Nope, nope, I'm not going to let you get away with that one. We have no idea what Luke did between TESB and ROTJ, how he developed his skills and where he got that ugly black outfit, that was never discussed in the original trilogy. It's a big mystery, since Yoda was the only known Jedi coach, and when they meet on Yoda's deathbed they did not discuss the years of training Luke should have had.
I'm not going to start this stupid argument again, or rather, I'm not going to continue it. But the truth is, the truth you Haters don't want to admit, is that the original films were just as full of fantasy, unrealism, Mary-Sue characters, and improbability as the Disney films. If you're willing to accept the improbabilities of the original films and not of the Disney films then fine, but the difference is as much in your perception of the various films as it is in the films themselves. If you identified with Luke and not with Rey then great, at least you have someone to identify with, but picking apart illogical things in Star Wars doesn't tell you why someone likes one film and not another, because liking is illogical and frankly - so are all of the films.
reply
share
[deleted]
7 years ago
What are you talking about? It is mentioned several times in the film that Luke has changed and that he has acquired new skills. Everyone from Han+Chewie to Darth Vader himself make a point of it. There IS also a time gap between ESB->ROTJ which you have once again conveniently ignored (because it doesn't suit your argument; classic (and pathetic) fact cherry-picking akin to sjw tactics).
It is nothing but PURE desperation from rey apologists who are trying to retcon their own memories and ignore/invent things from previous films in order to make themselves feel better about the bs that is the rey mary sue character. The issue is, in the past 40 years LITERALLY NO-ONE has raised any of these points as they don't actually exist.
Also as you will know, there was no such training by rey - (even implied off-screen) as it is SPECIFICALLY stated in the films that she had never used a lightsaber before destroying kylo ren in tfa. Thus it can no longer be 'theorised' that she has had jedi training in the past etc. She is as powerful as she is, knows all the skills she needs instantly and can best anyone at any task because according to kennedy, rey is meant to be a character that all women can relate to.
"I have a story department up at Lucasfilm, and four out of the six people who make up that story department are women," Kennedy says. "So there were as many women sitting in the room having those discussion as there were men. I think that, in and of itself, [b]is what really began to help [Rey] take shape in a way that was relevant to us. And hopefully relevant to other women seeing the film" Kathleen Kennedy on "The women of Star Wars".
Aside from the fact that 4/6 is not equal (it is to kennedy of course) it is clearly stated, by the president of Lucasfilm, that the rey mary sue character is meant to relevant to all women ... classic.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
7 years ago
"What are you talking about? It is mentioned several times in the film that Luke has changed and that he has acquired new skills"
My point was that we don't know where or how he got those skills, for all we know he was self-taught.
And like I said, I'm not going to continue this everlasting stupid argument, at least not with someone who won't admit that the whole Luke-vs-Rey or old-vs-new argument is really about FEELINGS.
reply
share
[deleted]
7 years ago
Hardly relevant, it's still exposition regarding Luke where-as there is zero for rey. The films even go out of their way to specifically state that she hasn't done such things beforehand - such as expert piloting and comprehensive lightsaber victories.
As is typical with mary sue defenders, it's best to back out instead of admitting that your argument is flawed. That way you can pretend you're still right, which is what's most important isn't it.
You might be talking about feelings but everyone else is talking about facts.
frog ...
reply
share
Otter (24464)
7 years ago
No, it really is about feelings, liking a character and forgiving their implausible actions, or not.
FEEEELINGS, WHOA WHOA WHOA FEEEEEEELINGS...
reply
share
[deleted]
7 years ago
You're trying to reduce it to feelings because you DON'T HAVE ANY FACTS.
This is pretty clear.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
7 years ago
Loving a movie or hating it is an emotional experience. We don't live movies because they're logical or hate them if they're not, or your physics class instructional films would have bigger fandoms than "Star Wars". Because nothing in SW us logical, there are just different levels of plausibility and acceptability for each fan.
Really, there's no point in arguing with someone who refuses to believe their opinion is based on logic and not FEELINGS, because such people don't even understand themselves, much less anything else. Including film going.
reply
share
[deleted]
7 years ago
So you're now off on another tangent ... is this a deflection tactic?
So you've finally pulled out the "It's a movie" card? As-if SW is nothing but a mass of incoherent randomness.
This is bottom of the barrel desperation. None of this has anything to do with the subject at hand.
YOU need to accept that rey is a mary sue. I don't get why people get so offended at this fact.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
7 years ago
I'm not going to conduct the discussion on your terms, because your terms are so sadly limited.
Like I said, those who fail to understand the emotional issues fail to understand anything.
reply
share
[deleted]
7 years ago
You have no comeback, got it.
I will accept your lack of a response as agreement.
reply
share