18 ms·

Millennials Strike Back: An Esoteric Reading of the Last Jedi

108 points by jlos 9y ago

junkscience2017 9y ago
the movie sucked but at least this satire review was funny
mmusson 9y ago
Although I suspect the authors were being tongue in cheek, I think there are spot on with the older generation falling into familiar patterns and the younger generation rejecting that in their own ways.
djroomba 9y ago
I hope the authors were being tongue in cheek. I saw it as the younger generation not learning and repeating the mistakes of the past. The first order being like neo-nazis to the empires nazis. The republic failing and the rise of trade federation again. Very cyclical and nihilistic.
- bmj 9y ago
  From the end of the article: Caleb Cohoe is associate professor of philosophy at Metropolitan State University of Denver. Samantha Cohoe is a Latin teacher, writer of young adult fiction, and frequent contributor to twitter.com. The views expressed in this article are not endorsed by and do not in any way represent the opinions of their employers or Leo Strauss. They should also not be taken to express the views of the authors.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  I mean... it can be both. I don't see that as being incompatible with what the author is saying.
theli0nheart 9y ago
I'll assume spoilers are fair game here, since this article is pretty much a spoiler in its entirety. The authors take many liberties in interpretation to fit their viewpoint. For instance, Luke didn't "hallucinate" Yoda's presence on Ahch-To, unless you think his previous force ghosts (as in ROTJ) were hallucinations, as well. Perhaps Rian did mean for Yoda's force ghost in this scene to be a hallucination, but I don't think he did. The authors just twisted this scene to fit their interpretation, which is disappointing. UPDATE: The piece is satire https://twitter.com/smcohoe/status/951474247104307200 https://twitter.com/smcohoe/status/951474247104307200
- trevelyan 9y ago
  Yes, it's a silly interpretation. Especially inconsistent since if Yoda is Luke's hallucination as the article asserts, then Luke himself is "killing the past" in the same way that Kylo Ren does, and treating the film as a Millennial attack on the Baby Boomers is rather short-sighted when they are both doing the same thing. As far as I can see, the only thing approaching a coherent theme in TLJ is the question of how one can move forward if encumbered by the past (Finn and Rey also have these issues). This offers perhaps 1% of the thematic and political subtly of the Lucas trilogies. But even this seems a challenge for the script to grapple with coherently -- surely Yoda (presented as a figure of wisdom) should not be using lightning and fire (Sith tools) to destroy embodied wisdom. And if we are to view Luke as doing the right thing then surely the only logical conclusion of this way of thinking is that Kylo Ren is on the right track. Ironic that Poe Dameron (who destroys most of the Rebellion) is seen negatively when all he was doing was clearing the way for victory by getting rid of all those ships (human lives)!
  - theli0nheart 9y ago
    Note what Yoda says before he destroys the tree: "There's nothing in those books she does not already possess." And then remember the final scene on the Falcon, where you can clearly see that the books are safely with Rey. She must have taken them before she left, and Yoda knows this. In that period of time, though, the audience (and Luke) is left to believe that Yoda truly did choose to destroy ancient Jedi artifacts. Which really makes one wonder what the heck is going on—and leaves you to question which side is good, and which is bad? It really blurs the lines between Light and Dark, and crescendos at the throne room scene where Snoke is murdered to when Kylo asks Rey to join him. You almost want her to say yes to his offer! Unlike ESB, the offer isn't just theoretical. Snoke was just overthrown. In my opinion, the whole sequence was masterfully done.
    - trevelyan 9y ago
      Hey Lionheart. Just to be clear -- I don't think TLJ is devoid of meaning. The film clearly wants to say that anyone can be a hero and that what matters is not being trapped by the past (protect what you love, learn from your mistakes and move on). There is nothing wrong with this message. It doesn't bother me if people like TLJ, although I personally don't think the film makes much sense. If Yoda deceives Luke that saves TLJ from having Yoda actually mirror Kylo Ren, but it doesn't explain the fire and lightning (Sith tools associated with hell imagery) nor does it resolve the underlying problem since deception is also Dark Side behaviour.... There are a few other areas where the film contradicts itself, but this is an obvious one: if we take the film seriously we must surely ask ourselves why Yoda is acting like a Sith Lord? I didn't see any attempt to answer that puzzle in the film and while we may get the solution in film #3, as far as I can tell TLJ just accepts that whatever Yoda does is good (because he is Yoda) and whatever Kylo Ren does is bad (because he is the villain). The filmmakers have bought into the loose symbolic framework of the saga, but they don't seem to understand it and/or act consistently within it. To the extent there is a message, it comes out because the good guys tell us exactly what it is and we aren't supposed to think too critically about it.
jdpedrie 9y ago
From the bottom of the article, since people are wondering whether this is serious: > The views expressed in this article are not endorsed by and do not in any way represent the opinions of their employers or Leo Strauss. They should also not be taken to express the views of the authors.
hashberry 9y ago
The original Star Wars was about a son and his father, with redemption, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice. "I am a Jedi, like my father before me" still gives me shivers. But now Luke Skywalker says: "It's time for the Jedi to end." In other words: "it's time for patriarchy to end."
caio1982 9y ago
"Note that in none of the eight movies so far is the intensive and painful Jedi training regimen followed through. Not a single real Jedi is produced." Well... they've got a point... we see many already produced, but none during the films' times IIRC.
loteck 9y ago
There is some overfitting happening here but generally speaking I agree with the analysis. People I interact with from my own generation and younger can see that our established institutions may have failed to secure the near future for existing and arriving generations, and they are permanently shunning those institutions wherever possible. You can see this in IT as well where we have myriad foundational problems at the levels of W3C, ICANN, MITRE, NIST and other standards/governing bodies. Cynicism spreads about whether they are sincere about delivering their core missions; meanwhile a "move fast and break things"/disruption culture thrives.
- JKCalhoun 9y ago
  Yeah, simple answer: we need heroes and villains for a story. But I think there is some cultural "zeitgeist" reflected in the more optimistic original Star Wars and the cynicism of the current reboot. I find it refreshingly actually. When the original Star Wars came along it seemed to shut down the cynicism of Sci Fi that had dominated up to that point (Soylent Green, West World, Logan's Run, Rollerball, etc.).
pupppet 9y ago
Disney didn't pay a few billion for the Star Wars property to just end the war. The resistance/rebels will be fighting forever.
- Will_Parker 9y ago
  Nobody is going to buy tickets to "Star Peace".
  - vermilingua 9y ago
    I can't speak for everyone, but I would definitely have bought tickets to Star Peace. Especially over "Star Wars: even more cgi edition".
    - grawprog 9y ago
      I can see it now. Two hours of Luke, Leia and Han just hanging out talking about how awesome things are without the empire, maybe make fun of C3PO a bit have a few drinks then just cruise around checking out how chill all the planets are now.
      - goatlover 9y ago
        I'm sure they could still manage to get into some side adventures.
        grawprog 9y ago
        Don't misunderstand. That would be a way better movie than the last two even without side adventures. They're two of the very few movies in my life I've fallen asleep in the middle of. I don't do that often.
    - abecedarius 9y ago
      I in fact left the theater thinking "How about a Star Wars movie without any battles or explosions? Couldn't that be more interesting?" I wonder what's been done in fanfiction.
bmj 9y ago
Please note: I think this piece is satiric. Please see the end note: Caleb Cohoe is associate professor of philosophy at Metropolitan State University of Denver. Samantha Cohoe is a Latin teacher, writer of young adult fiction, and frequent contributor to twitter.com. The views expressed in this article are not endorsed by and do not in any way represent the opinions of their employers or Leo Strauss. They should also not be taken to express the views of the authors.
- hindsightbias 9y ago
  If it is satirical, they're trolling a seriously conservative Roman Catholic site.
- yters 9y ago
  According to Leo Strauss' esoteric doctrine, satire is one of the best ways to communicate truth through the disillusioning power of the comic, such as Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium.
mratzloff 9y ago
Assuming this is at all serious (which I doubt), it would be a rather cynical, facile, and insipid reading of both The Last Jedi and history itself. The most egregious point (of the many to choose from that I could dissect) is the following: > But she has absorbed the rebels’ self-serving narrative, and it prevents her from realizing that the Skywalkers and the Rebellion—or Resistance, or whatever they are calling themselves now—have no answers. The answer is "not fascism." The Empire and First Order are fascist regimes. Fighting fascism is the answer. There is no perfect system. But systems that support the systematic oppression of all people via threat of violence are evil.
- yters 9y ago
  The empires are just attempting to establish peace throughout the universe. The rebels, on the other hand, appear to want chronic instability and violence, getting entire civilizations obliterated due to their dislike for authority figures.
  - goatlover 9y ago
    Maybe the authority figures don't need to respond by obliterating entire civilizations? I think it's enough that a guy like Snopes or Palpatine wanted to control the galaxy to rebel against that.
    - JBlue42 9y ago
      >Snopes A rebellion against fact-checking? The movie is now even more relevant ;-)
  - stale2002 9y ago
    The Empire did nothing wrong!!!
- aerovistae 9y ago
  Except, of course, for the point about saving the horses and leaving the stable boy.
- 9y ago
coldtea 9y ago
How about "token conformity to the cultural norms du jour strikes back"?
yters 9y ago
There is definitely some sort of messaging going on in the Last Jedi. SPOILER Why else spend half the movie on a pointless and ultimately destructive sidequest? The rebelliousness of the rebellion shoots itself in the foot. The thief seems to have the most insightful line in the move, that the war is essentially a machine making money for the arms trade. I guess the point is meant to be, if Jedi are really trying to bring harmony to the force, their good vs. evil fight is not very effective.
- hndamien 9y ago
  This moral theme would be a fantastic way to wrap it up.
Animats 9y ago
I know it's satirical, but the authors have a point. Everyone in the movie in a position of authority has no clue about tactics or strategy or a plan that's likely to work. (In 20th century history, WWI was the war of the clueless generals, while in WWII, both sides had relatively competent leadership.)
dre85 9y ago
I actually enjoyed this interpretation. In a way it kind of made me less disappointed that I watched that entire crappy-ass movie.
snorkel 9y ago
I don't think millennials saw TLJ as a metaphor for baby boomer disillusionment so much as a crushing disappointment that Ewan MacGregor didn't stride into a cameo as the inexplicable forbearer to Rey.
vesak 9y ago
Interesting! Last Jedi was quite disappointing for me, so I'm glad the authors here managed to bring some meaning to it.
plopz 9y ago
My biggest problem with the movie was using the hyperdrive as a weapon. Why couldn't that have been used on the first, second or third deathstar?
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  I had a hypothesis: the damage done by a ship in hyperdrive doesn't scale linearly with mass. Anything under a given threshhold is basically a mosquito bite, and large capital ships such as the one used in The Last Jedi are too expensive and valuable to be used in such ways.
  - dgritsko 9y ago
    Counterpoint: Why not slap some hyperdrives on an asteroid? Or otherwise accelerate a lot of (cheap and already widely available) mass. Regardless, I really enjoyed this scene because it falls well within the jurisdiction of the Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool)
    - da_chicken 9y ago
      Well, we don't really know how hyperdrive works. Maybe there's a reason only starships are capable of hyperdrive. Maybe an asteroid would just break up immediately. Maybe there's a discontinuity between hyperspace and realspace so that they're not always 1:1. In other words, maybe it's extremely easy to miss or otherwise be unable to hit. The scene in TLJ is presented as a go-for-broke situation, after all. Maybe it's something that only works over extremely short ranges because deflector screens will bounce the attacking or defending ships out of the way.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - 9y ago
Florin_Andrei 9y ago
I do agree with the author that there's a lot of generational shift in the deeper tangles of meaning buried in the new Star Wars movies. I disagree with some of his interpretations, however. Here's my view: https://florin.myip.org/blog/edit-blog-entry-divisive-drama-star-wars-last-jedi https://florin.myip.org/blog/edit-blog-entry-divisive-drama-... TLDR: The story is basically re-told for the current young generation. There's less "magic", there's more "realism" (mind the quotes). Old mythologies are ignored. There are vast, sweeping cultural shifts such as the rise of feminism. And, yes, there's this youthful drive to declare that the past is dead, long live the future.
j2kun 9y ago
What makes it effective satire is it takes legitimate interpretations "The good guys in this story tend to shoot themselves in the feet and normal people get killed in the process," and stretches it to ridiculousness to highlight that point, like "Luke hallucinates Yoda's approval."
HoppedUpMenace 9y ago
Seems like something that should be in r/theempiredidnothingwrong. I went into this movie full on ignoring the metaphorical connections to the real world and let it exist in my mind as just an entertaining movie and story and to my surprise, it blew me away (although obviously far from perfect). Its interesting to see people pick this movie apart, as if the originals had perfect acting, no flaws, and were the epitome of originality (were you expecting your life to change after watching this?) Personally, I think Luke's change in demeanor was perfect, which not so ironically, he is pretty far from. Luke is human, which he conveys very well and is probably what upsets people the most because he doesn't reach this state of perfection upon which he has mastered the force, his feelings (he's not Leonard Nimoy), and has total control of self (again, not a Leonard Nimoy). Could it be possibly that people are still holding onto the idea fed to those of us born in the 80's and onward that every one of us is "special", that our dreams will come true if we just believe in ourselves and never give up? These may be the people that do not care for the more realistic approach to Luke Skywalker, as opposed to the "one who will bring balance to the force."
- mlloyd 9y ago
  I just didn't think the movie was as 'fun' as the previous movies. I think the Disney movies are good movies, I felt like the Lucas movies were fun movies. All the rest of it is secondary to that for me.
  - Goladus 9y ago
    I think the prequels tried to tell a good story. Apart from a few glaring mistakes(like the idea that Anakin built C-3PO) the story and plot ideas were good enough. But scene to scene, it was poorly executed, with stilted dialog, bad direction (which often shows up as bad acting and unlikable characters), and uneven pacing. There's legitimate character development. The problem is, execution of those character arcs are clumsy or forced and lack the dramatic impact they should have. Certain plotlines are tedious, but you could make an argument that better editing could have fixed those flaws. I think the Disney movies don't even try to tell a good story. The plots barely make sense and frequently violate established rules and conventions for no apparent reason. Apart from perhaps Kylo Ren, the new characters are static and uninteresting. Rey is likeable but has no growth. Finn is likable but isn't believable as an ex-stormtrooper. The relationship between The First Order and the Resistance/Rebellion is muddled and confusing at best. Where the prequels dwelt too much on tedious political details, the sequels go the other direction fail to establish a compelling galactic context for the war. As for Rogue One, I enjoyed that in the way I enjoy a dumb, mindless action movie. The characters were bland and uninteresting and the plot was just barely good enough to keep me interested. The original trilogy had a good well-focused story, a good plot, a simple but sufficiently compelling political context, likable characters that experienced legitimate growth and character arcs. It had exceptional editing, great pacing--albeit slower than any blockbuster you'd see today-- and amazing sound design and music. There are some flaws, and some internal inconsistencies. But it's easy to argue that the major ones, such as Vader being revealed as Luke's father, enhance the story more than detract from it. It makes Obi-Wan's character seem less virtuous, for example-- but he's a fairly minor character and a minor flaw isn't a problem anyway, it makes him seem more human. The original Lucas trilogy wasn't perfect, but it's far superior to either the prequels or the Disney sequels.
xg15 9y ago
What irked me in the new trilogy was that not just was the first part a xerox of the beginning of the first trilogy, there was also no explanation given at all why had gone so horribly wrong. We left the scene at the end of episode 4: The empire was defeated, the good guys had all the power, wisdom and allies on their side, there was a big victory celebration and everything was abuzz with hopes and plans for the future. Then... things... happened and suddenly everything is reset to the same bad old times. Yet no one even attempts to find out why this happened and where exactly the old plans and assumptions went wrong (and where they didn't). All that is done is either stoically holding on to the old plans or frustratedly admitting "failure". I guess you could see this as an analogy to today's times as well: Everyone is panicking that the fascists are back, that inequality is rising, that living standards are falling and that no one is stopping climate change - but there seem few discussions about where exactly things went wrong, except that all it's somehow the baby boomers'/the millennials'/facebook's fault.

108 points by jlos 9y ago

junkscience2017 9y ago

the movie sucked but at least this satire review was funny

Although I suspect the authors were being tongue in cheek, I think there are spot on with the older generation falling into familiar patterns and the younger generation rejecting that in their own ways.

djroomba 9y ago

I hope the authors were being tongue in cheek. I saw it as the younger generation not learning and repeating the mistakes of the past. The first order being like neo-nazis to the empires nazis. The republic failing and the rise of trade federation again. Very cyclical and nihilistic.

bmj 9y ago
From the end of the article: Caleb Cohoe is associate professor of philosophy at Metropolitan State University of Denver. Samantha Cohoe is a Latin teacher, writer of young adult fiction, and frequent contributor to twitter.com. The views expressed in this article are not endorsed by and do not in any way represent the opinions of their employers or Leo Strauss. They should also not be taken to express the views of the authors.
abritinthebay 9y ago
I mean... it can be both. I don't see that as being incompatible with what the author is saying.

theli0nheart 9y ago

I'll assume spoilers are fair game here, since this article is pretty much a spoiler in its entirety. The authors take many liberties in interpretation to fit their viewpoint. For instance, Luke didn't "hallucinate" Yoda's presence on Ahch-To, unless you think his previous force ghosts (as in ROTJ) were hallucinations, as well. Perhaps Rian did mean for Yoda's force ghost in this scene to be a hallucination, but I don't think he did. The authors just twisted this scene to fit their interpretation, which is disappointing. UPDATE: The piece is satire https://twitter.com/smcohoe/status/951474247104307200 https://twitter.com/smcohoe/status/951474247104307200

trevelyan 9y ago
Yes, it's a silly interpretation. Especially inconsistent since if Yoda is Luke's hallucination as the article asserts, then Luke himself is "killing the past" in the same way that Kylo Ren does, and treating the film as a Millennial attack on the Baby Boomers is rather short-sighted when they are both doing the same thing. As far as I can see, the only thing approaching a coherent theme in TLJ is the question of how one can move forward if encumbered by the past (Finn and Rey also have these issues). This offers perhaps 1% of the thematic and political subtly of the Lucas trilogies. But even this seems a challenge for the script to grapple with coherently -- surely Yoda (presented as a figure of wisdom) should not be using lightning and fire (Sith tools) to destroy embodied wisdom. And if we are to view Luke as doing the right thing then surely the only logical conclusion of this way of thinking is that Kylo Ren is on the right track. Ironic that Poe Dameron (who destroys most of the Rebellion) is seen negatively when all he was doing was clearing the way for victory by getting rid of all those ships (human lives)!
- theli0nheart 9y ago
  Note what Yoda says before he destroys the tree: "There's nothing in those books she does not already possess." And then remember the final scene on the Falcon, where you can clearly see that the books are safely with Rey. She must have taken them before she left, and Yoda knows this. In that period of time, though, the audience (and Luke) is left to believe that Yoda truly did choose to destroy ancient Jedi artifacts. Which really makes one wonder what the heck is going on—and leaves you to question which side is good, and which is bad? It really blurs the lines between Light and Dark, and crescendos at the throne room scene where Snoke is murdered to when Kylo asks Rey to join him. You almost want her to say yes to his offer! Unlike ESB, the offer isn't just theoretical. Snoke was just overthrown. In my opinion, the whole sequence was masterfully done.
  - trevelyan 9y ago
    Hey Lionheart. Just to be clear -- I don't think TLJ is devoid of meaning. The film clearly wants to say that anyone can be a hero and that what matters is not being trapped by the past (protect what you love, learn from your mistakes and move on). There is nothing wrong with this message. It doesn't bother me if people like TLJ, although I personally don't think the film makes much sense. If Yoda deceives Luke that saves TLJ from having Yoda actually mirror Kylo Ren, but it doesn't explain the fire and lightning (Sith tools associated with hell imagery) nor does it resolve the underlying problem since deception is also Dark Side behaviour.... There are a few other areas where the film contradicts itself, but this is an obvious one: if we take the film seriously we must surely ask ourselves why Yoda is acting like a Sith Lord? I didn't see any attempt to answer that puzzle in the film and while we may get the solution in film #3, as far as I can tell TLJ just accepts that whatever Yoda does is good (because he is Yoda) and whatever Kylo Ren does is bad (because he is the villain). The filmmakers have bought into the loose symbolic framework of the saga, but they don't seem to understand it and/or act consistently within it. To the extent there is a message, it comes out because the good guys tell us exactly what it is and we aren't supposed to think too critically about it.

jdpedrie 9y ago

From the bottom of the article, since people are wondering whether this is serious: > The views expressed in this article are not endorsed by and do not in any way represent the opinions of their employers or Leo Strauss. They should also not be taken to express the views of the authors.

hashberry 9y ago

The original Star Wars was about a son and his father, with redemption, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice. "I am a Jedi, like my father before me" still gives me shivers. But now Luke Skywalker says: "It's time for the Jedi to end." In other words: "it's time for patriarchy to end."

caio1982 9y ago

"Note that in none of the eight movies so far is the intensive and painful Jedi training regimen followed through. Not a single real Jedi is produced." Well... they've got a point... we see many already produced, but none during the films' times IIRC.

loteck 9y ago

There is some overfitting happening here but generally speaking I agree with the analysis. People I interact with from my own generation and younger can see that our established institutions may have failed to secure the near future for existing and arriving generations, and they are permanently shunning those institutions wherever possible. You can see this in IT as well where we have myriad foundational problems at the levels of W3C, ICANN, MITRE, NIST and other standards/governing bodies. Cynicism spreads about whether they are sincere about delivering their core missions; meanwhile a "move fast and break things"/disruption culture thrives.

JKCalhoun 9y ago
Yeah, simple answer: we need heroes and villains for a story. But I think there is some cultural "zeitgeist" reflected in the more optimistic original Star Wars and the cynicism of the current reboot. I find it refreshingly actually. When the original Star Wars came along it seemed to shut down the cynicism of Sci Fi that had dominated up to that point (Soylent Green, West World, Logan's Run, Rollerball, etc.).

pupppet 9y ago

Disney didn't pay a few billion for the Star Wars property to just end the war. The resistance/rebels will be fighting forever.

Will_Parker 9y ago
Nobody is going to buy tickets to "Star Peace".
- vermilingua 9y ago
  I can't speak for everyone, but I would definitely have bought tickets to Star Peace. Especially over "Star Wars: even more cgi edition".
  - grawprog 9y ago
    I can see it now. Two hours of Luke, Leia and Han just hanging out talking about how awesome things are without the empire, maybe make fun of C3PO a bit have a few drinks then just cruise around checking out how chill all the planets are now.
    - goatlover 9y ago
      I'm sure they could still manage to get into some side adventures.
      - grawprog 9y ago
        Don't misunderstand. That would be a way better movie than the last two even without side adventures. They're two of the very few movies in my life I've fallen asleep in the middle of. I don't do that often.
  - abecedarius 9y ago
    I in fact left the theater thinking "How about a Star Wars movie without any battles or explosions? Couldn't that be more interesting?" I wonder what's been done in fanfiction.

bmj 9y ago

Please note: I think this piece is satiric. Please see the end note: Caleb Cohoe is associate professor of philosophy at Metropolitan State University of Denver. Samantha Cohoe is a Latin teacher, writer of young adult fiction, and frequent contributor to twitter.com. The views expressed in this article are not endorsed by and do not in any way represent the opinions of their employers or Leo Strauss. They should also not be taken to express the views of the authors.

hindsightbias 9y ago
If it is satirical, they're trolling a seriously conservative Roman Catholic site.
yters 9y ago
According to Leo Strauss' esoteric doctrine, satire is one of the best ways to communicate truth through the disillusioning power of the comic, such as Aristophanes in Plato's Symposium.

mratzloff 9y ago

Assuming this is at all serious (which I doubt), it would be a rather cynical, facile, and insipid reading of both The Last Jedi and history itself. The most egregious point (of the many to choose from that I could dissect) is the following: > But she has absorbed the rebels’ self-serving narrative, and it prevents her from realizing that the Skywalkers and the Rebellion—or Resistance, or whatever they are calling themselves now—have no answers. The answer is "not fascism." The Empire and First Order are fascist regimes. Fighting fascism is the answer. There is no perfect system. But systems that support the systematic oppression of all people via threat of violence are evil.

yters 9y ago
The empires are just attempting to establish peace throughout the universe. The rebels, on the other hand, appear to want chronic instability and violence, getting entire civilizations obliterated due to their dislike for authority figures.
- goatlover 9y ago
  Maybe the authority figures don't need to respond by obliterating entire civilizations? I think it's enough that a guy like Snopes or Palpatine wanted to control the galaxy to rebel against that.
  - JBlue42 9y ago
    >Snopes A rebellion against fact-checking? The movie is now even more relevant ;-)
- stale2002 9y ago
  The Empire did nothing wrong!!!
aerovistae 9y ago
Except, of course, for the point about saving the horses and leaving the stable boy.
9y ago

coldtea 9y ago

How about "token conformity to the cultural norms du jour strikes back"?

yters 9y ago

There is definitely some sort of messaging going on in the Last Jedi. SPOILER Why else spend half the movie on a pointless and ultimately destructive sidequest? The rebelliousness of the rebellion shoots itself in the foot. The thief seems to have the most insightful line in the move, that the war is essentially a machine making money for the arms trade. I guess the point is meant to be, if Jedi are really trying to bring harmony to the force, their good vs. evil fight is not very effective.

hndamien 9y ago
This moral theme would be a fantastic way to wrap it up.

Animats 9y ago

I know it's satirical, but the authors have a point. Everyone in the movie in a position of authority has no clue about tactics or strategy or a plan that's likely to work. (In 20th century history, WWI was the war of the clueless generals, while in WWII, both sides had relatively competent leadership.)

dre85 9y ago

I actually enjoyed this interpretation. In a way it kind of made me less disappointed that I watched that entire crappy-ass movie.

snorkel 9y ago

I don't think millennials saw TLJ as a metaphor for baby boomer disillusionment so much as a crushing disappointment that Ewan MacGregor didn't stride into a cameo as the inexplicable forbearer to Rey.

vesak 9y ago

Interesting! Last Jedi was quite disappointing for me, so I'm glad the authors here managed to bring some meaning to it.

plopz 9y ago

My biggest problem with the movie was using the hyperdrive as a weapon. Why couldn't that have been used on the first, second or third deathstar?

pavel_lishin 9y ago
I had a hypothesis: the damage done by a ship in hyperdrive doesn't scale linearly with mass. Anything under a given threshhold is basically a mosquito bite, and large capital ships such as the one used in The Last Jedi are too expensive and valuable to be used in such ways.
- dgritsko 9y ago
  Counterpoint: Why not slap some hyperdrives on an asteroid? Or otherwise accelerate a lot of (cheap and already widely available) mass. Regardless, I really enjoyed this scene because it falls well within the jurisdiction of the Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool)
  - da_chicken 9y ago
    Well, we don't really know how hyperdrive works. Maybe there's a reason only starships are capable of hyperdrive. Maybe an asteroid would just break up immediately. Maybe there's a discontinuity between hyperspace and realspace so that they're not always 1:1. In other words, maybe it's extremely easy to miss or otherwise be unable to hit. The scene in TLJ is presented as a go-for-broke situation, after all. Maybe it's something that only works over extremely short ranges because deflector screens will bounce the attacking or defending ships out of the way.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 9y ago

Florin_Andrei 9y ago

I do agree with the author that there's a lot of generational shift in the deeper tangles of meaning buried in the new Star Wars movies. I disagree with some of his interpretations, however. Here's my view: https://florin.myip.org/blog/edit-blog-entry-divisive-drama-star-wars-last-jedi https://florin.myip.org/blog/edit-blog-entry-divisive-drama-... TLDR: The story is basically re-told for the current young generation. There's less "magic", there's more "realism" (mind the quotes). Old mythologies are ignored. There are vast, sweeping cultural shifts such as the rise of feminism. And, yes, there's this youthful drive to declare that the past is dead, long live the future.

j2kun 9y ago

What makes it effective satire is it takes legitimate interpretations "The good guys in this story tend to shoot themselves in the feet and normal people get killed in the process," and stretches it to ridiculousness to highlight that point, like "Luke hallucinates Yoda's approval."

HoppedUpMenace 9y ago

Seems like something that should be in r/theempiredidnothingwrong. I went into this movie full on ignoring the metaphorical connections to the real world and let it exist in my mind as just an entertaining movie and story and to my surprise, it blew me away (although obviously far from perfect). Its interesting to see people pick this movie apart, as if the originals had perfect acting, no flaws, and were the epitome of originality (were you expecting your life to change after watching this?) Personally, I think Luke's change in demeanor was perfect, which not so ironically, he is pretty far from. Luke is human, which he conveys very well and is probably what upsets people the most because he doesn't reach this state of perfection upon which he has mastered the force, his feelings (he's not Leonard Nimoy), and has total control of self (again, not a Leonard Nimoy). Could it be possibly that people are still holding onto the idea fed to those of us born in the 80's and onward that every one of us is "special", that our dreams will come true if we just believe in ourselves and never give up? These may be the people that do not care for the more realistic approach to Luke Skywalker, as opposed to the "one who will bring balance to the force."

mlloyd 9y ago
I just didn't think the movie was as 'fun' as the previous movies. I think the Disney movies are good movies, I felt like the Lucas movies were fun movies. All the rest of it is secondary to that for me.
- Goladus 9y ago
  I think the prequels tried to tell a good story. Apart from a few glaring mistakes(like the idea that Anakin built C-3PO) the story and plot ideas were good enough. But scene to scene, it was poorly executed, with stilted dialog, bad direction (which often shows up as bad acting and unlikable characters), and uneven pacing. There's legitimate character development. The problem is, execution of those character arcs are clumsy or forced and lack the dramatic impact they should have. Certain plotlines are tedious, but you could make an argument that better editing could have fixed those flaws. I think the Disney movies don't even try to tell a good story. The plots barely make sense and frequently violate established rules and conventions for no apparent reason. Apart from perhaps Kylo Ren, the new characters are static and uninteresting. Rey is likeable but has no growth. Finn is likable but isn't believable as an ex-stormtrooper. The relationship between The First Order and the Resistance/Rebellion is muddled and confusing at best. Where the prequels dwelt too much on tedious political details, the sequels go the other direction fail to establish a compelling galactic context for the war. As for Rogue One, I enjoyed that in the way I enjoy a dumb, mindless action movie. The characters were bland and uninteresting and the plot was just barely good enough to keep me interested. The original trilogy had a good well-focused story, a good plot, a simple but sufficiently compelling political context, likable characters that experienced legitimate growth and character arcs. It had exceptional editing, great pacing--albeit slower than any blockbuster you'd see today-- and amazing sound design and music. There are some flaws, and some internal inconsistencies. But it's easy to argue that the major ones, such as Vader being revealed as Luke's father, enhance the story more than detract from it. It makes Obi-Wan's character seem less virtuous, for example-- but he's a fairly minor character and a minor flaw isn't a problem anyway, it makes him seem more human. The original Lucas trilogy wasn't perfect, but it's far superior to either the prequels or the Disney sequels.

xg15 9y ago

What irked me in the new trilogy was that not just was the first part a xerox of the beginning of the first trilogy, there was also no explanation given at all why had gone so horribly wrong. We left the scene at the end of episode 4: The empire was defeated, the good guys had all the power, wisdom and allies on their side, there was a big victory celebration and everything was abuzz with hopes and plans for the future. Then... things... happened and suddenly everything is reset to the same bad old times. Yet no one even attempts to find out why this happened and where exactly the old plans and assumptions went wrong (and where they didn't). All that is done is either stoically holding on to the old plans or frustratedly admitting "failure". I guess you could see this as an analogy to today's times as well: Everyone is panicking that the fascists are back, that inequality is rising, that living standards are falling and that no one is stopping climate change - but there seem few discussions about where exactly things went wrong, except that all it's somehow the baby boomers'/the millennials'/facebook's fault.