, would not have become the aggressive pisser in the cereal bowl that TLJ made him out to be. I believe pissing in the cereal bowl was the point, though, and was prioritized over caring about who the characters were or what they had been. The director is talking to us, the fans, who so gullibly bought into all this good and evil mythology.

I guess the main difference between your view and mine is that I never saw Luke as someone averagely tempted by the Dark Side. He was very impulsive, and emotional, like his father. I think he had a greater strength of will than Anakin did, but I think he was more strongly tempted than you thought he was. And the truth is that he faced down that same temptation twice, it's not as if he actually went for the killing blow with Kylo. He'd had that same moment of realization that he'd had with Vader in the throne room. It was Luke doing something he'd already done, which, like you said, "people don't change that much." The temptation never went away, and he never fully mastered his control over that temptation, but he still stayed his hand at the end of the day.

All that's fine. When I said, people don't change that much, I meant Luke can't realistically have a personality transplant and become a misanthropic old bastard. Han, maybe, but not Luke. I sincerely believe that whoever wrote The Last Jedi did not understand Luke's character.

Gotta admit, Andor has changed how I feel about the whole franchise. I can read volumes where people have explicated the new trilogy, and I have, but seeing the films should've been enough, and on the whole, they just didn't work for me. They felt cynical, either delivering fan service (isn't insert X just like the first film? ), or cynical as in deconstructing the whole enterprise. I didn't care about the new characters, and felt my love for the old characters was either milked or ridiculed as being a relic of an unsophisticated age. The films ended up being a mess, on the whole, always reaching for profundity with weighty aphorisms that don't quite work (everybody is Yoda in the films, but nobody is). There are those who say I'm a bad person for having this opinion (not you), so I've done my share of second guessing myself. Turns out all it takes for me to like Star Wars again is to hire some talent who can write. Suddenly, I care about characters I just met because they were given a good scene with good dialogue (and sometimes their silence alone speaks volumes). It's not complicated, but it is hard. In the latter half of the series, Luthen gives what is probably the most powerful Star Wars speech ever delivered. Nothing in it fits nicely on a lunch box. There you go.

In the gloom of 1977, Star Wars said, we can see evil clearly, and anyone, ANYONE can defeat it. Sadly, I can't get too worked up about people forgetting the beating heart of the original trilogy.

Because history has proven that wrong. We CAN'T see the true evil in the world, much less defeat it. It's why we are where we are now.

True evil is not a bad guy in a mask.

In the gloom of 1977, Star Wars said, we can see evil clearly, and anyone, ANYONE can defeat it. Sadly, I can't get too worked up about people forgetting the beating heart of the original trilogy.

Because history has proven that wrong. We CAN'T see the true evil in the world, much less defeat it. It's why we are where we are now.

True evil is not a bad guy in a mask.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

I said I wasn't going to touch the tar baby again, but I keep thinking about it. Destruction or deconstruction, it doesn't matter. We still end up with pieces that mean less than the whole. To your point, I might have believed the Luke story line had it been given the time it deserved and had it been written well. But part of writing it well would've accounted for who Luke was, as a person. Who was Luke? An idealist and an optimist. Not someone burdened with a unique weakness for the dark side, but a normal person who is tempted (as we'd all be) by the dark side but who was able to summon uncommon strength of character to overcome that temptation and do the right thing. That was what made it satisfying, and that's what made it work. People don't change that much. I simply believe that Luke, facing failure, would not have become the aggressive pisser in the cereal bowl that TLJ made him out to be. I believe pissing in the cereal bowl was the point, though, and was prioritized over caring about who the characters were or what they had been. The director is talking to us, the fans, who so gullibly bought into all this good and evil mythology.

I guess the main difference between your view and mine is that I never saw Luke as someone averagely tempted by the Dark Side. He was very impulsive, and emotional, like his father. I think he had a greater strength of will than Anakin did, but I think he was more strongly tempted than you thought he was. And the truth is that he faced down that same temptation twice, it's not as if he actually went for the killing blow with Kylo. He'd had that same moment of realization that he'd had with Vader in the throne room. It was Luke doing something he'd already done, which, like you said, "people don't change that much." The temptation never went away, and he never fully mastered his control over that temptation, but he still stayed his hand at the end of the day.

All that's fine. When I said, people don't change that much, I meant Luke can't realistically have a personality transplant and become a misanthropic old bastard. Han, maybe, but not Luke. I sincerely believe that whoever wrote The Last Jedi did not understand Luke's character.

Here's the thing. Interestingly enough, Luke's character arc in TLJ was the only thing I liked about the entire sequel trilogy, and I saw his arc as entirely plausible and believable. That was also before I lived through that very kind of personality shift you claim is impossible. I have changed dramatically as a person in very similar ways to Luke due to intense, compounding failure. The people you thought you knew, and even the person you think you are, can end up becoming very different than anyone would have ever expected.

I think it's fair to say that whoever wrote The Last Jedi understood Luke differently than you; after all, no one truly knows anyone, fictional or non-fictional. We all form our belief on who a person is from what we observe, and we all observe through biased eyes. However, the person they believed Luke could become and the reasons he could become that way are 100% possible and plausible given how he was presented in the Original Trilogy, and I can now say that from personal experience.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Art can be powerful, which is why the system will always co-opt art for its own purposes. It is powerful for the system. Not for you.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Art can be powerful, which is why the system will always co-opt art for its own purposes. It is powerful for the system. Not for you.

Oooh, the all-powerful system! Why didn't you say so?

I think that's an overused word that people use to explain what they can't otherwise explain. It's a conversation ender. And so this conversation ends.

I said I wasn't going to touch the tar baby again, but I keep thinking about it. Destruction or deconstruction, it doesn't matter. We still end up with pieces that mean less than the whole. To your point, I might have believed the Luke story line had it been given the time it deserved and had it been written well. But part of writing it well would've accounted for who Luke was, as a person. Who was Luke? An idealist and an optimist. Not someone burdened with a unique weakness for the dark side, but a normal person who is tempted (as we'd all be) by the dark side but who was able to summon uncommon strength of character to overcome that temptation and do the right thing. That was what made it satisfying, and that's what made it work. People don't change that much. I simply believe that Luke, facing failure, would not have become the aggressive pisser in the cereal bowl that TLJ made him out to be. I believe pissing in the cereal bowl was the point, though, and was prioritized over caring about who the characters were or what they had been. The director is talking to us, the fans, who so gullibly bought into all this good and evil mythology.

I guess the main difference between your view and mine is that I never saw Luke as someone averagely tempted by the Dark Side. He was very impulsive, and emotional, like his father. I think he had a greater strength of will than Anakin did, but I think he was more strongly tempted than you thought he was. And the truth is that he faced down that same temptation twice, it's not as if he actually went for the killing blow with Kylo. He'd had that same moment of realization that he'd had with Vader in the throne room. It was Luke doing something he'd already done, which, like you said, "people don't change that much." The temptation never went away, and he never fully mastered his control over that temptation, but he still stayed his hand at the end of the day.

All that's fine. When I said, people don't change that much, I meant Luke can't realistically have a personality transplant and become a misanthropic old bastard. Han, maybe, but not Luke. I sincerely believe that whoever wrote The Last Jedi did not understand Luke's character.

Here's the thing. Interestingly enough, Luke's character arc in TLJ was the only thing I liked about the entire sequel trilogy, and I saw his arc as entirely plausible and believable. That was also before I lived through that very kind of personality shift you claim is impossible. I have changed dramatically as a person in very similar ways to Luke due to intense, compounding failure. The people you thought you knew, and even the person you think you are, can end up becoming very different than anyone would have ever expected.

We each bring our experiences to the table. I can relate more than you might think. I've made some huge mistakes, and I'm a lot more humble about my virtue than I used to be. Hope you haven't become an embittered, misanthropic old man!

I think it's fair to say that whoever wrote The Last Jedi understood Luke differently than you; after all, no one truly knows anyone, fictional or non-fictional. We all form our belief on who a person is from what we observe, and we all observe through biased eyes. However, the person they believed Luke could become and the reasons he could become that way are 100% possible and plausible given how he was presented in the Original Trilogy, and I can now say that from personal experience.

To add clarity, I meant Luke, as he was presented in this fictional universe, can't realistically make that transformation into what he is in the Last Jedi. This issue comes up eventually if you take enough creative writing workshops. Someone will have a scene in a story, and we can't believe it. The author will protest: "But it really happened that way!" At this point the workshop leader will kindly, gently say something to the effect of: "So what?" The real world is full of events that don't make sense, that surprise us, that are inexplicable, that serve no purpose. One thing that makes fiction work is that it makes sense in a way that the real world often doesn't. If not, we wake up from the fictive dream and can no longer suspend disbelief. The writers didn't do the work necessary to make me believe in old Luke. You had a different experience.

I said I wasn't going to touch the tar baby again, but I keep thinking about it. Destruction or deconstruction, it doesn't matter. We still end up with pieces that mean less than the whole. To your point, I might have believed the Luke story line had it been given the time it deserved and had it been written well. But part of writing it well would've accounted for who Luke was, as a person. Who was Luke? An idealist and an optimist. Not someone burdened with a unique weakness for the dark side, but a normal person who is tempted (as we'd all be) by the dark side but who was able to summon uncommon strength of character to overcome that temptation and do the right thing. That was what made it satisfying, and that's what made it work. People don't change that much. I simply believe that Luke, facing failure, would not have become the aggressive pisser in the cereal bowl that TLJ made him out to be. I believe pissing in the cereal bowl was the point, though, and was prioritized over caring about who the characters were or what they had been. The director is talking to us, the fans, who so gullibly bought into all this good and evil mythology.

I guess the main difference between your view and mine is that I never saw Luke as someone averagely tempted by the Dark Side. He was very impulsive, and emotional, like his father. I think he had a greater strength of will than Anakin did, but I think he was more strongly tempted than you thought he was. And the truth is that he faced down that same temptation twice, it's not as if he actually went for the killing blow with Kylo. He'd had that same moment of realization that he'd had with Vader in the throne room. It was Luke doing something he'd already done, which, like you said, "people don't change that much." The temptation never went away, and he never fully mastered his control over that temptation, but he still stayed his hand at the end of the day.

All that's fine. When I said, people don't change that much, I meant Luke can't realistically have a personality transplant and become a misanthropic old bastard. Han, maybe, but not Luke. I sincerely believe that whoever wrote The Last Jedi did not understand Luke's character.

Here's the thing. Interestingly enough, Luke's character arc in TLJ was the only thing I liked about the entire sequel trilogy, and I saw his arc as entirely plausible and believable. That was also before I lived through that very kind of personality shift you claim is impossible. I have changed dramatically as a person in very similar ways to Luke due to intense, compounding failure. The people you thought you knew, and even the person you think you are, can end up becoming very different than anyone would have ever expected.

We each bring our experiences to the table. I can relate more than you might think. I've made some huge mistakes, and I'm a lot more humble about my virtue than I used to be. Hope you haven't become an embittered, misanthropic old man!

I at least haven't given up on working my way out of it, I just can't see the light at the end of the tunnel yet.

I think it's fair to say that whoever wrote The Last Jedi understood Luke differently than you; after all, no one truly knows anyone, fictional or non-fictional. We all form our belief on who a person is from what we observe, and we all observe through biased eyes. However, the person they believed Luke could become and the reasons he could become that way are 100% possible and plausible given how he was presented in the Original Trilogy, and I can now say that from personal experience.

To add clarity, I meant Luke, as he was presented in this fictional universe, can't realistically make that transformation into what he is in the Last Jedi. This issue comes up eventually if you take enough creative writing workshops. Someone will have a scene in a story, and we can't believe it. The author will protest: "But it really happened that way!" At this point the workshop leader will kindly, gently say something to the effect of: "So what?" The real world is full of events that don't make sense, that surprise us, that are inexplicable, that serve no purpose. One thing that makes fiction work is that it makes sense in a way that the real world often doesn't. If not, we wake up from the fictive dream and can no longer suspend disbelief. The writers didn't do the work necessary to make me believe in old Luke. You had a different experience.

And I can agree with that. I think that it works if you've got the proper background to fill in the appropriate blanks; the movie tried, but I ultimately don't think you can properly explain, to the comprehension of all, the arc that justifies TLJ's Luke in the timespan of the movie that first indicated that this is what Luke had become. They can theoretically attempt to fill in those gaps through later media, and personally I think they should even if some people will act as if TLJ's writers had no idea how Luke would become this way and simply decided he would be this way on a whim.

That all said, I do think that TFA's premise could only lead to some form of broken Luke who did not resemble the Luke we once knew. I also think that this created an uphill battle, no matter what kind of Luke they presented. This all comes back to not having a cohesive idea in mind for the trilogy from the jump, which is the dumbest thing for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which given Disney's experience creating the MCU. It should've been a no-brainer, and yet...

I said I wasn't going to touch the tar baby again, but I keep thinking about it. Destruction or deconstruction, it doesn't matter. We still end up with pieces that mean less than the whole. To your point, I might have believed the Luke story line had it been given the time it deserved and had it been written well. But part of writing it well would've accounted for who Luke was, as a person. Who was Luke? An idealist and an optimist. Not someone burdened with a unique weakness for the dark side, but a normal person who is tempted (as we'd all be) by the dark side but who was able to summon uncommon strength of character to overcome that temptation and do the right thing. That was what made it satisfying, and that's what made it work. People don't change that much. I simply believe that Luke, facing failure, would not have become the aggressive pisser in the cereal bowl that TLJ made him out to be. I believe pissing in the cereal bowl was the point, though, and was prioritized over caring about who the characters were or what they had been. The director is talking to us, the fans, who so gullibly bought into all this good and evil mythology.

I guess the main difference between your view and mine is that I never saw Luke as someone averagely tempted by the Dark Side. He was very impulsive, and emotional, like his father. I think he had a greater strength of will than Anakin did, but I think he was more strongly tempted than you thought he was. And the truth is that he faced down that same temptation twice, it's not as if he actually went for the killing blow with Kylo. He'd had that same moment of realization that he'd had with Vader in the throne room. It was Luke doing something he'd already done, which, like you said, "people don't change that much." The temptation never went away, and he never fully mastered his control over that temptation, but he still stayed his hand at the end of the day.

All that's fine. When I said, people don't change that much, I meant Luke can't realistically have a personality transplant and become a misanthropic old bastard. Han, maybe, but not Luke. I sincerely believe that whoever wrote The Last Jedi did not understand Luke's character.

Here's the thing. Interestingly enough, Luke's character arc in TLJ was the only thing I liked about the entire sequel trilogy, and I saw his arc as entirely plausible and believable. That was also before I lived through that very kind of personality shift you claim is impossible. I have changed dramatically as a person in very similar ways to Luke due to intense, compounding failure. The people you thought you knew, and even the person you think you are, can end up becoming very different than anyone would have ever expected.

We each bring our experiences to the table. I can relate more than you might think. I've made some huge mistakes, and I'm a lot more humble about my virtue than I used to be. Hope you haven't become an embittered, misanthropic old man!

I at least haven't given up on working my way out of it, I just can't see the light at the end of the tunnel yet.

All the best, man. [Insert a Yoda-ism here.] Seriously, reach out if you want access to some old ears (not quite as big as Yoda's, but getting there). Sometimes that helps.

I think it's fair to say that whoever wrote The Last Jedi understood Luke differently than you; after all, no one truly knows anyone, fictional or non-fictional. We all form our belief on who a person is from what we observe, and we all observe through biased eyes. However, the person they believed Luke could become and the reasons he could become that way are 100% possible and plausible given how he was presented in the Original Trilogy, and I can now say that from personal experience.

To add clarity, I meant Luke, as he was presented in this fictional universe, can't realistically make that transformation into what he is in the Last Jedi. This issue comes up eventually if you take enough creative writing workshops. Someone will have a scene in a story, and we can't believe it. The author will protest: "But it really happened that way!" At this point the workshop leader will kindly, gently say something to the effect of: "So what?" The real world is full of events that don't make sense, that surprise us, that are inexplicable, that serve no purpose. One thing that makes fiction work is that it makes sense in a way that the real world often doesn't. If not, we wake up from the fictive dream and can no longer suspend disbelief. The writers didn't do the work necessary to make me believe in old Luke. You had a different experience.

And I can agree with that. I think that it works if you've got the proper background to fill in the appropriate blanks; the movie tried, but I ultimately don't think you can properly explain, to the comprehension of all, the arc that justifies TLJ's Luke in the timespan of the movie that first indicated that this is what Luke had become. They can theoretically attempt to fill in those gaps through later media, and personally I think they should even if some people will act as if TLJ's writers had no idea how Luke would become this way and simply decided he would be this way on a whim.

My suspicion is that the writers were too lazy to fill in that background, they prioritized subverting expectations as a good in itself, and they felt that Luke's struggle hadn't been presented with sufficient complexity before, but that now, as superior 21st century denizens, the audience could finally handle moral relativism and understand that there was actually no difference between the Empire and the Republic, because their guns came from the same place. These are the kind of epiphanies that, in the haze of a late-night dorm room, seem like the height of sophistication (but aren't).

That all said, I do think that TFA's premise could only lead to some form of broken Luke who did not resemble the Luke we once knew. I also think that this created an uphill battle, no matter what kind of Luke they presented. This all comes back to not having a cohesive idea in mind for the trilogy from the jump, which is the dumbest thing for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which given Disney's experience creating the MCU. It should've been a no-brainer, and yet...

Honestly, it comes down to good writing. Period. It's not like the IP has ever had a generous supply of it (some EU novels aside). Andor shows what good writing can accomplish. The Last Jedi proves, to me, how damaging to a franchise bad writing can be.

All the best, man. [Insert a Yoda-ism here.] Seriously, reach out if you want access to some old ears (not quite as big as Yoda's, but getting there). Sometimes that helps.

The offer is appreciated.

My suspicion is that the writers were too lazy to fill in that background, they prioritized subverting expectations as a good in itself, and they felt that Luke's struggle hadn't been presented with sufficient complexity before, but that now, as superior 21st century denizens, the audience could finally handle moral relativism and understand that there was actually no difference between the Empire and the Republic, because their guns came from the same place. These are the kind of epiphanies that, in the haze of a late-night dorm room, seem like the height of sophistication (but aren't).

I don't know if I'd agree about the laziness, that may be your distaste/bias speaking. I don't think there's enough information to confidentially determine that "subversion for the sake of it" was so driving a force that it explains all shortcomings and led to ignoring the substance necessary to achieve that goal. In fact, I rarely believe anything that goes wrong in creative endeavors is the result of laziness, but that's a separate conversation.

I also never took away the idea that the Empire and Rebels were the ones being lambasted. When you're fighting for your ideals, you need resources. The problem is that the resource providers are all corrupt scum who profit from the existence of conflict and are so egregious in their profit that they either A. don't care who they arm and are willing to arm both simultaneously, or more maliciously (and likely), B. they actively arm both to ensure the conflict continues as does the money flow. Remember, as weird as the departure to Canto Bight was in execution, what it highlighted was the war profiteers who lived lavish lives insulated from the conflict that financed their lifestyle; that there wasn't just an obvious big bad to fight but hidden forces who don't even want to see a resolution come to fruition.

Where they may have wanted to go with that plot thread, if anywhere, we may never know. It is, however, a worthwhile observation to make, irrespective of their choice to observe it here, in this film, in this way. But I never once believed a remark was being made about the forces that were themselves in conflict. It was, in short, about highlighting the war profiteers.

All the best, man. [Insert a Yoda-ism here.] Seriously, reach out if you want access to some old ears (not quite as big as Yoda's, but getting there). Sometimes that helps.

The offer is appreciated.

My suspicion is that the writers were too lazy to fill in that background, they prioritized subverting expectations as a good in itself, and they felt that Luke's struggle hadn't been presented with sufficient complexity before, but that now, as superior 21st century denizens, the audience could finally handle moral relativism and understand that there was actually no difference between the Empire and the Republic, because their guns came from the same place. These are the kind of epiphanies that, in the haze of a late-night dorm room, seem like the height of sophistication (but aren't).

I don't know if I'd agree about the laziness, that may be your distaste/bias speaking. I don't think there's enough information to confidentially determine that "subversion for the sake of it" was so driving a force that it explains all shortcomings and led to ignoring the substance necessary to achieve that goal. In fact, I rarely believe anything that goes wrong in creative endeavors is the result of laziness, but that's a separate conversation.

Oh, I'd love to have that conversation. I certainly believe in a group effort like filmmaking, there's often many handmaidens to failure or success. I think in TLJ, many other aspects of it were great--a lot of talented people did the best they could with what they had. Writing is kind of unique, though. It's not as dependent on outside restraints. I guess I'm speaking for myself on some level, but when I've had something not work in a short story, it's usually because I was lazy. I wanted to get to the next scene or the ending (an example in TLJ might be that they loved writing the scene where Luke ditched the lightsaber, but getting him to the point where it was believable was hard). I would know in my heart a section was weak, but I couldn't think of a way to make it better right away. I didn't want it to be as hard as it is.

I took a lot of creative writing workshops in my 20s, and it was my experience that many people wanted writing to be easier than it is. They got defensive when receiving criticism. (I certainly was guilty of this!) The strongest writers seemed to ask questions or get quiet. If something didn't work for someone, that was a data point. The trick was figuring out what was behind that data point. In really competitive workshops, it was possible it was just competitive sniping (I was fortunate not be exposed too much to that). More likely, it was a legitimate sign that something could be improved. As you got to know your readers, you might realize that if something doesn't work for Laura Ann, that's okay because she's not the reader you're writing for to begin with.

All the best, man. [Insert a Yoda-ism here.] Seriously, reach out if you want access to some old ears (not quite as big as Yoda's, but getting there). Sometimes that helps.

The offer is appreciated.

My suspicion is that the writers were too lazy to fill in that background, they prioritized subverting expectations as a good in itself, and they felt that Luke's struggle hadn't been presented with sufficient complexity before, but that now, as superior 21st century denizens, the audience could finally handle moral relativism and understand that there was actually no difference between the Empire and the Republic, because their guns came from the same place. These are the kind of epiphanies that, in the haze of a late-night dorm room, seem like the height of sophistication (but aren't).

I don't know if I'd agree about the laziness, that may be your distaste/bias speaking. I don't think there's enough information to confidentially determine that "subversion for the sake of it" was so driving a force that it explains all shortcomings and led to ignoring the substance necessary to achieve that goal. In fact, I rarely believe anything that goes wrong in creative endeavors is the result of laziness, but that's a separate conversation.

Oh, I'd love to have that conversation. I certainly believe in a group effort like filmmaking, there's often many handmaidens to failure or success. I think in TLJ, many other aspects of it were great--a lot of talented people did the best they could with what they had. Writing is kind of unique, though. It's not as dependent on outside restraints. I guess I'm speaking for myself on some level, but when I've had something not work in a short story, it's usually because I was lazy. I wanted to get to the next scene or the ending (an example in TLJ might be that they loved writing the scene where Luke ditched the lightsaber, but getting him to the point where it was believable was hard). I would know in my heart a section was weak, but I couldn't think of a way to make it better right away. I didn't want it to be as hard as it is.

I took a lot of creative writing workshops in my 20s, and it was my experience that many people wanted writing to be easier than it is. They got defensive when receiving criticism. (I certainly was guilty of this!) The strongest writers seemed to ask questions or get quiet. If something didn't work for someone, that was a data point. The trick was figuring out what was behind that data point. In really competitive workshops, it was possible it was just competitive sniping (I was fortunate not be exposed too much to that). More likely, it was a legitimate sign that something could be improved. As you got to know your readers, you might realize that if something doesn't work for Laura Ann, that's okay because she's not the reader you're writing for to begin with.

All valid and all makes sense. I still, however, rebuff the concept of laziness. It is an umbrella term with a negative connotation for more detailed, reasonably explained reasons that can be better understood and directly dealt with.

I would know in my heart a section was weak, but I couldn't think of a way to make it better right away. I didn't want it to be as hard as it is.

You faced an obstacle that you did not find yourself capable of overcoming with the level of effort you were willing to put in. That's a matter of priorities and interest, not of a lack of caring, no? You wanted to fix it, yet laziness is typically viewed as a lack of desire to do anything. You had that desire to fix it, you just lacked the desire and/or willpower to put in the effort necessary to overcome your deficiency; it just meant that you didn't care enough about fixing it to put the effort in. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

In the case of TLJ, they have deadlines. They did not have the capability to execute on it properly, IMHO in large part, as I said before, I believe that they bit off more than they could chew trying to tell the story they wanted to tell. It was already a difficult task, even a decently skilled writer on a deadline would struggle to make it work. That's not laziness, that's not realizing the obstacles and limitations involved early enough to course correct. Whether or not they realized the flaws, they likely did the best they could with the decisions they'd made. I doubt that they looked at the flaws and decided they didn't even care to fix them.

This is all just my outlook on people's struggle to achieve their goals. There are many psychologists who believe that few people are truly lazy, there is simply an obstacle they struggle to overcome, not that they don't care about what they want to achieve, and I don't think the writers of TLJ didn't care, I just don't think they had the talent/skill to execute on what was already a difficult concept to convey, at the point in the story they were writing for, in the timeframe they had. I would not classify that as lazy.

All the best, man. [Insert a Yoda-ism here.] Seriously, reach out if you want access to some old ears (not quite as big as Yoda's, but getting there). Sometimes that helps.

The offer is appreciated.

My suspicion is that the writers were too lazy to fill in that background, they prioritized subverting expectations as a good in itself, and they felt that Luke's struggle hadn't been presented with sufficient complexity before, but that now, as superior 21st century denizens, the audience could finally handle moral relativism and understand that there was actually no difference between the Empire and the Republic, because their guns came from the same place. These are the kind of epiphanies that, in the haze of a late-night dorm room, seem like the height of sophistication (but aren't).

I don't know if I'd agree about the laziness, that may be your distaste/bias speaking. I don't think there's enough information to confidentially determine that "subversion for the sake of it" was so driving a force that it explains all shortcomings and led to ignoring the substance necessary to achieve that goal. In fact, I rarely believe anything that goes wrong in creative endeavors is the result of laziness, but that's a separate conversation.

Oh, I'd love to have that conversation. I certainly believe in a group effort like filmmaking, there's often many handmaidens to failure or success. I think in TLJ, many other aspects of it were great--a lot of talented people did the best they could with what they had. Writing is kind of unique, though. It's not as dependent on outside restraints. I guess I'm speaking for myself on some level, but when I've had something not work in a short story, it's usually because I was lazy. I wanted to get to the next scene or the ending (an example in TLJ might be that they loved writing the scene where Luke ditched the lightsaber, but getting him to the point where it was believable was hard). I would know in my heart a section was weak, but I couldn't think of a way to make it better right away. I didn't want it to be as hard as it is.

I took a lot of creative writing workshops in my 20s, and it was my experience that many people wanted writing to be easier than it is. They got defensive when receiving criticism. (I certainly was guilty of this!) The strongest writers seemed to ask questions or get quiet. If something didn't work for someone, that was a data point. The trick was figuring out what was behind that data point. In really competitive workshops, it was possible it was just competitive sniping (I was fortunate not be exposed too much to that). More likely, it was a legitimate sign that something could be improved. As you got to know your readers, you might realize that if something doesn't work for Laura Ann, that's okay because she's not the reader you're writing for to begin with.

All valid and all makes sense. I still, however, rebuff the concept of laziness. It is an umbrella term with a negative connotation for more detailed, reasonably explained reasons that can be better understood and directly dealt with.

I would know in my heart a section was weak, but I couldn't think of a way to make it better right away. I didn't want it to be as hard as it is.

You faced an obstacle that you did not find yourself capable of overcoming with the level of effort you were willing to put in. That's a matter of priorities and interest, not of a lack of caring, no? You wanted to fix it, yet laziness is typically viewed as a lack of desire to do anything. You had that desire to fix it, you just lacked the desire and/or willpower to put in the effort necessary to overcome your deficiency; it just meant that you didn't care enough about fixing it to put the effort in. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Don't be offended on my behalf because I called myself lazy. I was. I took shortcuts. I didn't treat every part of my story with the same attention. And I've never been in a group of writers who didn't concede that there was such a thing as lazy writing. A character walks into a scene and dumps a load of exposition on the reader, out of the blue. That's lazy writing. That's really what I'm talking about, not personal laziness (although I have no problem talking about the latter either--hell, I embody it a lot of the time!).

In the case of TLJ, they have deadlines. They did not have the capability to execute on it properly, IMHO in large part, as I said before, I believe that they bit off more than they could chew trying to tell the story they wanted to tell. It was already a difficult task, even a decently skilled writer on a deadline would struggle to make it work. That's not laziness, that's not realizing the obstacles and limitations involved early enough to course correct. Whether or not they realized the flaws, they likely did the best they could with the decisions they'd made. I doubt that they looked at the flaws and decided they didn't even care to fix them.

This is all just my outlook on people's struggle to achieve their goals. There are many psychologists who believe that few people are truly lazy, there is simply an obstacle they struggle to overcome, not that they don't care about what they want to achieve, and I don't think the writers of TLJ didn't care, I just don't think they had the talent/skill to execute on what was already a difficult concept to convey, at the point in the story they were writing for, in the timeframe they had. I would not classify that as lazy.

Sure they cared, sure they had deadlines. I again draw a parallel with Tony Gilroy, who I see as quite similar to Rian Johnson. Both directors had a reputation based on working on very different kinds of projects. Gilroy dug into the lore and found something that resonated with him and the stories he likes to tell. Johnson is a more subversive, indy filmmaker. Both men had similar constraints, did what they found interesting, and created what I'd call fresh takes. To me--let me emphasize to me, one feels true to the spirit of the Star Wars, the other is more interested in, what the academics might call, interrogating the suppositions of Star Wars. It made for a more challenging project--perhaps too challenging.

In the latter half of the series, Luthen gives what is probably the most powerful Star Wars speech ever delivered. Nothing in it fits nicely on a lunch box. There you go.

I'd buy a lunch box with 'I burn my decency for someone else's future' carved on it.

In the latter half of the series, Luthen gives what is probably the most powerful Star Wars speech ever delivered. Nothing in it fits nicely on a lunch box. There you go.

I'd buy a lunch box with 'I burn my decency for someone else's future' carved on it.

You'll get some looks, but sure. ;)

In the latter half of the series, Luthen gives what is probably the most powerful Star Wars speech ever delivered. Nothing in it fits nicely on a lunch box. There you go.

I'd buy a lunch box with 'I burn my decency for someone else's future' carved on it.

You'll get some looks, but sure. ;)

And that's different from every other day... how?

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Art can be powerful, which is why the system will always co-opt art for its own purposes. It is powerful for the system. Not for you.

Oooh, the all-powerful system! Why didn't you say so?

I think that's an overused word that people use to explain what they can't otherwise explain. It's a conversation ender. And so this conversation ends.

Nope. It's a shorthand way of referring to all of the separate forces of power that align independently. Same way you talk about magnetic poles rather than the quintillions of individually spinning electrons. It provides understanding, rather than hides it. The macro effect becomes clear. Of course forces of power can be broken down since there aren't as many as there are electrons, but you do not need to in order to point out its effects.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Art can be powerful, which is why the system will always co-opt art for its own purposes. It is powerful for the system. Not for you.

Oooh, the all-powerful system! Why didn't you say so?

I think that's an overused word that people use to explain what they can't otherwise explain. It's a conversation ender. And so this conversation ends.

Nope. It's a shorthand way of referring to all of the separate forces of power that align independently. Same way you talk about magnetic poles rather than the quintillions of individually spinning electrons. It provides understanding, rather than hides it. The macro effect becomes clear. Of course forces of power can be broken down since there aren't as many as there are electrons, but you do not need to in order to point out its effects.

You do need to if you're going to give agency to human beings.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Art can be powerful, which is why the system will always co-opt art for its own purposes. It is powerful for the system. Not for you.

Oooh, the all-powerful system! Why didn't you say so?

I think that's an overused word that people use to explain what they can't otherwise explain. It's a conversation ender. And so this conversation ends.

Nope. It's a shorthand way of referring to all of the separate forces of power that align independently. Same way you talk about magnetic poles rather than the quintillions of individually spinning electrons. It provides understanding, rather than hides it. The macro effect becomes clear. Of course forces of power can be broken down since there aren't as many as there are electrons, but you do not need to in order to point out its effects.

You do need to if you're going to give agency to human beings.

But that's the point. Individual agency is swallowed when it's the sum of forces. The magnet won't stop being a magnet if one electron flips. But it will if half of them do. This is why asking individuals to change never works and doesn't solve anything on a macro scale. The power structures that motivate people to behave a certain way must be altered or dismantled for change to occur.

But this is impossible with Art alone, since it always works inside such power structures one way or another.

Such presentism. If you're spinning what I said into good guys always win in real life, that was proved wrong long before 1977. If art can't inspire us to see the world more clearly, and can't inspire us to live an heroic life, what the fuck is it for?

Control.

The powers that be love art. It's a 'safe' way to sublimate revolutionary urges in a way that ends up being non threatening, and non effectual. Even more so if the artists themselves believe in the 'power' of art.

Wow. Either I’m completely misunderstanding you, or this is nonsense on stilts. How could it be wrong, on one hand, to believe that art is powerful, yet at the same time believe that somehow there’s these puppet masters somewhere that control artists, and use their art to control others.

Art can be powerful, which is why the system will always co-opt art for its own purposes. It is powerful for the system. Not for you.

Oooh, the all-powerful system! Why didn't you say so?

I think that's an overused word that people use to explain what they can't otherwise explain. It's a conversation ender. And so this conversation ends.

Nope. It's a shorthand way of referring to all of the separate forces of power that align independently. Same way you talk about magnetic poles rather than the quintillions of individually spinning electrons. It provides understanding, rather than hides it. The macro effect becomes clear. Of course forces of power can be broken down since there aren't as many as there are electrons, but you do not need to in order to point out its effects.

You do need to if you're going to give agency to human beings.

But that's the point. Individual agency is swallowed when it's the sum of forces. The magnet won't stop being a magnet if one electron flips. But it will if half of them do. This is why asking individuals to change never works and doesn't solve anything on a macro scale. The power structures that motivate people to behave a certain way must be altered or dismantled for change to occur.

But this is impossible with Art alone, since it always works inside such power structures one way or another.

You speak in abstractions: forces, powerful structures. These are non-falsifiable by design. Individuals can change the world. Individual works of art can change the world. Asking individuals to change never works? What’s saddest about that is the self-fulfilling prophecy set up by that belief. It’s utterly depressing. Ugh.

Individual works of art can change the world.

Citation needed.

And I never said individuals can't change the world. They can if they mobilize enough people to change the power structures.

- No text -

Individual works of art can change the world.

Citation needed.

And I never said individuals can't change the world. They can if they mobilize enough people to change the power structures.

Let's see. You've said:

We CAN'T see the true evil in the world, much less defeat it.

And art exists only to ...

Control.

Because ...

the system

(whatever that is)

will always co-opt art for its own purposes..

art can't inspire us to change because...

asking individuals to change never works.

But now you say you didn't say individuals can't change the world, but they can if they mobilize enough people to ...

change the power structure.

And the circle is complete. This is precisely why I said using the word system was a conversation ender, because any assertion made thereafter can be challenged by some variation of that abstraction, which could mean anything you want it to mean. Even as you admit that people can effect change, you want to take the people out of it, and make it about power structures.

You always have interesting things to say, Cody, and I know you do creative work, which is why this thread is so disappointing to me. Of course individual works of art can change the world--it's just astounding to me that you don't think so. I'll give one example in your domain. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest changed the world. Without that movie, for better or worse, it would be much easier to institutionalize the mentally ill today.

Countless volumes have been written describing how works of art changed the world. I just read a book that described how individual works of literature changed the world. I can't get my head around this being a debatable proposition.

You always have interesting things to say, Cody, and I know you do creative work, which is why this thread is so disappointing to me. Of course individual works of art can change the world--it's just astounding to me that you don't think so. I'll give one example in your domain. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest changed the world. Without that movie, for better or worse, it would be much easier to institutionalize the mentally ill today.

Great Example, because the book was published at the height of the anti-psychiatry movement. It didn't lead the way, it rode the coat tails of philosophers like Szasz and Foucault. By the time the book was published these ideas had already entered the cultural sphere. The book didn't stop lobotomies: the development of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications did.

By the time the film was released, what you saw on screen was already obsolete. If anything this newfound "compassion" made it easier to deflect the problem of the mentally ill. Oh, look, we don't put them in loony bins anymore. We aren't barbaric. The illusion of care, meanwhile the mentally ill don't get the help they need even today. It has the opposite effect intended, since they can point and say see? We aren't like that anymore!

You always have interesting things to say, Cody, and I know you do creative work, which is why this thread is so disappointing to me. Of course individual works of art can change the world--it's just astounding to me that you don't think so. I'll give one example in your domain. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest changed the world. Without that movie, for better or worse, it would be much easier to institutionalize the mentally ill today.

Great Example, because the book was published at the height of the anti-psychiatry movement. It didn't lead the way, it rode the coat tails of philosophers like Szasz and Foucault. By the time the book was published these ideas had already entered the cultural sphere. The book didn't stop lobotomies: the development of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications did.

By the time the film was released, what you saw on screen was already obsolete. If anything this newfound "compassion" made it easier to deflect the problem of the mentally ill. Oh, look, we don't put them in loony bins anymore. We aren't barbaric. The illusion of care, meanwhile the mentally ill don't get the help they need even today. It has the opposite effect intended, since they can point and say see? We aren't like that anymore!

The book was pretty much straight reportage based on Kesey’s experiences. I know it well because I taught both the book and the film for years. You seem to be saying the movie did not change the world (because the world had already changed). At the same time, you echo several points from this article (almost verbatim), The film that changed psychiatry forever, which I think supports what I said well. Though I still love the film, I do think now it probably did more harm than good.

Talk about harm, though. Foucault… [shudders in disgust]

The book was pretty much straight reportage based on Kesey’s experiences. I know it well because I taught both the book and the film for years. You seem to be saying the movie did not change the world (because the world had already changed). At the same time, you echo several points from this article (almost verbatim), The film that changed psychiatry forever, which I think supports what I said well. Though I still love the film, I do think now it probably did more harm than good.

But do you not see how the commodification of art itself undermines its ability to influence? The fact that Art needs the media to even disseminate, should clue you in as to how the media will always use even 'dangerous' art for their own purposes. Either you never hear about it, or you hear about it through the lens of the media. And if art is a stepping stone for change, it's because either it's going that way on its own, or those in power have decided to co-opt it and go that way for their own benefit. So in that sense, yes I can concede that it can 'change' things, but only because those in power allow it to change in a way that makes them more powerful.

It's how Paul Ryan can love Rage against the Machine. It's how Gangsta rap was embraced by the establishment, pumped into the homes of suburban America where they can reshift the conversation from the depicted hardships, to the profanity and sexism. All the while teenage white girls listen without context. "I like the beats and rhymes" I'm sure you do. It scared white america, but the solution was to actually embrace and nullify it. If you don't like what is being said, the best thing you can do is to give the artist a megaphone with your blessing. I assure you Compton and Watts are still bad places to live.

Talk about harm, though. Foucault… [shudders in disgust]

Please expand! From where I'm sitting, he nailed a lot.

Totally shows up Chomsky.

The book was pretty much straight reportage based on Kesey’s experiences. I know it well because I taught both the book and the film for years. You seem to be saying the movie did not change the world (because the world had already changed). At the same time, you echo several points from this article (almost verbatim), The film that changed psychiatry forever, which I think supports what I said well. Though I still love the film, I do think now it probably did more harm than good.

But do you not see how the commodification of art itself undermines its ability to influence? The fact that Art needs the media to even disseminate, should clue you in as to how the media will always use even 'dangerous' art for their own purposes. Either you never hear about it, or you hear about it through the lens of the media. And if art is a stepping stone for change, it's because either it's going that way on its own, or those in power have decided to co-opt it and go that way for their own benefit.

It's how Paul Ryan can love Rage against the Machine. It's how Gangsta rap was embraced by the establishment, pumped into the homes of suburban America where they can reshift the conversation from the depicted hardships, to the profanity and sexism. All the while teenage white girls listen without context. "I like the beats and rhymes" I'm sure you do. It scared white america, but the solution was to actually embrace and nullify it. If you don't what is being said, the best thing you can do is to give the artist a megaphone with your blessing. I assure you Compton and Watts are still bad places to live.

I see what you're saying but don't necessarily agree with it. Getting paid for art doesn't automatically corrupt it, and if people you wouldn't expect like something, that doesn't render it illegitimate. Maybe people are more complicated than the categories we create for them. Good art is definitely more complicated, as is the case with Cuckoo's Nest, whose influence could not be predicted. That's why I wince at phrases like "those in power" and the "they" who can reshift the conversation. William Goldman had it right when he said nobody knows anything. The political fringes are always talking about these conspiracies of control when it comes to the arts and culture, and for sure there's plenty of propagandistic dreck out there. There's good stuff, too, that doesn't map to easy narratives. That's the stuff most likely to change the world.

The political fringes are always talking about these conspiracies of control when it comes to the arts and culture, and for sure there's plenty of propagandistic dreck out there. There's good stuff, too, that doesn't map to easy narratives. That's the stuff most likely to change the world.

Let's just close out and say Andor's not changing the world.

The political fringes are always talking about these conspiracies of control when it comes to the arts and culture, and for sure there's plenty of propagandistic dreck out there. There's good stuff, too, that doesn't map to easy narratives. That's the stuff most likely to change the world.

Let's just close out and say Andor's not changing the world.

Sure. That's almost certainly right. Call me a naive romantic, but for the world's sake I'll hope #codyiswrong.

I can’t pretend to be well read on this subject at all, but it did tickle the back of my brain and I’ve been searching for this video since this sub thread started. I just couldn’t remember where I saw it.

I can’t pretend to be well read on this subject at all, but it did tickle the back of my brain and I’ve been searching for this video since this sub thread started. I just couldn’t remember where I saw it.

I find it really funny that the modern art of today is actually just memes lol

I can’t pretend to be well read on this subject at all, but it did tickle the back of my brain and I’ve been searching for this video since this sub thread started. I just couldn’t remember where I saw it.

For many years I had a print of this in my living room.

Every once in a while, I'd get a visitor who would kind of furrow their brow, and ask me what I liked about it. The simple answer was "I don't know, but I do like it very much." All that's to say, art isn't supposed to be easily explained, and you can't account for taste. The nature of it is ambiguity--it exists to jolt us from our preconceptions, whatever they may be. If there's only one way to interpret a work of art, it's not that good.

I think there's a lot of people who want art to serve a preferred narrative, and sadly, I think there's at least as many wannabe censors now as there was when Jesse Helms was above ground. The other bad trend is the idea that what you are according to some census category defines what you should like, or what you can create, or what you can imagine. I disagree, and I'm in good company.