What is Your Opinion on The Last Jedi?

[Karha of Honor]

You can bet your arse that Snoke somehow survived TLJ and comes back for the next installment.

He was already ruined and uniteresting. Who cares?

[Jonathan101]

Since this thread, I've been questioning whether we actually got more story in the way of Palpatine than Snoke by the time of each respective demise. That is, besides one preceding movie that does a bit of world building. We only see a glimpse of Palpatine in Empire Strikes Back, and we get a good taste of him in Return of the Jedi. So I'm not sure if I should actually feel that Palpatine had a greater story impact than Snoke. They both assume a level of control and influence over the active antagonist. Does it just leave more to the imagination when you see someone pull the strings behind Vader than someone like Kylo Ren? Like I feel like Snoke's death was anticlimactic.

It might have a bit to do with Palpatine's death actually concluding a saga, while Snoke's is more in the middle of the saga.

Palpatine does have slightly more backstory even in the OT than Snoke was ever given.

Although we don't see him in ANH, that film does establish that the Empire is pretty new and that it grew out of the Old Republic, to the point that the Senate has only then been abolished, and also the film establishes that Lukes' father fought in the Clone Wars and was amongst the last of the Jedi before the Republic fell. From this it's easy to infer that Palpatine somehow took it over and re-fashioned it into the Empire after the Clone Wars occurred, which at least gives you hints as to his backstory as a Senator turned Chancellor who was secretly evil.

Granted, this wasn't the original intention at the time (Palpatine was supposed to be a puppet of Vader and the Moffs originally), but TESB establishes Palpy as Vaders' dark side master afterwards. It is still more than what we got with Snoke, whose existence and rise to power are left almost entirely unexplained in the sequels by comparison.

More to the point though, the Original trilogy was the Original trilogy, while TFA was a sequel with decades of EU material it could have pulled from and chose to ignore, followed by TLJ which chose to take TFA and dump even on that. Palpatine has the excuse of not needing a backstory as much as Snoke did.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

Since this thread, I've been questioning whether we actually got more story in the way of Palpatine than Snoke by the time of each respective demise. That is, besides one preceding movie that does a bit of world building. We only see a glimpse of Palpatine in Empire Strikes Back, and we get a good taste of him in Return of the Jedi. So I'm not sure if I should actually feel that Palpatine had a greater story impact than Snoke. They both assume a level of control and influence over the active antagonist. Does it just leave more to the imagination when you see someone pull the strings behind Vader than someone like Kylo Ren? Like I feel like Snoke's death was anticlimactic.

It might have a bit to do with Palpatine's death actually concluding a saga, while Snoke's is more in the middle of the saga.

To me, Palpatine had more than enough backstory while Snoke didn't have nearly enough. Not because I have it out for TLJ, but because they play very different roles in their stories, despite many similarities in character.

In the OT, Palpatine is part of the landscape. We learn pretty quickly that there's a rebellion against an oppressive, growing Empire. We know that the Emperor wants to rid the galaxy of the last vestiges of the Old Republic. That's really all we have to know for A New Hope. The Empire Strikes Back chooses to introduce him and Return of the Jedi went into more detail. It's fine that they went in that direction, but there was no obligation to even show the character.

For the sequels, we already know the landscape at the end of Return of the Jedi (or further if you went by EU stuff). Suddenly Snoke appears, casts a dark influence over Luke's academy, turns the son of Han and Leia, and destroys the New Republic. He's incredibly powerful, but he has a great fear of Luke Skywalker. This character was not part of the story as we knew it up to that point, and his appearance demands some kind of explanation. Neither TFA or TLJ makes the slightest attempt to justify this new character popping onto the scene and turning the whole galaxy upside down. If he came from the outer rim, or was a secret apprentice of Palpatine, or Palpatine reincarnate, or Darth Plagueis... they were incredibly lazy and decided to just conjure this character up from nowhere.

Emperor Palpatine is just basic world-building. Snoke is a lazy, artificial contrivance created to reset Star Wars to OT terms, and even the most paltry of explanation is relegated to extra material.

[Riedquat]

More to the point though, the Original trilogy was the Original trilogy, while TFA was a sequel with decades of EU material it could have pulled from and chose to ignore, followed by TLJ which chose to take TFA and dump even on that. Palpatine has the excuse of not needing a backstory as much as Snoke did.

That's the key to it IMO. At the time of ANH we'd not got any backstory to question, so it's fine to add in characters who might get fleshed out later. But by the time Disney came along we've already know a detailed backstory to the setting so large, new elements, like Snoke, need explaining. If all that went before didn't exist Snoke would've been fine.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Since this thread, I've been questioning whether we actually got more story in the way of Palpatine than Snoke by the time of each respective demise. That is, besides one preceding movie that does a bit of world building. We only see a glimpse of Palpatine in Empire Strikes Back, and we get a good taste of him in Return of the Jedi. So I'm not sure if I should actually feel that Palpatine had a greater story impact than Snoke. They both assume a level of control and influence over the active antagonist. Does it just leave more to the imagination when you see someone pull the strings behind Vader than someone like Kylo Ren? Like I feel like Snoke's death was anticlimactic.

It might have a bit to do with Palpatine's death actually concluding a saga, while Snoke's is more in the middle of the saga.

Palpatine does have slightly more backstory even in the OT than Snoke was ever given.

Although we don't see him in ANH, that film does establish that the Empire is pretty new and that it grew out of the Old Republic, to the point that the Senate has only then been abolished, and also the film establishes that Lukes' father fought in the Clone Wars and was amongst the last of the Jedi before the Republic fell. From this it's easy to infer that Palpatine somehow took it over and re-fashioned it into the Empire after the Clone Wars occurred, which at least gives you hints as to his backstory as a Senator turned Chancellor who was secretly evil.

Granted, this wasn't the original intention at the time (Palpatine was supposed to be a puppet of Vader and the Moffs originally), but TESB establishes Palpy as Vaders' dark side master afterwards. It is still more than what we got with Snoke, whose existence and rise to power are left almost entirely unexplained in the sequels by comparison.

More to the point though, the Original trilogy was the Original trilogy, while TFA was a sequel with decades of EU material it could have pulled from and chose to ignore, followed by TLJ which chose to take TFA and dump even on that. Palpatine has the excuse of not needing a backstory as much as Snoke did.

But I don't see this objectively different than Snoke. I mentioned that we get a whole movie that does world building, but I don't see why we can't assume this same condition with Snoke.

Since this thread, I've been questioning whether we actually got more story in the way of Palpatine than Snoke by the time of each respective demise. That is, besides one preceding movie that does a bit of world building. We only see a glimpse of Palpatine in Empire Strikes Back, and we get a good taste of him in Return of the Jedi. So I'm not sure if I should actually feel that Palpatine had a greater story impact than Snoke. They both assume a level of control and influence over the active antagonist. Does it just leave more to the imagination when you see someone pull the strings behind Vader than someone like Kylo Ren? Like I feel like Snoke's death was anticlimactic.

It might have a bit to do with Palpatine's death actually concluding a saga, while Snoke's is more in the middle of the saga.

To me, Palpatine had more than enough backstory while Snoke didn't have nearly enough. Not because I have it out for TLJ, but because they play very different roles in their stories, despite many similarities in character.

In the OT, Palpatine is part of the landscape. We learn pretty quickly that there's a rebellion against an oppressive, growing Empire. We know that the Emperor wants to rid the galaxy of the last vestiges of the Old Republic. That's really all we have to know for A New Hope. The Empire Strikes Back chooses to introduce him and Return of the Jedi went into more detail. It's fine that they went in that direction, but there was no obligation to even show the character.

For the sequels, we already know the landscape at the end of Return of the Jedi (or further if you went by EU stuff). Suddenly Snoke appears, casts a dark influence over Luke's academy, turns the son of Han and Leia, and destroys the New Republic. He's incredibly powerful, but he has a great fear of Luke Skywalker. This character was not part of the story as we knew it up to that point, and his appearance demands some kind of explanation. Neither TFA or TLJ makes the slightest attempt to justify this new character popping onto the scene and turning the whole galaxy upside down. If he came from the outer rim, or was a secret apprentice of Palpatine, or Palpatine reincarnate, or Darth Plagueis... they were incredibly lazy and decided to just conjure this character up from nowhere.

Emperor Palpatine is just basic world-building. Snoke is a lazy, artificial contrivance created to reset Star Wars to OT terms, and even the most paltry of explanation is relegated to extra material.

I feel like Snoke and The New Order is justified just the same as the Empire. All that's really missing is the how he did it, but it's not like we get that much more in A New Hope.

The problem as I see it is in narrative. It is a good point that they shoehorned in Snoke's infestation of the new Jedi class, and I do think they just set up a bunch of pins to immediately be knocked down. As an overall trilogy arc though, it's really hard to ignore the buildup of his character echoing Palpatine's, but he's apparently not the main antagonist as you now need one for the next movie in it of itself.

[Jonathan101]

But I don't see this objectively different than Snoke. I mentioned that we get a whole movie that does world building, but I don't see why we can't assume this same condition with Snoke.

You asked if we got more information about Snoke than Palpatine.

I confirmed that yes, we did.

It wasn't MUCH more information, but it was indeed more.

Plus like I said the standards for the OT and the ST are different because the OT had more world building to set up and on top of that, was made in the 70s and 80s when standards were different. ST was just being lazy.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

But I don't see this objectively different than Snoke. I mentioned that we get a whole movie that does world building, but I don't see why we can't assume this same condition with Snoke.

You asked if we got more information about Snoke than Palpatine.

I confirmed that yes, we did.

It wasn't MUCH more information, but it was indeed more.

Plus like I said the standards for the OT and the ST are different because the OT had more world building to set up and on top of that, was made in the 70s and 80s when standards were different. ST was just being lazy.

Yep and I accounted for the preceding movie world building when I asked. It's derivative information that we don't have any reason to not assume about Snoke.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

But it's not like that isn't a fair assessment or anything. For all intensive purposes it seems that we agree on the substance and differ at semantics or distinct attentions.

[clearspira]

But I don't see this objectively different than Snoke. I mentioned that we get a whole movie that does world building, but I don't see why we can't assume this same condition with Snoke.

You asked if we got more information about Snoke than Palpatine.

I confirmed that yes, we did.

It wasn't MUCH more information, but it was indeed more.

Plus like I said the standards for the OT and the ST are different because the OT had more world building to set up and on top of that, was made in the 70s and 80s when standards were different. ST was just being lazy.

Yep and I accounted for the preceding movie world building when I asked. It's derivative information that we don't have any reason to not assume about Snoke.

I can tell you one bit of world building we get in the OT: Palpatine comes off as genuinely respecting Vader, even if he does want to replace him as is the Sith way. When Vader does something good he congratulates him, when he talks it is in civil tones. This automatically infers a history between these two men and why Vader was seduced away from Yoda and Obi Wan by this charismatic leader.

In both TFA and TLJ, Snoke talks to Kilo like crap. It really is hard to see how Snoke ever convinced Kilo to follow him to the point of wanting to kill his own parents baring in mind that it is Luke that betrayed him, no one else. And yeah, that is what the dialogue suggests. Snoke converted Kilo, not Kilo sought out Snoke. Kilo was already in his thrall by the time Luke turned on him.

Its a little thing that means a lot.

[Jonathan101]

But I don't see this objectively different than Snoke. I mentioned that we get a whole movie that does world building, but I don't see why we can't assume this same condition with Snoke.

You asked if we got more information about Snoke than Palpatine.

I confirmed that yes, we did.

It wasn't MUCH more information, but it was indeed more.

Plus like I said the standards for the OT and the ST are different because the OT had more world building to set up and on top of that, was made in the 70s and 80s when standards were different. ST was just being lazy.

Yep and I accounted for the preceding movie world building when I asked. It's derivative information that we don't have any reason to not assume about Snoke.

I can tell you one bit of world building we get in the OT: Palpatine comes off as genuinely respecting Vader, even if he does want to replace him as is the Sith way. When Vader does something good he congratulates him, when he talks it is in civil tones. This automatically infers a history between these two men and why Vader was seduced away from Yoda and Obi Wan by this charismatic leader.

In both TFA and TLJ, Snoke talks to Kilo like crap. It really is hard to see how Snoke ever convinced Kilo to follow him to the point of wanting to kill his own parents baring in mind that it is Luke that betrayed him, no one else. And yeah, that is what the dialogue suggests. Snoke converted Kilo, not Kilo sought out Snoke. Kilo was already in his thrall by the time Luke turned on him.

Its a little thing that means a lot.

Well, that's a little different though- you're MEANT to think that Kylo is a needy, whiny little man child who is in over his head.

I think the history being inferred here is that Kylo is a much bigger disappoint than Vader ever was, and Snoke used to be much nicer to him in the past but now sees him as a failure, hence Kylo constantly trying to prove himself with ever more heinous deeds.

The real difference in those two examples is less a world-building one, and more that it reinforces to the audience that Vader is someone to be respected (and I turn, that Vader respects Palpatine, which speaks volumes about Palpatine as a new character) while Kylo is hardly to be respected at all (Snoke being introduced in the same movie, and as a massive imposing hologram, instead speaks volumes about the differences between Kylo and himself).

My impression of everyone saying that Snoke got to Kylo is more that Kylo was susceptible to Snoke already rather than Snoke being 100% responsible for his corruption; usually it's his family emphasising Snokes' role, which indicates that they want to believe he was good deep down and that he could have been / still can be saved somehow, or that they failed him. We never really get to hear if Snoke or Kylo have rather different opinions on this; we might need to wait until Episode IX to find out if Kylo was ruined by Snoke or if he was just an irredeemable little sh*t all along, or at least before Snoke got to him.