Star Wars Character's Can't Make Mistakes

Star Wars Character's Can't Make Mistakes

And it's really annoying. ALSO SPOILERS

BE WARNED THIS WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS FOR STAR WARS THE LAST JEDI and for those who can't put two and two together if you read this and have not seen the movie you will find out things that happen in the movie. This is not a slight on your intelligence. We've all been on the internet. We all know those people exist.

Anyways onto the real point here.

Nobody can make mistakes in Star Wars. At least not the characters people like. Now on the surface, this seems like a good ploy on the writers part. The audience can't be mad if the characters they like if they don't make mistakes especially because Star Wars has a die-hard following and a passionate fanbase. But it's really just on the surface. Everyone makes mistakes including characters. Yes, even the ones you like.

Don't believe me?

Fin and Rose set out on a mission to disconnect the tracking device that Snoke's Mega Destroyer Kylo Ren's ship had on the Rebellion ship that allowed Snoke to follow Princess Leia through hyperspace. Of course, this side plot proved to be moot as the Resistance had a secure hideaway. And when Rose and Fin are backstabbed by the stuttering hacker and accidentally bring misfortune on the rest of the Resistance back on the ship it's not their fault they were just trying to help. This side plot took up a lot of time and involved a chase scene that made sure the audience couldn't forget it was a Disney movie. A chase scene with fathiers, animals much like racehorses that are treated worse, where Rose and Fin did nothing to help the child slaves and released the animals just a few miles away from their stables where they will most definitely be rounded up again anyway. What I'm saying is the whole side plot was pointless and only served to create an accidental problem that can't be blamed on anybody.

General Leia's injury that took her out of most of the movie, seemed to only happen so she couldn't be blamed for the decimation of the Rebel fleet. Oh no, that was Admiral Haldo, the purple-haired lady. She may seem like a character that was pulled out of literally nowhere, but she has been in some of the Lucasfilm Disney canon novel collaborations. But to anyone who hasn't read those she was a fill-in character and instead of reaching back and showing us an old face like Lando, they bring up someone that was introduced in a book in 2017. God forbid General Organa makes a mistake. Also, they seemed to think that it was ok that hundreds of Rebel troops died because they had the hideout. No, Haldo, they're still dead and that's still on you. She didn't even trust her crew with that information.

Sure it can be argued that given that the hideaway was there the mad dash and loss of life was worth it to get there as soon as possible and regroup and salvage what they could because fighting face on would have lead to even worse casualties. Either way, it was an unpopular decision, or devastating mistake, that they didn't want General Leia to make.

They played Haldo off like a hero, like the captain of the Titanic going down with his ship, when it was her fault that most of the fleet is gone. They made her be whatever they wanted moment to moment. Villian when Poe was accusing her of making bad discussions and not trusting her crew with the hideaway and a hero later. Through the magic of musical scoring, they changed the mood of the movie, not through the actual actions of the characters. They took General Leia out so somebody else could make the mistakes because all the love that fans have for General Leia is conditional. Even after all these years, I guess. As though Disney doesn't trust Star Wars fans to be mature enough to accept human error. They definitely think that Star Wars fans are dumb enough to be lulled in with a hug from Leia and some heroic music, that's what they tried with Haldo's send off.

Not to Mention Admiral Haldo T-boning the enemy ship presents its own list of problems. But she waited a pretty decent amount of time before doing it. Just sitting and watching as the rescue pods are picked off one by one. She knew she was going down with that ship, her survival wasn't really up for debate here. But she waited. And waited. And waited. Like the audience needed to understand the gravity of the issue? For the entire movie, Poe has been screaming the dwindling numbers of the Rebel ships and I guess we needed to see it real time? Does Disney think we're that dumb?

And then there's Luke Skywalker. From the minute he actually started to 'train' Rey, asking her to reach out, I understood what his revelation was going to be. The old Luke had hope and even saw the light in his father, but this new Luke was weary and doesn't have hope anymore. This may have started when he didn't think that the light could overcome the dark in Kylo Ren, and even though that thought manifested itself for a singular moment in his mind, he paid dearly for it when Ben Solo awoke to find his teacher standing over him with a lightsaber. He is obviously not convinced that there is enough light inside of Rey. At the first sign of trouble, when she reaches for the dark, the first time she's truly interacted with the force Luke seemed to think her fate was sealed, and she would be another Ben Solo. That her light couldn't compete with her dark or at least he couldn't bring it out of her. And the minute he's proven wrong, he gives the audience the biggest nope out of all. Maybe it was because he had some inner peace, but it really looks like he gave up.

Now all this could be all down to Rian Johnson, the director and the writer of the movie. It could be different JJ Abrams is directing the next movie and it could be different. But these characters have to seem human. They are human afterall.

And if you liked this movie and have a different opinion, that's fine. We're all people and entitled to opinions and if you want to waste time leaving a scathing comment go for it I guess. I'm not saying you're not allowed to like this movie and any actual conversation is welcome.

Oh yeah, also lightsaber battles. Those are- those are neat. They should put in more of those.

Popular Right Now

Why YouTube's New Regulations Discriminate Against Small Channels

No 1,000 subscribers? No money.

On January 16th, YouTube made changes to its Partner Program. These changes pertain to the threshold for monetization. Originally, content creators were eligible for monetization if they had 10,000 or more lifetime views, that is, 10,000 public views.

Now, creators will be required to have 4,000 hours of watch time from the past twelve months, as well as at least 1,000 subscribers. If a content creator does not meet these criteria, they will be unable to monetize their videos.

In a blog post, YouTube announced that this change in monetization regulations is being put in place in order to "prevent bad actors from harming the inspiring and original creators around the world who make their living on YouTube". YouTube also claims that they have arrived at the decision to create these new regulations after "conversations with creators". However, the online response by creators towards YouTube's new policies have been almost entirely negative, with many people saying that it would be better to simply punish the channels that are misusing the platform instead of punishing the platform as a whole.

YouTube themselves have stated in the previously mentioned blog post that these changes will effect a significant number of platform users, but have tried to write this off by explaining that 99% of the effected users are making less than $100 a year on YouTube. However, this really isn't a fair excuse.

Yes, $100 is not a lot of money, but think about it this way. This is money that these creators could be using to improve their videos and grow their channels. Now, however, they no longer will be earning the money to do so.

If YouTube wanted to gain more users and dedicated viewers, it is more likely that they would of implemented a different policy, perhaps one that makes stricter guidelines for content. By making it harder for small channels to monetize their views, YouTube appears to only care about their larger channels, often run by internet celebrities who partner with YouTube's streaming service, YouTube Red, to create or star in feature length films or television shows.

It is worth noting that the majority of the top comments on the YouTube blog post are "sub for sub", that is "subscription for subscription". Most of the people commenting this have also included additions such as "if everyone reading this did a sub for sub we could all get at least 1,000 subscribers".

It's clear that while the new guidelines are definitely a blow to smaller channels, many smaller creators are banding together and supporting each other. Many larger creators have spoke up online, offering smaller creators ways to make money while they build up their subscriber base, such as starting up a Patreon (a membership platform where people can give money to creators and receive small gifts or prizes in return).

If YouTube wants to continue to gain users, they shouldn't make changes to the platform that penalize smaller users. Yes, the bigger users bring in the money for YouTube, but in order to continue to grow as a platform, they need to appeal to new users, and encourage smaller channels to keep creating.

Cover Image Credit: pixabay

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' Is A Hidden Gem Of The 90s

The first film based on our favorite pizza-eating dudes is a lot deeper than you'd think.

Like many, I have been a fan of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise since I was a young boy. I have fond memories of watching the original cartoon, playing the various video games, playing with the toys and reading the comic books. Also, like many, I have fond memories of the live-action films that were released in the early 1990s.

While looking back on the first three film I noticed that films two and three didn't exactly hold up well. While "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze" is fun, it's overall a shallow experience. "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III" was a straight-up bad film with obnoxious writing and characters. However, that wasn't the case when I decided to watch the first film.

"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" was released in 1990 and was a really big hit that year. Looking back at the film, I was surprised to find a sizable amount of thematic depth in the film. I know that sounds surprising coming from a movie based on a cartoon that was used to sell toy, but if "The LEGO Movie" has taught me anything it's that even films based on products can have great characters and depth.

The film's theme is primarily that of fatherhood. Through the characters of Splinter (Kevin Clash) and Shredder (James Saito) we see examples of loving fatherhood and exploitative fatherhood. Splinter is portrayed as an old fashioned father who disciplines the turtles, but always shows them that he loves them and would risk his life for their well being.

By contrast, the Shredder is a surrogate father figure to many of the disenfranchised children and teens of New York City. The Shredder uses their adolescent love of games, smoking, and a sense of belonging to lure them into his criminal empire (The Foot) and uses them to commit various street crimes. He he gives these emotionally troubled youths a "family" and in return he receives loyalty from them.

In many ways this is how real world street gangs maintain a sense of loyalty among its members. Most gang members start as children from broken homes and families. These young people find their escape in the gang which becomes a surrogate family to them. In return they pledge loyalty to that "family" and do everything in their power to protect their "family" from those that would harm it, such as police or rival gangs.

We see both of these examples of fatherhood play out in the film. We see Splinter try to reason with one of the members of the Foot and tells him the story of his origin. This act of kindness and the desire to understand the boy results in the boy helping our heroes in the final fight. We also witness Splinter putting his own life at risk to protect his sons, both when he is being interrogated by Shredder and during the final battle.

Shredder, on the other hand, cares only for his criminal empire and his desire to wipe out his enemies. He may seem like a "cool dad" who brings you games and totally "gets" you, but he eventually reveals that he wasn't all that great and wasn't the type of father you needed. This is punctuated by the boy beginning to fear him when Shredder discovers that he's been talking to the imprisoned Splinter behind his back, and when Shredder's henchman takes out his frustration on one of the Foot ninjas and doesn't seem to care.

The films is good for many other reasons as well. The characters are likable and the costumes are great examples of practical effects work. The fight scenes are really well done and impressive, especially when you remember that actors in hot and bulky costumes had to perform them. The film also has a well-realized gritty aesthetic that reminds viewers of the original comic Ninja Turtles and give New York City this realistic, lived-in feel.

While the film's dialog isn't that great, and the pacing and cinematography are nothing to write home about; it is still a well made children's film that may go a bit deeper than you realize. If you are a fan of the franchise or you have children who are curious about the things their parents loved as kids, then I recommend you give it a watch. It's certainly better than most of the Ninja Turtles films you see nowadays (wow, do I feel old saying that)!

Cover Image Credit: YouTube

Related Content

Facebook Comments