The Last Jedi Didn't Break Star Wars. It Broke the Fans

"You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"  -Obi-Wan Kenobi 

As silly as this meme is, I created it to illustrate the divisions in the Star Wars fanbase. But unlike the Marvel movie I took this from, the conflict isn't going to be solved by a couple punch-ups before patching things up. No, we're running a parallel course to the Civil War story as it played in the comics. The one where the disagreement was protracted. Where things got out of hand. Where characters were driven to extremes and did things they may not have otherwise. The one where the polaraizations forced many to take sides and, in some cases, change teams when things go too far. In the end, we can only hope those who listened to their worst selves feel some regret when they do something they can't take back.

All the fans embroiled in this disagreement are morally culpable for their own words and actions. The defenders of The Last Jedi have been accused of being politically motivated, pompous, close minded, anti-male, and, my personal favorite, SJW terrorists.* While the critics of the film have been accused of being unjust haters, philistines, sexists, racists, stuck in the past, butthurt fanboys, and toxic males. In individual cases, these accusations hold up, but many lean towards painting the entirety of the other side with a single brush. Arguments about the movie often quickly stop being about the movie. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the sins of this conflict, so here goes.

The critics have harassed the stars and creative team online, boycotted future Star Wars movies, and even tried to kickstart their own reboot. How they feel about it is a matter of opinion and taste, and they are entitled to their feelings, but their greatest sin is taking their anger and disappointment out on innocent targets like Kelly Marie Tran with derogatory language. On the other hand the defenders have employed ad hominem arguments, engaged in online bullying tactics, and attacked the quality of the older films. Like the critics, they are entitled to their feelings, but their sin is rather than responding to criticisms of the film, or acknowledging and letting them slide, they resort to attacking the critics by impugning their judgement and character, which only leads to further divisiveness. If I had more experience in psychology, I'd be interested in exploring how the argument tactics reflect on a particular person's viewpoint, but the point I actually want to get to is this.

Nobody is right.

At least not completely right or completely wrong. Like the Sokovia Accords, the Last Jedi was a production from good intentions, but it made the same miscalculation. It forced people to choose between mutually exclusive worldviews that existed within the community, with no wiggle room for debate or negotiation. I think this is why so few people can cherry-pick things they liked or disliked about the film, as they did with the others. The whole film is structured in such a way that the viewer either sees it as much needed change, or a wonton attack on a revered institution. The viewpoints behind these interpretations are equally valid, but the movie only caters to one of them, which makes the other reject it completely.

As I said, all the fans engaging in the online discourse are responsible for their own actions and the consquences therein, but ultimately, it was The Last Jedi that lit the match on this explosive situation. So let's take a look at what's going on.

*It's my favorite because its so overly dramatic, not b/c I agree with it.


Classic Hero's Journey

The Original trilogy is often regarded as a quintisential example of the classic hero vs villains story. There's a clear set of good guys with their own motivations, and a clear set of bad guys with an evil agenda. It's exciting for the audience to see a protagonist come from nothing, learn to be strong, stand up to the villains, suffer a setback, overcome it, and then give the villains their just desserts.

It's so classic it can be seen in dozens of other successful franchises like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, most of the Marvel films, The Lego Movie, and even Rogue One, Solo, and The Force Awakens. It's considered a safe, tried and true formula. Consequently, the criticism has been raised that its cliched and overused, particularly when coupled with the fact that the protagonist is more often not, a man (more on that later).

The Last Jedi sought to buck that trend, which is an admirable goal. How it went about it though, is  the root of the backlash. While the general framework of good guys vs bad guys is still in place, the audience viewpoint is shifted around it. Rather than cheering for the good guys to defeat the bad guys, they're told to cheer for character Group A, composed of heroes and villains, against character Group B, composed of heroes and villains.

GROUP A:
Rey
Leia
Holdo
Rose
Kylo Ren

GROUP B:
Poe
Finn
Luke
Snoke
DJ

Every last one of the characters in Group B represent tropes seen in Classic Hero stories. Poe recalls the dashing rogue on a redemption arc who's willing to buck authority for the greater good. Finn represents the downtrodden victim who grows strong enough to defeat his oppressors, even at the cost of his own life. Luke, once the titular classic hero, is now expected to represent the wise master who guides the hero to greatness, as Obi-wan did for him. Snoke is the powerful mustache twirling villain. And DJ is the thief who only seems interested in money, but actually has a soft spot for the heroes. All of these archetypes appeared in OT, the Prequels, and/or Rogue One. There are certain expectations attached to each of them, but contrary to those expectations, every last one of them either shuns their heroic role, or has their token moment of heroism taken away.

Subverting Expectations

At first, Poe's story seems to follow many of the typical tropes. First the protagonist screws up, then gets put in the corner by a leader who seems to be more concerned with their own authority than with mending fences. The hero then takes it upon themselves to subvert said leader and execute their own plan to save the day, gain some redemption, and show that leader how wrong they are. Bear in mind, this was the exact series of events that defined the climax of Rogue One. But near the end of Last Jedi's second act, the tropes are discarded. Poe's plan not only fails, but his failure is used as an example of how wrong he was in the beginning and that he hasn't learned from that. He then seems to come around to his leaders' way of thinking in the third act. By the end, the audience is meant to shun Poe's rebellious ways of thinking and defer to female authority figures instead of making trouble.

Rey's story with Luke looked like it was going to echo other student/master story arcs. At first the student has to convince the reluctant master to train them, then the student progresses, almost but not quite to the point where they can confront the main villain, and then the student finds their own power to excel beyond the teachings to triumph. But this subplot abandons the tropes even quicker than Poe's story. Luke repeatedly refuses his role as master and when he finally comes around to teaching, his lessons aren't meant to help Rey progress, but to discourage her from pursuing her skills altogether. It's only at the end that he has to learn from failure rather than Rey, the actual student. The one trope that did remain is that the master died in a confrontation with the villain, as Obi-wan had done in A New Hope.

Finn's story with Rose stayed pretty consistent with tropes up until the very end. Finn is an abused victim of the First Order, afraid of their power, and he has to be convinced to fight them. Eventually, through a sidequest that keeps him away from the First Order, he finds himself on the path to heroism. For most of their adventure, Rose is his counterpoint. Helping him find courage to take risks, and pointing out the dark underbelly in the fantastic. Eventually, he gains the strength and courage to face down his nemesis, Captain Phasma, then, to go a step further, finds himself willing to lay down his life to take down the First Order cannon, only to have his attempt blocked by Rose. Other than his fight with Phasma, she had been the check on his own instincts and this was the piece-de-resistance.

Lastly, Snoke's role as the all powerful master of evil that the heroes have to overcome is shut down halfway through the film by Kylo Ren. Nearly all of his scenes up to this point show his power and his evilness which are meant to build audience antipathy so they will cheer the hero that takes him down. His abrupt death shifts all that satisfaction to Kylo Ren, a villain once criticized as a Vader ripoff, now praised as a great character.

In all these cases, there's one character the audience is meant to be on the side of vs another. Holdo is right and Poe is wrong. Rey is right and Luke is wrong. Rose is right and Finn is wrong. Kylo is right and Snoke is dead. Even though their roles in the general good vs bad conflict hasn't actually changed, old hero tropes become new antagonists. The flipping of expectations is what many praise, and I think it would have worked better had the characters in Group A not been given such obvious avenues for criticism.

Not All Flaws Are Equal

In addition to the subversion of expectations, I've heard many fans of this film praising it for introducing flawed characters into the Star Wars universe. That its better that heroes make mistakes rather than always saving the day. Not only does this seem to completely glaze over the failure step most classical hero stories always include, but based on the statements made by said fans, its a mischaracterization of what they enjoy about this aspect. Like I said, the film tries to tell the audience what to think of certain characters, and many of the pro-TLJ fans follow its instructions to the letter, completely ignoring the character flaws in Group A. It's not a film where people make mistakes and then pay for it. It's a film where everyone makes a mistake, but only some people pay for it (specifically those in Group B). The rest seem to face no consequences or recriminations, and its heavily implied that they don't deserve any.

The most contentious area of flawed decision making is Poe's story with Holdo and Leia. It starts with him disobeying orders to attack the dreadnought. His plan successfully destroys it, but at the expense of every Resistance bomber. He's chastised and demoted for his action by General Leia, which then carries over to Holdo who sidelines him. The problem with this instigating event, is its framed as insubordination is always wrong, period, and it disregards the results of that insubordination completely. Had Poe obeyed, its possible that the Resistance would have lost those bombers anyway in Kylo's attack, and the "fleet killer" Dreadnought would have just joined the chase. This is something that's not even addressed, even via Leia's seeming clairvoyance in First Order operations. It should beg the question, was Poe wrong to ignore her order, or was she wrong for giving it? What makes a story about flawed characters really resonate is the coulda/woulda/shoulda debates fans can have. Instead, the film tells the audience that Leia is right, which means anyone who's on Poe's side is going to reject the premise of the entire subplot.

Later, when the First Order begins its long chase, Holdo withholds the evacuation plan. Instead, she gives a speech about having hope and not dying, which trigger's Poe's insubordination again. This time, the consequences are far worse as it ends up totally compromising her plan and costing the Resistance a lot of lives. There are two mistakes here. 1) Holdo had no reason to withhold the plan from her troops. Everyone, including Poe, was going to have to participate and security isn't raised as a concern. 2) Poe exposed the evacuation by broadcasting it on an open channel, which let DJ hear it and tell the First Order. You'll notice that only one of these had to own up to their mistake. The other was validated and as a cherry on top, given an epic hero's death.

In discussions of Holdo's action, I usually hear from pro-Holdo fans that she didn't need a reason to tell Poe. She's an Admiral, he's a pilot, she doesn't owe him an explanation. The "because I can" explanation is always tricky, but very often, its unsatisfying for those asking.

Being able to do something isn't the reason why a character does something, and in Holdo's case, her lack of motivation for this action weakens her already precarious credibility with the pro-Poe fans. Again, this should be an unfortunate situation of two mistakes that lead to catastrophe, but instead, all the blame is put on Poe. If a viewer didn't accept Leia's position that the dreadnought attack was mistake, Holdo doubling down and being proven right isn't going to win that viewer back.

There's a final flaw in the film's logic in regards to what Poe learns from the entire experience. In the end, he doesn't actually learn any fresh respect for female authority figures. In the final evacuation through the caves, he's still bossing everyone around. It's just that the Resistance fighters have learned not to follow him without Leia's say so, which she gives because of what Poe has actually learned. Her and Holdo's general approach to every situation in the film is that it's better to run than to the risk lives in an attack. It's why he decides to retreat during the attack on the laser battery, and why Leia gives him the go ahead when he wants to find a back door out of the base. Any aggressive action that results in any significant loss of life seems to be abhorrent to the two female leaders.

This is further exemplified in Rose blocking Finn's suicide run. I've heard fans defend this by arguing the film explicitly says that Finn's plan won't work. Except it doesn't. Here's the dialogue from that scene.

POE

They're picking us all off. We're not gonna make it. 

FINN

Alright, I'm making my final approach. Target in sight. Guns are hot.   

POE  

No, pull off.  

FINN  

What?  

POE  

The cannon is charged, its a suicide run. All craft pull away. 

FINN  

I'm almost there.

POE  

Retreat Finn, that's an order! 

ROSE  

Finn, it's too late, don't do this.  

FINN  

No, I won't let them win. 

Once Finn declares his intention to attack, no one actually tells him, definitively, that the attack would be fruitless. Rose comes close with "it's too late" but her words fall hollow given how long it takes for the cannon to actually fire. Her revealed romantic interest also make her judgement in the situation highly questionable. Poe, as mentioned before, has learned that losing lives in an attack run is a no-no, so he pulls off rather than take the chance. In both cases, all the concern isn't on the pointlessness of Finn's actions, but on the fear that he would lose his life in the attempt. Once Rose interrupts his sacrifice, she doesn't acknowledge any selfishness in the decision that she couldn't let him die. Instead, she rationalizes that he was doing something stupid, and she saved him from himself. In any other context, the characters would make a point of mentioning that Rose made a snap decision that has both negative and positive consequences. (Part of the effective storytelling in Avengers: Infinity War, was that it was always understood that saving one person's life would risk the death of thousands more. Last Jedi failed to find the same nuance in its moral dilemmas).

What is interesting about these cases is that they boil down to conflicting ways of thinking in regards to tactics. Johnson seems to say via Holdo, Leia, and Rose that its better to protect the lives of your fellows rather than to take the lives of your enemies. This is why Leia orders Poe to turn back, why Holdo dismisses his plan out of hand in favor of her evacuation, why Rose has no remorse about saving Finn from himself, and even why Luke uses a Force projection to face Kylo rather than showing up himself. "Protecting what we love, not fighting what we hate." Contrasting that are Poe and Finn who believe that its better to make risky, but aggressive strikes against an opponent. The nobility of non-violence is beyond question, but for a franchise built on a foundation of conflict, where the word "war" is literally in the title, full pacifism falls short of being a practical solution for our heroes.

I said in my Nitpick Review of The Last Jedi that Poe's plan was low risk, high reward and I hold to that. Compared to the hundreds of Resistance members that Holdo put on the line, risking a few lives in an attempt to save everyone, and all the remaining ships, was a very worthwhile gamble. Unfortunately, risking any lives in an aggressive action seemed to be against what Holdo and Leia were all about (which also explains why Holdo waited until the last minute to execute the hyperspace attack). Their priority was to save everyone as part of a moral PR victory to inspire their allies to come to their aid. As I said in the other review, this was high risk, low reward. All the lives of the Resistance were wagered on the hope that a random unnamed party would save them. Arguably, Holdo's plan would have failed anyway since the only people to show up were Luke, Rey, and Chewie, which only helped the Resistance run away some more.

It can be argued that Holdo and Leia's approach in this situation reflect a tactical naivete, while Poe's  approach of sending two inexperienced operatives on a half-baked mission reflects a shoot-from-the-hip carelessness. One could say that the true tragedy is that both approaches would have worked if used in tandem. Had Holdo and Poe coordinated, they could have send a strike team aboard to disable the tracking system while continuing the evacuation plan as a backup. But Holdo didn't want to consider Poe's plan, and vice versa. The unintended implication of the entire affair is that its better to give up before you take big risks lest you get hurt.

The point I'm trying to arrive at is that both parties made very grave mistakes that contributed to the failure of both plans, but the film tries to convince the audience that only Poe was at fault, while unconsciously glazing over the fact that when Holdo came around to Poe's way of thinking, she went out a hero and dealt incredible damage to the First Order fleet. When he came around to her mindset during the speeder assault, he made the entire counterattack a waste of time and resources.

Loyalty & Authority 

I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about Poe's insubordination. The fact that he disobeyed orders AND instigated a mutiny is the most favored evidence used by fans of the film to say he is the more flawed character. Assuming the Resistance has a similar command structure as our own military, then legally speaking, yes, he is fully in the wrong. The Court Martial of Poe Dameron from this year's San Diego Comic Con explored this rather nicely. So why do people have trouble accepting the position that Poe is the bad guy? For starters, the positive results of Poe's actions are never explored. And for another, the audience had already been told that disobeying orders can be a good thing a year before Last Jedi came out via Rogue One. That story also explored concepts of obeying orders and the personal responsibility of a soldier to do what they think is right. Cassian Andor struggles to obey the order to kill Jyn's father and finds himself unable to fulfill it. And when Jyn finds out about his faith in the command structure, she delivers this scathing remark.

Orders? When you know they’re wrong? You might as well be a stormtrooper!

Later in the film, Jyn and the other rebels are ordered to stand down from their mission to infiltrate Scarif, but Cassian's men rally around Jyn and they go anyway, galvanizing the Alliance into taking a chance at striking a critical blow against the Empire.

The lesson of Rogue One is that individual initiative should trump absolute obedience, especially when the leadership is callous or cowardly. The Last Jedi turns that around and delivers the opposite message, and further complicating the issue, it switches the gender roles. Whereas in RO, a woman is rewarded for rebelling against her mostly male leaders, in Last Jedi, a woman is rewarded for demanding unconditional obedience, which opens TLJ up to the criticism of setting double standards.

How much a leader should be questioned is something that should be taken on a case by case basis, but the unfortunate pairing of Rogue One and The Last Jedi gives extremely opposing viewpoints on leadership and inadvertently draws the distinction that men should just do whatever women say. I'm not gonna touch the validity of that statement, but I don't think its out of line to say it didn't go down well with certain audience members.

Rogue One and The Last Jedi are two sides of the same Star Wars coin. RO built off familiar settings and characters to tell an original story, TLJ used an old story to demolish familiar character tropes.

Does the past have value? 


Let's talk about the Jedi shaped elephant in the room; Luke Skywalker. For many, his depiction in The Last Jedi was disappointing, to say the least. Even Mark Hamill said he completely disagreed with Johnson's take on the character (it should be noted that Hamill never intended this statement to be an indictment of the film's quality). There are many seeming contradictions with the Luke seen in Return of the Jedi and the one re-introduced in The Last Jedi. He's lost all reverence for the Jedi institution. He's given up on the idea of redemption, willfully abandoned the galaxy for selfish wallowing, and abandoned Yoda's last wish to pass on what he has learned. I think the haters could have accepted a couple of these changes, but all of them at once came off as disrespectful, and an attack on yet another pillar of the Classical Hero structure.

The most frequent counter-argument in defense of the new Luke is the fact that it echoes Obi-wan's and Yoda own exile. That Luke's self-imposed exile is just a "Jedi master thing" that they do. While I could get into the particulars of how Yoda and Obi-wan were hiding from the whole galaxy trying to kill them, I realize the why doesn't matter so much. The problem isn't just that Luke went into hiding. That was known in The Force Awakens and few really cared. The issue is what he did with it. Obi-wan and Yoda both answered the call to heroism when asked. The former jumping in to help Leia with barely a second's thought, and the latter agreeing to train Luke as a Jedi (with one scene of arm twisting). On the other hand, Luke repeatedly refused Rey's pleas for help, both to train her and to join the Resistance. He looks un-heroic even by the standards already set by the fallen masters.

Unfortunately, The Force Awakens didn't do this story arc any favors. Luke's location was the MacGuffin of that entire film and his final appearance was the reward for all the heroes' efforts. The audience waited two years longer than they expected to see what the old hero had become. And then, they find he's a self-declared has-been. It's disappointing to the kids who grew up playing with lightsabers who are now adults. And it's a waste of time for those who got invested in the idea of his return from The Force Awakens.

Further exacerbating the audience reception of Luke is paring him with Rey, who was already a controversial character.

What is Power? 

As probably the most consistent thing that carried over from The Force Awakens, Rey is arguably the most debated thing about the new trilogy. For some she's the embodiment of female empowerment and representation. To others, she's a shallow and overpowered character with no story arc. And that leads us to the Mary Sue discussion.

The Mary Sue has proven to be the most popular tool for straw man arguments in discussing Star Wars. There is no universally accepted definition of this type of character, which allows critics to create their own that just so happens to match Rey, while those who disagree either decry the term as sexist, or create their own version of a Mary Sue which doesn't actually match Rey. Since the facts are so fluid, both argument and counterargument are ultimately fruitless.

The difficulty some audience members have in accepting her is precedent within the Star Wars universe. Previous Jedi protagonists, Luke and Anakin, had some natural talent and were strong with the Force, but needed training to fully realize their power. Rey seems to have mastered most of the basic Force abilities just on her own. Luke and Anakin had powerful adversaries who defeated and dismembered them, despite their training. Since her Force abilities manifested, Rey has never suffered any such setback. Despite having great Force-using pedigree, Luke and Anakin had to struggle to earn their power, whereas Rey seems to just have it with significantly less effort.

It seems unfair to some fans that Rey can get so far so easily. This is also why many were so desperate for her to be related to the Skywalker line or some other Jedi. It would be something they could understand and accept because they had already done it for Luke. By making Rey a nobody and suggesting that great power can come from anywhere, it inadvertently sends the message that Luke and Anakin just weren't that special.

Outside of Star Wars, we've seen other heroes who are just naturally good at everything. Superman and James Bond come to mind. What I think Rey lacks compared to other "Gary Stus" is some sort of check on her power; her own version of Kryptonite if you will. Presently, she has no weakness that her enemies can really exploit, especially since her one personal stake (her parents) has been taken out of the picture. On top of that, her main adversary, Kylo, stopped being a threat to her at the end of The Force Awakens. This is the root of so many critics calling her "wish fulfillment." She's kind, she's good, she's charming, she's powerful, and nothing can stop her. While some enjoy the message of empowerment, others find themselves leaning away from the edge of their seats as they wonder not if Rey will be victorious, but when.

All this ties into both the subversion of expectations and the attack on the Classical Hero narrative. If people like Rey existed in the universe, why should the audience bother to invest in anything Luke or Anakin had done or anything that will come after?

A Certain Point of View

Shortly after The Dark Knight Rises came out, I was talking to my aunt about it and she said she absolutely hated it. I asked her why, fully expecting she'd say something about Bane's voice, or his convoluted plan, or the weird prison. Instead, she surprised me. She said she didn't like that the movie spent so much time talking about how bad rich people are, then spent the whole movie restoring them to power. And she's right. The rich of Gotham don't seem to learn from their decadence once Bane and his cronies are defeated. Their corruption is a status quo that has to be restored. My aunt is a professor of Middle Eastern history, so she's very read up on revolutions and the authority of corrupt institutions.

The point of this little anecdote is that everyone is going to see a film differently based on their own experiences and worldview. You may have read this far and have no idea what I'm talking about. You didn't see the film that way, so I must be wrong. Well you're right, from your own point of view, but when some of them decry The Last Jedi as the worst Star Wars ever, there is a basis on that based on how they interpreted it. It all depends on what they enjoyed about the other films, like for instance, the Classical Hero's Journey. This video on Reader Response Theory as related to the Last Jedi elaborates on this concept.

The Last Jedi not only turns away from the Classic Hero, but goes a step further and attacks almost all the tropes associated with it. And just to add fuel to the fire, it draws the separation of old and new along gender lines. Intentionally or not, it sends the message that men are wrong for relying on something they thought was good. It says those ways should be unceremoniously cast out to make way for women. To return to the Hulk gif above, the masculine institution of the Classic Hero becomes the villain, and the new wave of Feminist empowerment is the one pounding it into the ground.

This creative decision has, unfortunately, made discussions of the film extremely difficult. Fans of the film tend to focus on the feminist themes, then use that moral high ground to shield the flaws in the story. Any criticism can easily be reframed as being anti-feminist and then dismissed. I've noticed that most of the video reviews praising the film spend an inordinate amount of time explaining why people didn't like it because its an attack on masculine institutions. Only a precious few draw the distinction that they are only referring to those who handle their dislike with toxic actions. I feel this has done more to fuel the conflict than anything else. It gives those who loved the film a false sense of moral superiority and those who disliked it are further alienated because it attacks not only their opinions, but their character as well.

To step out of Star Wars for a moment, I see from time to time statements like this that try to explain what feminism is really about. That it's not something that men should be afraid of, it's only about bringing women on equal footing and give them opportunities they've been long denied. I have no dispute with that assertion or goal, but I do believe The Last Jedi fails to live up to it. Finn, Poe, and Luke are all shut down in order to make room for female acts of heroism. Leia even implies that Poe's motivation was about making himself look good rather than about helping the Resistance, apparently missing the irony that Holdo just volunteered to stay behind on the cruiser and eventually sacrifice herself in a very public act of heroism.

All of these don't send the message that both men and women can be heroes. Rather, it seems to say that men shouldn't try to be heroes, because women being heroes is somehow better. Note that all the acts of female heroism have been done by men in other movies. In addition, we've also seen the character traits of Leia, Holdo, and Rose used to depict a character negatively in other works.

That said, I do understand the appeal in these creative decisions. The patriarchy has been the primary source the societal woes that plague women. I can understand the satisfaction of seeing men put in their place and their perfectly valid ideas and actions getting shut down or ignored. There's definitely an element of poetic justice to it. But not everyone thinks that way and it would be naive to think that seeing masculine institutions torn down won't ruffle a few feathers, especially when it seems unnecessary and politically motivated. In a fan base as big as Star Wars, that's a lot of angry birds.

So what does this mean for the creators at Disney/Lucasfilm? Should they stay the course set by The Last Jedi, despite the backlash? Should they walk the line and try to find a balance between the two groups? Should it walk back and return to the course set by The Force Awakens? The short answer is, I don't know. I wish Johnson and Disney could acknowledge that they just miscalculated the audience reaction, as Lucas quietly did with Jar Jar, but I know that will never happen. It would alieniate the demographics that are still on their side and appear they are catering to hateful people. But with the recent firing of James Gunn, the company may be in danger of overplaying their hand when it comes to social justice.

The Civil War 

While I was rewatching The Last Jedi in preparation for this review, I realized a truly hilarious irony in regards to fan interpretation of the film's message. Most of the fans who enjoy it claim that it is better for the haters to let go of the past so the franchise can move on, but the film's hero, Rey, actually wants to preserve and bring back the past as evidenced by her desire for Jedi training, her quest to redeem Kylo, and her stealing of the Jedi texts. Even after Luke fails to live up to his legend, she still believes in the Jedi and the hope from the old stories. To say it a different way, the people who loved the film are somehow completely disagreeing with the philosophy of the hero of said film. The position they are advocating is actually closer to that of Kylo Ren.

The final confrontation between Rey and Kylo is very symbolic of what's tearing the fans apart now. Kylo, the man who killed old fan favorite Han Solo, represents the new way of doing things. One can almost take their dialogue and imagine it as an exchange between critics and fans of the film.

KYLO 

Snoke, Skywalker, the Sith, the Jedi, the Rebels, let it all die. Join me. 

REY  

Don't do this. Don't go this way. 

KYLO  

No, no! You're still holding on, let go!

And what does Kylo do next? He tells Rey the truth about her parents. He does what I mentioned some fans of the film are doing. He brings down the people from the past that had been revered for so long. Then, both sides engage in a tug-a-war over the lightsaber, a metaphor for the franchise itself. In the end the only thing they accomplish is breaking it beyond repair, an alarming foreshadowing of something loved by both sides.

It's still early to say what the long time effect the Last Jedi will have, though the Blu Ray/DVD sales of Last Jedi are a promising indicator that fans are moving on. The franchise has weathered backlash before during the prequels era, but fans had the benefit of three years between each prequel to come to terms with their disappointment. Solo, coming out six months after TLJ, already felt the full brunt of burnt fans. We have a year and change until Episode IX. Hopefully, that will be enough time. Like it or not, the haters' money counts when it comes to something as expensive as Star Wars. The alleged new growth from TLJ's new storytelling style won't mean a damn if enough people don't want to pay for it.

Which brings me to the immediate issue. There are things fans who enjoyed TLJ can do to help the haters come around. Unfortunately, I've seen so many people on both sides thriving off of the divisiveness, and consequently, the fervor of backlash, and backlash against the backlash is very much still simmering. Much like Cap and Stark in the comics, it seems to have gotten to the point where no side wants to hear what the other has to say, short of acquiescence. I think the root of the continuing conflict is both sides are trying to make the other feel guilty about their opinions. If you liked Poe, you're a toxic male. If you liked Rey, you're naive and overly feminist. If you disliked Rose, you're sexist/racist. If you disliked Leia, you're disrespecting Carrie Fisher's memory. If you didn't like the story, then you're unimaginative. If you liked the story, then you hate the originals. The narratives and counter-narratives go on and on and on.

To anyone who has made talking about The Last Jedi a miserable experience for someone else, I remind you now, you're not helping your cause.

To the haters: You've made your point. Rian Johnson has heard you, Lucasfilm has heard you, Kathleen Kennedy has heard you, Disney has heard you, everyone involved in the project has heard you. Attacking them on social media won't change the film, and trying to make your own reboot is likely going to just end in a lawsuit. At the end of the day, your wallet will speak louder than your words, so let it do the talking from now on. In the meantime, please stop, if you haven't already, giving the rest of us a bad name by acting like sycophantic bullies.

To the fans: Stop telling the haters why they actually hated the movie and stop belittling their disappointment. I frequently see comics like this that are meant to mock those who disliked the film by making them look immature, stupid, or villainous. All of these shut down any possibility of a rational discussion by warping their opinions into a personal attack. I thought this incident of drinking fanboy tears was a step too far as it likely conjured up memories for 80's and 90's kids of schoolyard bullies who actually did enjoy making them cry, which in turn, led many to lose their shit as adults. All of these expressions seem to be more about making yourself and your fellow fans feel good about liking it than about helping the haters accept it. Arguably, it's deriving personal satisfaction at someone else's expense. You can't win this by using the same provocative tactics as the haters.

To both sides, I hope I have brought some understanding between you. If you're a hater harassing the creators or a fan provoking the haters, at the end of the day, your behavior is petty, arrogant, and above all, close minded. You will always be right if you only listen to those who agree with you, and you will always feel valid if you tell yourself a story about why people are acting the way they do. And even if you somehow "win" the battle for Star Wars, trust me, it will be a hollow victory that will ultimately harm the franchise.

Final Personal Reflections

I was surprised to find that upon my second viewing of The Last Jedi, I felt exactly the same as I did the first time; a kind of hollow disappointment. At the end of the day, I just don't feel happy that I watched it. There's just not enough there for me to connect to and get excited about. It's a similar feeling to rewatching the prequels, which is odd because TLJ's problems are the exact opposite  The acting and cinematography are great, and individual scenes are well paced. But when it's all put together, it all seems built on a house of cards. On the other hand the prequels suffered from lackluster acting, bland cinematography, and cringe-worthy dialogue, but putting it all together made for a compelling story about the rise of darkness.

I simply hold that the film is not a good as people think. It's also not as bad, depending where you're coming from. Sadly, a form of narcissistic extremism has overtaken the most outspoken Star Wars fans of both groups. I think that's what's briefly drove me from mild dislike into full on hate mode. With much reflection, I found a path back to reason. I hope others will follow.