On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 5:41:01 PM UTC-8, Zobovor (the Man with All the Toys) wrote:
> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 5:50:24 PM UTC-7, Travoltron wrote:
>
> > DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI
>
> Keeping your spoiler space intact, but I think that Google tends to compress a bunch of carriage returns so I figure I'll just write a big, long paragraph to serve as functional spoiler space. Though, I tend to think that anybody who would be worried about getting he new Star Wars film spoiled for them would have seen it already, but of course there are people who will always complain regardless. I will say, though, that I've been spoiled so many times just by looking up basic information (like, say, the name of an actor from The Walking Dead or Breaking Bad) because people seem to have this need to spread spoilers around like they were peanut butter over toasted bread.
Google also compresses the highlighted text sometimes, so I will add a random paragraph of rambling. Someone at work got me sick, so I haven't been able to get some rest and detach from work like I had wanted. People who go to work sick, and have jobs where they could work from home, are horrible people who should be beaten to within an inch of their lives, and then forced to come to work on crutches.
> > People feel like Luke was pushed aside to make room for new action
> > figures just like old Optimus was.
>
> Even before George Lucas sold off Star Wars, he envisioned a scenario in which an aged Mark Hamill served in the role of the wise, old mentor, passing down his teachings to the next generation of Jedi. So, at least Disney got that much right.
I'm not sure they had a choice anyway -- the original cast is all middle aged to old, and really not believable in the action film roles for long periods. Harrison Ford has a lot more spring in his step than you would expect for a man of his age, but he's in his 70s.
Unless the new Star Wars was going to be a lot of people standing around talking, they needed a new cast. (And, Leia did move to a stand around and talk role, which made sense for her character)
> The problem, as I see it, is not one of too many action figures, but rather not enough. I've said this before, but with Disney cranking out a new Star Wars film every single year like clockwork, there's barely time for Hasbro to produce action figures of the main characters, and only the main characters, before moving right on to the next movie. If the characters from a film don't resonate with fans and collectors, then stores are stuck with irrelevant action figures when the next movie pops up. Witness the large number of toys from Rogue One still lingering in stores even though that film is completely old hat now.
Rogue One action figures have the problem of representing dead people, in a fairly closed little timeline. That's fine if you are a collector, but it has to make it harder for the kids to play with them, unless they want to have the Rebels confront their ghosts...
> I do get the sense that Disney is pushing all the old characters out the door. Harrison Ford always wanted Han Solo to die, of course, but there's no way to address Carrie Fisher's death without either killing Leia off-screen or having her continue to pull the strings off-screen until she fades away into obscurity.
I think the right way to do Leia at this point would be to have her mostly offscreen giving advice, as Poe takes a larger leadership role, before discovering that she's been dead for a while, and that it's just been C-3PO muttering meaningless platitudes.
I am surprised that they killed off Luke in this movie though. It means the next one has none of the big three in it.
But, they also wrapped up the story thematically, so I don't really see a need for a third movie in this trilogy. We just saw the Resistance get beaten down to almost nothing, and we saw how they inspired others so the spark would survive, so why do we need to see more?
> In the meantime, there are new actors performing Chewbacca and R2-D2, characters who are sustainable indefinitely since you can just keep putting somebody new into the suit. Eventually, somebody will have to take up the mantle for C-3PO, and the character will never sound the same again.
I am surprised that we didn't end up with a fat C-3PO with new reinforced armor or something. Anthony Daniels still fits in that suit, and that's kind of amazing.
> In some ways, it's like what's been happening for a while with Sesame Street and the Muppets. When principal performers have passed away or retired or get fired, puppets are sometimes retired as well, or reduced to background appearances with non-speaking roles, or are recast. Usually, the results of recasting are utterly disastrous.
If they were to recast Leia with Judi Dench, I would be perfectly fine with the choice. Not that she looks anything like Carrie Fischer, but just because Judi Dench is awesome in everything, and would carry the scene anyway.
They could also recast Kermit the Frog with Judi Dench.
> Ultimately, though, Disney is a corporation and they have to think about what's marketable. Younger actors in new roles like Daisy Ridley and John Boyega are more sustainable over the long-term (though Ridley has said she's getting out of Star Wars after Episode IX). I wonder if they realize, though, that fans just don't seem to be as interested in all-new characters. Everything I've observed about consumer buying habits suggests that toys of original trilogy characters still sell the best.
The new movies lacked a lot of the depth of the first ones. I didn't feel like I had any sense of any of the characters after TFA, and TLJ was only marginally better in that respect.
Rose. I really liked Rose. (And crazy old man Luke, but that's an old character) The rest just seemed like plot points.
Rose should not have kissed Finn. Or saved him. He should have just been vaporized by the cannon.
Ok, but now, onto more important things than Star Wars... Doctor Who! It's on TV, so if you cared you watched it already, so we don't need all that much spoiler space, so this paragraph is all you get.
The first Doctor was great, but his misogyny was a bit over the top.
I am disappointed that River Song didn't make an appearance as part of the Testament. Moffat was repeating himself with Bill, Claire and Nardole getting the same "recorded for all time" ending as the Doctor gave River back in the Library, but let's just call that an homage or a callback. Except the Testament do it for everyone, freezing time for an instant before that persons death. So they should have had a copy of River.
The Doctor has been mourning River all season -- it's part of why he reassembled Nardole before the last Christmas special -- and losing his wife is a large part of why he doesn't want to go on, as much as losing Bill was. The Doctor has been fighting his regeneration for most of the season, long before Bill died. River should have been there, no matter how crowded it made that scene.
And when the Doctor regenerated, and the ring fell from his-now-her finger, that was his wedding ring. And that was kind of heartbreaking.
Honestly, I could have lived without Claire popping up again.