LogFAQs > #892470281

How was The Last Jedi low risk? Seems like it took plenty of risks in the sense that it threw away Snoke, had Rey's parents be nobody, killed off Luke, subverted the Kylo redemption/Rey turning, and had pretty much all of the resistance destroyed. It almost seems like people actively wanted it to be cookie cutter and a retread of familiar tropes and are upset it wasn't.

Completely disagree with all of this.

Snoke dying is low risk because we know nothing about him, therefore there's no attachment to him.

Rey's parents being nobody is low risk because it's the most logical and obvious solution that doesn't affect any backstory or leave any gaping plot holes (what? Obi-Wan had a secret child? How come we never knew?!)

Killing off Luke is low-risk. This was always intended to be a "new" series. He, Han, AND Leia should have all been dead by the end of the first movie imho.

They didn't subvert anything with Kylo and Rey "turning." Neither of them turned. They both left that confrontation with the exact same alignment as they started with.

"Destroying" the resistance is low risk because every character who is actually important survived. Leia ends the movie saying "We have everything we need." That's not just some empty attempt to cheer people up. She's 100% correct. The rebellion in the OT was never about having a lot of ships or whatever the fuck. They won because Luke (and to a lesser extent Han and Chewie), and the resistance will win because Rey (and to a lesser extent Finn and Po)
---

SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://i.imgur.com/W66HUUy.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/