The Rise of Skywalker trailer.....

Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,714
Reaction score
490
Location
NJ
I loved the fact that we only saw a glimpse of Luke in TFA. I thought the last shot with Rey and Luke with that music and sweeping shot was beautiful and thought about what the next few seconds of that meeting were going to be for 2 years.

With one stupid action TLJ RUINED IT. In all honesty - and I've said this before - if Luke didn't throw that lightsaber over his shoulder like it was some sort of SNL parody my feelings toward TLJ would be different. I get that the whole gimmick for TLJ was to "kill the past" but that was just obnoxious.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
0
and again, that's the word JJ used, to describe what the saber actually DID in the movie -- and that's what Cellblock is talking about.

you know, that, thing.. that the saber did..?

JJ refers to it as a "call" -- you can use whatever word you want. but saying "it didn't happen" is ....(wait for it).... intellectual dishonesty.




(that's kind of like saying, you were using the word "you" in its plural form, while quoting/addressing a single person -- revisionist history much? -- you're being dishonest)
my god your reading comprehension is horrible.


I SAID IT DIDN"T LITERALLY CALL OUT TO HER.

I am saying it figuratively called out to her.


I'm explaining to Celllblock that it figuratively called out to her.


that's because JJ was using the word figuratively. (add figuratively to the list of words you don't understand).




Cellblock's question remains: HOW did the saber "call"' to her? (using whatever-word-you-want to describe this phenomenon?)
..... because its not literally it's figuratively


seriously you need to just let this hate boner of yours go its causing you to make really stupid mistakes.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
9
I loved the fact that we only saw a glimpse of Luke in TFA. I thought the last shot with Rey and Luke with that music and sweeping shot was beautiful and thought about what the next few seconds of that meeting were going to be for 2 years.

With one stupid action TLJ RUINED IT. In all honesty - and I've said this before - if Luke didn't throw that lightsaber over his shoulder like it was some sort of SNL parody my feelings toward TLJ would be different. I get that the whole gimmick for TLJ was to "kill the past" but that was just obnoxious.
I totally agree. For me, that was the most unforgivable thing he did with the movie because it took away from the importance of a meaningful scene in another person's film. TLJ was Johnson's movie to mess up however he saw fit, but I feel like Johnson had a responsibility to not encroach on anyone else's art. Imagine any other iconic, tear-jerking scene in a famous movie, and imagine if someone else came along and turned it into a big joke. What if there was a sequel to The Dark Knight Rises by some other director, and in the first scene John Blake trips and tumbles off of the platform we last saw him rising up on on TDKR?

Frankly, it shows the difference between Abrams and Johnson as people that Abrams keeps saying he wants to honor the (stupid) choices Johnson made with TLJ. Johnson clearly didn't show him the same kind of respect.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
7,783
Reaction score
235
It just didn’t bother me like it did so many...even Yoda did some questionable things on Dagobah. I guess Star Wars, Good Star Wars is in the eye of the beholder. I was there in ‘77, and God willing...I’ll see the other trilogies thru. I try to find things to like in all of them...even if overall they may not meet my expectations of what I had hoped for. I hated ROTJ on first viewing, except for the whole Luke/Vader/Emperor(still despise Ewoks) part. I don’t feel like Rian ruined my memories of the Luke I remember, nor the lightsaber toss squashed the saga into purée nonsense. It was radical, divisive & bold in my opinion, but I don’t believe he or Kathleen destroyed the franchise. As a senior citizen myself, I wasn’t expecting our triad of heroes to be capable of much physical action(see photoshopped Christopher Lee face in prequels) due to their relative age and self-admitted substance abuse(yes, Carrie). On the other hand...after waiting since 1980, I was happy to see Leia exhibit Force abilities. To me, it was no more far-fetched than sounds in space or laser swords. I actually thought Luke had a pretty good character arc in TLJ. But I regret our heroes did not have a single scene together...that I will always bemoan.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
1,637
Reaction score
67
I'm explaining to Celllblock that it figuratively called out to her.

..... because its not literally it's figuratively

seriously you need to just let this hate boner of yours go its causing you to make really stupid mistakes.
Funny how he thinks he can "explain" anything to anybody when he hasn't gone back to answer to that absolute smack down he received on the whole liable/slander thing he got completely wrong.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,714
Reaction score
490
Location
NJ
I totally agree. For me, that was the most unforgivable thing he did with the movie because it took away from the importance of a meaningful scene in another person's film. TLJ was Johnson's movie to mess up however he saw fit, but I feel like Johnson had a responsibility to not encroach on anyone else's art. Imagine any other iconic, tear-jerking scene in a famous movie, and imagine if someone else came along and turned it into a big joke. What if there was a sequel to The Dark Knight Rises by some other director, and in the first scene John Blake trips and tumbles off of the platform we last saw him rising up on on TDKR?

Frankly, it shows the difference between Abrams and Johnson as people that Abrams keeps saying he wants to honor the (stupid) choices Johnson made with TLJ. Johnson clearly didn't show him the same kind of respect.
That's why - for me - the Saga officially ends as TFA closes.

Hopefully TROS makes TLJ canon for me.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
6,433
Reaction score
344
Location
Sacramento, CA
As a final scene in TFA, yes seeing Luke worked. But unfortunately that scene doesn’t live in a vacuum anymore. The reason Luke was on the island is he didn’t want to fight the first order. And he didn’t want to train students to fight the first order....TLJ killed any sort of arc that was keeping in line with Lukes character BUT I can’t give TFA a free pass because that movie created that setting in the first place. Luke is missing, disappeared after his Jedi academy was destroyed. That’s all JJ. So yes, TLJ made some massive missteps, but those missteps wouldn’t have been possible had TFA established the post rotj world better.

Im not giving TFA a free pass. It holds some of the blame for TLJ’s failures. TFA didn’t try to tell a new story. It told the same story and undid any progress made in the OT. TLJ tried to do something new and ended up being like a marathon runner who **** his pants at the finish line.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
9
As a final scene in TFA, yes seeing Luke worked. But unfortunately that scene doesn’t live in a vacuum anymore. The reason Luke was on the island is he didn’t want to fight the first order. And he didn’t want to train students to fight the first order....TLJ killed any sort of arc that was keeping in line with Lukes character BUT I can’t give TFA a free pass because that movie created that setting in the first place. Luke is missing, disappeared after his Jedi academy was destroyed. That’s all JJ. So yes, TLJ made some massive missteps, but those missteps wouldn’t have been possible had TFA established the post rotj world better.

Im not giving TFA a free pass. It holds some of the blame for TLJ’s failures. TFA didn’t try to tell a new story. It told the same story and undid any progress made in the OT. TLJ tried to do something new and ended up being like a marathon runner who **** his pants at the finish line.
You make some good points about the "sour Luke" stuff being present in the foundation of TLJ. But, for me, it's the tone of the TLJ scene itself that becomes the problem because it's so jarringly out of place compared to the scene that precedes it, and it doesn't even portray the Lule of TLJ accurately because it makes it look like it he doesn't care when he's actually doing all of this because he cares so deeply about it. I don't think anyone would have had a problem if he angrily looked at Rey and said, "Get that thing away from me!" and stormed off. Even that would have maintained the aura of the significance of the lightsaber while still showing that he didn't want anything to do with it and had moved on to a different place in his life. Even if he snatched it out of her hands and tried to disable it or break it somehow would have better communicated that he wanted to end all of this because he's aware of the potential of that kind of power in the wrong hands.

The problem is that the scene plays out like pure slapstick comedy and it takes away from the significance of the lightsaber which had been built up throughout TFA and every movie before it. Even if we're wholeheartedly invested in the idea that Luke doesn't want any part in this and he even views the Jedi (and by extension, the lightsaber which often represents them) as a part of the problem, we wouldn't expect him to be so flippant in how he tosses it away like it's garbage. He's demoralized, angry, sad, exhausted, etc... but even those feelings are naturally rooted in his understanding of the significance of the lightsaber and all of the other concepts related to it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
10
It just didn’t bother me like it did so many...even Yoda did some questionable things on Dagobah. I guess Star Wars, Good Star Wars is in the eye of the beholder. I was there in ‘77, and God willing...I’ll see the other trilogies thru. I try to find things to like in all of them...even if overall they may not meet my expectations of what I had hoped for. I hated ROTJ on first viewing, except for the whole Luke/Vader/Emperor(still despise Ewoks) part. I don’t feel like Rian ruined my memories of the Luke I remember, nor the lightsaber toss squashed the saga into purée nonsense. It was radical, divisive & bold in my opinion, but I don’t believe he or Kathleen destroyed the franchise. As a senior citizen myself, I wasn’t expecting our triad of heroes to be capable of much physical action(see photoshopped Christopher Lee face in prequels) due to their relative age and self-admitted substance abuse(yes, Carrie). On the other hand...after waiting since 1980, I was happy to see Leia exhibit Force abilities. To me, it was no more far-fetched than sounds in space or laser swords. I actually thought Luke had a pretty good character arc in TLJ. But I regret our heroes did not have a single scene together...that I will always bemoan.

Yoda was fighting R2 for a candy bar, so there's definitely precedence for jedi masters being all screwy acting. They probably could have had Luke say "the jedi must die" when meeting rey for the first time instead of tossing the lightsaber.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
0
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,493
Reaction score
319
Yoda was fighting R2 for a candy bar,
Which is part of an act he puts on to test Luke. A test he fails.

Real Yoda makes his appearance when he utters the line, "I cannot teach him, the boy has no patience."

...and gone, the facade is...as Yoda might say.

Until Johnson gets things laughably wrong.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
6,714
Reaction score
490
Location
NJ
Which is part of an act he puts on to test Luke. A test he fails.

Real Yoda makes his appearance when he utters the line, "I cannot teach him, the boy has no patience."

...and gone, the facade is...as Yoda might say.

Until Johnson gets things laughably wrong.
Exactly. Yoda was testing Luke.

At first I told maybe Luke was doing the same thing to Rey...but it turns out it was just a ****** movie.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
491
Location
Pennsylvania
Which is part of an act he puts on to test Luke. A test he fails.

Real Yoda makes his appearance when he utters the line, "I cannot teach him, the boy has no patience."

...and gone, the facade is...as Yoda might say.

Until Johnson gets things laughably wrong.
Well exactly, I remember Red Letter Media commented on this specifically in a very comical fashion. Why is he acting like fake Yoda in The Last Jedi? The initial goofiness of Yoda was clearly a test on Luke's character and superficiality. It's also almost a test on the audience as well. We judged this little frog creature as basically just an annoyance, much like Luke. How could HE be the great Jedi master? Yet...he is. Rian Johnson clearly missed the point of the scene.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
9
Comedy in Star Wars is not the problem. The problem with the thrown lightsaber scene is that it dramatically transforms the established serious and dramatic tone of an important scene of another director's movie. The only possible equivalent of what Johnson did to Abrams' work would be if Return of the Jedi opened up with Empire's iconic Nebula shot, but then Luke lifts a leg and lets out a big fart and then all of the other characters gag and cough and shuffle away from him, and then Luke shrugs and looks at the camera and says, "Was it something I said???"
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
7,783
Reaction score
235
The viewing audience really didn’t know Luke’s frame of mind when TFA ended...nor were privy to the devastating flashbacks concerning Ben that followed in TLJ. The poor guy felt like he let Ben down, Leia, Han, his other students, and probably Master Yoda too. What would you have done after living a hermit’s existence for an undetermined amount of time. Whether he cold-shouldered his lightsaber, or returned it to Rey...his intent would have still been the same. He was done. His stating the “true” legacy of the Jedi order is fundamentally true. They didn’t have the best success ratio. Even Ahsoka left.
You make some good points about the "sour Luke" stuff being present in the foundation of TLJ. But, for me, it's the tone of the TLJ scene itself that becomes the problem because it's so jarringly out of place compared to the scene that precedes it, and it doesn't even portray the Lule of TLJ accurately because it makes it look like it he doesn't care when he's actually doing all of this because he cares so deeply about it. I don't think anyone would have had a problem if he angrily looked at Rey and said, "Get that thing away from me!" and stormed off. Even that would have maintained the aura of the significance of the lightsaber while still showing that he didn't want anything to do with it and had moved on to a different place in his life. Even if he snatched it out of her hands and tried to disable it or break it somehow would have better communicated that he wanted to end all of this because he's aware of the potential of that kind of power in the wrong hands.

The problem is that the scene plays out like pure slapstick comedy and it takes away from the significance of the lightsaber which had been built up throughout TFA and every movie before it. Even if we're wholeheartedly invested in the idea that Luke doesn't want any part in this and he even views the Jedi (and by extension, the lightsaber which often represents them) as a part of the problem, we wouldn't expect him to be so flippant in how he tosses it away like it's garbage. He's demoralized, angry, sad, exhausted, etc... but even those feelings are naturally rooted in his understanding of the significance of the lightsaber and all of the other concepts related to it.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
491
Location
Pennsylvania
There's a really interesting video on comedy in Star Wars, why it works in some of the prior films and doesn't in films like The Phantom Menace and especially The Last Jedi. Comedy has many different styles, you can't just brush something as diverse as comedy under one stroke. I don't think anyone is denying there's comedy in the prior films, because you can't. I don't think anyone thinks Star Wars should be nothing but unadulterated serious drama either. It's simply that the comedy style used in The Last Jedi was jarring. It's a comedy technique never prior used in Star Wars, one that I found tonally inappropriate. It's a style called "bathos," something that's become particularly popularized in Marvel movies like Guardians and Ragnarok, and the very essence of "bathos" is to BE jarring. It's intention is tonal shift, drastic and sudden, but what that can (and usually does) cause is a significant undercutting of the seriousness of a scene that should potentially have emotional weigh or gravitas. Essentially, it can easily take a powerful moment of drama and with the flick of a finger....the employment of "bathos" can ruin said scene by completely erasing any emotional substance it had. Check out this wonderful video on the subject of "bathos" and The Last Jedi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuuDTnMPMgc&t=1023s
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
4,262
Reaction score
167
Location
Chicago, IL
I found the comedy in TFA (and Rogue One for that matter) much more palatable than in TLJ. Yeah, there's... basically every stab at humor they gave Finn, but Han's "OH, *YOU'RE* COLD?!" to Chewie was probably my favorite bit of comedy in Star Wars. Too much of the humor in TLJ feels shoehorned in. Even stuff that got a laugh out of me the first time, like Luke toying with Rey and slapping her with a leaf, just feels a bit off in tone.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
1,637
Reaction score
67
^The arrogant, improper way to add to a discussion.



There's a really interesting video on comedy in Star Wars, why it works in some of the prior films and doesn't in films like The Phantom Menace and especially The Last Jedi. Comedy has many different styles, you can't just brush something as diverse as comedy under one stroke. I don't think anyone is denying there's comedy in the prior films, because you can't. I don't think anyone thinks Star Wars should be nothing but unadulterated serious drama either. It's simply that the comedy style used in The Last Jedi was jarring. It's a comedy technique never prior used in Star Wars, one that I found tonally inappropriate. It's a style called "bathos," something that's become particularly popularized in Marvel movies like Guardians and Ragnarok, and the very essence of "bathos" is to BE jarring. It's intention is tonal shift, drastic and sudden, but what that can (and usually does) cause is a significant undercutting of the seriousness of a scene that should potentially have emotional weigh or gravitas. Essentially, it can easily take a powerful moment of drama and with the flick of a finger....the employment of "bathos" can ruin said scene by completely erasing any emotional substance it had. Check out this wonderful video on the subject of "bathos" and The Last Jedi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuuDTnMPMgc&t=1023s
^The proper way to add to a discussion.


See the difference?
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
9
There's a really interesting video on comedy in Star Wars, why it works in some of the prior films and doesn't in films like The Phantom Menace and especially The Last Jedi. Comedy has many different styles, you can't just brush something as diverse as comedy under one stroke. I don't think anyone is denying there's comedy in the prior films, because you can't. I don't think anyone thinks Star Wars should be nothing but unadulterated serious drama either. It's simply that the comedy style used in The Last Jedi was jarring. It's a comedy technique never prior used in Star Wars, one that I found tonally inappropriate. It's a style called "bathos," something that's become particularly popularized in Marvel movies like Guardians and Ragnarok, and the very essence of "bathos" is to BE jarring. It's intention is tonal shift, drastic and sudden, but what that can (and usually does) cause is a significant undercutting of the seriousness of a scene that should potentially have emotional weigh or gravitas. Essentially, it can easily take a powerful moment of drama and with the flick of a finger....the employment of "bathos" can ruin said scene by completely erasing any emotional substance it had. Check out this wonderful video on the subject of "bathos" and The Last Jedi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuuDTnMPMgc&t=1023s
I think the problem with this style of comedy (and many of the contemporary movies which employ it too often) is that comedy becomes more dated than any other genre of filmmaking, and these movies reply way too heavily on them to age well on their other merits. How many comedies did you love when you were younger that you couldn't stand to watch right now? Oftentimes I'll find myself revisiting a movie I liked that's even less than 10 years old and then I'll sit through the whole thing without laughing once.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
491
Location
Pennsylvania
Well it branches out into the old chestnut that shows its ugly head every once in a blue moon. The infamous "These are children's films" debate, often this is sparked on by the comedy subject. The thing is, I never found these to be entirely for any marginalized audience. I don't know if there is a target demographic. Let me rephrase that, now that Disney is involved. There shouldn't be a target demographic. Tonally I think they were conceptually designed back in the day to appeal to any age, employing all sorts of sub-genres and thematic tones. Star Wars includes comedy, it includes romance, it has aspects of horror, it certainly contains action and occasional violence, it utilizes mythology stemming from westerns, sci-fi serials, and samurai lore, and it contains drama that can emotionally impact the viewer. Star Wars is basically a melting pot of genres and themes, not any one single thing. Which I find is why the "bathos" comedy of Rian Johnson's The Last Jedi didn't work because "bathos" is a tool that should strictly be used for comedy films. Star Wars is not a comedy film, it's a film series that can include comedy. Huge difference! When a film or scene is established from the get go to be jovial and light-hearted, "bathos" can work wonderfully. But Rian Johnson doesn't seem to know how he wants the audience to feel. His film has both among the most depressing and dark stuff in the Saga, simultaneously it has among the most cartoonish and downright cheap laughs at the most inappropriate dramatic times. Moments that destroy an otherwise good scene. Prior Star Wars films, save maybe The Phantom Menace, never so drastically swapped tones quicker that a bi-polar Harvey "Two-Face" Dent in one single scene. Rian attempts to set-up scenes of heightened drama only to, within seconds, resort them to slap-stick comedy. It just doesn't work.

In many ways it reminds me of the criticisms Temple of Doom initially received and in many ways, still gets. It's both the darkest and most horror-oriented of the Indiana Jones films, but at the very same time it's also the most comedic and cartoonish. All in one movie! While I actually love Temple of Doom simply because I think comedy like that works much better in that franchise, just an example on tonal conflict, it just doesn't work in Last Jedi because it's established from the get-go to be so serious. Outside of the Poe gag with Hux, that scene is extremely dark. But then you cut to moments later in the film just plagued with "bathos," it's all over. It makes you think, what does this want to be? How does this want me to feel? That's bad film-making. Instead of watching a scene confused as to how you're supposed to respond and feel, you're supposed to just FEEL it. It's supposed to be natural. But instead of being invested and pulled into a scene written by Rian Johnson, I'm the opposite. I'm often taken out of it (due to "bathos") and simply reminded, yeah, I'm just watching a movie. A bad movie. The comedy issue to the film just being a portion of what ultimately makes it so bad.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
7,783
Reaction score
235
It’s all fantasy as far as I’m concerned, with no one medium more credible than another. Stars Wars encompasses more than just what YOU like or dislike. I saw quite a HUGE reaction at Celebration Chicago concerning The Clone Wars “cartoon” returning, and from predominantly over 21 adults.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
491
Location
Pennsylvania
It’s all fantasy as far as I’m concerned, with no one medium more credible than another.
I wouldn't say that at all. I think it's blatantly obvious, undeniable fact, that the films are first and foremost the foundation and dominant medium for the franchise. They're the linchpin focal-point of Star Wars, where the majority of attention and effort goes as a full branding. It's not to say effort doesn't go into the EU, just that as a whole it's not front and center. Everything else rarely, if ever, enters even into the film franchise. Novels, video games, cartoons, and comics are all subsidiary content. Not required. That's why it's called EXPANDED universe, it's not THE focal universe; the films. You don't need any of it to understand the films. As a matter of fact, knowing some EU lore can actually muddy up the films. Like for me, Ahsoka makes no sense whatsoever when viewing the films. She's just a shoo-horned in pandering to a specific market demographic character, her very presence not making a lick of sense didn't matter to them. However, you need the films in order to understand EU. Therefore I would argue, no, they're not all on the same level of importance. Whether you enjoy the expanded universe or not is up to you. I enjoy some of it myself. But I'm never going to claim that Clone Wars is as important to the Saga as any of the films. Because it's not.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,493
Reaction score
319
Well exactly, I remember Red Letter Media commented on this specifically in a very comical fashion. Why is he acting like fake Yoda in The Last Jedi? The initial goofiness of Yoda was clearly a test on Luke's character and superficiality. It's also almost a test on the audience as well. We judged this little frog creature as basically just an annoyance, much like Luke. How could HE be the great Jedi master? Yet...he is. Rian Johnson clearly missed the point of the scene.
Absolutely, those odd moments that Yoda engages in are there to fool the audience as much as they are there to fool Luke in the story. This quirky frog thing is just a slight irritant on the way to meet this great Jedi master we've heard about.

Rian Johnson spectacularly missed what Yoda was about. But, then again, he missed the point of Luke too, to an absolutely absurd and destructive level, so we shouldn't really be that surprised I suppose.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,493
Reaction score
319
On comedy - I've probably mentioned this before - in the OT the humour was very subtle. In fact, there's not much comedy in them at all and what there is is largely confined to Han Solo's sarcasm and frustrated comments. There are a few other comic moments scattered throughout that are mostly situational circumstances. But that is a big difference to "comedy".

Where the sequels let themselves down in this particular area is that the "comedy" are mainly jokes and that was never a part of Star Wars. "Yo Momma" and whatnot are just unworkable within the setting, so it feels wrong and takes people out of the movie. It feels like scripting done by committee. We need are joke here at 10:37 and we'll need another joke here at 22:38 and another here at 45:21...etc.

Agree on the subject of bathos too and while it can have its place. It's place is not really in Star Wars. It may work to a certain degree in something like the MCU, although I'd argue not as much as some people think. But, too much of it quickly becomes tiresome and gives the impression that the characters don't really give a crap about the situation that they're in. So, therefore the audience doesn't and we end up with films that are simply twee time fillers, where absolutely nothing matters.

The thing is, adventure movies of this calibre rarely need the tone lightened. But, there seems to be this bizarre fixation on behalf of some film makers to leaden their stories with the most inane attempts at humour punched in at certain intervals and it's usually written by people that just aren't funny. And while I'm aiming this at the likes of JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson, I can also take aim at George Lucas too for the same sins he infused into the prequels, because he certainly doesn't get away scot free on that count either.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,493
Reaction score
319
In many ways it reminds me of the criticisms Temple of Doom initially received and in many ways, still gets. It's both the darkest and most horror-oriented of the Indiana Jones films
I've, personally, never understood this. In Europe, we never saw Temple of Doom as dark. It was just an adventure yarn. And too be honest, there are MUCH darker tones in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. That film is saturated with horrific imagery, like Alfred Molina getting skewered, or the rows and rows of corpses that Marion faces in the Tanis tomb, or the face melts at the end of the movie which, far and away, surpasses anything that's in 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom'. FFS, that scene alone has more scare value than a ton of actual horror movies made in the same period.

I think people remember it as "dark", largely because it was part of the tipping point for American ratings to get a PG-13 cert, along with films like 'Gremlins'. But that tipping point had been coming since 'Jaws' was released nearly a decade earlier.

But, really, if one is talking about dark and horrific imagery in an Indiana Jones movie, look no further than the first one, cos that movie is stuffed with such things.

I always find it odd when people say that it's the "dark one". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
9
I think it's the whole "heart" scene that gives it its reputation. I remember that really scaring me when I was a kid.
 
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,493
Reaction score
319
Sure, the heart ripping scene is a bit rough, even though it's very quickly staged.

But to the parents of kids who felt that was too much, what the hell did they think when they saw faces melting in 1981? I just don't see any comparison myself.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
1,228
Reaction score
9
For whatever reason, I don't remember realizing the intensity of the face melting scene until I was a little older. That still holds up as a very incredible special effect.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
43
Location
Central NJ
I would argue that the heart scene in TOD (which, as real as it looked to me as an 8-year-old, looks so clearly fake to me now it's laughable) was considered worse because it was part of a human sacrifice, where some poor innocent gets murdered as part of a cult ritual. On the other hand, the face melting scene depicted Nazis getting their comeuppance, which makes it less scary and actually more "satisfying" to the viewer (although I do agree that the Well of Souls scenes were, and still are, extremely creepy, especially the corpse room).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
166
re: comedy in SW.

it's also in Indiana Jones, but much like the OT, its very subtle -- like when Indy says "I'm making this up as I go along" before riding off on his horse -- it brings a smile, to break up a moment of tension. or when 3PO says "I think I'm Melting" during the TIE chase. it's just a moment of levity to break up the tension. it's not a bold-faced "joke".

Marvel does it too : Tony has just saved the world and everyone thinks he'd dead. the Hulk "Roars" in his face, and this wakes tony up, like a defibrillator to the heart -- insert: line about Shwarma. it only serves to break up the tension, but it works, and it's hilarious.

in the past, GL still knew how to do this -- we saw it in Indiana Jones. but at some point SW became victim to its own "formula". and yes, I agree, it was almost like "comedy by committee", like they were following some kind of playbook which 'required' an obligatory joke every 22 minutes. and somehow, we went from relevant 'moments of levity', to IRRELEVANT "Yo'Mama" Jokes.


re: "SW is for kids". well technically so is Marvel. that doesn't stop them from 'also' entertaining adults. SW and MCU share the exact same "target audience". (aka: everyone).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
491
Location
Pennsylvania
I didn't mean to accidentally turn this into a Temple of Doom thread. LOL! Totally off-topic, but what the heck...I'll indulge a bit.

For me, I think it's more just atmospherically darker than Raiders and tonally, well, when it is dark. I don't think graphic violence alone is the only criteria for "dark" content. Before writing this, I re-watched the sacrifice scene. It's way more brutal than even I remembered. I completely forgot it shows him burning alive too. Doom has, in particular, two aspects not yet brought up that I really think make it thematically darker than Raiders. I'm surprised no one has yet to mention slave children. That's some pretty risque stuff. But then there's easily the most down and out Indy has ever been in any of the films; he is so brutally tortured and defeated that he's even mind-controlled to the point of nearly killing his companions - one being a child. That's some rough stuff. Plus I think, environmentally, the film evokes a lot of "occult" imagery that really would frighten superstitious Christian westerners. Human sacrifices (which I liked the theory that it's more frightening because it's an innocent person - the Nazi's feel more satisfying because they're getting their just desserts), voodoo, cults, things of that nature. But I mean, no two ways about it, Raiders also has extremely dark moments. Two of my all-time favorite films. In fact, much like the original SW trilogy, I find the Indiana Jones trilogy (and the LOTR trilogy) to be as close to perfection as a film series can get. Nothing is perfect, but they def. achieved the closest you can realistically get IMO. Which is also kind of funny and sad in that, all three also had follow-up films that are varying layers of awful: The prequels, the Last Jedi, Crystal Skull, and the Hobbit trilogy.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
43
Location
Central NJ
I didn't mean to accidentally turn this into a Temple of Doom thread. LOL! Totally off-topic, but what the heck...I'll indulge a bit.

For me, I think it's more just atmospherically darker than Raiders and tonally, well, when it is dark. I don't think graphic violence alone is the only criteria for "dark" content. Before writing this, I re-watched the sacrifice scene. It's way more brutal than even I remembered. I completely forgot it shows him burning alive too. Doom has, in particular, two aspects not yet brought up that I really think make it thematically darker than Raiders. I'm surprised no one has yet to mention slave children. That's some pretty risque stuff. But then there's easily the most down and out Indy has ever been in any of the films; he is so brutally tortured and defeated that he's even mind-controlled to the point of nearly killing his companions - one being a child. That's some rough stuff. Plus I think, environmentally, the film evokes a lot of "occult" imagery that really would frighten superstitious Christian westerners. Human sacrifices (which I liked the theory that it's more frightening because it's an innocent person - the Nazi's feel more satisfying because they're getting their just desserts), voodoo, cults, things of that nature. But I mean, no two ways about it, Raiders also has extremely dark moments. Two of my all-time favorite films. In fact, much like the original SW trilogy, I find the Indiana Jones trilogy (and the LOTR trilogy) to be as close to perfection as a film series can get. Nothing is perfect, but they def. achieved the closest you can realistically get IMO. Which is also kind of funny and sad in that, all three also had follow-up films that are varying layers of awful: The prequels, the Last Jedi, Crystal Skull, and the Hobbit trilogy.
Some good points about TOD that I hadn't even thought of. I think for me, the fact that Short Round was in many of those scenes you described made for some comic relief (probably moreso to me when I was a child), making them less brutal. Even the guy getting crushed in the mine wasn't so bad, because it was the bad guy getting his. Ditto for Mola Ram getting drawn & quartered by the crocodiles.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
2,292
Reaction score
112
Location
Philadelphia
I think the title just refers to Luke himself.
it's like when they killed Spock , and half the fandom lost interest in future movies (and/or pledged a boycott).
--> they HAD to call the next one "search for spock" JUST to get people to show up. LOL
Wrong. Wrath of Khan renewed interest in Star Trek, it didn't damage it. The Search for Spock was then made because WOK was such a success.

You literally just fabricated a history for two films because you needed it to support your latest batch of bull****.

It's important for you to remember that some people on these boards actually know stuff and won't just accept whatever nonsense you make up.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
10
Wrong. Wrath of Khan renewed interest in Star Trek, it didn't damage it. The Search for Spock was then made because WOK was such a success.

You literally just fabricated a history for two films because you needed it to support your latest batch of bull****.

It's important for you to remember that some people on these boards actually know stuff and won't just accept whatever nonsense you make up.
it's in italics, so it has to be true
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
650
Reaction score
30
Agree on the subject of bathos too and while it can have its place. It's place is not really in Star Wars. It may work to a certain degree in something like the MCU, although I'd argue not as much as some people think.
Disagree on the subject of bathos (I didn't click through to view the video linked by Mysterio, but if it's the one that starts by comparing Spider-Man with Dr Strange, then I've seen it, and disagreed with its author also).

I think bathos in the MCU is a huge part of its appeal. It works because, despite the drama, and increasingly high stakes, the films don't take themselves too seriously. (Which is not to say that comic book films can't take themselves seriously, I don't think it would have worked in Nolan's Batman.)

Star Wars is a franchise that I don't think has ever taken itself too seriously, regardless of when it was made. But I think a portion of the fan base, want a Star Wars film that takes itself more seriously. Just look at the clamouring for a dark and grotty Star Wars from Benioff & Weiss, "The Game of Thrones guys could make an awesome Star Wars!" I think some of us have tastes that have moved beyond what these films are, but our attachment to the franchise prevents us from letting it go.

All that said, I agree that the use of it will date TLJ, as it's use is certainly on trend for this period of cinema. And the timelessness of the OT is what makes it so special (I choose to believe it is still timeless; my eldest has two more years until he's introduced and I'm desperate for him to like it! :D)
 
Last edited:
Top