I don't think it will really ever qualify. It was a financial success for starters, and is extremely divisive still.

DIAA means there's no reason to root for any side as they're equally unlikeable and the setting is so screwed even a likable group winning wouldn't improve it enough to care if they win. And the ending doesn't count as it's optimistic they can recover despite their failures and DIAA means you stop caring how it turns so if you're unhappy with the ending you still care about it as opposed to becoming apathetic.

Noting that a) the trope is now renamed to So Bleak, It's Boring, and b) there must be proof that audiences are apathetic.

Link to TRS thread

I think it's already starting to become Vindicated by History. Especially the theme of not letting where you came define who you are as a person and learning from the mistakes of the past in order to improve upon them. There's also the theme of almost anyone can be the hero. Bloodlines and dynasties are irrelevant. At the time of TLJ's release, critics loved it. By this point, the only people who still hate it are those who spent the past two years harassing both Rian Johnson by referring to him as Ruin Johnson and Kelly Marie Tran.

In terms of themes and ideas, perhaps. Execution-wise, it still has divisive reactions and for some, TROS vindicates their beliefs that TLJ salted the earth too much.

No, that's what Contested Sequel is for, and it already covers that.

As you say, all the supposed Idiot Plot moments mentioned are explained in the movie.

The points you raise are valid, but I don't think they fall under Idiot Plot. There are more specific tropes to describe them. To the point:

• Holdo: What An Idiot ( seriously? Not sharing her feasible evacuation plan that would save everyone and letting people get edgy was a stupid idea. What were they going to do, holocall Hux and tell him what she was planning?) and "Could Have Avoided This!" Plot (Poe, Finn and Rose took matters into their own hands because they thought she was leading everyone to their deaths)
• Snoke: Suicidal Overconfidence
• Hux's strategy: Why Don't You Just Shoot Him?

I do think Holdo's stupidity deserves an Idiot Plot entry just because of how much of the story is driven by it - if she hadn't done so, the Canto Bight subplot would never have happened, Finn and Rose would never have been captured, the plan would have gone off without a hitch, and the movie would have been more than half an hour shorter. Not to mention nobody in the film treats it like it was an idiotic move; once Poe finds out about the plan he starts complimenting how genius it is without even mentioning how much she screwed it up.

This is coming from someone who more or less likes the movie, by the way.

EDIT: While I'm on the topic, would it be fair to say this has made Holdo The Scrappy, at least in this film (I know she was fairly well-recieved in her book)? I've seen a lot of people commenting about how bone-headed that was of her, and if they find it even half as infuriating as I did, I think she's fair game for an entry.

You have to report to the Scrappy Cleanup Thread first.

Figured that was the case, but it wasn't mentioned on the Scrappy mainspace like Complete Monster, so I wasn't sure.

How about

• Idiot Plot: definitely may be considered as such at least for some viewers.
  • Events of the movie kick off with Poe Dameron’s reckless attack on the First Order’s dreadnought and the ensuing destruction of a sizable portion of the Resistance’s fleet with Leia taking little to no measures to prevent this from happening. After being put in a trap with diminished forces, Leia and Holdo decide to evacuate the main cruiser to a secret rebel base keeping this dubious plan secret from the crew for no good reason. This secrecy results in a mutiny and pointless adventure of Finn and Rose that almost gets a lot of people killed.
  • Nobody in the Resistance considers simply scattering the fleet in different directions (since they can't chase them all at once unless they are together), and nobody in the First Order thinks to either call in reinforcements, hyperspace jump ahead then return in front of the Resistance fleet, or even sent in more TIE fighters, all in the name of destroying the Resistance ships and their shields faster.
  • In the meanwhile, Rey shows no caution in dealing with the Dark Side despite Luke’s warnings and maintains telepathic link with Kylo Ren. Finally she decides to trust Kylo and boards the First Order’s spaceship falling into an obvious trap herself. On the same island Luke decides to destroy last remnants of Jedi knowledge on impulse and without any reasonable justification.
  • Speaking of the First Order, Snoke, being aware of Kylo Ren’s conflicting loyalties, decides to abuse Rey in front of him and then orders to kill her without giving any attention to Kylo’s growing anger. His death at the hands of Kylo leaves the latter in charge, which plays a crucial role later as Kylo joins the club of the abovementioned idiots and cancels successful attack on the rebel base to have a duel with illusionary Luke.

... that made me rethink parts of the movie. Damn.

Also, while we are on topic: I definitely think that the movie warrants an Idiot Plot entry instead of separate ones like What An Idiot subentries or such. Dumb things in this movie are interconnected, with one thing directly leading to another, instead of being isolated cases.

About the TIE fighters not having enough firepower or speed...what? The First Order TI Es have both lasers and missiles, which are both used in the initial attack to a great effect. And since this is seen in the film itself, it can't be said to just be something that's just lore.

Fighters are faster than capital ships. First Order destroyers were able to keep up with the Resistance ships. Obviously the fighters are fast enough to catch up with them and since Kylo Ren destroyed their main hangar and they don't seem to have any AA-weaponry, there's no reason they shouldn't be used.

Actually I think that one does get a throwaway line - I'm pretty sure they mention after the initial attack that if their fighters go after the Raddus at its current speed they won't have enough fuel make a return trip to the Star Destroyers.

It at least warrants a Scrappy with Holdo as EVERYONE has been pointing out how stupid her not telling the plan was and how it could've been pulled of successfully if she bothered to tell people and it wouldn't have resulted in most of the trouble the rebels experience

So, what's it going to be?

Am I the only one who thinks Poe's plan is kind of stupid, also? He sends Finn (and Rose) off to a planet on the remote chance they'll find the one person who might help them. Finn and Rose don't find him and just bring the first person that might be able to help them instead. Said person betrays them, making the whole subplot kind of pointless.

As for Holdo, I don't find her a Scrappy so much as the victim of bad writing. There are plenty of reasons, some mentioned here, why she might not have wanted to give away her plan (not needing/wanting to tell Poe, who got demoted and won't respect his superior's orders, fearing a spy is onboard etc). She could have been an interesting commentary on what is expected in a leader/how audience expectations about heroism don't always line up with sensible military strategy, but it was wasted imo.

If they were prominent, sure, but I haven't seen any of that for this film, unlike TFA which had it making headlines. I think that particular controversy has been Overshadowed By Another Controversy regarding the overall quality of the film.

It actually has, at least from what I know. You have articles like this covering a story where a Facebook troll took credit (seemingly falsely) for rigging the RT score, with some of his motivations being due to gender politics.

I would strongly recommend against adding anything of the sort.

I do think there could be a way to allude to the issue without getting too deep into controversy and instigating heavy bias or Flame Bait, so may I propose adding another entry under What Do You Mean, It's Not Political? instead? I thought of rewriting the entry talking about the Holdo/Poe subplot to talk about the female leads in general, but it cites so many sources that it's basically its own thing. So:

• Like with The Force Awakens, the importance and prominence of the movie's female leads in Rey, Leia, Rose and Holdo has raised debates on the role of feminism in the film's conception and reception. Numerous websites have reported on a Facebook troll taking credit (however falsely) for tanking the movie's Rotten Tomatoes score due to gender politics. However, the issue is best discussed elsewhere.

The mere mention of the AV Club article (or related articles) automatically adds some degree of feminist bias due to the derisive tone of the article, but it states facts that tangibly happened (a Facebook user is boasting about a feat that he may or may not have performed, and cites gender politics as a motivating factor). Just in case, I could also propose a similar entry without linking to the article:

• Like with The Force Awakens, the importance and prominence of the movie's female leads in Rey, Leia, Rose and Holdo has raised debates on the role of feminism in the film's conception, as well as whether it influenced its vocally mixed fan reception. However, the issue is best discussed elsewhere.

Or is it better off not mentioning it at all? It is a touchy issue.

It's definitely not Internet Backdraft, since most of the backlash is over the film's direction and plot choices. That one FB guy is the first I've seen of backlash over the gender issue, especially compared to the TFA.

As for What Do You Mean, It's Not Political?, I'm still not sure about that. I think mentioning conservative/liberals specifically is a real good way to start flame/edit wars, leaving aside that it's kind of generalizing to say all liberals loved the movie, all conservatives didn't, or that the critic's reviews were caused by their political alignment. I also think the Holdo/Poe entry does a well-enough job of tackling the feminism issue and that adding more might be considered repetitive/overkill.

Could this be better, then?

• Some have compared the film's themes and approach to defying ''Star Wars'' canon to progressive ideology, and have even used the analogy to generalize critics' reactions towards the The Last Jedi and suggest it as one reason why audiences are so divided on it. However, not everyone agrees.

The Rotten Tomatoes audience score of 51% is based on 163,708 user ratings as of right now. If we assume that site's owners are right in saying that they can tell they're not being bot-spammed, then it would take ridiculously determined people to make enough accounts to have that big an impact on the score. It's just far more likely that it really is that divisive a movie. It features Luke Skywalker being a jerk then dying, Rey's backstory mystery going nowhere, and Finn's sidequest ending in a failure so big it got more people killed than if he'd done nothing - It's not exactly farfetched to think that a good number of people were rubbed the wrong way for reasons that had nothing to do with political opinions.

And to be blunt, there's probably a lot of people that feel downright insulted by the insinuation that the only reasons anyone dislikes this are that they're MR As/The Alt-Right/Bots/Sockuppets/Whatever.

I see, and I agree. Though my personal view isn't as extreme as that last sentence, I just have a gut feeling that audience reviews would have been around 60-70% if not for the political aspect, judging from the Cinemascore and IMDB score.

Just curious, how much of the movie's cast is actually made up of women? I'd like to know as a hard percentage.

You could also mention that 'Last De-feminized cut' if no-one has already, or the articles talking about it. And I imagine there's a substantial amount of videos on You Tube talking about how gender politics has automatically ruined the movie...

But there has been a history of anything with 'too many' women in getting slated or voted down on sites, even if they're truthfully just pretty average in execution (Dr Who's latest season comes to mind).

On the https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FranchiseOriginalSin/StarWars page, I made entries where I argued that a lot of the complaints people had about TLJ can be traced to TFA, and JJ Abrams specifically:

• Many felt that Luke shutting himself off from the Force and backing from the fight was uncharacteristic, but the very nature of The Force Awakens with its opening crawl announcing Luke's disappearance, backed Rian Johnson into that corner. After all, if Luke was connected to the Force then why wouldn't he feel Han Solo's death, or try and intervene to save him, or doing nothing as the First Order runs amok in the galaxy? Rian Johnson's solution, in avoiding to make Luke entirely callous at the suffering of his friends, had to justify the Character Development that led Luke to isolate himself completely from what happened to them. This struck many as being unbecoming due to the lack of buildup and Foreshadowing in the first film, which still implied that Luke was the same idealistic man at the end of Return of the Jedi (mostly since Han and Leia are the same and speak of him with reverence as do others in the galaxy).
• The Last Jedi was criticized for its poor Worldbuilding. Namely the First Order going from The Remnant to The Empire struck many as Diabolus ex Nihilo. TFA also didn't develop and outline the scenario of the Post-ROTJ Galaxy, privileging spectacle over exposition in part as a result of the backlash against the prequels. The First Order acquiring the capacity to build Starkiller Base and using that to destroy the capital of the republic was criticized by some as being unlikely for what was described before the release as Outer Space North Korea. But it was forgiven because TFA was the first of a new trilogy, and it was expected the later films would clarify the situation, when in fact the little world-building that the TLJ did do, Canto Bight and its role as an arms dealers for both sides, came across as a Wacky Wayside Tribe since it was sandwiched in the middle-part that always raised stakes and upped-the-ante. Not helping matters, is that TLJ picks up mere days after TFA, without the Time Skip between ANH and TESB, which made the First Order going to galactic leaders after losing their Weapon of Mass Destruction even more unlikely and unbelievable than before.

One of the entries I think belongs here in Misblamed:

• Misblamed: The Last Jedi upset many with the reveal that Rey was The Unchosen One and unconnected to any of the characters in the prequels and sequels but as noted by both Johnson and J.J. Abrams, The Force Awakens heavily set up Story Breadcrumbs that J. J. Abrams didn't fully map out (part of what's called his "mystery box" approach) blatantly teasing flashbacks of Rey having a Dark and Troubled Past and mysterious backstory that he didn't full have answers to. Johnson merely simplified the story, by closing most of the loops and setup from the first film since that's what the middle-part is supposed to do, build on the set-up and clear the board for the final act. Many saw this as subverting expectations, when in most cases those expectations were set up by J. J. Abrams and not him.

You could bring these by the Locked Pages requests thread.

• Your additions to Luke's entry crosses into nitpicking
• Don't bring up Carrie Fisher's passing since it's not something the writers can faulted for.

Thanks for feedback and advise.

I agree, that's a clear example.

There was a discussion several days ago in Ask The Tropers and it was decided to lock the Last Jedi YMMV page, but that's a suggestion you could bring by the Locked Pages requests thread.

Honestly, the Internet Backdraft section not even mentioning the racism in her harassment seems like the larger oversight.

First I've heard of this regarding Kylo, Elaboration?

Luke failure of Kylo, that's intentionally unsympathetic, his handling of it afterward, that's unintentionally unless you can argue otherwise.

Mostly I've seen people say that given Luke's faith in Vader's redemption, it is unlikely he wouldn't have reacted the way he did if he didn't have a reason and that Kylo's reaction and crimes soon afterwards were nonsensically over the top evil.

What exactly is your point? And what the hell is up with that formatting?

Uh..... Okay. This is definitely not the proper way to defend your entry, or make it more credible, but I'll answer it seriously.

To begin with, the entry it dated: 4 months 5 days after release. This wiki doesn't do dates. Every entry should be written as if time is irrelevant.

Second is that you link to "this poll" for explanation on why the fandom is divided, instead of writing the reason in the entry and citing the poll as 'more on the subject can be found here'. No wiki is a facebook-style click-bait site; so, two points down.

Third, which is highly objective and a matter of personal taste more than anything: I find the (lame) pun incredibly off putting. The "..." marks also make for poor reading.

I'm sure that I've missed some things, but I hope this gets the point across.

I am not defending I am joking. Well except the broken base, the broken base is just true.

Probably; the original restriction WAS until "March 15", and no one just got around to doing it. I'd still suggest raising the subjects here first to prevent an edit war.

Off the top of my head:

Base-Breaking Character: Rose (I've seen a lot of opinions on her, ranging from 'she's great and a cutie!' to 'stupid bitch ruined Finn's Heroic Sacrifice'), Holdo (because of the entire Resistance plotline—lots of people either side with her and say she didn't need to share her plan with Poe, lots of others say she did). Possibly Poe as well, for the same reasons as Holdo.

Broken Base: Luke's character arc is still hotly debated about. I think the fandom has calmed down about Snoke's death and mostly just debate whether he'll return in Episode IX.

Admiral Holdo or Rose is definitely in the region of The Scrappy given how they are the most talked about aspects of the film in a negative way.

Rose, for example, is accused of being a hypocrite on Crait (for obvious reasons) and borderline abusive to Finn on presumptions of him being a traitor (despite the fact that he was never really part of the Resistance in the first place). There's also the fact her sudden romance with Finn felt artificial and forced with some Unfortunate Implications considering how they first met and how deleted scenes depict her expressing jealousy over Finn's concern about Rey.

Holdo, I think the film made her reception worse by touting that Holdo was right and Poe should have just listen to her blindly because Leia said so. She was also involved in the infamous Lightspeed ramming which lead to a new set of arguments. For many, Holdo comes off as smug and deliberately made as a villain for Poe's story only for the film to suddenly turn around then proclaim that Holdo is a hero in a rushed manner. So instead of people turning around and starting rooting for Holdo, they are now asking questions as to why didn't she tell the plans in the first place since it would avoid the Idiot Plot.

As for Broken Base, I can say that Snoke's possible return is now in the realms of fringe WMG as most people I know accept that he is most certainly Killed Off for Real and many were still pissed off that he is a Palpatine clone that comes out of nowhere just to undo the happy ending. The punchline now is that Snoke is wasted and boring Generic Doomsday Villain that makes Darth Maul from TPM look like a complex 3-dimesional character.

While Rose and Holdo are talked about negatively, they also have their fans and defenders; The Scrappy doesn't. Rose has people who think she preaches a good message that falls in line with the theme of Star Wars, and like that she saved Finn from dying. The comments about her being "abusive" fall more under the realm of Ron the Death Eater, because she was doing her job by tazing Finn. He was on a Resistance ship, had already worked in a Resistance mission, was regarded as a Resistance hero, and up until the FO followed them out of lightspeed, used "we" in regards to the Resistance's next move. Even if he hadn't officially joined, he was still an ally and was trying to sneak away—the conclusion for anyone would be obvious.

Similarly, others consider Holdo to be in the right to withhold information from Poe. He'd gotten all her bombers killed, proven himself to disrespect authority, and went behind her back the first chance he got (before ever confronting her about a plan). There are also those who like the narrative twist of her seeming villainous because we're looking at her through Poe's eyes, and point out that if we saw things from HER eyes and knew about the plan, Poe would seem the villain. Basically, people's reaction on her depends on who they blame more for Poor Communication Kills (when personally I think they're both equally at fault). Lots of negativity around her, but also lots of positivity.

I drafted examples. We need to keep them short to prevent fighting and edit wars.

• Base-Breaking Character:
  • Rose is either a cute character with great motivations to fight, or an annoying and preachy waste of time.
  • Holdo is hated by some for her pointless withholding of info that indirectly led to most of the Resistance being destroyed. However, others agree with her decision since Poe had gotten all bombers killed and point out that the plan itself made perfect sense.
• Broken Base: Luke's characterization in the film. A neat twist on a character that builds on his established personality, or an utter betrayal of everything the original trilogy built up on him? Since there have been arguments on This Very Wiki about this, that is all we can say.

Having fans and defenders will not save a character from being included in The Scrappy list. Especially if the detractors truly hate those characters for their actions and personality. Rose, for example, is mainly hated for her confusing message about saving those we love when Finn was willingly to save everyone he loves by sacrificing himself to destroy the cannon and that Rose doomed the entire Resistance for her selfish love for Finn (remember, she has no knowledge of Luke coming to save the day). Admiral Holdo gets the blunt of the hatred because the film never have her acknowledge her flaws and that she is part of the blame. The film insists that Holdo is 100% correct and that Poe should have been an obedient dog blindly following orders. A similar attempt was made in the comic event Marvel Civil War where the Pro-Registration Team Iron Man was correct and Captain America was wrong. Looking at fan reception for poor Iron Man, I say that never works out well.

Take a look at these entries on the Star Wars sub page for The Scrappy:

• Padmé Amidala, mostly due to Badass Decay as the Trilogy goes along. In the first two films she won fans for her colorful wardrobe and Action Girl tendencies, though many fans found her heroic moments in Attack of the Clones mitigated by her cringeworthy romance with Anakin. In Revenge of the Sith, Padmé became a much weaker character, mostly existing to a) provide motivation for Anakin's turn to the Dark Side and b) give birth to Luke and Leia. She was supposed to have an additional role as one of the founders of the Rebel Alliance, but that was left off the theatrical release for some unfathomable reason.
• Ahsoka Tano herself started out as this in the first 2 seasons, mostly for her being perceived as the Spotlight-Stealing Squad. However, she slowly became more of a fan favorite as the series went on thanks to her reduced screen time and character arcs, and even carried into the follow up series, Star Wars Rebels, where she was revealed to be an informant codenamed "Fulcrum".

They have fans and defenders; that didn't stop those entries. And contrary to popular beliefs, you can find defenders and fans of Jar Jar Binks. Just ask Frank Oz.

Both of those examples should be removed. Also one person against many for Jar Jar is not proof.

^ I supposed a Cleanup Page for The Scrappy in Star Wars is required then?

@Satoshi Bakura: Those look fine to me.

@Shadao: Depending on interpretation, Finn wasn't dying to save people he loved, but to "make [the FO] hurt". Nor do we know if his sacrifice would actually have worked—Poe certainly didn't seem to think it would, or he wouldn't have called off the attack. Additionally, the film's message wasn't that Poe should be an obedient dog, but that he should learn to be a leader and stop chasing heroism for the sake of it.

But that's a debate best left for another time. To return to the topic at hand: the very definition of Base-Breaking Character is that there are swathes of fandom that rush to hate and defend the same character; that simply bringing them up is inviting argument. Also, you claim that if the detractors "truly hate those characters for their actions and personality", that automatically makes a character The Scrappy. So...what about when their fans truly LOVE them for their actions and personality? You've given reasons why Rose and Holdo are hated; I've given reasons why they're loved. And people hotly debate about them. That's textbook Base-Breaking Character.

Then that's a fault of the pages—Ahsoka STOPPED being The Scrappy after the first two seasons, actually, and is now pretty beloved, as that very entry acknowledges. A trope being misused once doesn't mean we should continue to do so.

There already is a cleanup thread.

I'd say Holdo is a Base-Breaking Character while Rose is pretty firmly a Scrappy.

Agree with @Satoshi Bakura Perfectly diplomatic. Also agree with @Agronac 919 though, however I am withdrawing myself from The Scrappy or Base-Breaking Character debate due to conflict of interests

If I may weigh in, I think that Rose and Holdo are very strong examples of Base-Breaking Character, not The Scrappy.

I believe the requirements for The Scrappy is a majority, or Overwhelming majority, of the fan base must hate them. Because if you look hard enough, I am sure you would be able to find someone who actually liked Scrappy Doo. I would suggest looking for polls, or forums, and see if you can get a rough idea of the percentage looks like.

• I would do it, but due to my absolute destain for Rose, I don't trust myself to be imparcial. FINN X RAY 4 LIFE T_T

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=14667066520A94266400&page=29#714

IIRC, the original plan was for Poe to buy the Resistance time to evacuate the base before the dreadnought blew them to bits. Failing that, they had the bombers on standby to destroy it.

Poe bought them enough time by trolling Hux that the bomber attack wasn't necessary. Everyone had gotten off the planet; they could have just jumped to hyperspace and vanished. Regardless, Poe decided to continue with the plan and endangered everyone (bombers can't attack on their own, they need fighters to cover them, fighters need the big ships to remain nearby so they can return to dock, etc).

People say that in the long run, the destruction of the dreadnought saved the Resistance, which is true enough. Problem is, Poe didn't know that when he gave the order to continue the attack. Essantially, Poe tied up the entire Resistance fleet for no good reason besides a death-or-glory attack.

Right, and I agree with that. What I mean is, why do people assume Poe's way was the right way because it turned out to have good results? Results that no one, least of all him, foresaw, expected, or planned for?

I'm asking this mostly because the entry under Informed Wrongness doesn't sit right with me. Yes, he saved the day. But nobody knows it at the time, and the message the film presents is that he saved the day at a high cost and as secondary goal (his primary one being "heroism"). And then tries to repeat the gesture with Holdo, with far more disastrous consequences. That kind of attitude definitely seems like something that is rightfully wrong.

I agree that Leia reprimanding Poe doesn't fall under Informed Wrongness: she gave him strict orders to fall back, and he disobeyed them. The fact that destroying the dreadnought ultimately saved the Resistance could fall, if we're trying to fit it under a trope, under Right for the Wrong Reasons. I'm not sure how to word it, though.

The second part of IW seems right: Poe did ask Holdo what the plan was, and she told him to mind his own business, not "don't worry, I'm taking care of it". Leia telling him off for not blindly trusting Holdo under those circumstances does fall a little flat, in my opinion.

Something like "Fans have noticed that Poe's attack on the dreadnought at the beginning of the film ultimately saved the Resistance; however, this was through sheer luck, as there was no way of knowing the First Order would follow them through lightspeed, and his reasons for attacking it were out of a selfish and disobedient desire for heroism. When he later repeats this behavior, it plays a part in the Resistance's decimation"? Then remove it from under Informed Wrongness since the lesson Leia was trying to impart was very right.

The second part of IW I am fine with, it's mostly the first that sits wrong with me.

I agree with your suggestion, except for the "When he later repeats this behavior, it plays a part in the Resistance's decimation" part. I think it should be mentioned that he repeated the reckless heroics while under the impression that Holdo was leading them to their deaths (classic Poor Communication Kills), or it should be left out entirely.

Alright! I'll deleted it under Informed Wrongness and add my entry (+ Holdo's part in the Poor Communication Kills scenario) to the main page then.

The entry itself is cluttered and needs rewriting, but I restored the original entry becasue it's closer to the many complains I've seen in Youtube rants of the movie, comment sections and even some boards like 4chan.

Many reviewers have commented how it's not like Empire and specifically designed not to be a retread like TFA, built to play with audience expectations. And some of those are the reason the movie proved divisive, particularily Luke's entire character arc and death, which many feel undermines the original trilogy or runs contrary to his character there.

There's also the detail that the resistance is being worn down the whole movie, and every single step the heroes take to turn the tide fails and sees them worse than before. We went from a clear victory in TFA, to the whole resistance being just a bunch of people cramped up in the Falcon with no allies in sight within the movie.

I don't see how you can call all that a case of lighter and softer and this being the big problem of the movie with SW fans.

The links posted weren't even so much about the tone of the movies, but mostly how Disney is playing it safe and basically rethreading ground by the very decision to make a new empire/rebels conflict the driving force of the new trilogy.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen anyone declare "this film was too soft". But I have seen a lot of complaints about Luke's character going too dark, or the Resistance being worn down to nothing, or none of the good guys really winning/winning at high costs. Even the visuals can be harsh, like Crait's very red-stained battlefield or the violent battle with the Praetorian Guards. The film is polarizing because it's so bleak and challenges the status quo of Star Wars, not because it plays themes safe and tones down death/grief/violence/etc.

"The Resistance and First Order are just rehashes of the Rebellion and Empire except done terribly, it all just feels like a mess. the Resistance is just a bunch of ace pilots that have inhuman accuracy, and the Fist Oder is a even more incompetent and weaker version of the Empire.

Kylo Ren actually feels pretty threatening. however I can't say the same about the rest of the Fist Order.

it feels like the writers are recycling stories. they are too afraid to explore new possibilities and would rather stay in familiar territory. yes, I understand they want this to feel like Star Wars and don't want to stray from the original source material. but they don't want to try anything new and so are just remaking what we've already seen before. half the time it feels like the writers don't even know what they're doing."

"Disney is trying to kiddyfy Star Wars. They want to make it more for new kids than any established fans who realize it was actually pretty damn dark in the EU, which they should have stuck to. Wookiepedia and reference books exist for a reason. Everything they write is insipid, insulting, and probably has some cherry-picked EU material that has been horrendously repurposed for their awful fan fiction masquerading as a new saga."

"No thought no substance. No morals."

"Disney never takes risks with these movies or does anything original. They’re always just assembly line action films. I already spend money on Marvel action movies. I ain’t rich."

"This sequel series looks to be completely devoid of any creativity whatsoever. It’s like they literally just recolored everything from the original movies so they could continue selling the same crap they’ve always sold in toy stores but in sleek new packaging."

These are all from the internet.

So yes, "these movies are Lighter and Softer and feel like rehash" IS a majority opinion.

This sounds suspiciously like an angry fandumb rant.

You didn't see what you were expecting to see in TLJ. I get that.

What I don't get is how this means that this movie is Lighter and Softer. Sure, it may not be as dark as some EU novels (that aren't canon anymore), but that doesn't mean it's all sunshine and butterflies. TLJ is pretty bleak; only Empire has such a Downer Ending.

As for recycling ideas: I admit, I haven't actually read any of the EU novels, but a quick google tells me that most of them recycle ideas and villains from the original trilogy. Palpatine returns, cloning, Luke falls to the dark side, Han and Leia's son falls to the dark side.... Correct me if I'm wrong, but how is that not recycling the whole "Anakin fell to the dark side and destroyed the Jedi" plot? As far as I can tell, only a handful of them had original plots (i.e. Thrawn).

To conclude this, just because you think TLJ sucks doesn't mean that it's a majority opinion. If anything, most people are upset that TLJ is too dark.

PS: You Tube comments don't count as popular opinion.

Rehashing the Rebels vs. Empire is definitely a complaint I've heard. But that's not really a TLJ complaint so much as a sequel trilogy complaint. It was present in TFA too and will inevitably be in 9.

The other stuff is new to me. In my experience, people seem to think Kylo Ren isn't threatening enough (killing Snoke helped a little in this regard, but ultimately they haven't done much to establish him as an enemy Rey would struggle to defeat) and that the First Order is too threatening, to the point of it defying logic (them somehow taking over the galaxy offscreen after TFA and the Resistance being wrecked to the point where all of it can fit on the Millenium Falcon).

Not sure where the "kiddify" stuff comes from either except maybe the Porgs.

They definitely took risks with this movie. Maybe not with Rey and Kylo, but the way they handled Luke and Snoke was extremely risky (and subsequently caused a lot of backlash).

Observers whole post comes from a single journal in deviantart that is specifically talking about Battlefront II and the writer explaining why that ties to his larger issues with the new trilogy.

The posts has about four short replies in total.

And only one of those is the one that talks about Disney kidifying Star Wars.

Its the smallest pool sample conceivable to argue lighter and softer is this movie's issue, let alone your claim that these are what REAL Star Wars fans think, when watching a couple of rants on You Tube show the biggest issues are Luke and his arc, the heroes not accomplishing anything, not giving any anwers on Snoke and Rey, and Canto Bay being a waste of time that only sets Finn and Rose (which most don't buy).

Here, this is the link he shared to justify his edit. Most of the quotes he posted come from here.

https://broku5000.deviantart.com/journal/My-problem-with-mordern-Star-Wars-721213050

It's specifically a rant about the Disney Star Wars in general, focused on one review of TLJ, two reviews of Battlefront II, and two videos about Star Wars Rebels.

I'd suspect broku is an alter-ego of observer.

I think this got out of hand pretty quick.

Can we just nuke this conversation?

Ok, this movie is Darker and Edgier and weird, and that's what most people hated about it.

You win.

Can we just END this? Please?

Wether I'm broku or not is part of my personal privacy, and ANY invasion of privacy constitutes a (rather unwarranted) personal attack.

Here's my attempt at a new writeup. I will say that I am pretty firmly in the "Did Not Like" camp, but I tried to fairly represent both sides as best I could.

• Contested Sequel: The Last Jedi is one of the most controversial films in the Star Wars franchise. Supporters believe the film to be an Even Better Sequel to The Force Awakens, taking the strengths of that film and improving on it with a more original plot, better Character Development, and strong performances from the main cast. Detractors feel it's weighed down by pacing issues, forced humor, and poor handling of Finn and Poe's respective subplots. The direction of Luke Skywalker's character has also been extremely controversial, with some feeling Luke's actions in the film are out of character and the movie did a disservice to the original hero of Star Wars, while others believe the darker take is more interesting and fits well with the movie's theme of overcoming failure.

I think your suggested entry is neutral and to the point.

Same, that sounds fair and neutral IMO.

Yes, I like that writeup.

Glad to see everyone thus far has approved. If there are no objections, I will probably add it back to the page tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A9rYcBmBFo I think this is most Objective "Do Not Like" summery video out their. For those looking for a glimpse to the other side, look above. It is the least toxic it is going to get.

I don't think it should be on the page, or more specifically not under Franchise Original Sin. That trope is about fans being okay with something in a past work (in this case, Finn's Butt-Monkey status), but not currently. Problem is, Finn isn't the Butt-Monkey here, that's Hux. That entry complains about things that have nothing to do with him being humiliated for humor. Most of the complaints about Finn are about his role in the story; I think they're legitimate complaints, but they have no business being under that particular trope.

Not really. Unless I'm mistaken, the author feels that a white male born into a wealthy family should have no issues, while a black male who escaped from a life of opression should be the focus and/or have a much more prominent role.

If anything, the article is Flame Bait about percieved racism.

Could you explain what do you have in mind that qualifies as Unfortunate Implications?

It made me think about the the mistreatment of minority characters and pushing a relationship between Rey and Kylo that uncomfortably mirrors Bella and Edward among other things.

I'm not seeing the Bella/Edward parallels; it falls under C Ounterpart Comparison, anyway. If you can sum it up in a way that doesn't ignore facts and Word of God^note  Kylo's "You're nothing. But not to me." has been stated to be an Innocently Insensitive comment due to his very poor social skills and not deliberate emotional manipulation, then go for it.

As for mistreatment of minorities.... That's a prime Flame Bait. Example: Poe entrusts Finn and Rose (the black male and asian female) to carry out a dangerous mission and save the Resistance. All possible outcomes will lead to griping in the fanbase because:

• If Finn and Rose had succeeded, then the minority characters saved the white main characters. It's got to be the writers pandering to black and asian viewers.
• If Finn and Rose fail (which they did), then the minority characters are useless and doomed the Resistance. Poe should have gone instead of them; he would have gotten shit done!
• If Finn and Rose were white instead of black and asian respectively, then the writers are obviously racists.
• If Poe, Holdo, etc were black/asian/whatever, then the Resistance's near-decimation obviously means the the fascist First Order is superior; the writers are clearly pro-white.

See what I'm trying to say? No matter what you do, you can't win.(I would also like to point out that the above are just an example and in no way my personal views on the matter; just FYI, so hopefully nobody will get out the pitchforks).

Besides, I'm really not seeing minorities being mistreated.

Word of God on Kylo Ren smells like Unfortunate Implications. Those words plus the fact that Kylo Ren is a mass murderer are things that people will not sympathize and will associate with abusive partners. To say that Kylo Ren in innocently insensitive with poor social skills while he happens to resemble a typical school shooter on news media (complete with sympathy stories) is going to invite some criticisms for LFL.

Additionally, I am not fond of Rose's dumb reason for stopping Finn and risk dooming all of the Resistance to the First Order (which contradicts Holdo's sacrifice). And I am especially not fond of people trying to defend these legit criticisms with the race card. If this was the best Asian representation they can do, then I am heavily disappointed because they could have done it better. This is faux progressiveness to me.

I'm also not seeing how the minorities are being mistreated. It should be noted that Poe Dameron is played by a Latino actor as well. He's Guatemalan, in fact. I'm really hesitant about the legitimacy of arguments regarding the minority characters in the Sequel Trilogy. The characters in this movie seem to be well-received in terms of representation and any alleged poor writing decisions with them have nothing to do with race for the most part.

Rose and Finn may have the least interesting arc in the film, but that has no bearing on things that matter regarding representation such as character development and screen-time. I personally think this is one of the things that will have to be vindicated in the third film. That's when the character arcs will be complete.

Also, Kylo Ren and Rey are not in any form of a relationship other than a bitter rivalry. If anything, they are arch-enemies.

You can cast a diverse group, but if they are occupying roles that seem to be perpetuating racial stereotypes, such as Finn (once a main lead in TFA) being reduced to a comedic side character role that isn't even that prominent in the poster, the diversity seems to be a moot. Poe in particular is occupying a role he is wrong and reckless about everything, and that Admiral Holdo was good and right all along even though she never told him about her plan which would have prevented unnecessary Resistance causalities.

Oh, and don't underestimate romantic foe context. The creators teased at sexual tensions between Rey and Kylo Ren.

And I believe this Canto Blight arc is not going to be vindicated by history at all.

pave17 is right. While there is tension between Rey and Ben, it is barely hinted to be sexual at all, and considering the fact that they end the movie farther apart than before, it's all a moot point.

The race thing feels like people getting mad that the characters of race aren't getting shoved into the plots they want.

Doesn't matter anyway. The article needs to be reputable. This is just a blog.

It actually is.

For the record, that is not what happened in the movie. Luke tried to help his apprentice and panicked at the wrong time. He never planned to kill Ben in cold blood. It was a split second reaction which he immediately regretted.

I have to agree the Vader comparison is a pretty big stretch. Vader was a tyrant who was complicit in the deaths of millions of people, tortured Luke's friends and mutilated him, and threatened to turn Leia to the Dark Side. He had plenty of reason to hate Vader and, frankly, would have been justified in killing him -Obi-Wan and Yoda even wanted him to do so (although not out of anger like the Emperor was trying to bait him into doing). The fact that Vader was his father and was once a good man was pretty much the only reason Luke had any interest in redeeming him at all.

Ben on the other hand was just some kid who (as far as we know) hadn't done anything wrong and Luke was presumably very close with. It'd be like if he got a vision of Leia turning evil and his immediate response was to consider killing her, it doesn't seem like something Luke would do. It doesn't help that they don't really elaborate on Kylo's past at all, they just give a few vague lines about how Snoke was tempting him, but they say absolutely nothing about what he'd done or how things had escalated to the point that Luke thought confronting him in his sleep was even necessary, leading to Luke's actions coming across as disproportionate.

There's also the fact that choosing not killing Vader was the climax of his character arc in the OT. Even if you accept the Vader comparison as valid, I think a lot of the backlash comes from people who expected Luke's character to move forward rather than be stuck where it was 30 years ago.

Satoshi Bakura is right, Luke was not planning to murder Ben in cold blood. It was "a moment of pure instinct" that passed quickly and left him ashamed.

I don't think it's as huge a stretch to compare this moment of weakness to Vader. Because despite all the reasons Luke had to hate Vader, he didn't—he spent all of Rot J wanting to redeem him. Yet, in one moment of anger and fear, he succumbed to the Dark side. He violently beat him down and considered killing him. But then he tossed his lightsaber aside, rejecting the idea firmly.

Ben (probably) hadn't done anything wrong, but Luke didn't just have a vision of him turning evil; he peered into his heart and saw "the destruction of everything I loved". Now, once again, he has a moment of fear with a relative he loves on (the verge of) the Dark side, putting people he loves at risk, and contemplates killing him. Once again, he rejects the Dark side—if Ben hadn't woken up at that exact moment, Luke would doubtless have doubled down on trying to help him.

Just because Luke overcomes temptation once, doesn't mean he's never going to be tempted again. That's part of the whole message, that he's not a legend (in-universe and out), but a person who slips up at times.

Satoshi Bakura, do you mean that two situations are the same or that the situation is a completely different matter?

I saw the movie nearly a month ago, but I remember Luke creepily standing over Ben with a lightsaber for quite some time before finally activating it. Meaning that it was not just a spontaneous action, there was some deliberation going on.

Apocrypha, I see where you are coming from and I see merit in your arguments, but still, I can't accept the execution (no pun intended) of that scene.

Sure, Luke can slip up, that's not the actual problem. He could lash out at Ben or give him a cold shoulder or banish him for some morally ambiguous action. Instead, Luke takes lightsaber, goes into a tent of his student at night, mentally probes him, has some sort of vision and for a brief moment decides to kill him. These circumstances are very much out of character and come from nowhere. They are indeed shocking.^note A Shocking Swerve is a plot twist made just to have a plot twist. There's little-to-no rhyme or reason involved, no foreshadowing, and no way that the viewer/reader/player could have ever seen it coming. They just pulled it out of nowhere out of a misguided desire to "shock" the viewer/reader/player. The Law of Conservation of Detail may be violated, characters may be derailed, subplots may be ruined, and generally everything that's occurred so far may be thrown out the window, just to pull off this twist.

Oransel, I agree that Luke could have handled it differently, and that's what he did say: he was going to try and help his nephew, but Ben woke up at the wrong moment. The twist is shocking, but it doesn't come entirely from nowhere.

First, there's the "Luke tries to kill Vader in a fit of rage but holds himself back" in Ro TJ, which has already been mentioned.

Second, which hasn't been mentioned at all in the sequel trilogy (I don't care if it's been mentioned in the novelizations or by Word of God, we're talking about the films here), is that while the Empire imploded after Palpatine's death, there were still supporters/sympathisers. The First Order was founded by them, after all. Luke, Leia, and Han were still in a war of sorts 20+ years (when Ben would have been Luke's student) after defeating the Emperor. At that point, Luke sees that one of his students might end up destroying everything he's fought for these years and panics. Hardly commendable for someone who defined himself as a keeper of the peace, but understandable under the circumstances.

Luke humself described it as his "hubris"; having so many people idolize him, the last Jedi Master, he became complacent and even a bit arrogant.

pave17, I wish Rian Johnson could have handled it differently in the first place. I can understand and accept general plot of: "Luke turns complacent, gets scared of Ben's power and tendencies, and this weakness enables Ben to become Kylo Ren". Again, that's not the problem here. What I mentioned at the very beginning is directly related to the circumstances of the scene:

Whether Luke's decision to kill Kylo, his nephew and student, for no good reason, while the latter is sleeping qualifies for Shocking Swerve entry.

There are two arguments presented in favor of that scene: 1) Luke considered killing Darth Vader and chose not to and now we have the same scenario here. 2) Luke is just a human, not a paragon, he panicked and had instinctive reaction.

First argument is not good at all. As it has already been explained, context of the scenarios is very much different. You yourself noted that movies themselves do not indicate that there is an ongoing conflict at the time. Comparing flee or fight survival situation with nearly killing a presumably innocent young man is folly. By the same logic of ignored context you may argue that its surprising that Han Solo did not kill anyone in the Force Awakens cantina because he used to kill people in cantinas before.

Second argument is better^note If you readily accept that Luke had no positive Character Development and became a much worse person and that his actions were instinctive and not deliberate but still: What was he doing with a lightsaber in Ben's tent in the first place? Why did he mentally probe him?^note You may argue that he was checking his loyalty, but come on What exactly did he see in the vision beyond some vague mumbo jumbo? Why did he trust it completely? Is the threat that critical to present immediate danger? Why does he have such a poor discipline for a Jedi master?

None of these questions are answered in the movie.

Truth is that it is a bad scene with no foreshadowing and broken logic made entirely for shock value. Kind of, like, you know, Shocking Swerve.

All of your points are kind of arbitrary. Hell not just arbitrary, some of them ignore things about Star Wars canon (Jedi always carry their lightsabers at all times and Luke would trust force visions because they always come true). Some of them are even answered in the movie (he was mentally probing him because he was already aware of Snoke's presence).

Sure the whole comparison with Vader might be a stretch. But Luke's furious striking at Vader was from a vague threat he made to his sister. Yes it was a fight or flee scenario, but it is something that still set him off. Plus, the Han Solo example is laughable considering he still does kill people and still does do illegal trading with gangs.

Yes, there is not that much revealed about what happened in the past, but that is no reason to assume Shocking Swerve because it conflicts with what you want. It would be a Shocking Swerve if there was a backstory already established that completely contradicted with what happened. But there wasn't. We never knew what happened between Luke and Ben until this movie.

In short, just because a flashback doesn't tell you everything does not make it a Shocking Swerve. And don't make up questions just to justify it.

First of all, please refer to definition of a trope and listed examples. Sudden revelations about character backstories, contradicting and confusing elements of the past, especially if they are at odd with continuity or characterization do qualify. As such, my questions are justified because in my opinion they illustrate how the sequence of events contradicts what is established about Luke in the past. Your point about there “not being a backstory” is not true because there is the original trilogy as a reference point.

Second of all, yes, lightsaber is a valid point. If he was mentally probing for that reason, it is also a valid point. Still, force visions are not always true as explained to Luke by Yoda and Obi Wan themselves. Yoda even says that “future is always in motion.” Also, you chose to deflect questions about Luke, a Jedi master having neither discipline nor reasonable judgment of the situation.

Third of all, Han Solo example was a pretty obvious joke about twisted logic so I don’t know what to say about your reply.

Fourth of all, no need to be so hostile and rude. It is just a discussion about silly movie.

"Your point about there “not being a backstory” is not true because there is the original trilogy as a reference point."

And that backstory establishes that Luke has been prone to slipping into moments of fear and darkness; that he'd grown prideful and thought he could cultivate Ben's "mighty Skywalker blood"; and that even when he's tempted by darkness, he turns away from it in the end. Luke sneaks into Ben's room to read his mind because of his pride/concern, slips into fear, then turns away. The only reason the situation goes to hell is extremely poor timing. It fits with his backstory. If he'd actually gone through with trying to kill Ben, that would be a problem.

"Still, force visions are not always true as explained to Luke by Yoda and Obi Wan themselves. Yoda even says that “future is always in motion.” Also, you chose to deflect questions about Luke, a Jedi master having neither discipline nor reasonable judgment of the situation."

Just because they SAY that doesn't mean Luke BELIEVES it. He gets the Force Vision of his friends in danger on Dagobah and runs off to help them; it's not unprecedented he'd believe it was true again (especially since, as he himself says, he had an excess amount of hubris at the time)

As for a Jedi Master having poor discipline, what do you even mean by that? Having a moment of weakness doesn't mean he has poor discipline. Poor discipline means he doesn't behave well, and rejecting one bad urge would arguably be a greater example of GOOD discipline, because he stays in control despite his fears.

Looks like the discussion is going in circles and can be summarized in question of whether you consider Luke's character being derailed or not.

If you believe that Luke, as we know him, throws all Character Development away, becomes a worse person at his prime: violent, stupid, gullible, impulsive, paranoid, reckless failure and that all of that is not shocking at all... Then all I can say is that I disagree. YMMV indeed.

Implying that he can't see much difference between Darth Vader and Ben situations or that he, an accomplished Jedi master, still ignores what his teachers told him makes him look like a complete idiot. Is that really the price for selling that scene?

A disciplined person manages emotions and does not let them cloud their judgement, that's the whole point of the Jedi. He should've left the tent immediately to prevent the event from happening.

If you believe that Luke, as we know him, should be a perfect paragon, a legend who never makes mistakes nor falters, and that one moment of weakness (which he overcomes) makes you "violent, stupid, gullible, impulsive, paranoid, and a reckless failure"... Then you're missing the entire message the film sends: deifying your heroes only leads to disappointment and failure. You don't have to like the message (again, YMMV), but that's what it is.

The Jedi were also very, VERY flawed and wrong in that belief, because that didn't just say "don't let it cloud your judgement", they said "there is no emotion". And Luke didn't let his emotions cloud his judgement. He faltered, yes. Then he overcame it and was filled with shame. A disciplined person can be tempted, but still make the right decision.

Luke's characterization will probably end up under Broken Base when March comes, and that I agree with, because there is a definite split in the fanbase. But there are enough points people can argue on for it to not be Shocking Swerve.

And in all honesty, it seems like you consider the Character Derailment to be objectively true, rather than subjective. Not only that, you are basing off of one moment of weakness. If Luke did that repeatedly, that's derailment. For all we know, he only did it once. At most it is an OOC moment. And even the film itself knows it.

Apocrypha, that sort of message, or to be more precise, its implementation, does not grant it immunity from being considered shocking in the context of the franchise. Jedi argument is very much YMMW and does not cancel out the fact that Luke is indeed a Jedi master and presumably follows their teachnings at the time.

Satoshi Bakura, I explicitly mentioned several times that everything I wrote is my personal opinion. And I do believe that Luke's character was derailed and that even as a moment of weakness, the scene does not work. Spider-Man ignoring a bank robbery is OOC. Spider-Man actively profiteering from a bank robbery for selfish reasons is a shocking Character Derailment.

Regardless, Character Derailment is not applicable because the reasons for the change are given in-universe explanation, and this trope is about unexplained changes. Whether fans like it or not is a separate issue.

And what was the normal Jedi teachings about dealing with students this far in the Dark Side (my option, that they went from fighting back in self-defense to slaughtering innocents in a matter of hours at most argues a case that Luke was justified in considering such)? Do you have evidence it's at odds with the normal teachings?

Shocking Swerve is open to debate, but let's not have a misuse of Derailment confuse the issue.

The simple fact is that it IS Character Derailment in a variety of ways. It is a derailment of Luke's core values, not just in the movies, but in every other non Disney-canon and Legacy Of The Force story as well. Luke is not the person who would try and murder someone in his sleep, even if it was a brief moment of instinct that he let go of. Luke isn't the kind of person who gives up on someone, especially if he can tell there is good in them or even if there's a chance that sparing them and trying to redeem them is the right thing. Darth Vader by comparison had 20+ years worth of murders and atrocities and Luke didn't give up on him. He stopped himself right before he killed Darth Vader in anger. In the Jedi Academy Trilogy, Luke forgave Kyp Durron, who destroyed a solar system and tried to kill him and his other students, but Luke never gave up hope that Kyp could find redemption, even as his other students (and writers) felt like he shouldn't have allowed him to stay afterwards. And he was vindicated, because even though Kyp would never live down his actions when possessed by Exar Kun, he still managed to rise above his own faults and become a respectable Jedi Master. And Luke did think he might have made a mistake for a time, but he didn't give up hope. He sought out answers to make sure he could fix them. He didn't run away from his students, he didn't try to kill them because he was afraid. Much as KJA did a lot of things wrong, he understood Luke's character far better than Rian Johnson does.

Now, what did Ben Solo do to deserve this? Why did Luke feel this was necessary to kill this kid and then not work to redeem him like he did with Vader, who did far worse? When Ben was his student, all we get is that Snoke had turned him, but not whether or not Ben had done anything remotely evil at the time. Remember, Anakin was tainted by his murder of the Sand People and that didn't automatically turn him to the dark side. But here, we don't even get any evidence of what Kylo Ren might have done before the fact. This IS Character Derailment, I'm sorry, but it is the truth. Luke Skywalker is not a perfect paragon, he makes mistakes, he lets his emotions dictate him sometimes but he's not the kind of person who looms over someone and tries to stab him in his sleep. He's not the person who gives up and goes into hiding hoping to die. He is not someone who would refuse to redeem his nephew and let evil rule the galaxy. And make no mistake, Luke is letting evil rule the galaxy and he knows that if the Sith or other Dark Side users are allowed to do what they want, they will do far worse than the Jedi. He would do whatever it took to find out what happened and how to stop it and redeem his nephew. Because Luke is still a hero and a good person. He does face temptations, but at the end of the day, he wouldn't abandon his friends and their son like these movies suggest he would. It's not who Luke Skywalker is.

Setting aside whether it could have worked or not, the reason fans hate this version of Luke and call it derailment is indeed because the film explicitly ignores his core character values to put him in a place that the story requires. That's bad writing first of all, because if you have to outright ignore who a character is in order to have him be the kind of person the story requires him to be, then you have failed in telling a compelling narrative. And no amount of All There in the Manual will fix that, because one, you don't get points if you don't put it in the movie, Disney and Lucas Film's insistence on trying to make all of the canon novels relevant and must reads only screw over the movies and everything else because you shouldn't have to read something in order to understand this. Again, it's terrible writing and presentation. If your story does not stand on its own without supplementary material, then you need to rethink your storytelling method. And two, because ultimately it won't change the fact that you still completely ignored why fans loved the character, why people call him an icon and why he is considered the definitive hero. The Luke Skywalker we see in The Last Jedi, is a pale imitation of Luke Skywalker.

We're debating this wiki's definition of Character Derailment, not what fans call it. Derailment is not changes fans don't like, it's changes that are not explained. Unliked changes is some other trope, or complaining.

The above Wall of Text is Not Helping Your Case by ranting about complaints yet failing to address the issue that it's not Derailment as defined by this wiki.

Does this even have anything to do with the debate if it counts as a Shocking Swerve?

More anger like this and the mods will have to intervene.

Okay, you clearly did not read a single thing I said, did you? Saying my post was anger filled Wall of Text just proves that.

I brought up several real points, but you seem yo be outright ignoring them. Just saying you're being childish and I'm not saying it to be rude. But I will say that your hostile remark of getting admins involved over no real reason is childish.

Ferot_Dreadnaught, please cite the source on why changes to characterization have to be unexplained to qualify for Character Derailment. The trope page says nothing about that arbitrary condition. It actually says:

"When an established character becomes largely different, exhibiting behavior contrary to what has been previously shown. This is not a matter of organic growth. Rather than gradually changing in response to events and experiences, a derailed character will exhibit shockingly unusual behavior that implies malfeasance or incompetence on the part of the writers."

Which is exactly the point that Omega Nemesis 13 made. Dismissing it as Wall of Text is disrespectful.

I also bring your attention to the fact that Shocking Swerve on its page directly mentions Character Derailment as one of the potential reasons for a shocking development in the work. From "legal" standpoint, Luke's situation that we are discussing here does qualify as an example of both tropes.

Ok, first of all: the Expanded Universe? It doesn't matter in this debate. It doesn't matter what Luke did or didn't do in the novels. We're talking about the movies here.

Second, you're again missing one crucial element that Luke himself points out: hubris.

Luke didn't undergo Character Derailment; this was actually Character Development from his RoTJ days to present day with hubris as the catalyst. To the point:

Idealistic jedi apprentice learns that the Big Bad is his long-lost father -> Boy resolves to save his father, ignoring Obi-wan and Yoda's advice to kill Vader -> Boy almost kills his father in anger after hearing said father threaten his sister -> Boy watches his father successfully redeem himself ———>

skip a couple of decades ———>

Boy is now a Jedi master that the new Republic looks up to -> Jedi Master realizes that his nephew is tempted by darkness and threatens to destroy everything he's built in the past few decades -> Jedi master gives into fear, but instantly regrets it -> Jedi master is so appalled by what he almost did to his nephew, the son of his twin sister and his best friend, that he hides in the ass end of the galaxy and waits to die.

This on the laconic page: Character changes without rhyme or reason, or without an appropriate explanation.

There was a reason. He saw so much darkness and such horrible things that he panic. There was no evidence of any change before then.

On Square Peg Round Trope:

• Character Derailment is about characters who change throughout the show or story without rhyme or reason. Some of the examples on the page are just minor examples of Flanderization (which is similar to Character Derailment but less insulting). There were even a few examples that did have logical explanation to character change within the context of the story.

Character Derailment being unexplained is important, and there is explanation of what Luke did.

First thing to mention is that if these are indeed the officially established rules for the trope and not just somebody putting it there on a whim,^note I can't find any forum threads on the matter or trope repair discussion then it should be written down on the main page of the trope, not hidden somewhere.

Second thing, even in your quote it mentions appropriate explanation. Luke getting scared and going for the kill is not an appropriate explanation. Terminator gets happy after meeting John Connor and spends a week riding on the Coney Island technically has a "reason" for the reaction but it is not appropriate.

<Mod Hat ON>

I was told someone was being uncivil in this discussion. Please knock it off with the uncivility. Failure to do so may result in suspensions.

Well now that you're here, you could give your opinion as a mod. It's always good to have those to keep arguments under control.

Oransel—Luke didn't go for the kill. He thought about it, but he didn't do it. Luke being afraid (like he canonically has before) is an appropriate explanation for having a Moment of Weakness, especially one he doesn't succumb to.

Berrenta—yes please, it'd be nice for a mod to get this thread under control.

Upon review, I think the correct trope to express the complaints about Luke is not Character Derailment, but Ron the Death Eater. FYI.

Except you guys are, in fact, missing the point that I also made, which is this.

What did Ben Solo do to deserve this automatic reaction?

Why did Luke decide killing Kylo Ren was the best thing to do? Even if it was for a moment? This isn't the same situation as Darth Vader where Luke gave into fear by knowing that Vader was perfectly capable of horrible things combined with fear for his sisters safety. In this movie, we don't actually see Ben Solo do anything but sleep in his room while his uncle creepily watches over him contemplating murder. If we had seen in flashback what Ben Solo was doing to make Luke worried, that'd make all of the difference, but he doesn't. Ben Solo is presented as an innocent victim but that doesn't work in this context because the movie is trying to also make it clear that Ben Solo is also on the verge of the Dark Side without giving us visual examples of it. Just saying Snoke did it doesn't work because we already know that bit, but what we need for this to work is to show what Ben did to make his uncle so worried. And even currently, while the movie makes it clear that Kylo Ren could be redeemed if Luke and Rey were to simply work together for it, Luke refuses to do it because Luke thinks Kylo Ren is irredeemable and he says so to Leia. Again, there is nothing to suggest that Kylo Ren is worse than Darth Vader in this regard. Luke not giving Kylo Ren that same chance thus goes complete against Luke's philosophy as established in Rot J that anyone can be redeemed simply because the film wants Luke to feel that way. That's not organic character growth, it's artificial.

It's also not the same thing because Luke would still never consider murdering someone while they sleep, which this movie suggests he would. And don't pretend that because he doesn't that it makes it better, please. Because the fact is is that it is Character Derailment. The behavior doesn't match up with Luke's character arc in the original trilogy or the Legends novels, which were still official canon before the reboot. The problem comes because it's trying to do things with Luke that don't fit his core values, so it has to dramatically change them to suit the films needs. Again, that's bad writing, look at it without the rose colored glasses and you'll see that. Luke Skywalker doesn't give up, he just finds another way to do something. That's why Yoda gains complete confidence in Luke before he dies to pass on what he learned. And we saw him do just that in Legends and while Lucas always had the option to ignore it, it was still recognized by Lucasfilm as canon according to their Canon Tier system. The movie is ignoring those traits and throwing out development that he previously had in order to put him in a place that is antithetical to his character development. That perfectly fits the definition of Character Derailment.

First wrong assumption: "Luke thinks Kylo Ren is irredeemable and he says so to Leia". What Luke says to Leia is that "noone is ever truly gone", which implies the exact opposite: Luke knows that Kylo Ren can be redeemed.

Second wrong assumption: that the Legends novels have anything to do with the sequel trilogy. They don't. Completely different stories, completely different character arcs. For the sake of this discussion, and so we might reach a consensus at some point in this decade, just pretend that they don't exist.

Third wrong assumption: that Yoda gained complete confidence in Luke before he died. He didn't. IIRC, when Luke called himself a Jedi, Yoda laughed and said "not yet". Luke truly earned the title of Jedi when he refused to strike the killing blow against Vader and threw his lightsaber away. That's the point when the Emperor realizes that Luke can't be turned to the dark side and decides to fry him instead.

Apocrypha, we're talking in circles. Let me clarify my stance from several posts back again. Is it ok for Luke to make mistakes? Yes. Is it ok for him to have moments of weakness? Yes. Is it ok for him to be partially guilty of relationship going wrong? Yes. Is it ok for him to turn complacent or arrogant to a certain degree? Yes. I don't like those character choices, but I can live with them.

Problem is that what we're actually shown in the movie in the contested scene takes things Up To Eleven, goes in such extremes that I can no longer accept Luke as the same character as the one from the original trilogy. It makes me believe that the whole sequence of events is a shocking twist with no reasonable justification.

I get what you are saying. Luke mentally probed his student who somehow became evil, got scared and contemplated killing him with a glowing lightsaber. Technically there is a logic to that. But that logic ignores crucial traits of Luke's personality. I don't see a man from the ending of the Return of Jedi doing something like that, especially after 20+ years of rigorous training to become a Jedi master, it is as simple as that. I don't see how an idealistic, good person, who overcame his anger and fear at great cost, who studied discipline and self control, would completely lose his mind to nearly turn into a crazed maniac. Simple change to the scene would make it work:

Luke stares at Ben in shock, trembling and visibly agitated. He does not activate the lightsaber but quickly moves away from the tent in fear. The next day he, subtly shown to be on the verge of panick, harshly tells Ben to leave the compound immediately without stating the reason. They argue for a bit before Ben asks Luke if he mind probed his student. Luke has nothing to say and Ben gets his confirmation. They stare at each other speechless before Ben, who also gets scared and angry, attacks Luke.

This would solve so many problems. It would still portray Luke as someone partially at fault for things to go awry without making him look deranged. Luke would still get a moment of weakness, of succumbing to Adult Fear and not making the best decision, but it would not be extreme and out of character. It would actually fit to his new role as the Jedi master looking to isolate the bad influence from his other students. Instead Rian Johnson decided to go the most extreme and shocking route, ignored who Luke is, and wrote the edgy scene that he wanted to write. I can't accept it as anything but the Shocking Swerve.

Okay, I can accept that you view it as Character Derailment while the rest of us don't. That's fine, we can all have opinions. The rest of use don't view it as such. That is fine.

The main problem is that we shouldn't even be having this argument in the first place since the argument of the Shocking Swerve entry is based on Character Derailment. Which is Flame Bait. As in should never ever be listed on trope or YMMV pages.

Shocking Swerve is not Flame Bait, but the entry for it is based on Flame Bait. This whole argument is the reason why Character Derailment is Flame Bait.

Guess we really need an expert opinion on this matter because now we're going into some advanced form of "legal" debate about conditionality of the tropes themselves. Shocking Swerve explicitly mentions Character Derailment as a valid argument, right on the main page. In addition, the notion that Character Derailment argument may be dismissed simply because there is any explanation, including broken logic or Hand Wave, is really sketchy and not immediately obvious. As such both tropes should be analyzed. Maybe take this to the forums?

I recall that Rian Johnson wanted Luke with the activated lightsaber solely for the purpose of Shocking Swerve.

"It’s similar to Rashomon, but the actual story motivation was that I wanted some harder kick to Rey’s turn: ‘You didn’t tell me this.’ I wanted some harder line that was crossed – a more defined thing that we could actually see – between Luke and Kylo."

It was not what would Luke do, but rather would make Rey go to Kylo Ren despite him being a murderer. It's an example of scene before character.

Honestly, the first thing that comes to mind is Hate Dumb and Fan Dumb. I mean, there's one thing to hate a movie, but to chop it up so it removes all traces of "girl powah" (or whatever it is that offends you)?

Maybe GIFT?

G.I.F.T isn't a YMMV trope, but the very nature of the fan edit makes it unsuitable for the main page rather than the YMMV page. I'll try Snark Bait for now.

Hate Dumb and Fan Dumb are Flame Bait, so those wouldn't work.

Potential Flame Bait aside I'm not sure this is the right place for that. Generally, fan works are not supposed to go on the actual work's page, they get their own.

A page for the MRA edit would be absolutely hilarious (iirc the wiki does have pages for works that are Flame Bait by their very nature such as Sonichu). It all depends on whether there are tropers who have enough time and strength to actually watch the abomination.

You mean the tropes who suffer from Bile Fascination?

Precisely.

Rian Johnson's already said he, and the team, knew the movie would spark controversy and discussion among the fanbase—but that he believed it was necessary for Star Wars to move forwards.

That would be Counterpart Comparison.

Thank You For Clearing That Up! :) Seeing it for a second time! (Missed out on half an emotional scene thanks to a forced restroom-break) Can't wait!

(Word of advice; do NOT drink ANYTHING one-hour before the movie and DO go to the rest-room FULLY before the film starts. and do NOT start drinking your Coke/Soda until The First Casino Planet Scene is FULLY over. This film, like Titanic is PUNISHING on the human bladder with it's 2 and a half hour length if you do not follow this advice)

Good Night Everybody! :)

I'm not really seeing the parallels to Joffrey.

Jof was a Dirty Coward, talkibg big but too afraid and incompetent to do anything right. Kylo is The Heavy, willing to get things done whatever it takes. Furthermore, Joffrey is a remorseless psychopath who doesn't care for anyone except himself, while Kylo is, if nothing else, established ro feel great inner conflict about his actions.

Honestly, if he must be compared to someone from GoT, i think that Theon is a better counterpart: impulsive, reckless, heir to an important bloodline but rejected by their families (in different ways, but still), talking big but still failing to accomplish their goals.

Thoughts?

Well, I’m focusing more on the “whiny little bitch who throws tantrums, sits on THE TOP of the World he rules but is too stupid to exert any real power without reluctant supporters” aspect. Any other points of views?

If that's your POV, then Theon more than fits. Remember his stint as "ruler" of Winterfel in Season 2?

Edit: Also, when is Kylo Ren being stupid? Hot headed and slash first - think later, yes, but he's not an idiot.

Most recent edit reeks of Character-Bashing:

That kind of "this is stupid bullshit and I hate it" tone is generally frowned on here, so you know.

Would it be worth revisiting this topic? Personally, I feel that Ren is more like Cersei than either Joffrey or Theon: he's hot-headed, impulsive, an incompetent leader, and seized power for the sake of power. Joffrey was a Puppet King for Cersei, but Cersei was the mastermind behind the coup that killed King Robert, and Kylo is the mastermind behind his own coup. Just like Cersei, Kylo is also obsessed with personal slights (Cersei with Margaery, Kylo with Luke).

That portfolio is too general for me.

Ok, let's examine your proposal:

Hot-headed, impulsive, incompetent leader: check. However, Cercei isn't the only villain alive exhibiting those traits; those three can apply to any mumber of antagonists.

Seized power for the sake of power: A fact for Cercei, but questionable for Kylo Ren. According to him, he seized power so he could tear the old world down and start over. That's a motivation that Cercei doesn't have; she just wants to be in charge even as the world is burning to the ground around her.

Being the mastermind behind the coup that overthrew the previous ruler: Again, not applicable here. Cercei had Lancel (and the boar) do the dirty work, while Kylo Ren personally killed Snoke, even though he had to use trickery to get the drop on him.

The similarties between Cercei and Kylo Ren are superficial; for one thing, she's a narcisistic sociopath who ultimately cares about nobody but herself (see her interactions with Jaime in the Dragon and the Wolf) while he's, at his worst, a Psychopathic Manchild who shows concern for and even compassion to the people he cares about.

Unpleasable Fanbase is Flame Bait, it's not meant to be put on trope pages, even YMMV.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Different people can have different opinions and from what I've seen they seem to be referring to two separate issues anyway -It's the Same, Now It Sucks! being about the movie hitting some of the same plot points as TESB/ROTJ, while They Changed It, Now It Sucks! referring to the controversial decisions like Luke's characterization and Snoke's early death.

The best I can come up with is Audience-Alienating Premise.

Well, Johnson acknowledged that the film WOULD be divisive by its very nature. He just thought it was necessary to move the setting of Star Wars forward. So it might kinda be Intended Audience Reaction? Maybe more predicted then intended, but they knew what they were doing and were prepared for it.

I also dunno how good a fit Audience-Alienating Premise is, since from my understanding that's where the concept itself scares people off of seeing the movie in the first place, not people going in and coming out feeling divided.

Is there a source that cites Johnson's thoughts? If so, we have a solid case for adding Intended Audience Reaction as a trope.

Yep, here:

https://twitter.com/rianjohnson/status/943930384852574208

There's no proof that Finn's sacrifice would have worked. He might have given up his life for nothing.

But she still saved him because of feelings she had only been expressing for a day; yes, his sacrifice might not have worked, but they'll never know now because of Rose....

And if he had gone through with it, the Resistance would have lost a hero possibly for nothing. Is that a risk worth taking?

Look, you make a good point, but think about it this way. Rose clearly wasn't thinking 'Oh no, he might waste his life for nothing and the Resistance could lose one of its heroes in a time where things are already bleak as fuck'. She was thinking 'I can't lose this man that I love! (And have loved since yesterday!). Even if what she did might've been the right thing, it was for the wrong reasons. She did not think about what how Finn's death could deal an emotional blow to the Resistance, she acted on impulse because she loved Finn even though she had only known him for a day.

I think the risk of a hero to the Resistance dying probably wasn't worth the deaths of all the rebels that followed by the aborted sacrifice.

Like I said, there was absolutely no indicator that would work. It looked like Finn was just trying to get lucky and hope that his sacrifice could accomplish something. For all we know Finn would have died without damaging the device at all.

I admit that Rose's reasoning was wrong and the WAI entry could be about that, but there is no proof that Finn could have saved anyone.

That is what I truly want to focus on - Rose’s reasoning. I am willing to place less emphasis on how Finn could’ve saved everyone and just talk about how Rose really just let her emotions get to her.

Sounds like a reasonable response for someone who is still traumatized and not used to combat.

Are you really trying to say that someone who had never been in a battle before and was watching someone they care about flying straight to their death wouldn't make the choice to save them? That in the heat of the moment they'd stop and rationalize the whole thing? "Yes, I like Finn, but he has to do this if the rest of us are to survive." Especially since Poe earlier explicitly ordered Finn to get the hell out of there?

If we're being rational about the whole thing, then Rose was following Poe's order for everyone to fall back and was making sure that Finn didn't die in vain.

Besides, the First Order had numbers on their side. They would have broken that door down eventually, since nobody was coming to save the Resistance.

Looks like I mistyped. Edited my comment.

Rose risked her life saving Finn then told him not to risk his life trying to save people. Could definitely qualify as a Broken Aesop at the very least.

I'm extremely suspicious of that RT score too. 67,000 ratings in one day? I smells bots.

We can remove the ratings if you'd like. But I still maintain the example itself is valid, as most critics scored the movie near perfect while fan reaction has been much more divisive.

We now have an actual claim of sabotage of the RT score◊ by a Facebook group for pro-Legends diehards. Thoughts?

They (and plenty of others; let's face is the internet is full of trolls who love to spoil others' fun) had an effect on the rating, but I'm also reasonably certain that it would've had a comparitively low audience score regardless. Maybe in the 70% range. I mean, Vocal Minority or no, this movie has inspired some vitriol in the Star Wars fandom.

For what it's worth, Rottentomatoes themselves say the score is legitimate.

Unless you have sources that directly reference the trope, yes.

Contested was removed because it's allegedly a Vocal Minority but I have to say I disagree. Force Awakens has a lot of hate but it's audience reception is still quite high meaning the complaints could be seen as vocal minority, but Last Jedi seems to have made a genuine split in the fanbase

I would agree with that statement.

If anything, I would say we should readd Contested Sequel and cut Even Better Sequel. Contested Sequel does not mean bad, that's Sequelitis. Contested Sequel means some people liked it and some didn't. Even Better Sequel is for when it's unanimously seen as an improvement (or at least as close to unanimous as it's possible to get) which is not the case with TLJ IMO.

I'm in the group that was very unimpressed by the movie, but my opinion is that it would be best to hold out on both options for awhile, until the numbers coalesce some more. I'm inclined to think that the audience score is pretty accurate, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to rush in, particularly when tempers seem pretty heated.