Just wanted to saying I bought the UHD of The Last Jedi. Watched it again last night, and I enjoyed it (it's a gorgeous film, and looks great in 4K HDR).

It also came with a code for a digital version, which I will not use. Does anyone want it? You have to have set up a Movies Anywhere account (whatever the hell that is), and I'm not going to, so it's free for someone here who wants it. E-mail me about it and I'll send the code.

I feel like the ending to Rogue One absolutely takes away from how awesome and terrifying the start of Episode IV is. So as awesome as it was to watch, I'd rather that Leia's Blockade Runner had never been there, or that Vader had never been there.

That’s actually a really good example of dealing with toxic masculinity is like. I won’t get into a big discussion on ge personal side. But I don’t hesitate to use the term because I would rather accurately describe a circumstance than try to find language that others don’t misuse. Your point about positive examples is very important. Positive examples (or other more direct methods of learning to deal with limited emotional toolsets and avoid reaching a level of toxicity) are important because most humans are to at least some degree observational learners. You hit the nail with many myths being used for that purpose. That Same purpose seen in fables and other both more literal and abstract learning devices also built to entertain.

While I can see the perspective that TLJ doesn’t have any positive role models I cannot accept it. Luke being a very explicit example of a character who is flawed (true to all heroes [aside: Rey is also flawed in many ways mirroring Luke] that are worh learning from) but also heroic. He has made mistakes and he has had to deal with the consequences. However he also expresses a great deal of emotions, can be introspective and explorative of his own experiences, failures, and feelings without placing that burden solely on a romantic counterpart. He learns from his negative behaviors to become better, while also showing that sliding back into old, bad habits can still be overcome.

Poe is another example of someone who we see over the course of the movie make bad choices but eventually learns how to be a better leader for those experiences. That also brings us to Leia. Who is literally Poe’s greatest hero and who he looks up to for his guidance and learning. I think it is foolish to use the societal biases to discount the positive examples of actions without assigned gendered biases. There are many well developed women characters who are not only positive role models for girls and women but for boys and men as well. While often not intentional (and your acknowledgement of maternal influence isn’t unnoticed and is likely a sign of a well rounded human being) many men will immediately discount women as worthy examples because of the insidious naure of social structures which teach them to internalize the feminine as inferior instead of just a different descriptor.

Leia is a bright shining star of an example of someone rooted as an established positive while Luke shows us a similar example to look up to through someone going through a process of overcoming a mistake. Poe is initially shown as someone refusing to overcome his mistake and the damage it causes while Holdo is an example of someone who is rooted in a structure which is causing damage to the same shared goal.

So, yes, everyone should have positive examples to look toward. But we also have to be internally aware to look at all the examples to hopefully avoid the traps that cultural toxicity brings.

Just wanted to clarify real quick that I actually do think TLJ has examples of positive male role models (as you very nicely described). That’s part of where Kermit and I disagree on the movie. But where he and I agree is that positive role models are a crucial ingredient in mythology :)

While I can see the perspective that TLJ doesn’t have any positive role models I cannot accept it. Luke being a very explicit example of a character who is flawed (true to all heroes [aside: Rey is also flawed in many ways mirroring Luke] that are worh learning from) but also heroic. He has made mistakes and he has had to deal with the consequences. However he also expresses a great deal of emotions, can be introspective and explorative of his own experiences, failures, and feelings without placing that burden solely on a romantic counterpart. He learns from his negative behaviors to become better, while also showing that sliding back into old, bad habits can still be overcome.

Poe is another example of someone who we see over the course of the movie make bad choices but eventually learns how to be a better leader for those experiences. That also brings us to Leia. Who is literally Poe’s greatest hero and who he looks up to for his guidance and learning. I think it is foolish to use the societal biases to discount the positive examples of actions without assigned gendered biases. There are many well developed women characters who are not only positive role models for girls and women but for boys and men as well. While often not intentional (and your acknowledgement of maternal influence isn’t unnoticed and is likely a sign of a well rounded human being) many men will immediately discount women as worthy examples because of the insidious naure of social structures which teach them to internalize the feminine as inferior instead of just a different descriptor.

Leia is a bright shining star of an example of someone rooted as an established positive while Luke shows us a similar example to look up to through someone going through a process of overcoming a mistake. Poe is initially shown as someone refusing to overcome his mistake and the damage it causes while Holdo is an example of someone who is rooted in a structure which is causing damage to the same shared goal.

So, yes, everyone should have positive examples to look toward. But we also have to be internally aware to look at all the examples to hopefully avoid the traps that cultural toxicity brings.

Not because I want to have a point of conflict and not explicitly directed at you, but because you (and possibly others) may see those items and feel they are not negatives, but the emphasis is on toxicity. I know this is probably more political, but I know that this place has some diverse backgrounds and I think it is important to address.

manning up and not crying

Needing to respond to stress through "dealing with it" especially with the extra verbal implication of "manning" can lead to stunted emotional/social understanding and an internalization of unyielding stoicism which is emotionally and psychologically poisoning to an individual vested in the notion that they must not share emotions (crying is a release, with chemical variance based on the chemical releases it is attempting to flush) for that would make them less. This limits their indulgence or acceptance in positive emotions as well as confronting negative emotions. Without the tool set, support, and understanding to properly handle those circumstances you tend to lead to emotional outbursts or other harmful action/inaction which leads us to . . .

not showing weakness

This compounds itself through gendered insults (Cody's third example) which inherently assume inferiority and negativity to the feminine (a simple comparable to exert strength against so as to avoid displays of weakness) which cyclically supports seeing women as inferior (not even touching on how this supports internalized misogyny in women and young girls) and with a superior/inferior dichotomy established through a need to not show such weakness (specifically publicly) many men who are indoctrinated with toxic masculinity will utilize the implicit or explicit threat of violence (physical, verbal, psychological) to establish and maintain an "alpha" (such a bad term) personality. Generally this is at the expense of female family member's or romantic partner's (who are often subjected to a traditional assumption of being the sole point of emotional support of emotionally stunted men instead of relying on a developed and supportive social group) emotional and psychological well being. Sometimes physical.

I needed to express that because the concept of toxicity is all about volume. There is a volume where both oxygen and water are toxic to humans, even though we require them to live. So even if on their own these concepts don't seem toxic to you, in large doses or in conjunction with other aspects that they often feed into you do result in very obvious toxic behaviors.

This is actually one of the reasons Kylo Ren is a terrible role model and the people who think he needs a redemption arc in IX are some of the most frustrating people to have conversations with about TLJ. Not saying that's you. I just know a lot of people who are pro-Ren or pro-Reylo. /wretch

Not because I want to have a point of conflict and not explicitly directed at you, but because you (and possibly others) may see those items and feel they are not negatives, but the emphasis is on toxicity. I know this is probably more political, but I know that this place has some diverse backgrounds and I think it is important to address.

manning up and not crying

Needing to respond to stress through "dealing with it" especially with the extra verbal implication of "manning" can lead to stunted emotional/social understanding and an internalization of unyielding stoicism which is emotionally and psychologically poisoning to an individual vested in the notion that they must not share emotions (crying is a release, with chemical variance based on the chemical releases it is attempting to flush) for that would make them less. This limits their indulgence or acceptance in positive emotions as well as confronting negative emotions. Without the tool set, support, and understanding to properly handle those circumstances you tend to lead to emotional outbursts or other harmful action/inaction which leads us to . . .

not showing weakness

This compounds itself through gendered insults (Cody's third example) which inherently assume inferiority and negativity to the feminine (a simple comparable to exert strength against so as to avoid displays of weakness) which cyclically supports seeing women as inferior (not even touching on how this supports internalized misogyny in women and young girls) and with a superior/inferior dichotomy established through a need to not show such weakness (specifically publicly) many men who are indoctrinated with toxic masculinity will utilize the implicit or explicit threat of violence (physical, verbal, psychological) to establish and maintain an "alpha" (such a bad term) personality. Generally this is at the expense of female family member's or romantic partner's (who are often subjected to a traditional assumption of being the sole point of emotional support of emotionally stunted men instead of relying on a developed and supportive social group) emotional and psychological well being. Sometimes physical.

I needed to express that because the concept of toxicity is all about volume. There is a volume where both oxygen and water are toxic to humans, even though we require them to live. So even if on their own these concepts don't seem toxic to you, in large doses or in conjunction with other aspects that they often feed into you do result in very obvious toxic behaviors.

This is actually one of the reasons Kylo Ren is a terrible role model and the people who think he needs a redemption arc in IX are some of the most frustrating people to have conversations with about TLJ. Not saying that's you. I just know a lot of people who are pro-Ren or pro-Reylo. /wretch

I wanted to try to respond to this without falling too far down a political rabbit hole :)

For the record, I agree with everything you've said. But I also believe that the current trend to throw around the term "toxic" is actually causing more harm than good, for several reasons (not least of which is that some people, who frankly just don't know what they are talking about, will label anything they don't like as an example of "toxic X" as a way of hopping over debate or reasoning and trying to claim moral superiority).

I'm a firm believer in leading and teaching through example. We absolutely need to be aware of the dangers or negative aspects of any form of behavior or thinking. But that alone is far from enough. We actually need positive examples of behavior to help teach and promote a strong and healthy mode of being. And traditionally speaking, that's a large part of what mythological tales have tried to do.

I'll give a personal example, just to illustrate my point.

My grandfather was always a bit of a tyrant. Classic "do what I say, or else!" type of figurehead. He would make offers to "help" his family, but they were never more than thinly veiled attempts to control. He had lots of money, so one of his favorite tricks was to offer to buy something for someone in the family, but only if they agreed to let him choose what to buy. I'm talking about big stuff, like a car or a house. So on the one hand, his offers were massively grand, but also designed to strip the rest of his family of any control or influence over their own destiny.

Now, it would be very simple to point to his behavior as an example of "toxic masculinity". I think it would be a fair and accurate assessment. I grew up telling myself as much, although that precise label didn't exist in my mind at that point. However, I would eventually discover the weakness in my thinking.

Years after the death of my grandfather, I became a parent for the first time. I'd grown up thinking of myself as a vastly different man than my grandfather. I considered myself fair, respectful of others around me and in my own family, aware of my own shortcomings. My wife and I had always worked to build a relationship where we were both equals in both responsibility and influence.

Then I became a father, and was utterly blindsided by thoughts, feelings, and urges that I had never experienced before. I'd always been protective of my wife, but in a healthy, non-controlling way. As soon as she became pregnant, I found myself flooded with fiercely protective urges, far beyond anything I'd ever experienced. Protective to the level of insanity. I recognized these urges as insane, and fought to keep my actions reasonable and level headed. But those feelings were still there, whether I approved of them or not. And they only got stronger when my daughter was actually born. Yet, while fighting to prevent these feelings from completely taking over, I couldn't help but recognize that they were there for a reason.

Pregnancy and delivery were extremely hard on my wife, and she had a long, slow recovery. She was vulnerable in many ways. Needless to say, our infant child was extremely vulnerable as well. I knew that if push came to shove, it really was up to me to protect them. Very shortly after my daughter's birth, the 3 of us went to a cafe across the street from our apartment. I was carrying my daughter in a harness on my chest. A very disturbed man walked into the cafe and began making a scene. He threw his coffee at me, hitting me in the leg. Then he caught a glimpse of my face. I was standing there, with my daughter strapped to me, fully ready to go to hell and back in response to whatever he did next. I didn't budge or blink. He must have recognized the fire in my eyes, because despite the fact that he was clearly looking for a fight, he decided he didn't want this particular fight. After trying to match my gaze for a few moments, he sheepishly left.

So I knew these feelings that had risen up inside me served a purpose. I couldn't just ignore them or admonish them. In times of need, they were actually invaluable. But I also began to see that there was an insidious side to them. My protective urges were a response to fear. I was afraid all the time. Afraid that something bad would happen to my daughter or wife. Afraid that if I let my guard down for a moment, something would happen and I wouldn't be able to stop it. Then I started to notice how I was handling that fear. I was so on edge, stretched so thin by stress and worry and sleep deprivation, that I was desperate for any little bit of "control" that I could hold on to. It would creep up on me in subtle ways. I'd text my wife to tell her what I was bringing home for dinner, and when she asked if I could go somewhere else instead, I'd get angry. FURIOUS. Why can't she just eat the food I chose for her?!? I'd think to myself. These little flashes of anger started happening more and more frequently. How am I supposed to take care of this family if nobody every follows my decisions?! And that was the precise moment I truly understood my grandfather for the first time. It hit me like a truck. He wasn't just being a tyrant for the hell of it. He was afraid. The pressure of feeling responsible for his family was more than he could bare without resorting to imposing his will on every situation.

I still knew that my grandfather's behavior was wrong. And now that I was seeing hints of the same behavior in myself, I was more than a little concerned. But I'm a very lucky man. I'm lucky because I've had my own father to look up to my whole life, and he has spent every single day leading by example. I suddenly developed a whole new appreciation for just how strong and wise he was. Because he'd gone through all the same feelings I was going through, the same feelings that had lead to his father's oppressive behavior, yet he had managed to carry the weight of responsibility without ever buckling under it. My mother too. And I could write a whole other little story about how her strength and her example shaped me. But in this particular case, my father's influence cannot be overstated because his experiences could be more closely mapped on to my own. I was able to navigate this storm of conflicting thoughts and feelings because I knew what it looked like to handle it properly. I've watched my dad do it my entire life.

Knowing what is wrong is not enough. Ever. We also need to know what it right. When I look at the way many political discussions around gender roles tend to go these days, I usually see a verbal or written parade of everything that is wrong with men. Many of those points are valid. But if that is all we can talk about, we are in fact missing the point. Because people behave badly for many different reasons. Some of those reasons can show up in surprising ways. And if we are not properly equipped to deal with them, then we might get swept away by them.

And that, I believe, is at least part of where Kermit is coming from with regards to TLJ. I don't agree with his personal take on the movie, but I absolutely relate to what he's saying about the role of positive archetypal examples in mythology. Because I think that's the whole point of mythology. Yes, we need to know what the dark side looks like. But we need to know what the light side looks like too, as a way to fight off the darkness.

manning up and not crying

Needing to respond to stress through "dealing with it" especially with the extra verbal implication of "manning" can lead to stunted emotional/social understanding and an internalization of unyielding stoicism which is emotionally and psychologically poisoning to an individual vested in the notion that they must not share emotions (crying is a release, with chemical variance based on the chemical releases it is attempting to flush) for that would make them less. This limits their indulgence or acceptance in positive emotions as well as confronting negative emotions. Without the tool set, support, and understanding to properly handle those circumstances you tend to lead to emotional outbursts or other harmful action/inaction which leads us to . . .

not showing weakness

This compounds itself through gendered insults (Cody's third example) which inherently assume inferiority and negativity to the feminine (a simple comparable to exert strength against so as to avoid displays of weakness) which cyclically supports seeing women as inferior (not even touching on how this supports internalized misogyny in women and young girls) and with a superior/inferior dichotomy established through a need to not show such weakness (specifically publicly) many men who are indoctrinated with toxic masculinity will utilize the implicit or explicit threat of violence (physical, verbal, psychological) to establish and maintain an "alpha" (such a bad term) personality. Generally this is at the expense of female family member's or romantic partner's (who are often subjected to a traditional assumption of being the sole point of emotional support of emotionally stunted men instead of relying on a developed and supportive social group) emotional and psychological well being. Sometimes physical.

I needed to express that because the concept of toxicity is all about volume. There is a volume where both oxygen and water are toxic to humans, even though we require them to live. So even if on their own these concepts don't seem toxic to you, in large doses or in conjunction with other aspects that they often feed into you do result in very obvious toxic behaviors.

This is actually one of the reasons Kylo Ren is a terrible role model and the people who think he needs a redemption arc in IX are some of the most frustrating people to have conversations with about TLJ. Not saying that's you. I just know a lot of people who are pro-Ren or pro-Reylo. /wretch

Why where those characters written that way whereas the female characters are consistently presented as wise and heroic? Because Joseph Campbell has been jettisoned in favor of promoting what I don't hesitate to call toxic identity politics.

It's… not an assault on men dude. You are forgetting that the status quo in films has always been to exclusively present the men as wise and heroic, and women as emotional or manipulative. By your logic wouldn't THAT be toxic identity politics in the other direction?

That wasn't the status quo for good movies. Good movies portray women and men as they are, and sometimes they're wise and heroic and sometimes they're emotional and manipulative.

To answer your specific question, I'll give one example: there seems to be an intent to highlight "toxic masculinity" (a trendy construct that assumes toxicity is gendered) and to shame male attempts at boldness or sacrifice, which are traditional mythological tropes.

Toxic Masculinity does not refer to boldness and sacrifice, both of which are positive aspects. Nobody is shunning that stuff. It's primarily about the stuff like manning up and not crying, not showing weakness, calling people pussies, seeing women as inferior, status through domination, etc.

Sure, I know what toxic masculinity is supposed to mean, but the spirit of my comment relates how it's used by more zealous types, i.e., masculine traits are by definition toxic, oppressive, etc. (Also, save the last three, I wouldn't necessarily view your negatives as negative in all contexts.)

It’s why I’m worried about Solo.

Friend saw a screening, albeit with temp effects and stuff (he said he has no idea how they are gonna hit release date given the shape it was in). He hated Last Jedi. But he said Solo was really good.

I'm reasonably hopeful. I think I set a lower bar for anthology films.

My confession: I did like it better on second viewing. After my first viewing I was confused and ambivalent. It's the best looking Star Wars ever, but it wouldn't let me turn off my critical brain. It seemed calculated to frustrate expectations, maliciously so. And I just couldn't buy Luke, whose instincts to help and pursue the good had been so intrinsic to who he was.

Did you not pay attention in Jedi?! Luke goes full on dark side as he rages at Vader and cuts off his hand. Watch the scene again. He's just wailing on him in anger. Thankfully for him he realized this and stopped himself, but it's very clear he has darkness in him.

Of course! I take your point, and I didn't mean to imply that he was an angel. But his anger had to be stoked. It wasn't his set point. It was the other side of his passion, a side of it he had to conquer. What was dominant through a big chunk of TLJ were characteristics utterly alien to my understanding of him as a character--apathy and dismissiveness. It was if you took the big five personality traits and inverted at least three of them. THAT's why I'm incredulous.

What the second viewing bought me is a clearer understanding of the plot. That helped me enjoy it, but I thought a lot about one of the first posts I made here about it, where I said I don't know why they're making these movies now, and they don't seem influenced by Joseph Campbell's work on archetypal stories the way the first one was. Star Wars got me interested in Campbell, and then Jung, and many other things besides. And I was reading something recently about archetypal stories that made this point: you remember them! That's how they got to be archetypal stories in the first place.

Why is this important? Campbell's Hero's Journey is not a blueprint. It's a form based on the dramatic principles of storytelling. The underlying dramatic principles are what's important, not the form. It's a description of the similarity in forms that have worked before. That doesn't mean it's the only way, nor is it even the best way. I remember plenty of stories that do not fit into those molds.

Actually, it kind of is a blueprint. It's hardwired into our species if you believe Jung, one of Campbell's primary influences.

I care about those things, too (although I might not agree on the diagnoses or prescriptions). For me Star Wars was always about something bigger, more fundamental to the human experience than our current named obsessions. It was both an escape from 1970s ennui, and a reminder of higher, more transcendent values. We have such an divided culture right now. I guess part of my disappointment was not wanting Star Wars to become another thing we fight over--another weapon in the culture war.

This is because there is a sickness within geek culture in general. It's not the film's fault.

Maybe.

Why where those characters written that way whereas the female characters are consistently presented as wise and heroic? Because Joseph Campbell has been jettisoned in favor of promoting what I don't hesitate to call toxic identity politics.

It's… not an assault on men dude. You are forgetting that the status quo in films has always been to exclusively present the men as wise and heroic, and women as emotional or manipulative. By your logic wouldn't THAT be toxic identity politics in the other direction?

It’s why I’m worried about Solo.

Friend saw a screening, albeit with temp effects and stuff (he said he has no idea how they are gonna hit release date given the shape it was in). He hated Last Jedi. But he said Solo was really good.

To answer your specific question, I'll give one example: there seems to be an intent to highlight "toxic masculinity" (a trendy construct that assumes toxicity is gendered) and to shame male attempts at boldness or sacrifice, which are traditional mythological tropes.

Toxic Masculinity does not refer to boldness and sacrifice, both of which are positive aspects. Nobody is shunning that stuff. It's primarily about the stuff like manning up and not crying, not showing weakness, calling people pussies, seeing women as inferior, status through domination, etc.

For the most part, all 4 of my kids prefer watching me play games than actually going through the work of learning to play them themselves. This isn't always true, but for most games it is. I think there are a lot of reasons for this, but as has been pointed out, it's much more challenging to just pick up and play something. I think that's why mobile games are both beloved and scoffed at at the same time.

I think it took me about 3 or 4 years to become 'fluent' in video games. I started at around 5ish, and would struggle with Mario. Getting to the world 1 castle was mind blowingly hard. Even beating a single robot master in Megaman was nearly unthinkable. But the more I played, the better I got not just at specific games, but games in general.

By the time I was 8 or so it all kind of 'clicked', and I was able to beat Tyson in Punch Out. In round 2, but still. After that I could finish any game I wanted to really.

All things considered, that's not really a large chunk of time when you think about it. If you can spend 3 years learning, and then be able to play every video game made subsequently, it seems worthwhile no? With the easy modes these days, it might not even take that long.

Eh, close enough for government work, especially in contrast to the male characters. I don't really count Phasma. She's little more than--how shall I say?--toy service.

Yes, because Boba Fett - everyone's favorite, was so much more developed. (◔_◔)

My confession: I did like it better on second viewing. After my first viewing I was confused and ambivalent. It's the best looking Star Wars ever, but it wouldn't let me turn off my critical brain. It seemed calculated to frustrate expectations, maliciously so. And I just couldn't buy Luke, whose instincts to help and pursue the good had been so intrinsic to who he was.

Did you not pay attention in Jedi?! Luke goes full on dark side as he rages at Vader and cuts off his hand. Watch the scene again. He's just wailing on him in anger. Thankfully for him he realized this and stopped himself, but it's very clear he has darkness in him.

What the second viewing bought me is a clearer understanding of the plot. That helped me enjoy it, but I thought a lot about one of the first posts I made here about it, where I said I don't know why they're making these movies now, and they don't seem influenced by Joseph Campbell's work on archetypal stories the way the first one was. Star Wars got me interested in Campbell, and then Jung, and many other things besides. And I was reading something recently about archetypal stories that made this point: you remember them! That's how they got to be archetypal stories in the first place.

Why is this important? Campbell's Hero's Journey is not a blueprint. It's a form based on the dramatic principles of storytelling. The underlying dramatic principles are what's important, not the form. It's a description of the similarity in forms that have worked before. That doesn't mean it's the only way, nor is it even the best way. I remember plenty of stories that do not fit into those molds.

I care about those things, too (although I might not agree on the diagnoses or prescriptions). For me Star Wars was always about something bigger, more fundamental to the human experience than our current named obsessions. It was both an escape from 1970s ennui, and a reminder of higher, more transcendent values. We have such an divided culture right now. I guess part of my disappointment was not wanting Star Wars to become another thing we fight over--another weapon in the culture war.

This is because there is a sickness within geek culture in general. It's not the film's fault.

where I said I don't know why they're making these movies now, and they don't seem influenced by Joseph Campbell's work on archetypal stories the way the first one was. Star Wars got me interested in Campbell, and then Jung, and many other things besides.

Does a Star Wars movie have to follow that mold to be a Star Wars movie? I wasn't even alive when Star Wars released, so I don't necessarily have the connection to it the way many people do. That said, it is very important to me, and my childhood and my development and interest in storytelling in general. Star Wars led me to sci-fi (even though it's really fantasy, yeah, I know), to Ender's Game, to Dune, to The Lord of the Rings, to a love for reading and stories in general. I'm willing to see a Star Wars story not follow Campbell, but I can at least fathom the argument that Campbell and Star Wars go hand in hand, that maybe they're inseparable.

And I was reading something recently about archetypal stories that made this point: you remember them! That's how they got to be archetypal stories in the first place. I have trouble keeping TLJ in my mind.

You're not wrong there, either. I saw it twice within the first few weeks of it being in theaters, but haven't seen it since, and I do have trouble remembering the details. There is a lot going on in that movie, perhaps to its detriment.

For me Star Wars was always about something bigger, more fundamental to the human experience than our current named obsessions. It was both an escape from 1970s ennui, and a reminder of higher, more transcendent values. We have such an divided culture right now.

I think the new era of Star Wars does the same thing, though. It's not about gender politics (although, yes, those are obviously there), but about love and equality and self-confidence and fighting for what's right and personal growth and teamwork. Those things are as timeless as they always have been and they always will be.

I guess part of my disappointment was not wanting Star Wars to become another thing we fight over--another weapon in the culture war.

I want to say it only becomes that if you let it, but I don't know if that's really true. I do think that The Last Jedi is less concerned with being that than some folks want to admit. Maybe that's not true either, though.