I really do like Rey being a Palpatine. I was hoping for a combo of Luke's daughter and Obiwan's granddaughter (ie Luke finds and marries Obiwan's long lost daughter) but that was admittedly over the top.
But after knowing Rey's true heritage for a day or two, I do think that's the best of both worlds.
I mean think about it: if just anyone can be THAT strong in the force, why did the Republic need clones? 100 Jedi would have been fine as I'm sure that many out of the thousands that existed would have been as strong as Luke.
And it's established that lineage affects Force sensitivity. Anakin and Luke, Yoda's species, etc.
The POINT of Rey being Palpatine's granddaughter is that she:
A) would be powerful in the force and
B) could still choose the light
And that's my takeaway from the movie. Your choice is what matters, not where you came from.
Rey chooses to be a Skywalker.
That, IMO is a far more powerful message than TLJ's "anyone can be special regardless of lineage"
Before these movies its never been officially established that genetic lineage relates to force aptitude or strength.
Starkiller in the force unleashed games was the most raw powerful force user but had no finese. He could drag a star destroyer out of the sky but couldnt lift up and then gently place a x wing.
Luke, for example, isn't powerful with the force. He isnt particularly good at anything. His big thing in the movies is his convictions. That he almost turns to the darkside when they threaten leia and then takes a step back and doesnt. Hes not the strongest force user. He doesnt have great finese. He isnt creative in force usage. He mostly gets confused by visions. And hes not the best with a lightsaber. And hes the direct descendent of "the chosen one".
Lineage never meant anything before and its not doing sw any favors by having it mean something now. Now people more or less have to be tied to blood lines. Thats not great.
Lance845 wrote: Before these movies its never been officially established that genetic lineage relates to force aptitude or strength.
Starkiller in the force unleashed games was the most raw powerful force user but had no finese. He could drag a star destroyer out of the sky but couldnt lift up and then gently place a x wing.
Luke, for example, isn't powerful with the force. He isnt particularly good at anything. His big thing in the movies is his convictions. That he almost turns to the darkside when they threaten leia and then takes a step back and doesnt. Hes not the strongest force user. He doesnt have great finese. He isnt creative in force usage. He mostly gets confused by visions. And hes not the best with a lightsaber. And hes the direct descendent of "the chosen one".
Lineage never meant anything before and its not doing sw any favors by having it mean something now. Now people more or less have to be tied to blood lines. Thats not great.
Do they?
What's Obi-Wan's lineage? Or Qui-Gon Jinn's? Or Mace Windu's? Or any of the other jedi we see on screen? What's Palpatine's lineage? We know his master was Darth Plaguis and that's about it.
Now it's clear from Obi-Wan's speech to Luke all the way back in ANH that Force abilities can be inherited, in Luke's case via his father Anakin. But AT NO POINT ANYWHERE is it said that genetic heritage is the ONLY way to have force powers. Indeed, the Jedi Order's monastic ways strongly imply they are NOT, in the majority, inherited.
After all, celibacy is a very poor way to preserve desired genetic inheritances...
And yet, "it's in your blood" is a line in this movie. And all the people who were pissed that Rey was powerful "for no reason" are now content with the explanation.
Yeah, the bloodlines thing i think is a mistake. Bloodlines should have never had anything to do with it.
Lance845 wrote: Before these movies its never been officially established that genetic lineage relates to force aptitude or strength.
This still hasn't been established, its pure fan conjecture, and its wrong.There are direct quotes from George Lucas saying that literally anyone can learn to use the Force, just that some people have a more natural aptitude/talent for it than others. There are also quotes from George Lucas and others saying that Midichlorians aren't necessarily an accurate measure of ones Force aptitude, just the bureaucratic metric that the soulless Jedi Order of the Prequel era had adopted as a means of screening "applicants", and that at best Midichlorians are more of a measure of "potential" (i.e. a person with a higher midichlorian count *could* be a more powerful force wielder than one with a lower count, but if the individual with the lower midichlorian count trains harder than the midichlorian count is irrelevant). Given that midichlorians are directly tied to an individuals blood, it makes sense that certain bloodlines would have higher (average?) midichlorian counts than others, but that doesn't automatically make those people the only ones that matter, nor does it automatically make them Force-Gods.
Lance845 wrote: Before these movies its never been officially established that genetic lineage relates to force aptitude or strength.
Starkiller in the force unleashed games was the most raw powerful force user but had no finese. He could drag a star destroyer out of the sky but couldnt lift up and then gently place a x wing.
Luke, for example, isn't powerful with the force. He isnt particularly good at anything. His big thing in the movies is his convictions. That he almost turns to the darkside when they threaten leia and then takes a step back and doesnt. Hes not the strongest force user. He doesnt have great finese. He isnt creative in force usage. He mostly gets confused by visions. And hes not the best with a lightsaber. And hes the direct descendent of "the chosen one".
Lineage never meant anything before and its not doing sw any favors by having it mean something now. Now people more or less have to be tied to blood lines. Thats not great.
Do they?
What's Obi-Wan's lineage? Or Qui-Gon Jinn's? Or Mace Windu's? Or any of the other jedi we see on screen? What's Palpatine's lineage? We know his master was Darth Plaguis and that's about it.
Now it's clear from Obi-Wan's speech to Luke all the way back in ANH that Force abilities can be inherited, in Luke's case via his father Anakin. But AT NO POINT ANYWHERE is it said that genetic heritage is the ONLY way to have force powers. Indeed, the Jedi Order's monastic ways strongly imply they are NOT, in the majority, inherited.
After all, celibacy is a very poor way to preserve desired genetic inheritances...
Well, two things
Jedi aren't required to be celibate. They're not allowed attachments. They can screw around, have daily orgies and dump kids off in an orphanarium as much as they like, as long as they don't care about the other people involved beyond getting their rocks off. [Because mocking dehumanizing codes by keeping to the exact letter of them is amusing and displays the contempt they deserve]
More importantly, it isn't the inheritance of generic off the shelf force powers that anyone cares about. Its the plot ability 'chosen one' gibberish inheritance that people are annoyed by. Sure Joe Rando can be Joe Rando Jedi, but if you want to change the galaxy, fulfill prophecies and generally get a lead role in a story you need to have the Lineage background or you're just pushing brooms around. That you're only even allowed a choice if Destiny breeds true is a depressing message
@chaosxomega- what George Lucas says outside a film doesn't have much weight (even less these days). Its like Rowling declaring character's sexuality in a twitter post. If a theory isn't actually meaningful (or indeed, even exist) in the stories presented, it doesn't matter at all.
That the stories present Lineage characters as the only ones that matter, on the other hand, carries a lot of weight.
I'm always surprised at how much people talk about a prophecy that didn't even make sense in the context of the movies it was written in. We've spent decades at this point trying to make the story fit the prophecy at this point and it just doesn't.
Given that this film establishes that Force ghosts are able to directly interact with and manipulate physical reality (which I believe is a first), I don't really see any reason why force ghost anakin couldn't have just shown up and killed Palpatine directly. More interesting though, would have been if while Rey is blocking Sidious force lightning the ghosts of Jedi past show up and use some sort of ghostly force power to destroy Palpatine once and for all or something, would have avoided the confusion that many seem to have with how Rey killed Palpatine without being possessed by him like he claimed she would be if she had executed him (this is more a problem with the audience than the movie IMO, as I dont believe Rey actually attacks him or strikes him, rather its his own Sith lightning which is reflected back at him by Reys defense which proves to be his undoing).
That would have been a cool ending.
I thought it was pretty clear how Palpatine died. Obvious callback to how he should have died in Ep3 had Anakin not.. whatever happened there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I don’t know how you conclude that it’s “better than good” and then describe some of the major flaws (lack of consequences, rushed pacing, pointless plot elements, ineffective reveals) that make it way, way less than good.
Usual disclaimer: I don’t begrudge anyone enjoying a product. If you have a good time watching a movie, that’s great.
90% of my issues are in the last 30 min or so. There's also a lot of moments I quite enjoyed. That's the problem with criticism. It's easy to turn it into a scale of "bad things listed equals bad" but there's a lot more going on than that. If I had to put a number on things; 3/5 is good, 4/5 is great. It's better than good, but I wouldn't call it great. To a lot of people, that's bad, but I think that's a pretty binary way to view things.
Even if you reduce the prophecy to being meaningless (and I personally like that interpretation) the rest of the writing for TROS and the ST in general is still awful, just less so.
So just saw the movie, over all IMHO it;'s the best of the sequal trilogy (TFA being too derivitive and TLJ being obsessed with subverting tropes "cause I don't understand what people want from SW!")
over all I enjoyed it.
Spoiler:
those complaining about Rey's ancetory, it's worth noting it was theorized as early as pre-TFA's release. Also the idea of Palpatine having grandchildren is hardly a new concept to SW. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Ken . The over all story was somewhat reminiscant of Dark Empire as well. Over all I think ROTJ was the perfect end to the Saga and this new trilogy was, story wise unneccary, but well.. if we had to get more movies Rise of Skywalker wasn't too bad. especially after the mess Johnson left of the trilogy
I am not saying that powerful force users MUST have a force powerful lineage, just that "it running in the family" was established way back in ROTJ when Luke revealed the Leia was his sister. 16 years before we were told that Jedi were sorta/maybe celibate. So for a full generation the established canon heavily implied the force is inherited.
We also know that dear sweet baby yoda is strong in the force, suggesting that all of his species is as well. Ergo, strength in the force is genetic.
The Prequels were what canonized force sensitivity to not be genetic. Remember midichorians?
All I'm saying is:
Spoiler:
If Rey is a nobody, she's a Mary Sue. If she is related to an existing force user, she has a reason to be in the story of the Skywalkers.
Even better if she pulls a "reverse" Anakin/Kylo who originally came from the light but chose the dark. If she comes from the dark, it's even more significant that she chooses the light
Rey has had zero "darkness" in her until this movie, had this been teased from the start.... fair one, it was not, this is just JJ trying to clean up Rians utter mess of a movie, JJ appears to have tried to do his best and this crap is what we got, is what it is.
Disney has utterly failed with the star wars franchise at this point and I can see why they are pulling back somewhat from the movies.
No. If Rey was noone and lineage doesnt matter then rey is just a character that says the universe is open and anyone can be great/the hero. When Rey has lineage it shrinks the universe back down to the couple familys and thats boring as feth.
Just saw this tonight. I'm not going to write a long review because it's already been summed up adequately by these two quotes:
Ahtman wrote: Overall it was ok I suppose but also one of those films where after you see it the more things bug you.
Mostly because as Manchu accurately said:
Manchu wrote: Every time anything potentially dramatic happens it is almost immediately reversed. Nothing has any consequence.
I left thinking it was OK, but picked at it afterward in a bad way. It was OK, but certainly not great, and besides the above complaint, I think it was pretty predictable.
Formosa wrote: Rey has had zero "darkness" in her until this movie, had this been teased from the start.... fair one, it was not, this is just JJ trying to clean up Rians utter mess of a movie
Maybe I saw a different Episode 8 than you did, but in the one I saw, Rey went right for the darkness on the island, enough to panic Luke. I mean, it was a fairly major plot point that I recall.
Of course, I'm arguing Star Wars in a thread with people who will apparently watch several different hour-long reviews of movies they don't plan to see, so really, more the fool am I, ultimately.
Formosa wrote: Rey has had zero "darkness" in her until this movie, had this been teased from the start.... fair one, it was not, this is just JJ trying to clean up Rians utter mess of a movie, JJ appears to have tried to do his best and this crap is what we got, is what it is.
Disney has utterly failed with the star wars franchise at this point and I can see why they are pulling back somewhat from the movies.
Um, what? In both TFA and TLJ Rey is hinted at tapping into the dark side.
In TFA, she goes all "Luke from RotJ beating down Vader" on Kylo. And in TLJ, Luke chastises her for immediately going to the dark side in her first lesson.
Did we see different movies?
Oh, and I've never understood the "shrinking universe" nonsense. Star Wars is a modern mythology. The vast majority of mythology heroes have special origins. Hercules, Perseus and others are all part god. Heck, even King Arthur didn't turn out to be some nobody.
And these particular movies are SUPPOSED to be about a set group of people and how their actions affect the galaxy. To continue THAT story, it makes sense for it to be the children of characters past.
The EU was full of Skywalker offspring, afterall.
Now certainly NEW stories need to introduce unrelated characters to expand the mythos, but those will be different stories. Rise of Skywalker is the culmination of a particular story. For Rey to be a nobody, it needed to NOT be Ep VII VIII IX, but instead be some new storyline that was unrelated
Maybe I saw a different Episode 8 than you did, but in the one I saw, Rey went right for the darkness on the island, enough to panic Luke. I mean, it was a fairly major plot point that I recall.
nope, you saw a disjointed mess that attempted to convey that feeling but ultimately failed to do so and the only thing it succeeded in conveying was the confusion of the characters oh and bitterness from "Luke", Rey never expressed any "darkness" at all, this is just a retcon to add depth to a character with none.
nope, you saw a disjointed mess that attempted to convey that feeling but ultimately failed to do so...
I suspect that's what you saw, but not what Ouze saw. It's certainly not what I saw. The movies have been fairly blatant from the start about Rey courting the darkness. It may not have conveyed it in a way that worked for you personally, but it was there.
Saw it a second time this time looking for answers to some of the reviews/videos people are complaining about. Shadviersity for example (whose channel I love) and about 3/4 of the things he listed are dumb are answered in the movie. There are things that are so subtle, its literally a single line of dialog or a single shot to answer it.
Unfortunately it had to be this way, as the run time was already long and there was 2 goals to the movie, fixing ep 8 and concluding the trilogy, and by extent the Heptalogy.
I think a lot of the reviews especially on youtube with people gaking all over it are just trying to drive clicks/revenue. Negativity is going to drive traffic more than liking it.
Thank the Force the internet wasn't around in 1977-83, I don't think Star Wars would even exist as the reviews would have been so bad they would have never made a 2nd movie.
I can hear it now: Episode 4- that was so dumb, How does Luke make that shot, he has never even flown a starship until this point. Why does Obi Won disappear and suddenly "die" at will. Why can a moon size lazer destroy a planet....blah blah blah
Ep V: vader is lukes dad. That is so dumb. Han got turned into an ice cube. Why does every story have to have a love trianlge. Leia kissed luke and han, gross. blah blah blah
Ep Vi: Teddy bears defeat the empire?! Leia kissed her brother yuk. blab blab blab, so dumb, blab blab.
All the star wars movies have issues, there Sci Fi heroes journey mythos stories. They are trying to be Citizen Kane, or Casablanca, or Shawshank Redemption. Enjoy it for what it IS, not what it isnt.
Formosa wrote: Rey has had zero "darkness" in her until this movie, had this been teased from the start.... fair one, it was not, this is just JJ trying to clean up Rians utter mess of a movie, JJ appears to have tried to do his best and this crap is what we got, is what it is.
Disney has utterly failed with the star wars franchise at this point and I can see why they are pulling back somewhat from the movies.
Um, what? In both TFA and TLJ Rey is hinted at tapping into the dark side.
In TFA, she goes all "Luke from RotJ beating down Vader" on Kylo. And in TLJ, Luke chastises her for immediately going to the dark side in her first lesson.
Did we see different movies?
Oh, and I've never understood the "shrinking universe" nonsense. Star Wars is a modern mythology. The vast majority of mythology heroes have special origins. Hercules, Perseus and others are all part god. Heck, even King Arthur didn't turn out to be some nobody.
And these particular movies are SUPPOSED to be about a set group of people and how their actions affect the galaxy. To continue THAT story, it makes sense for it to be the children of characters past.
The EU was full of Skywalker offspring, afterall.
-
Yeah, but we don't subscribe to the divine right of kings anymore. Its actually considered rather abhorrent by modern moral standards. So 'King Arthur did it' and 'he wasn't some nobody' is a condemnation, a statement that characters who aren't nobility are non-people.
That isn't a defense, that's just reiterating the idea that normal people can't be significant and can't achieve great things.
Formosa wrote: Rey has had zero "darkness" in her until this movie, had this been teased from the start.... fair one, it was not, this is just JJ trying to clean up Rians utter mess of a movie, JJ appears to have tried to do his best and this crap is what we got, is what it is.
Disney has utterly failed with the star wars franchise at this point and I can see why they are pulling back somewhat from the movies.
Um, what? In both TFA and TLJ Rey is hinted at tapping into the dark side.
In TFA, she goes all "Luke from RotJ beating down Vader" on Kylo. And in TLJ, Luke chastises her for immediately going to the dark side in her first lesson.
Did we see different movies?
Oh, and I've never understood the "shrinking universe" nonsense. Star Wars is a modern mythology. The vast majority of mythology heroes have special origins. Hercules, Perseus and others are all part god. Heck, even King Arthur didn't turn out to be some nobody.
And these particular movies are SUPPOSED to be about a set group of people and how their actions affect the galaxy. To continue THAT story, it makes sense for it to be the children of characters past.
The EU was full of Skywalker offspring, afterall.
-
Yeah, but we don't subscribe to the divine right of kings anymore. Its actually considered rather abhorrent by modern moral standards. So 'King Arthur did it' and 'he wasn't some nobody' is a condemnation, a statement that characters who aren't nobility are non-people.
That isn't a defense, that's just reiterating the idea that normal people can't be significant and can't achieve great things.
Jesus, how often does this have to be said.
Depiction. Is. Not. The. Same. As. Endorsement.
This is a story. A fiction. And a particular type of fiction at that, one that relies on certain tropes and themes, one that is ostensibly continuing a story that is explicitly based on those tropes and themes. The idea that a story that doesn't even pretend to have anything to do with the real world even has to be "defended", let alone that people could start reaching for words like "abhorrent" is sheer, unmitigated, unadulterated farce.
Dynas wrote: Saw it a second time this time looking for answers to some of the reviews/videos people are complaining about. Shadviersity for example (whose channel I love) and about 3/4 of the things he listed are dumb are answered in the movie. There are things that are so subtle, its literally a single line of dialog or a single shot to answer it.
Unfortunately it had to be this way, as the run time was already long and there was 2 goals to the movie, fixing ep 8 and concluding the trilogy, and by extent the Heptalogy.
I think a lot of the reviews especially on youtube with people gaking all over it are just trying to drive clicks/revenue. Negativity is going to drive traffic more than liking it.
Thank the Force the internet wasn't around in 1977-83, I don't think Star Wars would even exist as the reviews would have been so bad they would have never made a 2nd movie.
I can hear it now: Episode 4- that was so dumb, How does Luke make that shot, he has never even flown a starship until this point. Why does Obi Won disappear and suddenly "die" at will. Why can a moon size lazer destroy a planet....blah blah blah
Ep V: vader is lukes dad. That is so dumb. Han got turned into an ice cube. Why does every story have to have a love trianlge. Leia kissed luke and han, gross. blah blah blah
Ep Vi: Teddy bears defeat the empire?! Leia kissed her brother yuk. blab blab blab, so dumb, blab blab.
All the star wars movies have issues, there Sci Fi heroes journey mythos stories. They are trying to be Citizen Kane, or Casablanca, or Shawshank Redemption. Enjoy it for what it IS, not what it isnt.
And this guff is just tired revisionist guff. The reason the originals didn't get savaged like the sequels isn't that they somehow got an easy ride because the internet didn't exist, it's because they were better films.
One clickbait merchant being over the top in their dislike doesn't negate the actual issues a lot of people have with the new films, and your hypothetical historical version doesn't do that either(not least because a lot of them are just as nonsense as Shad's - for example ANH makes it explicit to the viewer in the dialogue that Luke is a competent pilot prior to joining the Rebels and that he only "makes the shot" by tapping into the Force).
Either argue the points people have actually raised or just admit that you can't, rather than inventing your own strawmen.
Formosa wrote: Rey has had zero "darkness" in her until this movie, had this been teased from the start.... fair one, it was not, this is just JJ trying to clean up Rians utter mess of a movie, JJ appears to have tried to do his best and this crap is what we got, is what it is.
Disney has utterly failed with the star wars franchise at this point and I can see why they are pulling back somewhat from the movies.
Um, what? In both TFA and TLJ Rey is hinted at tapping into the dark side.
In TFA, she goes all "Luke from RotJ beating down Vader" on Kylo. And in TLJ, Luke chastises her for immediately going to the dark side in her first lesson.
Did we see different movies?
Oh, and I've never understood the "shrinking universe" nonsense. Star Wars is a modern mythology. The vast majority of mythology heroes have special origins. Hercules, Perseus and others are all part god. Heck, even King Arthur didn't turn out to be some nobody.
And these particular movies are SUPPOSED to be about a set group of people and how their actions affect the galaxy. To continue THAT story, it makes sense for it to be the children of characters past.
The EU was full of Skywalker offspring, afterall.
-
Yeah, but we don't subscribe to the divine right of kings anymore. Its actually considered rather abhorrent by modern moral standards. So 'King Arthur did it' and 'he wasn't some nobody' is a condemnation, a statement that characters who aren't nobility are non-people.
That isn't a defense, that's just reiterating the idea that normal people can't be significant and can't achieve great things.
Jesus, how often does this have to be said.
Depiction. Is. Not. The. Same. As. Endorsement.
This is a story. A fiction. And a particular type of fiction at that, one that relies on certain tropes and themes, one that is ostensibly continuing a story that is explicitly based on those tropes and themes. The idea that a story that doesn't even pretend to have anything to do with the real world even has to be "defended", let alone that people could start reaching for words like "abhorrent" is sheer, unmitigated, unadulterated farce.
Dynas wrote: Saw it a second time this time looking for answers to some of the reviews/videos people are complaining about. Shadviersity for example (whose channel I love) and about 3/4 of the things he listed are dumb are answered in the movie. There are things that are so subtle, its literally a single line of dialog or a single shot to answer it.
Unfortunately it had to be this way, as the run time was already long and there was 2 goals to the movie, fixing ep 8 and concluding the trilogy, and by extent the Heptalogy.
I think a lot of the reviews especially on youtube with people gaking all over it are just trying to drive clicks/revenue. Negativity is going to drive traffic more than liking it.
Thank the Force the internet wasn't around in 1977-83, I don't think Star Wars would even exist as the reviews would have been so bad they would have never made a 2nd movie.
I can hear it now: Episode 4- that was so dumb, How does Luke make that shot, he has never even flown a starship until this point. Why does Obi Won disappear and suddenly "die" at will. Why can a moon size lazer destroy a planet....blah blah blah
Ep V: vader is lukes dad. That is so dumb. Han got turned into an ice cube. Why does every story have to have a love trianlge. Leia kissed luke and han, gross. blah blah blah
Ep Vi: Teddy bears defeat the empire?! Leia kissed her brother yuk. blab blab blab, so dumb, blab blab.
All the star wars movies have issues, there Sci Fi heroes journey mythos stories. They are trying to be Citizen Kane, or Casablanca, or Shawshank Redemption. Enjoy it for what it IS, not what it isnt.
And this guff is just tired revisionist guff. The reason the originals didn't get savaged like the sequels isn't that they somehow got an easy ride because the internet didn't exist, it's because they were better films.
One clickbait merchant being over the top in their dislike doesn't negate the actual issues a lot of people have with the new films, and your hypothetical historical version doesn't do that either(not least because a lot of them are just as nonsense as Shad's - for example ANH makes it explicit to the viewer in the dialogue that Luke is a competent pilot prior to joining the Rebels and that he only "makes the shot" by tapping into the Force).
Either argue the points people have actually raised or just admit that you can't, rather than inventing your own strawmen.
Original review of The Empire Strikes back were mixed at best. Today its considered by many to be the best film of the series and its in the Top 20 IMDB movies of ALL Time. People like to gak on other peoples work because it somehow makes them feel better about themselves. Here are some of the original reviews of ESB:
Voss wrote: Yeah, but we don't subscribe to the divine right of kings anymore. Its actually considered rather abhorrent by modern moral standards. So 'King Arthur did it' and 'he wasn't some nobody' is a condemnation, a statement that characters who aren't nobility are non-people. That isn't a defense, that's just reiterating the idea that normal people can't be significant and can't achieve great things.
That's a fair and valid point....for a story trying to convey that message. Star Wars, however, has never done so. In fact, for consistency sake, Rey HAD to be a somebody for a specific reason other than "because the force chose her". Luke was special because he has Anakin's son (then later reveal to be Vader's). Anakin was special because he was the chosen one (and you shouldn't has 2 chosen ONES)
So Rey being retconned to be {spoiler} fits perfectly with established story telling within Star Wars. Which again, follows much older story telling tropes that are supposed to be timeless, regardless our societal views on "birth rites". Remember too that Leia was not originally meant to be Luke's sister, but the retconned that in RotJ. This is why I feel RoS feels like a Star Wars movie. Because it follows the story telling pattern of the last 2 trilogies. You might even say it "rhymes"
RoS does feel like a SW movie. But it doesn't need Rey to have lineage to do that. A New Hope "Feels" like a SW movie and Luke wasn't related to any other major figure in that movie until the reveal that Vader (And THAT isn't significant until expanded universe stuff lays out the chosen one crap and the prequels get made) was Anakin at the end of the next movie.(A retcon that the actor portraying Vader didn't even know until he saw the movie in theaters).
The chosen one prophecy doesn't come up. The lineage doesn't mater. Lukes just some dude. Obiwan is the important person in ANH and not because he is some great and powerful destined person but instead because he has a history that Leia's father told Leia about and he gets called in to help because of his experience. Luke is just an apprentice he takes on because Obi is old.
Again, Rey was more interesting when she was nobody. That she was older like Luke, but full of fear and desperation because she was abandoned and alone... Thats all you need for her push towards the dark side. Any other layering of lineage and destiny just takes away from it. Now it's not HER that is pulled towards the darkside. It's her blood line. Now shes not powerful because anyone could be powerful. She is powerful because of where mommy or daddy came from.
Is Anakin actually the chosen one? Is there even a chosen one? Does the prophecy even happen? Honestly at no point did I find Anakin more interesting because of some prophecy. Its one of the more eye rolling threads of the prequels, in no small part because the prophecy is way too vague to given any real meaning to any of the events of the series.
In some ways, this need to explain Anakin's power is as ruinous to the Jedi as it is to the films. To that end, the exact same could be said for Rey.
I am going to tell you a little secret. All these things you're discussing... nobody at Disney or Lucasfilms or whatever ever thought about them. The new trilogy isn't a story, it's not even movies. It's a series of scenes that some algorithm determined would resonate with the average viewer that were arranged in vaguely chronological order but really have no causality. Nobody is relatable because nothing the feel or do matters, they are just teleported from scene to scene and things happen at random until the bad guy dies.
Lance845 wrote: But it doesn't need Rey to have lineage to do that.
I would argue that.
Without any special lineage, how does Rey keep pulling new powers out of her nether regions with ZERO training, ZERO guidance, and ZERO experience?
Being of the lineage she's from gives her an excuse to do so. Granted, it's a pretty darn limp excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. With NO excuse you're just trampling all over two trilogies worth of precedent where even the Chosen One needed training to do much of anything with the Force.
Lance845 wrote: But it doesn't need Rey to have lineage to do that.
I would argue that.
Without any special lineage, how does Rey keep pulling new powers out of her nether regions with ZERO training, ZERO guidance, and ZERO experience?
Being of the lineage she's from gives her an excuse to do so. Granted, it's a pretty darn limp excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. With NO excuse you're just trampling all over two trilogies worth of precedent where even the Chosen One needed training to do much of anything with the Force.
Lance845 wrote: But it doesn't need Rey to have lineage to do that.
I would argue that.
Without any special lineage, how does Rey keep pulling new powers out of her nether regions with ZERO training, ZERO guidance, and ZERO experience?
Being of the lineage she's from gives her an excuse to do so. Granted, it's a pretty darn limp excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. With NO excuse you're just trampling all over two trilogies worth of precedent where even the Chosen One needed training to do much of anything with the Force.
1) Lets just put the prequels in the trash where they belong. But first, you're wrong, Anakin did a lot with the force, like Pod Race and win. Or fly a ship into a droid mothership and destroy it. Anakin force uses all over the place constantly.
2) The movies tell you. The force balances itself. When a great darkness rises, the light rises to meet it. Plus, Rey exists in a world where stories of Luke and the Jedi resurface as positives and everyone is telling them. She knows about General Lando, and Princess Leia, and General Solo and Luke Skywalker. Which means she hears stories about the force. If the light rises to meet the dark and she is just throwing gak at the wall to see what sticks then thats what she does.
3) Again, Luke does a bunch of gak in the moment when he needs to without much or any training. He hit those wamp rats with his T-16 despite seasoned fighters calling it impossible. He spends a week tops on the Falcon as his only training getting shot by a ball droid but manages to sink the torpedo into the Deathstar. Before he meets yoda he learns how to force pull his lightsaber into his hand. Who taught him that? Everyone in starwars always does gak for no good reason.
When Anakin is randomly the only human capable of podracing, no one said, "how can he do that without any training!" only to be placated by the "chosen one" nonsense later in the film. We all went "ooo, its cause he's strong in the Force" because no one had these fits until Rey.
Lance845 wrote: But it doesn't need Rey to have lineage to do that.
I would argue that.
Without any special lineage, how does Rey keep pulling new powers out of her nether regions with ZERO training, ZERO guidance, and ZERO experience?
Being of the lineage she's from gives her an excuse to do so. Granted, it's a pretty darn limp excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. With NO excuse you're just trampling all over two trilogies worth of precedent where even the Chosen One needed training to do much of anything with the Force.
1) Lets just put the prequels in the trash where they belong. But first, you're wrong, Anakin did a lot with the force, like Pod Race and win. Or fly a ship into a droid mothership and destroy it. Anakin force uses all over the place constantly.
I'll grant you that much.
He doesn't beat Darth Maul at the end of his first movie. Indeed, his first battle with a Sith ends with him losing a hand. Rey, on the other hand, beats Ren and does it easily in TFA. She mindtricks a stomrtrooper in the same movie (no sign of Anakin doing that in TPM), ON TOP OF her unexplained piloting prowess the first time she hops into the Millennium Falcon. which I suppose is the equivalent to Anakin surviving (much less winning) pod races and his accidental jaunt in a starfighter.
2) The movies tell you. The force balances itself. When a great darkness rises, the light rises to meet it. Plus, Rey exists in a world where stories of Luke and the Jedi resurface as positives and everyone is telling them. She knows about General Lando, and Princess Leia, and General Solo and Luke Skywalker. Which means she hears stories about the force. If the light rises to meet the dark and she is just throwing gak at the wall to see what sticks then thats what she does.
So why didn't the Force take a more active role in balancing the great light of the Jedi Order for the thousand years of history we're told of in the films? I mean, darkness takes power and within two decades there's Luke. Then you get a couple more decades of light, darkness rises again and Rey's RIGHT THERE. I would have expected The Force to take a MUCH more active role in balancing the Jedi Order instead of leaving things alone for a full millennia.
3) Again, Luke does a bunch of gak in the moment when he needs to without much or any training. He hit those wamp rats with his T-16 despite seasoned fighters calling it impossible. He spends a week tops on the Falcon as his only training getting shot by a ball droid but manages to sink the torpedo into the Deathstar. Before he meets yoda he learns how to force pull his lightsaber into his hand. Who taught him that? Everyone in starwars always does gak for no good reason.
Ah... Luke says "WE used to bulls-eye womp rates back home". Not "I". "WE'. Thus implying Biggs used to do it as well, likely along with his other unseen friends from Tosche station. I suppose that could mean the lot of them were unconscious force users, but since strongish force users seem pretty rare during the Empire...
Besides, 2 meters is pretty darn BIG. That's six-and-a-half feet. That's an area likely larger than YOU are, standing tall with your arms spread out. That's not all that much smaller than a WWII tank, and yet we have records of hundreds of them being taken out by bombs during the war - and that prior to any sort of guidance systems. In short, it's well within the realm of human possibility.
Although I'll grant you, getting the torpedo to make the right-angle-turn to go down the shaft, THAT was impressive. But even then one could argue Force Ghost Ben was guiding his hand and did the actual turning. You know, since TROS has established force ghosts can interact with physical objects...
And for that matter, it's not unlikely that given that, Ben helped with the lightsaber pull.
By the same logic, Rey also did absolutely nothing with the force, it was all the other force ghosts teaming up to do it for her, of course....
If you are asking why didn't the dark side rise to meet the light I would argue that it did and we started the story in the wake of their victory. And it's not like the Sith were not around getting stronger and stronger during the time the Jedi were active. Remember, the force isn't saying we need to balance the politics in the galaxy. Just the power of the light and dark. Sideous and Plagus were powerful in ways that the combined might of many jedi never were.
2 Meters is pretty fething small for a ship traveling at starships speeds with precision lasers or guiding an exact torpedo down a shaft without hitting a wall and detonating early.
You could argue that force ghost Obiwan did it sure. But then as you say, Rey was just being guided by Ghosts too. So those arguments just negate each other. If you are going to pretend that Rey did her things, then you ar pretending that Luke did his. And the ones feats are not more impressive then the others.
LunarSol wrote: When Anakin is randomly the only human capable of podracing, no one said, "how can he do that without any training!" only to be placated by the "chosen one" nonsense later in the film. We all went "ooo, its cause he's strong in the Force" because no one had these fits until Rey.
an aweful lot of the "issues" people are having with these movies is what I call "Fan signaling" where people in an attempt to "prove" how much of a fan they are, go and bash something new in their franchise. I find a lot of the complaints with the new SW movies are essentially "fan signaling" where folks go out of their way to find problems with the new movies in a misguided attempt to "prove" how big a fan they are.
the complaints about Rey's herritage are the perfect example. SW has always had an element of important backgrounds and heritages. That has never changed. Now ROS has changed, subtly, the way we will, going into the future view the saga
Spoiler:
In that now really the trilogy of trilogies deals with the skywalker and palpatine families
I agree with that (and have no issues with it) so yeah Rey being a nobody woulda been dissappointing, as early as before TFA released it was widly accepted she had to be someone, because thats how SW worked so yeah seems a strange complaint.
Although I'll grant you, getting the torpedo to make the right-angle-turn to go down the shaft, THAT was impressive. But even then one could argue Force Ghost Ben was guiding his hand and did the actual turning. You know, since TROS has established force ghosts can interact with physical objects...
Not sure why people have so much trouble with this, but that had nothing to do with the force (it was also a parabolic trajectory, not a 90 degree turn):
BrianDavion wrote: an aweful lot of the "issues" people are having with these movies is what I call "Fan signaling" where people in an attempt to "prove" how much of a fan they are, go and bash something new in their franchise. I find a lot of the complaints with the new SW movies are essentially "fan signaling" where folks go out of their way to find problems with the new movies in a misguided attempt to "prove" how big a fan they are.
I'll admit that I am guilty of the opposite kind of "fan signaling" in which I seem to go out of my way to embrace and try to find as much to love about new Star Wars as possible.
Even TLJ, which I initially was disappointed with, is a movie that I watch again and again (especially now that RoS has added context to the things I was disappointed about and therefore I am no longer as disappointed)
That's probably a big reason why I am so quick to defend RoS. Its friggin STAR WARS, so to think any of it, even the prequels, isn't good (enough) will somehow mean a lifetime of fandom would be wasted for me.
I'm an "all or nothing" kind of fan. It's all canon so I'm gonna find ways to like, if not love it.
And IMO, RoS makes that choice very easy for me.
3) Again, Luke does a bunch of gak in the moment when he needs to without much or any training. He hit those wamp rats with his T-16 despite seasoned fighters calling it impossible. He spends a week tops on the Falcon as his only training getting shot by a ball droid but manages to sink the torpedo into the Deathstar. Before he meets yoda he learns how to force pull his lightsaber into his hand. Who taught him that? Everyone in starwars always does gak for no good reason.
The difference is that you see Luke actually struggle. He needs his wingmates to help him during the battle, he nearly crashes his X-Wing into the Death Star, you see him get zapped by the floating probe while he's practising the deflection, he has to get saved by Obi-Wan in Mos Eisley when Dr. Evazan and Ponda Baba pick a fight with him, etc. etc. etc. The fact that you actually see him struggle is what makes his rare moments of exceptional ability actually feel like they've been earned, whereas Rey never struggles with anything ever. She gets thrown into a tree hard enough to be knocked unconscious and still beats Ren in their first encounter, flies the Falcon like an absolute god, somehow manages to not only resist but actually reverse Ren's mind probe, and that's all just in the first god damn movie. Rey's character is so lazily written it's painful.
That's probably a big reason why I am so quick to defend RoS. Its friggin STAR WARS, so to think any of it, even the prequels, isn't good (enough) will somehow mean a lifetime of fandom would be wasted for me.
-
That is some pretty spectacular sunk cost fallacy right there. I have a really hard time seeing any franchise from that perspective. Presumably, what drew you to Star Wars in the first place was either the quality of the OT or the few diamonds in the rough that existed in the EU, so why settle for less than what got you into it in the first place? By looking for things to love to validate your passion for the franchise, you're basically telling the content creators that minimal effort is fine. Like as long as X-Wings and TIE fighters are blowing each other up on screen, you're good, and that sounds absolutely bonkers to me.
LunarSol wrote: When Anakin is randomly the only human capable of podracing, no one said, "how can he do that without any training!" only to be placated by the "chosen one" nonsense later in the film. We all went "ooo, its cause he's strong in the Force" because no one had these fits until Rey.
That... isn't vaguely true. The prequels and especially TPM were heavily criticized at the time (and after, and still), including that exact thing (and that whole sequence in general).
RedLetterMedia basically only exists today because their 8+ hours of raw hatred for the Prequels actually resonated with people.
I do definitely remember people hating on Anakin's entire character in TPM. In fact, people hated on his character for the entire Prequel trilogy because his character is awful. It's really only after a decade of comics and books handling him much better than I think anyone has anything nice to say about his entire existence.
LordofHats wrote: I do definitely remember people hating on Anakin's entire character in TPM. In fact, people hated on his character for the entire Prequel trilogy because his character is awful. It's really only after a decade of comics and books handling him much better than I think anyone has anything nice to say about his entire existence.
that and there's something new to hate on. fact is the prequals suffered from the bane of unrealistic expectations. let's face it... they where NEVER gonna meet fan expectations
3) Again, Luke does a bunch of gak in the moment when he needs to without much or any training. He hit those wamp rats with his T-16 despite seasoned fighters calling it impossible. He spends a week tops on the Falcon as his only training getting shot by a ball droid but manages to sink the torpedo into the Deathstar. Before he meets yoda he learns how to force pull his lightsaber into his hand. Who taught him that? Everyone in starwars always does gak for no good reason.
The difference is that you see Luke actually struggle. He needs his wingmates to help him during the battle, he nearly crashes his X-Wing into the Death Star, you see him get zapped by the floating probe while he's practising the deflection, he has to get saved by Obi-Wan in Mos Eisley when Dr. Evazan and Ponda Baba pick a fight with him, etc. etc. etc. The fact that you actually see him struggle is what makes his rare moments of exceptional ability actually feel like they've been earned, whereas Rey never struggles with anything ever. She gets thrown into a tree hard enough to be knocked unconscious and still beats Ren in their first encounter, flies the Falcon like an absolute god, somehow manages to not only resist but actually reverse Ren's mind probe, and that's all just in the first god damn movie. Rey's character is so lazily written it's painful.
That's probably a big reason why I am so quick to defend RoS. Its friggin STAR WARS, so to think any of it, even the prequels, isn't good (enough) will somehow mean a lifetime of fandom would be wasted for me.
-
That is some pretty spectacular sunk cost fallacy right there. I have a really hard time seeing any franchise from that perspective. Presumably, what drew you to Star Wars in the first place was either the quality of the OT or the few diamonds in the rough that existed in the EU, so why settle for less than what got you into it in the first place? By looking for things to love to validate your passion for the franchise, you're basically telling the content creators that minimal effort is fine. Like as long as X-Wings and TIE fighters are blowing each other up on screen, you're good, and that sounds absolutely bonkers to me.
I chalk up her incredible piloting ability to an attempt to please the hardcore fanboys, tbh, as well as her swordfighting ability. Compared to the prequels/various tv serieses the duel between Rey and Kylo was amateur hour, but can you imagine if they actually looked like two complete novices swinging at each other after the level of cinematic swordfighting spectacle on display in all the prequel films?
Same with the millenium falcon. Outside the canon here, they flew the falcon like that because the fanboys needed to see sexy shots of sweet space ship flying action with the millenium falcon in the trailer. That wasn't establishing Rey and how badass she is, that was establishing that this was a freaking star wars baby, we got the star wars we got the CGI space ships pew pew laser beams! Can you imagine if the piloting spectacle was only on the level of the OT after the space battle that was the opening of RoTS?
And as for Rey unrealistically defeating a dude who'd been shot in the gut fifteen minutes earlier by a weapon that had instantly killed everyone it shot at previously in the film....I mean....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3n13fSTCKE
If anything, my problem with the duel between Kylo and Rey is that they did TOO MUCH to justify Rey winning the duel such that it undercut any threat Kylo posed as a main villain. Kylo (and the new empire in general) get one scene in the beginning of the movie where they get to be big badasses and then they go back to being the easily defeated buffoons that every bad guy has been in every star wars movie since new hope. If the OT hadn't had Empire in it, they would have had an identical problem, but they took a whole movie to establish that the empire was this overpowering military force.
We establish that Rey can resist Kylo's use of the force. We establish that he's arrogant, sloppy, easily angered and distracted, overconfident. We give him a massive physical injury just before the scene, and remind the viewer of it multiple times during the scene. We have him very nearly lose to a dude with basic stormtrooper combat training who has been mostly comic relief so far in the film.
The kylo fight in TFA is like if instead of Darth Maul being this totally unknown entity we see him in the background getting continuously thwarted and getting mad at battle droids for comedy beats and before fighting Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan he barely overpowers jar jar.
IMO, The Last Jedi would have worked really well for the series if not for Rioun Johanneson's basically only being a comedy director. you NEED a victory for the audience to get hooked in the first movie, but then you NEED to have a down-note film that establishes the bad guys as a credible threat, and TLJ really honestly tried to do that but undercut it way too much with comedy beats making the bad guys still look like fools and yet more comedy beats making it look like the heroes were tripping over their own shoelaces rather than failing to overcome a massive threat.
I think Johnstone was just so used to directing films where the foil of the protagonist is the environment or their own foolishness that it accidentally bled into the editing of the movie. The "bombing run" sequence was a very good setup for what could have been a solid theme for the film - the heroes' own heroism is costing them because they're fighting harder not smarter and sacrificing too much to try and stop the empire, and the empire still has vast resources - but then it fell flat because too many times the heroes' efforts failed because of their own general stupidity.
the_scotsman wrote: I chalk up her incredible piloting ability to an attempt to please the hardcore fanboys, tbh, as well as her swordfighting ability. Compared to the prequels/various tv serieses the duel between Rey and Kylo was amateur hour, but can you imagine if they actually looked like two complete novices swinging at each other after the level of cinematic swordfighting spectacle on display in all the prequel films?
I've seen plenty of really cool looking fights where one fighter is severely outclassed by another. Not to mention that Kylo shouldn't be a novice by any stretch - wounded, severely injured, but a novice? No way.
Think of it like the Count Dooku vs Anakin/Obi-Wan fight in AotC - Anakin in particular behaves like a novice, charging straight in. He gets taken down by Dooku in seconds.
The fight could have been enhanced very well by Kylo clearly showing superior skill, but being hobbled by his injury. In return, Rey is inexperienced, but not as badly hurt. You could end up with a situation where Kylo is hammering blows down at Rey, but can't advance quickly enough to properly rush her down and capitalise on her inexperience. Cue a Falcon-Ex Machina (similar to the Falcon showing up in ANH and saving Luke by dealing with Vader), where Rey escapes, and Kylo is forced to block a barrage of shots from the Falcon as she escapes barely.
Same with the millenium falcon. Outside the canon here, they flew the falcon like that because the fanboys needed to see sexy shots of sweet space ship flying action with the millenium falcon in the trailer. That wasn't establishing Rey and how badass she is, that was establishing that this was a freaking star wars baby, we got the star wars we got the CGI space ships pew pew laser beams! Can you imagine if the piloting spectacle was only on the level of the OT after the space battle that was the opening of RoTS?
Then don't have Rey pilot it - have a different scene, with something like Rey and Finn stuck on Jakku, escaping the First Order's TIEs, the ship gets blown up in front of them, and they get on a different ship (not the Falcon), something perhaps like the skimmers in TLJ. They get in, Rey demonstrating skills in the skimmer, but her evasion isn't doing a whole lot of good. Then, the Falcon can come down from the sky, shoot down the TIEs in much the same sequence, and land in front of the skimmer. Rey and Finn get aboard, and are greeted by Han and Chewbacca, who are far more associated with the Resistance (unlike what we actually got), and got contacted by BB-8 sending an emergency broadcast.
Film continues largely as before, with Han teaching Rey how to fly the Falcon.
Basically, a lot of the issues of nearly all the sequels come down to poor execution and inconsistent tone, characterisation, and narrative structure IMO.
I don’t know if this has already been mentioned, but I want to just add my 2 cents to this discourse.
I personally have no issues with any of the plot decisions really. What I mean by that is, it’s fine for Rey to be what she is, all the stuff with Snoke, Palpatine, etc.
My biggest issue? The really bad structure and pacing. The first half is really difficult to follow, as it overloads the massive amounts of information onto you and basically ret cons everything in Episode 8. For one, this is extremely unfocused. For another, it doesn’t really make for an organic growth to the story told in the trilogy.
The main plot picks up about an hour in, but it’s tough for the story to get going with so little time to do so. Then the final act, things just happen and are introduced with little prior buildup. There are far too many new plot points, many of which aren’t very fleshed out at all, and many things are left unexplained.
My own thoughts are that much of what was introduced in the beginning should’ve been introduced in the end. And they should’ve focused maybe on a few plot points, rather than throw in so many plot points at people. It’s very incoherent.
My criticisms, and I feel like many people’s criticisms of 9, are very much at the actual writing and structure rather than the lore and/or actual plot decisions. Only my 2 cents though.
Lance845 wrote: But it doesn't need Rey to have lineage to do that.
I would argue that.
Without any special lineage, how does Rey keep pulling new powers out of her nether regions with ZERO training, ZERO guidance, and ZERO experience?
Being of the lineage she's from gives her an excuse to do so. Granted, it's a pretty darn limp excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. With NO excuse you're just trampling all over two trilogies worth of precedent where even the Chosen One needed training to do much of anything with the Force.
Luke trains her on the island in Ep8. It seems fast bc it all happens in a single movie but we don't know how long she is there. More importantly, she has trained with Leia between 8 & 9 for some unknown amount of time, likely several years at least.
the_scotsman wrote: I chalk up her incredible piloting ability to an attempt to please the hardcore fanboys, tbh, as well as her swordfighting ability. Compared to the prequels/various tv serieses the duel between Rey and Kylo was amateur hour, but can you imagine if they actually looked like two complete novices swinging at each other after the level of cinematic swordfighting spectacle on display in all the prequel films?
I've seen plenty of really cool looking fights where one fighter is severely outclassed by another. Not to mention that Kylo shouldn't be a novice by any stretch - wounded, severely injured, but a novice? No way.
Think of it like the Count Dooku vs Anakin/Obi-Wan fight in AotC - Anakin in particular behaves like a novice, charging straight in. He gets taken down by Dooku in seconds.
The fight could have been enhanced very well by Kylo clearly showing superior skill, but being hobbled by his injury. In return, Rey is inexperienced, but not as badly hurt. You could end up with a situation where Kylo is hammering blows down at Rey, but can't advance quickly enough to properly rush her down and capitalise on her inexperience. Cue a Falcon-Ex Machina (similar to the Falcon showing up in ANH and saving Luke by dealing with Vader), where Rey escapes, and Kylo is forced to block a barrage of shots from the Falcon as she escapes barely.
Same with the millenium falcon. Outside the canon here, they flew the falcon like that because the fanboys needed to see sexy shots of sweet space ship flying action with the millenium falcon in the trailer. That wasn't establishing Rey and how badass she is, that was establishing that this was a freaking star wars baby, we got the star wars we got the CGI space ships pew pew laser beams! Can you imagine if the piloting spectacle was only on the level of the OT after the space battle that was the opening of RoTS?
Then don't have Rey pilot it - have a different scene, with something like Rey and Finn stuck on Jakku, escaping the First Order's TIEs, the ship gets blown up in front of them, and they get on a different ship (not the Falcon), something perhaps like the skimmers in TLJ. They get in, Rey demonstrating skills in the skimmer, but her evasion isn't doing a whole lot of good. Then, the Falcon can come down from the sky, shoot down the TIEs in much the same sequence, and land in front of the skimmer. Rey and Finn get aboard, and are greeted by Han and Chewbacca, who are far more associated with the Resistance (unlike what we actually got), and got contacted by BB-8 sending an emergency broadcast.
Film continues largely as before, with Han teaching Rey how to fly the Falcon.
Basically, a lot of the issues of nearly all the sequels come down to poor execution and inconsistent tone, characterisation, and narrative structure IMO.
Let's watch this fight, blow by blow, and see how it isn't exactly what you want. it's only 3:00 long, after all.
The lightsaber jumps past Kylo and to Rey. We established earlier in the film that Kylo has basically never been opposed by someone using the light side, which makes sense. Rey shuffles for a minute with the saber, and is carefully holding the saber well away from her when she turns it on. Kylo by contrast flicks on his saber and spins it close to his body.
Rey's first swing completely misses, second swing is parried by Kylo, and third swing misses and hits a tree. We cut away for a little bit of lightsaber waving, and the first thing we see when we cut close is rey throw a wild stab, which Kylo again deflects into a tree. Kylo flourishes, chopping down a large tree that lands behind Rey, and the camera cuts.
Kylo then chases rey into a little enclosed ravine, where Rey blocks a few of his swings then turns and runs. Kylo swings at her, misses, and grunts in frustration as she gains distance while he only advances at a walking pace.
Kylo catches up to her and makes three more swings. Rey blocks the first and second and again retreats on the third, which throws Kylo off balance and he stumbles while she runs away a few more steps. Rey takes another swing and Kylo blocks it, and Rey again makes another sound of frustration and exertion while Kylo is silent. We get a wide shot, a few notes of the imperial theme play, and Kylo chases Rey from the left side of the shot to the center, still with Kylo at a walking pace and Rey running. There is a rumbling noise and part of the forest collapses behind Rey, she looks back and then we get yet another wide shot of Kylo pursuing Rey from left to center with minor key music. Kylo stabs, Rey blocks it with a frightened sound, and the lightsabers clash as Kylo pushes her back to the edge of a cliff.
Now we get a few more frightened noises and the line "You need a teacher! I could show you the ways of the force!" from kylo. He very clearly could finish the fight right here by pushing her one more step back, but he does not. Rey closes her eyes, clearly evoking the "I am your father" sequence with Luke dangling in empire and the same music playing. Rey opens her eyes, defiant, and jumps down with an angrier noise than she made before. Kylo pursues again. Rey rains down a series of wild overhead swings, which again clearly echoes a classic moment from the OT fights with Luke giving in to his anger and overpowering vader. She cuts a bit of Kylo's cloak, and he stumbles back.
He stands from kneeling, clutches his side where Chewbacca shot him, and swings wide. This time Rey waits outside the range of the blow, and this time her stab lands. He stumbles back, and Rey throws a telegraphed overhead blow, which Kylo easily blocks, but she then kicks him to the ground. Kylo gets up again, they have another contest of physical strength, and then Rey lets go and strikes his lightsaber out of his hand, and the fight ends with a "Deus Ex Earthquake" separating the combatants.
I've had at-length conversations about this fight with a friend of mine who is a huge broadsword fencing enthusiast, because it is his favorite part about the movie. He complained that movie swordfighting is about conveying to the audience the emotional interplay between two opposing characters and that the prequels, for all their amazing choreography often obscured those moments of emotional messaging because they were so heavy on displays of technical skill. Mike Stoklasa in his episode 1 review encompasses it perfectly talking about the fight with Darth Maul. All the elements were there outside the fight: Maul was powerful, but angry and too eager to prove himself. Qui-gon takes a moment to center himself while Maul paces back and forth, agitated that the fight was interrupted by a weird...series of glowy, unexplained laser walls. Obi-wan sees his master get killed and he gets pumped, jumping into the fight with emotional vigor and determination to get back at Maul. But the second the swords actually start to clash, it's right back to technically perfect, emotionally detached swordplay.
The Kylo/Rey fight shows that off perfectly with their technique. Rey respects the weapon she's holding, holding it carefully and away from her at all times. Her attacks are wild, telegraphed, and she is throwing unnecessary strength behind every blow, exactly like someone would who has been in plenty of fights where life or possessions were on the line but always with a blunt weapon, not with a weapon that's deadly in its own right. in the first half of the fight, before he starts to tire, Kylo keeps his weapon tight to his body and is not afraid to spin it towards him and past his face and body. Kylo actually blocks, moving his sword away from him very little and directing blows away from his opponent's body. Rey just meets swings with opposite swings and actually turns her back and runs several times, and we see multiple instances where Kylo can't end the fight only because he's moving at a walking pace - whether from the injury, or because his plan is not to kill Rey but instead to fight her to a standstill and convince her to surrender and join him like he tries at about 1:45.
Kylo's injury is re-established before the fight, we see that he's done something to stabilize himself but it's failing, and he's losing blood. He pounds on his chestplate to try and stop himself from bleeding, and when the fight turns 2:15 into the 3:00 long fight, he re-establishes the injury again by holding his side while making a wild swing.
Anyone who characterizes that fight as "Rey easily defeating Kylo because Muh Mary Sue" is doing one of three things.
1) not watching the fight closely at all, and possibly taking someone else's interpretation of it as their own simply because of which two characters fight and which one wins
2) being deliberately dishonest to try and construct a narrative, or
3) accustomed to the level of technical skill displayed by the characters in the prequels, video games and other star wars media and interpreting Kylo's "trained, but overconfident and injured" performance as "uncoordinated buffoon".
To me, this fight clearly reads as someone who has been trained but has very little experience in combat with someone using a similar weapon or of respecting his body's limitations while losing blood, versus someone with no training with the particular type of weapon they're using but plenty of low-tech hand to hand combat experience. Heck, the definitive turning point is practically identical to the episode of Firefly where Mal has to fight a duel and wins by pulling a cheap bar room brawl trick. Kylo blocks an overhead swing and Rey kicks him right where he's been shot.
Lance845 wrote: But it doesn't need Rey to have lineage to do that.
I would argue that.
Without any special lineage, how does Rey keep pulling new powers out of her nether regions with ZERO training, ZERO guidance, and ZERO experience?
Being of the lineage she's from gives her an excuse to do so. Granted, it's a pretty darn limp excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. With NO excuse you're just trampling all over two trilogies worth of precedent where even the Chosen One needed training to do much of anything with the Force.
Luke trains her on the island in Ep8. It seems fast bc it all happens in a single movie but we don't know how long she is there. More importantly, she has trained with Leia between 8 & 9 for some unknown amount of time, likely several years at least.
Actually we do, unlike with ESB there's no ambiguity - Rey is with Luke for a maximum of three days, possibly just two. The entirely of TFA and TLJ take place in like, two weeks of "real" time. RoS having a definitive 1 year time skip, which Rey spent training vigorously with an actual Jedi, combined with the lineage thing are some of the few things on-screen in RoS that are unquestionable improvements on the rest of the STIMO, since even with JJ "feth it" Abrams' breakneck, hamfisted, poorly explained ass-pulled new force powers, it's at least an attempt to show that Rey's power is, if not earned, then at least explained, rather than just being 100% fresh-queezed Yass Kween.
God this whole affair has been such a missed opportunity. The whole Sith Eternal idea is cool. The TIE Daggers are cool. Even the Sith Troopers are pretty cool, though I still can't stomach the Sequels tacticool weapon designs. And at this point, I've read about a dozen fan-made synopses that take the core, basic blocks of the Sequels and make something genuinely awesome out of them, and it really does just seem like Kennedy and the Story Group are either such hacks they really couldn't come up with anything better than some random on sodding 4chan, or they just didn't give a gak.
Like, imagine;
Not-TFA features the fall of Ben Solo and the rise of the First Order, a fringe group of extremist ex-Imperials out on the fringes of the fractious-but-functional New Republic. The Republic doesn't consider them a real threat because, realistically, they aren't - they use old Imperial surplus gear, they're modest in size, don't claim much territory, and what they do claim is fairly worthless to the Core worlds. Ben/Kylo kills Han - who is not a worthless deadbeat who sold Luke's war medal for booze money, yes, that's actually a thing in nucanon, feth you Pablo Hidalgo you bitter old hack - early on, maybe even in flashback, but this time instead of just having him be a petulant emo who chimps out when he doesn't get his own way, have his rages be the result of him tormenting himself with hallucinations of his dead dad - used sparingly, but repeatedly through the film. The Resistance is formed by Leia to combat the First Order both because she has more foresight than a lot of her colleagues, but also because for her the conflict is personal - she wants her son back. They end up using old surplus Alliance gear because it's cheap(this gives Disney and JJ the Rebels vs Imperials aesthetic they so desperately wanted). The First Order becomes a genuine problem for everyone by the end of the movie not because they've got another ridiculous Deus Ex Superlaser and eighty-five-kajillion ships and troopers and all-new gear from somewhere for reasons, but by using the Rebellion's tactics against the Republic except without any scruples whatsoever, launching a vast wave of hit & run terror attacks against civilians and infrastructure alike - their goal is not to conquer, but to take violent revenge against those who spurned the Emperor. Meanwhile Luke, who is semi-retired having re-established a small but successful New Jedi Order who are spending most of their time reflecting on what they want their role to be in the post-Empire world, elects to take on one last Padawan when he discovers(via meditation or spies or whatever) a young girl on Jakku who's incredibly strong with the Force - this is pitched as him seeking redemption for his failure to steer Ben back to the Light.
Not-TLJ could have the Resistance and the Republic trying desperately to contain the First Order's mad rampage(that has been going on for a couple of years between movies), while Luke and his young apprentice continue her training and investigate rumours of a dark conspiracy behind the rise of the First Order. Retool the first act of TRoS so that it's less contrived(for reals, the Sith Dagger that's engraved with the location of the Death Star wreckage and has been carved to line up with an exact piece of that wreckage at a specific angle from a certain spot which just happens to be the spot they stand in is...ugh) and less frenetic, dump the "and now they have ONE MILLION SUPERLASERS!" garbage, keep the Forcetime/dyad stuff between Rey & Ben/Kylo, build the story up to a final confrontation on Exogol where it's revealed that DUN DUN DUN the dark spirit of the Emperor survived the destruction of his body in RotJ and has been 4D chess-ing everybody using the Snokeclones and various corrupted New Republic/corporate officials, with the First Order being a ploy to both keep everyone off-balance while the Sith Eternal completes construction of his fleet(using resources that are explicitly stated to have been squirreled away during the Empire, rather than pulled out of his ghostly arse), and to prime the civilian populace for his return by sowing such terror that he can present himself as a saviour when he returns and offers them the safety and security-for-liberty tradeoff once again. Luke, Rey and the gang confront Snoke-Palpy and Kylo, who reveal Rey's dark origin, and Luke sacrifices himself Obi-wan style to allow the others to escape when it's clear they're vastly outmatched.
Not-TRoS timeskips another couple of years, the galaxy is at war; the Eternal Fleet(sod Bioware's rubbish, it's a cool name) shreds the First Order apparently without effort(not hard considering Palpy can just order them all to one place via a Snokeclone and then wreck their outdated gear by ambush with his shiny new Daggers and Imperial IIIs and Redtroopers), Palpatine reveals himself as their leader and asserts that the Empire has returned, and between his carefully orchestrated appearance as a saviour from a threat the ineffectual New Republic couldn't stop, the return of some ex-Imperial warlords and remnant forces to the fold, and his evil corporate allies/dupes, the new Eternal Empire controls about a third of the galaxy, while the Republic struggles to weld its disparate regional and planetary defense forces into a unified whole to oppose them. After BTFO'ing the First Order, Kylo and his elite troops go after the Resistance, who have become a symbol to the less organised Republic military forces, decimating them and killing Leia. Killing both his parents and watching his old master die at the hands of the Palpy-empowered Snokeclone, combined with Rey's influence via Forcetime warring with Palpatine's attempts at mental dominance, finally cracks him and he gets a subplot of crazy-with-grief-to-redemption. In the background of the film, the Eternal Empire makes more and more gains, and more and more worlds begin to willingly surrender themselves to it. The Big Damn Heroes, now joined by a redeemed Ben, find out Palpatine is planning some kind of heinous evil ritual to restore him to a proper body and launch a desperate attack to try and prevent it. When they arrive, Palpatine's unrecognizable burned and ragged puppet-corpse does the gloating badguy speech - he's known about Rey & Kylo's Force Dyad all along, he orchestrated it, he leaked the intel about his ritual because them being there is what will make the ritual work, by draining their unique power he can restore his physical form. Blah blah, thunderbolts and lightning, Kylo sacrifices himself to give Rey the chance to turn the Emperor's lightning back on him, and the Emperor's death/their inspirational tale(the redeemed son and the Palpatine who rejected the darkness standing together for freedom and justice etc) provides the final catalyst for the Republic to beat back the Eternal Fleet. In the end, Finn & Poe etc end up overseeing the Republic's efforts to deal with the feuding remnants of the Eternal Empire, while Rey goes back to help run the New Jedi Order and we get a final scene of her training some younglings while Luke, Leia, and Ben's force ghosts look on approvingly.
You got your nostalgia bait. You got your OT actors killed off. You got your Puppetmaster Palpatine. You got your Rey Who Saves The Day. But it also has some semblance of respect for the OT characters, and it builds the new characters up to match them rather than tearing down the older characters to make the new ones look better by default. And that's a synthesis of, like, three ideas I've read now, out of a dozen and more decent ones. Seriously how on earth did they manage to feth it up so badly?
Probably because everything sounds better in a quick summary directly contrasting it to things people have decided are bad.
Also:
"Yodhrin, the guys at finance really really love your vision we really do, and we really want to help you execute it! We just have the tiniest bit of feedback from initial focus group testing that we think will make this really just, you know, scream "star wars" to people. And we think it's Death Star. When we polled the white male middle age demo about Star Wars the fourth associated word they said 62% of the time was death star, so we really just need you to work that in, mmkay?"
the_scotsman wrote: Probably because everything sounds better in a quick summary directly contrasting it to things people have decided are bad.
And? The point is that it's possible to make the basic building blocks of the Sequels sound good, Lucasfilm just failed at it.
Also:
"Yodhrin, the guys at finance really really love your vision we really do, and we really want to help you execute it! We just have the tiniest bit of feedback from initial focus group testing that we think will make this really just, you know, scream "star wars" to people. And we think it's Death Star. When we polled the white male middle age demo about Star Wars the fourth associated word they said 62% of the time was death star, so we really just need you to work that in, mmkay?"
So, your counterpoint to them failing is to just state one of the reasons for the failure as if it was inevitable? Yes, they played it safe, then they over-corrected, and then they over-over-corrected, none of those decisions had to happen, and their failure of imagination is not an excuse for their failure of imagination.
Not inevitable in an absolute sense, but inevitable in the sense of: if you want a hundred million dollar star wars spectacle film trilogy and Lucas doesn't want to make another pet project, it's not going to be an "auteur" film. It's going to have to contend with finance drones who don't care about what's in the movie, only that people go see it.
From finance drones standpoint, the new trilogy was a huge success. It allowed them to establish a new generation of fans, made them a bunch of cash, and they got in and got out without creating an expensive cast of primary actors they have to keep including and paying more and more in each movie. Fan backlash probably even helped them - Daisy Ridley, Mark Hamill and the others are probably 10000% done getting heaps of death threats on the daily.
LordofHats wrote: I do definitely remember people hating on Anakin's entire character in TPM. In fact, people hated on his character for the entire Prequel trilogy because his character is awful. It's really only after a decade of comics and books handling him much better than I think anyone has anything nice to say about his entire existence.
that and there's something new to hate on. fact is the prequals suffered from the bane of unrealistic expectations. let's face it... they where NEVER gonna meet fan expectations
They easily could have. People were expecting the dashing adventures of 20ish Anakin and 40ish Kenobi as they romped through the clone wars and a slide into darkness. Incoherent economic politics, a child actor and the most insane attempt at a love story since the modern remake of Romeo and Juliet (punctuated by justifying mass murder as the clinching scene of the romance!) weren't invited or wanted.
Given that the Clone Wars cartoon was very popular among people who hated the prequels, it's really, really easy to see the story they could have done that absolutely would have met fan expectations.
the_scotsman wrote: Let's watch this fight, blow by blow, and see how it isn't exactly what you want. it's only 3:00 long, after all.
Sure thing, I'll spoiler it for length, and make my comments within the spoiler!
Spoiler:
The lightsaber jumps past Kylo and to Rey. We established earlier in the film that Kylo has basically never been opposed by someone using the light side, which makes sense. Rey shuffles for a minute with the saber, and is carefully holding the saber well away from her when she turns it on. Kylo by contrast flicks on his saber and spins it close to his body.
Yup. agreed, no complaints. He clearly looks comfortable with the weapon, and she seems full of trepidation.
Rey's first swing completely misses, second swing is parried by Kylo, and third swing misses and hits a tree.
And here's where we start to disagree on what's going on in terms of the energy of the fight. Initially, Rey charging in feels very amateur, very unwieldy. Kylo's dismissive one handed block is good, showing his contempt. However, him backing away, and turning his back to her is not a good indicator of his control/dominance in the scene. Rey drives him back, he spins away as she hits the tree.
Ideally, Rey would charge in, get blocked away, and then Kylo would either continue blocking and holding her in place there, or begin a riposte/counter-offensive and begin to push her away.
But instead, within about 4 swings, Rey has driven Kylo away. Not a great start for him.
We cut away for a little bit of lightsaber waving,
The cut-away actually really messes with the geography of the fight, and switches the power dynamic. The last close shot we had was Kylo running away and Rey advancing on him, but now, we have him pushing against Rey and forcing her back on the defensive - the problem is, with a wide shot like this, the energy is robbed, and any weight of Kylo's counterattack is lost. However, he is definitely overpowering her, even if it's robbed of tension by the camera.
and the first thing we see when we cut close is rey throw a wild stab, which Kylo again deflects into a tree. Kylo flourishes, chopping down a large tree that lands behind Rey, and the camera cuts.
Yes, a much better section! Kylo actually pushing back, and Rey vocalisations make it clear she's in a weaker position, and not in control of the fight. Unfortunately, for me, the prior camera change, and the tension it robbed, remove a lot of the power from this scene. Had Kylo not backed off in the first few blows, and we went straight to this, I'd be much more agreeable.
Kylo then chases rey into a little enclosed ravine, where Rey blocks a few of his swings then turns and runs. Kylo swings at her, misses, and grunts in frustration as she gains distance while he only advances at a walking pace.
Kylo advancing here is good, I very much like that. However, Rey's deflections feel almost too accurate, too "correct" - I would have preferred her to fumble a fair bit more, but her actually going for the run to disengage is very good. She shouldn't win this by fighting, she should win by trying to put as much distance between her and a wounded enemy as soon as possible.
Kylo catches up to her and makes three more swings. Rey blocks the first and second and again retreats on the third, which throws Kylo off balance and he stumbles while she runs away a few more steps. Rey takes another swing and Kylo blocks it, and Rey again makes another sound of frustration and exertion while Kylo is silent. We get a wide shot, a few notes of the imperial theme play, and Kylo chases Rey from the left side of the shot to the center, still with Kylo at a walking pace and Rey running. There is a rumbling noise and part of the forest collapses behind Rey, she looks back and then we get yet another wide shot of Kylo pursuing Rey from left to center with minor key music. Kylo stabs, Rey blocks it with a frightened sound, and the lightsabers clash as Kylo pushes her back to the edge of a cliff.
This is a good section here. Rey is still blocking a bit too "well" for my liking, and I don't think her swings should be phasing Kylo (like one where she cuts through a tree as she runs). But, overall, her having her lightsaber almost dragging, and her looking behind herself as she faces Kylo are good ways to show her lack of control and power in the fight.
If the whole fight was like this, I'd like it a helluva lot more.
Now we get a few more frightened noises and the line "You need a teacher! I could show you the ways of the force!" from kylo. He very clearly could finish the fight right here by pushing her one more step back, but he does not. Rey closes her eyes, clearly evoking the "I am your father" sequence with Luke dangling in empire and the same music playing. Rey opens her eyes, defiant, and jumps down with an angrier noise than she made before. Kylo pursues again. Rey rains down a series of wild overhead swings, which again clearly echoes a classic moment from the OT fights with Luke giving in to his anger and overpowering vader. She cuts a bit of Kylo's cloak, and he stumbles back.
And that's why I don't like it. I'm not keen on the whole "lets freeze frame here while I meditate for a bit and gain some power!" feel. This should have been where Falcon-ex-Machina in my proposal comes in. Rey has lost, and only intervention from a third party saves her.
Her aggressive swings, like the first few swings of this fight, should not be phasing Kylo and causing him to back off. Rey going on the offensive with Kylo having to crouch to take the blows and make noises of exertion switches the power dynamic, and I simply don't think that should be happening at all at this stage in the fight.
He stands from kneeling, clutches his side where Chewbacca shot him, and swings wide.
I actually think he's clutching where she's just hit him. Obviously, he's not been gutted, but he might not be sure of that, and instinctively goes to hold that part.
This time Rey waits outside the range of the blow, and this time her stab lands.
A stab I don't think she should make. It feels far too precise, too controlled, and more importantly, too dominant in this fight. Rey should not be winning this fight IMO.
He stumbles back, and Rey throws a telegraphed overhead blow, which Kylo easily blocks, but she then kicks him to the ground.
Again, because she's a novice fighter in this regard (she is competent with her quarterstaff, but this isn't a quarterstaff), I don't think she should be doing this kick.
Kylo gets up again, they have another contest of physical strength, and then Rey lets go and strikes his lightsaber out of his hand, and the fight ends with a "Deus Ex Earthquake" separating the combatants.
And cutting his face open. The fight literally ends with her not taking a scratch, standing tall, and having defeated Kylo not by avoiding his power by tiring him out or outpacing him, but overpowering him with a weapon she's never used before. That's why I've got a problem with it. We get a bit of slow motion, and the dynamic of the fight changes completely, Rey immediately goes on the offensive but unlike earlier, Kylo is not in control. Why? Not really a reason, beyond "hero gotta hero", which is not a trope I particularly like.
Like, I'm comparing to other kinds of things in Star Wars where happens, and I don't really think of any quite like what Rey does. Phantom Menace - Obi-Wan does his whole fight with Maul after Qui-Gon dies, and gets booted off into the pit. He wins not because he outclasses Maul or through force of will, but through taking advantage of Maul's lack of awareness. He exploits a weakness. Rey does not, because Kylo's weakness (his injury) has not changed in any way since their little slow-mo. Attack of the Clones - Anakin picks up two lightsabers to defend Obi-Wan on the ground. Count Dooku is still very much in power, taking a few steps back, but pushing again within seconds, and cuts a lightsaber clean in half. The movement between the two feels like both are trained, hence more lateral and sideways movement, rather than sheer push-pull fighting, and Dooku never even makes a single vocalisation, even as he wins. Revenge of the Sith - After Obi-Wan goes down against Dooku, Anakin goes on the offensive. However, he is very much not an amateur (shown by how he isn't just rushing in like the last encounter), and is clearly showing more skill, as well as aggression, which Dooku explicitly notes makes him stronger. Anakin wins because of improved skill, and being capable of channeling power from the Dark Side (something that is made explicitly clear). New Hope - Isn't really a scene of this happening with a lightsaber battle. Empire Strikes Back - In most of the scene vs Vader, Luke is getting deflected by precise blocks and pushed back almost constantly after every bout. His first real blow against Vader comes without even using his lightsaber, redirecting a natural obstacle (a gas/smoke leak) into Vader's face, which barely hinders Vader. However, Luke is still very much not an amateur, and does push Vader down from a platform - however, he doesn't immediately go and turns the whole fight around. Again, note that Vader hardly even swings at Luke, instead blocking and toying with him - far unlike Kylo, who is swinging aggressively and pushing hard. Immediately when they next fight, Vader is completely in control, with Luke barely getting any chance to fight back - and this is Luke after a good deal of training. The only blow Luke gets in a glancing blow after he gets a small second of anger for Obi-Wan when Vader taunts him, and then runs off (still giving Vader dominance in the fight), and is disarmed (and dishanded) within seconds. Return of the Jedi - Luke is largely in control in the whole fight, because of even more training. He is only temporarily beaten back when Vader takes advantage of Luke's mercy and throws a lightsaber at him. But, Luke takes back control, because of superior skill, and giving in to the Dark Side (which we are explicitly told he is doing, and told in the same scene that it gives him power).
Compare all of these to Rey. In all of the above, the hero is actually somewhat trained and experienced, but when they are outclassed, they are nearly always defeated (the exception being Obi-Wan, who is defeated, but is able to take advantage of Maul's arrogance). We are also shown and told explicitly in the scenes that when they *do* win, it is because they are channelling the Dark Side, which gives them strength. This does not happen with Rey, who gets a small bit of slow-mo, no indication of tapping into the Dark Side, and all in her first real experience of the Force in combat.
Basically, in every Star Wars fight where one fighter is outclassed by another, they are either defeated (usually in their first encounter), or win because they tap into the Dark Side, or take advantage of a specific flaw. By Rey not doing this, it feels incredibly unexpected.
I've had at-length conversations about this fight with a friend of mine who is a huge broadsword fencing enthusiast, because it is his favorite part about the movie.
As someone with experience in stage combat, the emotions and acting are great, I can't fault that. My issue is with that it simply doesn't end how it narratively should.
He complained that movie swordfighting is about conveying to the audience the emotional interplay between two opposing characters and that the prequels, for all their amazing choreography often obscured those moments of emotional messaging because they were so heavy on displays of technical skill.
Attack of the Clones is the worst example of this, but Revenge of the Sith works far better in this, even more so than any of the sequel fights.
Mike Stoklasa in his episode 1 review encompasses it perfectly talking about the fight with Darth Maul. All the elements were there outside the fight: Maul was powerful, but angry and too eager to prove himself. Qui-gon takes a moment to center himself while Maul paces back and forth, agitated that the fight was interrupted by a weird...series of glowy, unexplained laser walls. Obi-wan sees his master get killed and he gets pumped, jumping into the fight with emotional vigor and determination to get back at Maul. But the second the swords actually start to clash, it's right back to technically perfect, emotionally detached swordplay.
I don't find it emotionally detached at all at the force field stage. Before then? Yeah, absolutely, but the moment they reach the laser walls, the fight feels very emotionally resonant, and the technical moves reflect the emotions of the three combatants.
While the fight in TFA is very good at showing those emotions, my main gripe comes from the fact that the power dynamics don't make sense halfway through the fight.
The Kylo/Rey fight shows that off perfectly with their technique. Rey respects the weapon she's holding, holding it carefully and away from her at all times. Her attacks are wild, telegraphed, and she is throwing unnecessary strength behind every blow, exactly like someone would who has been in plenty of fights where life or possessions were on the line but always with a blunt weapon, not with a weapon that's deadly in its own right. in the first half of the fight, before he starts to tire, Kylo keeps his weapon tight to his body and is not afraid to spin it towards him and past his face and body. Kylo actually blocks, moving his sword away from him very little and directing blows away from his opponent's body. Rey just meets swings with opposite swings and actually turns her back and runs several times, and we see multiple instances where Kylo can't end the fight only because he's moving at a walking pace - whether from the injury, or because his plan is not to kill Rey but instead to fight her to a standstill and convince her to surrender and join him like he tries at about 1:45.
Won't argue with that, but I will note that these are all things in the first half of the fight - the half that I really liked, and the half that I think the fight should have ended at. My issues aren't with this half of the fight.
Kylo's injury is re-established before the fight, we see that he's done something to stabilize himself but it's failing, and he's losing blood. He pounds on his chestplate to try and stop himself from bleeding, and when the fight turns 2:15 into the 3:00 long fight, he re-establishes the injury again by holding his side while making a wild swing.
I actually saw that more as him clutching were Rey just slashed him. If that's unclear to the audience, then I don't think that realistically can be called re-establishing the injury if we can't all tell.
Anyone who characterizes that fight as "Rey easily defeating Kylo because Muh Mary Sue" is doing one of three things.
1) not watching the fight closely at all, and possibly taking someone else's interpretation of it as their own simply because of which two characters fight and which one wins
2) being deliberately dishonest to try and construct a narrative, or
3) accustomed to the level of technical skill displayed by the characters in the prequels, video games and other star wars media and interpreting Kylo's "trained, but overconfident and injured" performance as "uncoordinated buffoon".
Or 4) Likes the first half where the fight makes sense, but the dynamic switch of the fight and switch in power in the second half is not explained, and ends the fight on an unearned feeling. Like you and your friend, I absolutely agree that the things you describe show Kylo as being very much in control, and Rey being inexperienced - but only in the first half. It's almost like they do their little slow-mo scene, and they switch brains.
Kylo is easily beating Rey, until he doesn't. That's my problem with it.
To me, this fight clearly reads as someone who has been trained but has very little experience in combat with someone using a similar weapon or of respecting his body's limitations while losing blood, versus someone with no training with the particular type of weapon they're using but plenty of low-tech hand to hand combat experience. Heck, the definitive turning point is practically identical to the episode of Firefly where Mal has to fight a duel and wins by pulling a cheap bar room brawl trick. Kylo blocks an overhead swing and Rey kicks him right where he's been shot.
That doesn't adequately explain the shift in dynamics after the slow-mo lightsaber clash though, as she makes the kick AFTER already beating Kylo back.
If Rey had done that kick (and we see it go right into the blaster wound) to break the lightsaber clash, instead of after already breaking it and pushing Kylo away, I'd be far more favourable of it from a performance aspect. However, my narrative hangups (mainly being that Rey should not win this duel, let alone as decisively as she does) would remain.
TL;DR - The dynamics of the fight are good, until Rey starts winning for no reason, and from a narrative standpoint, I don't think Rey should have beaten Kylo anyway.
that and there's something new to hate on. fact is the prequals suffered from the bane of unrealistic expectations. let's face it... they where NEVER gonna meet fan expectations
They easily could have. People were expecting the dashing adventures of 20ish Anakin and 40ish Kenobi as they romped through the clone wars and a slide into darkness. Incoherent economic politics, a child actor and the most insane attempt at a love story since the modern remake of Romeo and Juliet (punctuated by justifying mass murder as the clinching scene of the romance!) weren't invited or wanted.
Given that the Clone Wars cartoon was very popular among people who hated the prequels, it's really, really easy to see the story they could have done that absolutely would have met fan expectations.
I have always found that getting too hyped up about a movie (tv finale, book...) makes the finalized movie feel much worse than it actually is, because I have already head-written it before it comes out, and then I am disappointed when it's done differently to my expectations. First teaser for Phantom Menace looked really really good so my expectations went up, of course.
That said, that is no excuse for some really poor choices done with the SW Prequels and to lesser extent, Disney Trilogy. Making Anakin a pre-teen kid in PM was a huge mistake. They should have done Harry Potter thing there - keep same actor over entire trilogy. Start when he's like 13-14 to make the character bit more believable.
Well, here's where you and I agree then. I MO the biggest weakness of the sequels in general and TFA in particular is the constant use of OT references as shorthand to get a message across quickly.
Rey closing her eyes to turn the fight is evoking Luke in Empire before dropping off the platform (and the next thing she does is drop down a cliff) and her delivering the series of brute force overhead swings immediately afterwards is (Imo anyway) her tapping in to the anger in her in the same way Luke does in Return.
That's why it seems sudden. That movie does that constantly, basically it just says "remember star wars? This time is like that time." And then moves on. And I think it's a lazy crutch.
I just disagree with the assertion that she wins "easily" and that it makes any less sense than obi Wan beating maul how he did. That was the single laziest "I dunno he wins now I guess" moment in star wars history, and beyond the score the weakest fight overall, it basically had zero emotion beyond trying to look cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To me the biggest problem with that fight in particular isn't actually in it, but before it. There's one shot of Kylo and Finn fighting where he gets one lucky swing and Kylo spins around and does a looney tune double take, and I KNOW they added that shot in there to make him read less like Anakin because they tried Extra Special Hard to make the sequels less melodramatic than the prequels.
Get rid of that one shot, make it more obvious that Rey is tapping in to the dark side than just emulating Lukes attack from Return, and that'd be perfect.
I'll take that fight over many of the 'all sizzle and no story' fights we got in the first two prequels.
that and there's something new to hate on. fact is the prequals suffered from the bane of unrealistic expectations. let's face it... they where NEVER gonna meet fan expectations
They easily could have. People were expecting the dashing adventures of 20ish Anakin and 40ish Kenobi as they romped through the clone wars and a slide into darkness. Incoherent economic politics, a child actor and the most insane attempt at a love story since the modern remake of Romeo and Juliet (punctuated by justifying mass murder as the clinching scene of the romance!) weren't invited or wanted.
Given that the Clone Wars cartoon was very popular among people who hated the prequels, it's really, really easy to see the story they could have done that absolutely would have met fan expectations.
I have always found that getting too hyped up about a movie (tv finale, book...) makes the finalized movie feel much worse than it actually is, because I have already head-written it before it comes out, and then I am disappointed when it's done differently to my expectations. First teaser for Phantom Menace looked really really good so my expectations went up, of course.
That said, that is no excuse for some really poor choices done with the SW Prequels and to lesser extent, Disney Trilogy. Making Anakin a pre-teen kid in PM was a huge mistake. They should have done Harry Potter thing there - keep same actor over entire trilogy. Start when he's like 13-14 to make the character bit more believable.
There wasn't any reason to go back that far. Just kick off the intro to the first film in media res with Kenobi and his padawan (late teen/early 20s) busting the blockade of Naboo during the opening arc of the Clone Wars, with the backup of clone troopers. Wrap up the initial action and introduce the queen of Naboo and her protocol droid and go onwards with the plot, chasing down evidence that a sith is behind the scenes.
The elevator scene at the beginning of the second film is basically a crime against moviemaking and storytelling. The duo is going back and forth just talking about all the adventures they had where they formed their bonds and they're basically taunting the audience with the story they wanted to be shown but are just going to get told about. Instead it was relentless drivel with CGI masking tape patching the action scenes together.
Both the prequels and the new trilogy suffer severely from being one-shots written with no regard to the next film, and imply all sorts of interesting things happening...off screen, somewhere else. The interesting narrative is tossed over the shoulder like a lightsaber and the focus tunes in on a lot of second guessing and navel gazing, punctuated by five minutes of directionless running about and letting the computer graphics try to fill the yawning voids left by the writers.
Lance845 wrote: If you are asking why didn't the dark side rise to meet the light I would argue that it did and we started the story in the wake of their victory. And it's not like the Sith were not around getting stronger and stronger during the time the Jedi were active. Remember, the force isn't saying we need to balance the politics in the galaxy. Just the power of the light and dark. Sideous and Plagus were powerful in ways that the combined might of many jedi never were.
2 Meters is pretty fething small for a ship traveling at starships speeds with precision lasers or guiding an exact torpedo down a shaft without hitting a wall and detonating early.
You could argue that force ghost Obiwan did it sure. But then as you say, Rey was just being guided by Ghosts too. So those arguments just negate each other. If you are going to pretend that Rey did her things, then you ar pretending that Luke did his. And the ones feats are not more impressive then the others.
If the force ghosts did it all, then both heroes are pretty lame. Of course, it was Rey's story that introduced the idea that force ghosts COULD do it all, so which one is lamer?
As far as the trench run goes.... no matter what Luke says, there is no way there were going full throttle down the trench. At even .01c, a quite SLOW starship speed, that would be 3,000 km per SECOND. The first death start was only 150 km in diameter...
I expect if you do a frame-by-frame examination of the trench run, comparing the size of the X-Wings with the time it takes to travel their own length along the trench, you'll find they're traveling slower 500 mph, possibly quite a bit slower. And at that speed, it becomes a lot more possible.
At any rate, if you consider Luke having to really focus and concentrate to move a lightsaber a meter or so while basically untrained to be the same as Rey casually lifting hundreds of tons of rocks while completely untrained... we're never going to agree on anything in this discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: maybe but what we saw on SCREEN was a hard right angle turn,
Which could be a result of the perspective of the scene...
Lance845 wrote: But it doesn't need Rey to have lineage to do that.
I would argue that.
Without any special lineage, how does Rey keep pulling new powers out of her nether regions with ZERO training, ZERO guidance, and ZERO experience?
Being of the lineage she's from gives her an excuse to do so. Granted, it's a pretty darn limp excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. With NO excuse you're just trampling all over two trilogies worth of precedent where even the Chosen One needed training to do much of anything with the Force.
Luke trains her on the island in Ep8. It seems fast bc it all happens in a single movie but we don't know how long she is there. More importantly, she has trained with Leia between 8 & 9 for some unknown amount of time, likely several years at least.
Ah, no, we have a pretty darn good idea how long Rey's on the island with Luke. The Chase of Fools takes 16 hours. Luke has barely talked to Rey when the Chase starts, and she's back in time to face Snoke and Kylo Ren BEFORE the chase is over. She's there hours at most.
As far as training with Leia goes, 1) Aside from the Leia Poppins scene we have very little on-screen evidence Leia was trained in much of anything Force-wise, and 2) Rey was pulling powers out of her nether regions well before she ever met Leia, much less had time to train with her.
the_scotsman wrote:Well, here's where you and I agree then. I MO the biggest weakness of the sequels in general and TFA in particular is the constant use of OT references as shorthand to get a message across quickly.
I can see that, yeah. One thing I noticed with my examples about other films doing the whole "hero beats stronger villain" was that in every case the hero (Luke or Anakin) taps into the Dark Side, it is made explicitly clear and how it grants power.
Now, Rey *might* have been tapping into the Dark Side or her own latant Palpapowers, but we're not really shown or told that in any real way, other than her suddenly changing the dynamic of the fight. Essentially, we see the effect, but no cause.
Rey closing her eyes to turn the fight is evoking Luke in Empire before dropping off the platform (and the next thing she does is drop down a cliff) and her delivering the series of brute force overhead swings immediately afterwards is (Imo anyway) her tapping in to the anger in her in the same way Luke does in Return.
I think the difference between Luke in ESB and Rey in TFA is that while both characters do "win", they win in different ways that speak more to the narrative importance.
Luke "wins" in ESB by running away, by knowing that to stay is to be doomed and be captured and potentially turned against his friends. He's far outmatched, he's compromised, and he knows it. Narratively, him running away also serves as a chance to keep Vader intimidating for an encounter where he can be decisively beaten (ROTJ) without some environmental effect causing another showdown, as well as upping the stakes for Luke to get better and succeed where he previously failed.
Rey wins in TFA by pummelling Kylo to a pulp on the round, without suffering against her morals (aka, falling to the Dark Side with meaningful consequences or even setting up her own darkness) - there's no room for her own growth against Kylo from an ideological standpoint, she's just beaten him. If anyone should be the protagonist after this, it's Kylo.
Realistically, Rey should have "won" like Luke did - realising her life meant something other than just throwing it away in a lightsaber duel she was outclassed in. Plus, that's an even better message to tell people - instead of "have faith, and you'll pummel your problems to the dirt", we get a more touching and personal "hey, you're better than wasting yourself on something that you're getting nowhere with - prioritise your own safety".
I just disagree with the assertion that she wins "easily" and that it makes any less sense than obi Wan beating maul how he did. That was the single laziest "I dunno he wins now I guess" moment in star wars history, and beyond the score the weakest fight overall, it basically had zero emotion beyond trying to look cool.
I disagree with that, because we see all the mechanics of how Obi-Wan wins. We know that Qui-Gon's lightsaber is still there, it's never been removed from the scene. There's a pragmatic reason to use it (Kenobi's has been kicked away). Maul is clearly taunting, and is gloating in his victory. We see the lightsaber begin to move, using the Force (which we know Kenobi can use competently). We've also seen him performing very good acrobatic feats, so him jumping is completely possible, from what we've already seen.
Everything is set up, all the moves are possible we know they can be done, and is allowed to happen because Maul demonstrates a true flaw.
As soon as Rey opens her eyes after her little slow-mo bit, she is always, without fail, in command of the fight, until Kylo grapples her at the end, and then gets his face split open. We aren't shown how Rey is suddenly so capable, we aren't shown a worsening of Kylo's condition, and we aren't even told retroactively how she did it. She just does.
Yes, it had emotion, but emotion without coherency is just as flawed as coherency without emotion in my eyes, and as a result, I would take the TPM fight over the TFA fight any day, because it makes more narrative sense.
I'll take that fight over many of the 'all sizzle and no story' fights we got in the first two prequels.
I'd rather have a fight that serves the narrative better and maintains audience understanding of the events within it than one that has characters succeed for unknown reasons, and where narratively inconvenient*.
*as in, Rey should have lost, because it was her first fight against her antagonist, and beating them in their first real battle removes a lot of tension prematurely.
You wouldn't have Luke beat Vader in their first fight, because it removes from Vader's threat factor, and because it would allow for a greater cathartic release when Luke finally *does* beat him in their next fight.
the_scotsman wrote: Not inevitable in an absolute sense, but inevitable in the sense of: if you want a hundred million dollar star wars spectacle film trilogy and Lucas doesn't want to make another pet project, it's not going to be an "auteur" film. It's going to have to contend with finance drones who don't care about what's in the movie, only that people go see it.
From finance drones standpoint, the new trilogy was a huge success. It allowed them to establish a new generation of fans, made them a bunch of cash, and they got in and got out without creating an expensive cast of primary actors they have to keep including and paying more and more in each movie. Fan backlash probably even helped them - Daisy Ridley, Mark Hamill and the others are probably 10000% done getting heaps of death threats on the daily.
But is it making them a ton of money? Remember, Disney coughed up $4 billion for Lucasfilm and the rights to Star Wars. Thus far:
TFA had $2 billion in gross sales, and a $780 million profit.
Rogue One had $1 billion in gross sales, and a $319 million profit.
TLJ had $1.3 billion in gross sales, and a $417 million profit.
Solo had $392 million in gross sales and a $77 million LOSS
TROS has had it's first weekend sales twice that of Solo, but quite a bit lower than TLJ, much less TFA.
Thus far they've only made back roughly a third of their investment in Lucasfilm. And I hope you noticed the direction sales are going - they need at least six more TLJ's to break even, but it doesn't look like they're going to GET six more TLJ-level sales anytime soon.
Much less the TFA-level sales and profits they no doubt expected to be making, which is why they shelled out the $4 billion in the first place.
the_scotsman wrote: Not inevitable in an absolute sense, but inevitable in the sense of: if you want a hundred million dollar star wars spectacle film trilogy and Lucas doesn't want to make another pet project, it's not going to be an "auteur" film. It's going to have to contend with finance drones who don't care about what's in the movie, only that people go see it.
From finance drones standpoint, the new trilogy was a huge success. It allowed them to establish a new generation of fans, made them a bunch of cash, and they got in and got out without creating an expensive cast of primary actors they have to keep including and paying more and more in each movie. Fan backlash probably even helped them - Daisy Ridley, Mark Hamill and the others are probably 10000% done getting heaps of death threats on the daily.
But is it making them a ton of money? Remember, Disney coughed up $4 billion for Lucasfilm and the rights to Star Wars. Thus far:
TFA had $2 billion in gross sales, and a $780 million profit.
Rogue One had $1 billion in gross sales, and a $319 million profit.
TLJ had $1.3 billion in gross sales, and a $417 million profit.
Solo had $392 million in gross sales and a $77 million LOSS
TROS has had it's first weekend sales twice that of Solo, but quite a bit lower than TLJ, much less TFA.
Thus far they've only made back roughly a third of their investment in Lucasfilm. And I hope you noticed the direction sales are going - they need at least six more TLJ's to break even, but it doesn't look like they're going to GET six more TLJ-level sales anytime soon.
Much less the TFA-level sales and profits they no doubt expected to be making, which is why they shelled out the $4 billion in the first place.
This is looking at things somewhat linearly.
Those are just movie sales. Do we have stats for merchandise? Toys, models, action figures. The Lego kits man! Then there's the games. EA might be taking all the flak for the Battlefronts but both sold well, and Fallen Order seemed to do okay. Disney gets a cut of all of that, and then there's the comics and books. Rebels did well, Resistance flopped, but Mandalorian is arguably the horse dragging Disney plus across the finish line right now.
Just looking at the box office for the films is patently insufficient to determine how well Disney is doing off its investment. I'd be surprised honestly if they weren't well on their way to covering the base cost. That's not to say they don't have problems. The sequel Trilogy has unquestioningly damaged the brand name and it shows in the box office, but Disney has had a fair amount of success elsewhere, so it's not like the horse is dead.
Ignoring the rest of this thread cause spoilers and debates. I just want to know one thing. Is this movie worth the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen?
As far as training with Leia goes, 1) Aside from the Leia Poppins scene we have very little on-screen evidence Leia was trained in much of anything Force-wise, and 2) Rey was pulling powers out of her nether regions well before she ever met Leia, much less had time to train with her.
Ok, regarding Leia's training level, at this point did you ever see ROS?
Spoiler:
Luke Outright says she completed her training to the point where she built a lightsaber and could match him in saber combat
Breotan wrote: Ignoring the rest of this thread cause spoilers and debates. I just want to know one thing. Is this movie worth the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen?
Its Star Wars at Christmas - what else do you want to see on the big screen? Go and treat yourself.
If nothing else its one of those films where you can talk to your mates about it. Even yesterday I bumped into a friend I hadn't seen in a long while and have been concerned about his health and the first thing he said with a cheery face was...
"So, have you seen it?"
Oh, Merry Christmas to you all and may the force be with you all in 2020!
Breotan wrote: Ignoring the rest of this thread cause spoilers and debates. I just want to know one thing. Is this movie worth the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen?
Anyone who liked it is going to say yes. Anyone who didn't is likely to say no.
the_scotsman wrote: Not inevitable in an absolute sense, but inevitable in the sense of: if you want a hundred million dollar star wars spectacle film trilogy and Lucas doesn't want to make another pet project, it's not going to be an "auteur" film. It's going to have to contend with finance drones who don't care about what's in the movie, only that people go see it.
From finance drones standpoint, the new trilogy was a huge success. It allowed them to establish a new generation of fans, made them a bunch of cash, and they got in and got out without creating an expensive cast of primary actors they have to keep including and paying more and more in each movie. Fan backlash probably even helped them - Daisy Ridley, Mark Hamill and the others are probably 10000% done getting heaps of death threats on the daily.
But is it making them a ton of money? Remember, Disney coughed up $4 billion for Lucasfilm and the rights to Star Wars. Thus far:
TFA had $2 billion in gross sales, and a $780 million profit.
Rogue One had $1 billion in gross sales, and a $319 million profit.
TLJ had $1.3 billion in gross sales, and a $417 million profit.
Solo had $392 million in gross sales and a $77 million LOSS
TROS has had it's first weekend sales twice that of Solo, but quite a bit lower than TLJ, much less TFA.
Thus far they've only made back roughly a third of their investment in Lucasfilm. And I hope you noticed the direction sales are going - they need at least six more TLJ's to break even, but it doesn't look like they're going to GET six more TLJ-level sales anytime soon.
Much less the TFA-level sales and profits they no doubt expected to be making, which is why they shelled out the $4 billion in the first place.
This is looking at things somewhat linearly.
Those are just movie sales. Do we have stats for merchandise? Toys, models, action figures. The Lego kits man! Then there's the games. EA might be taking all the flak for the Battlefronts but both sold well, and Fallen Order seemed to do okay. Disney gets a cut of all of that, and then there's the comics and books. Rebels did well, Resistance flopped, but Mandalorian is arguably the horse dragging Disney plus across the finish line right now.
Just looking at the box office for the films is patently insufficient to determine how well Disney is doing off its investment. I'd be surprised honestly if they weren't well on their way to covering the base cost. That's not to say they don't have problems. The sequel Trilogy has unquestioningly damaged the brand name and it shows in the box office, but Disney has had a fair amount of success elsewhere, so it's not like the horse is dead.
Never said it was. And you're potentially right about merchandising - although the amount of TLJ merchandise that lingered for months in various clearance sections might argue against that.
But it's clear that as a MOVIE franchise, Star Wars is in pretty serious trouble.
Remember that they never planned that this trilogy + whatever other franchise movies they had or were planning were going to make up for the massive purchase cost. They are in for a long haul and there will be more SW movies. "Story will live forever..."
And they (maybe) can learn from their mistakes and come up with something which gets people excited again, in few years.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: They’ve confirmed an Old Republic film, possibly trilogy. Unsure if that’s Rian Johnson’s one though.
He'd be a terrible pick for that. The Old Republic setting of the lore kind of runs on idealized Star Wars. It's not the place for subverting the premise.
If Johnson were to ever be given a shot again, it should be one that actually played to the kind of Star Wars film he seems to want to make. A Darth Bane film, a Solo movie, or even another Rogue One style spec ops films (maybe Republic/Imperial commandos) would be a much better fit for him than anything in the franchise mainline.
Breotan wrote: Ignoring the rest of this thread cause spoilers and debates. I just want to know one thing. Is this movie worth the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen?
Its worth it, you can laugh at the movie pretty much all its length.
The word for King is Spanish is "Rey". The Emperor is basically King of the Sith/Empire. So maybe, just maybe Rey being Palpatine's granddaughter was planned from the start?
Kinda how Darth Vader is similar to Dark Father in German (I think German, but could be another European language), thereby hinted at who he was in a New Hope.
There are videos detailing episodes of the old droids cartoon that has a LOT of similarities to prequel and sequel trilogy stuff. Including rey and kylo ren.
Lance845 wrote: There are videos detailing episodes of the old droids cartoon that has a LOT of similarities to prequel and sequel trilogy stuff. Including rey and kylo ren.
the_scotsman wrote:Well, here's where you and I agree then. I MO the biggest weakness of the sequels in general and TFA in particular is the constant use of OT references as shorthand to get a message across quickly.
I can see that, yeah. One thing I noticed with my examples about other films doing the whole "hero beats stronger villain" was that in every case the hero (Luke or Anakin) taps into the Dark Side, it is made explicitly clear and how it grants power.
Now, Rey *might* have been tapping into the Dark Side or her own latant Palpapowers, but we're not really shown or told that in any real way, other than her suddenly changing the dynamic of the fight. Essentially, we see the effect, but no cause.
Rey closing her eyes to turn the fight is evoking Luke in Empire before dropping off the platform (and the next thing she does is drop down a cliff) and her delivering the series of brute force overhead swings immediately afterwards is (Imo anyway) her tapping in to the anger in her in the same way Luke does in Return.
I think the difference between Luke in ESB and Rey in TFA is that while both characters do "win", they win in different ways that speak more to the narrative importance.
Luke "wins" in ESB by running away, by knowing that to stay is to be doomed and be captured and potentially turned against his friends. He's far outmatched, he's compromised, and he knows it. Narratively, him running away also serves as a chance to keep Vader intimidating for an encounter where he can be decisively beaten (ROTJ) without some environmental effect causing another showdown, as well as upping the stakes for Luke to get better and succeed where he previously failed.
Rey wins in TFA by pummelling Kylo to a pulp on the round, without suffering against her morals (aka, falling to the Dark Side with meaningful consequences or even setting up her own darkness) - there's no room for her own growth against Kylo from an ideological standpoint, she's just beaten him. If anyone should be the protagonist after this, it's Kylo.
Realistically, Rey should have "won" like Luke did - realising her life meant something other than just throwing it away in a lightsaber duel she was outclassed in. Plus, that's an even better message to tell people - instead of "have faith, and you'll pummel your problems to the dirt", we get a more touching and personal "hey, you're better than wasting yourself on something that you're getting nowhere with - prioritise your own safety".
I just disagree with the assertion that she wins "easily" and that it makes any less sense than obi Wan beating maul how he did. That was the single laziest "I dunno he wins now I guess" moment in star wars history, and beyond the score the weakest fight overall, it basically had zero emotion beyond trying to look cool.
I disagree with that, because we see all the mechanics of how Obi-Wan wins. We know that Qui-Gon's lightsaber is still there, it's never been removed from the scene. There's a pragmatic reason to use it (Kenobi's has been kicked away). Maul is clearly taunting, and is gloating in his victory. We see the lightsaber begin to move, using the Force (which we know Kenobi can use competently). We've also seen him performing very good acrobatic feats, so him jumping is completely possible, from what we've already seen.
Everything is set up, all the moves are possible we know they can be done, and is allowed to happen because Maul demonstrates a true flaw.
As soon as Rey opens her eyes after her little slow-mo bit, she is always, without fail, in command of the fight, until Kylo grapples her at the end, and then gets his face split open. We aren't shown how Rey is suddenly so capable, we aren't shown a worsening of Kylo's condition, and we aren't even told retroactively how she did it. She just does.
Yes, it had emotion, but emotion without coherency is just as flawed as coherency without emotion in my eyes, and as a result, I would take the TPM fight over the TFA fight any day, because it makes more narrative sense.
I'll take that fight over many of the 'all sizzle and no story' fights we got in the first two prequels.
I'd rather have a fight that serves the narrative better and maintains audience understanding of the events within it than one that has characters succeed for unknown reasons, and where narratively inconvenient*.
*as in, Rey should have lost, because it was her first fight against her antagonist, and beating them in their first real battle removes a lot of tension prematurely.
You wouldn't have Luke beat Vader in their first fight, because it removes from Vader's threat factor, and because it would allow for a greater cathartic release when Luke finally *does* beat him in their next fight.
I can see where you're coming from with that. I did have a huge problem taking the antagonists seriously in the new trilogy, which led to the biggest problem I had with TLJ which a lot of people seemingly shared, that it seemed like the protagonists were failing due to their own stupidity rather than the overwhelming power of the first order.
But I disagree that having Rey win the fight against Kylo is NECESSARILY bad - it's just bad if the narrative you're going for is a traditional Luke Skywalker style hero's journey.
I'd argue that the narrative tension present in Rey is - and should have been - a tension between whether who we're seeing onscreen is a Luke or an Anakin. Kylo being just another Vader and Rey being just another Luke following the same story beats would have been just a meaningless rehash. In my eyes, the biggest failure overall of the sequels was Disney not having the balls to stick to the more interesting original story ideas that TLJ flirts with.
The Jedi were not ideal, a total commitment to emotionless aesceticism led to them encountering all kinds of moral injustice and Wile E. Coyote level traps throughout the prequels and just blithely accepting them. And if the setup for TFA tells us anything, it's that trying to set up everything the same way just failed faster and harder.
I think viewing the story from the perspective of a patented Disposable Dark Side Apprentice we see so many of come and go throughout the prequels is an interesting perspective, as is handing us another Anakin-level "Chosen One" right after we saw the whole fall of Anakin in the prequel trilogy.
As to Obi-wan being justified in beating Maul because "we know he's good at jumping"...I can see how that could be done well, I just disagree that it was in any way during Phantom Menace. Maul is clearly supposed to be the arrogant, hot-headed, eager bad guy who gets beaten because of his hubris, but there is basically no setup for that. If anything, every time he's on screen previously in the film he's moving slowly, deliberately, and methodically, patiently tracking the heroes and even doing stuff like deliberately pulling his hood back and delivering lines slowly. His reaction time up until that point in the fight is practically superhuman, he fights two people at once to a standstill and the second he's alone against a jedi master he takes him down in an extremely short period of time.
His "gloating" is slicing his still-ignited lightsaber across the floor. He doesn't shut his lightsaber off, he doesn't step to the edge to deliver any Villanous Monologues. He doesn't act like he's expecting his opponent to lose his grip and fall, he acts like he knows he's going to jump back up and he's ready to finish him off. We don't even see what Maul does with his lightsaber before getting cut in half, we just get a close up on his face as he does a comedy reaction shot before falling into the pit. His lightsaber goes from ignited and ready to "What lightsaber? Maul never had a lightsaber!"
Elbows wrote: Rian Johnson will never do another Star Wars film. I'm not sure why people keep thinking that's a thing.
Because he is?
All confirmed and everything?
Thats just smoke until the movie hits the theater. I agree that Disney won't let him near another one.
I am surprised the Rogue One or GotG Director is not more involved.
With a $1,500,000,000 or so profit from the box office alone, it is clearly nothing by doom and gloom at Lucasfilm Towers.
To say nothing of DVD, BluRay and Download sales.
Or to put it in it's proper prospective, a $2,500,000 LOSS when accounting for the money spent to pay for Lucasfilm in the first place...
Yeah, because if there's one thing we know about Disney, it's that they make their money off of butts. in. seats. Theater ticket sales, baby, that's their bread and butter. They would never make a large fraction of their profits off of... moichendizing.
please don't attach non wargaming images to dakka.
Reds8n
The real question is, will Kathleen Kennedy still have a job in a week? She very nearly lost it after Solo tanked, and only retained her post because Iger couldn't find anyone who a) had her level of industry contacts, and b) was willing to risk their careers by being in charge when Episode IX hit the screens in case IT tanked too.
And while TROS may not be tanking, it's certainly not performing like a main sequence film is expected to...
Elbows wrote: Rian Johnson will never do another Star Wars film. I'm not sure why people keep thinking that's a thing.
Well I dunno. They let JJ Abrams to have another shot.
Any way, Johnson is developing his own trilogy. It's a fact. Whether it will ever get filmed is another matter altogether. It costs Disney little to keep 1 guy on a payroll coming up with ideas, so why not? It's not the only horse they have put money on. If they think his ideas suck, they fire him and dump the script, no biggie.
Breotan wrote: Ignoring the rest of this thread cause spoilers and debates. I just want to know one thing. Is this movie worth the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen?
Its Star Wars at Christmas - what else do you want to see on the big screen?
It’s still going ahead. Doesn’t matter whether you enjoy his fare or not.
Holy crap, did you just try to quote an article from four months ago? You're way behind the "What's going on in Star Wars" game. You've missed about a dozen points where they've made clear that's not going to happen. But, you can keep hoping if it makes you feel more internet-superior I suppose?
I've never walked out of a movie before but the thought crossed my mind. I felt terrible for dragging friends to see it on Christmas day. We all left extremely dissapointed and let down.
I didnt watch spoilers or even the trailer to try and keep a fresh mindset. I really wanted to like it. It ruined Star Wars for me to the point where I'm sort of just disgusted about the entire series and how let down I was. It was unbeleiveable bad.
I will say one good thing - the film's variety of landscapes and cgi space visuals were really well done. I absolutely loved the sunken Deathstar idea and the final space battle looked great.
Breotan wrote: Ignoring the rest of this thread cause spoilers and debates. I just want to know one thing. Is this movie worth the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen?
Its Star Wars at Christmas - what else do you want to see on the big screen?
Jumanji 2?
1917?
Frozen II?
Little Women?
Just spitballing......
End your pitiful human existence, expand your mind to the vast uncaring cosmos, shed your soul and dance in the skin of the foolish and ignorant by the bloody light of the sanguine moon.
Breotan wrote: Ignoring the rest of this thread cause spoilers and debates. I just want to know one thing. Is this movie worth the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen?
Its Star Wars at Christmas - what else do you want to see on the big screen?
Jumanji 2?
1917?
Frozen II?
Little Women?
Just spitballing......
End your pitiful human existence, expand your mind to the vast uncaring cosmos, shed your soul and dance in the skin of the foolish and ignorant by the bloody light of the sanguine moon.
See Cats.
I feel like you need to be tripping balls to see that psycholedic nightmare of a musical.
Holy crap, did you just try to quote an article from four months ago? You're way behind the "What's going on in Star Wars" game. You've missed about a dozen points where they've made clear that's not going to happen. But, you can keep hoping if it makes you feel more internet-superior I suppose?
The KK quote in said article is from 2017.
Although I've also missed anything official saying Johnson trilogy is dead so it's still the latest as far as I can tell.
Stevefamine wrote: I've never walked out of a movie before but the thought crossed my mind. I felt terrible for dragging friends to see it on Christmas day. We all left extremely dissapointed and let down.
I didnt watch spoilers or even the trailer to try and keep a fresh mindset. I really wanted to like it. It ruined Star Wars for me to the point where I'm sort of just disgusted about the entire series and how let down I was. It was unbeleiveable bad.
I will say one good thing - the film's variety of landscapes and cgi space visuals were really well done. I absolutely loved the sunken Deathstar idea and the final space battle looked great.
Very sorry to hear that the whole series is tainted for you. I saw this on Friday and liked it so much we went back on X-mas. I'm still amazed at how people can walk away from a film with such different experiences. It's fascinating, really
Breotan wrote: Ignoring the rest of this thread cause spoilers and debates. I just want to know one thing. Is this movie worth the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen?
Its Star Wars at Christmas - what else do you want to see on the big screen?
Jumanji 2?
1917?
Frozen II?
Little Women?
Just spitballing......
End your pitiful human existence, expand your mind to the vast uncaring cosmos, shed your soul and dance in the skin of the foolish and ignorant by the bloody light of the sanguine moon.
See Cats.
I feel like you need to be tripping balls to see that psycholedic nightmare of a musical.
I promise you that if you go into that movie sober you will not be certain whether your preview-watching popcorn contained mushrooms or not.
Holy crap, did you just try to quote an article from four months ago? You're way behind the "What's going on in Star Wars" game. You've missed about a dozen points where they've made clear that's not going to happen.
Mention one? Only thing I have seen is that they are likely going to take a several years breather before beginning another feature trilogy. Which, if and when it comes, might be Johnson's or might be not.
Breotan wrote: Ignoring the rest of this thread cause spoilers and debates. I just want to know one thing. Is this movie worth the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen?
Its Star Wars at Christmas - what else do you want to see on the big screen?
Jumanji 2?
1917?
Frozen II?
Little Women?
Just spitballing......
Wha...urgh...EXACTLY! Its Star Wars at Christmas - what else do you want to see on the big screen?
LOL...
Jumanji: Now that was a lot of fun. Loved it! 1917: I live in the UK so it aint out until the 10th of Jan. Depends where you live, though. Looks kinda depressing. Frozen 2: C'mon, let it go already... Little Women: WHAT? ARE YOU FOR SERIOUS? ITS A BIRDS MOVIE! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU MAN???
End your pitiful human existence, expand your mind to the vast uncaring cosmos, shed your soul and dance in the skin of the foolish and ignorant by the bloody light of the sanguine moon.
the_scotsman wrote: I can see where you're coming from with that. I did have a huge problem taking the antagonists seriously in the new trilogy, which led to the biggest problem I had with TLJ which a lot of people seemingly shared, that it seemed like the protagonists were failing due to their own stupidity rather than the overwhelming power of the first order.
I can see that, yeah. I'm personally a big fan of Kylo Ren's story and the potential within it, but he's let down by so many parts within the sequels. Similarly, the bad guys never seem to really accomplish anything meaningful narratively of their own agency, especially in TLJ.
But I disagree that having Rey win the fight against Kylo is NECESSARILY bad - it's just bad if the narrative you're going for is a traditional Luke Skywalker style hero's journey.
If it had started with TLJ, I'd be more on board with Rey's development being unconventional from the Hero's Journey. Unfortunately, it didn't, and we were essentially told that "this will be a familiar, if a tad repetitive, story arc". It's why the whiplash of TLJ against TFA feels so much stronger. If they'd stuck to one vision, one concerted effort to say "this whole trilogy will be a deconstruction of Star Wars and a subversion", instead of "the first and last will be very generic Star Wars material, but the middle will be subverting our expectations", maybe the sequels wouldn't be my least favourite trilogy.
So, as far as the majority goes, yes, I think Rey's arc should have been more akin to Luke's. That it didn't isn't necessarily bad, as you say, but that all the context suggested it being that way, it does feel narrative dissonant.
I'd argue that the narrative tension present in Rey is - and should have been - a tension between whether who we're seeing onscreen is a Luke or an Anakin. Kylo being just another Vader and Rey being just another Luke following the same story beats would have been just a meaningless rehash. In my eyes, the biggest failure overall of the sequels was Disney not having the balls to stick to the more interesting original story ideas that TLJ flirts with.
I don't see that in the film we're presented. And yes, maybe what you would have wanted from a redone TFA (where it is more like TLJ and has less in the way of repetitive story beats) would have had the "will she be an Anakin or a Luke" tension. But that's not what I saw at all in the TFA we got.
The Jedi were not ideal, a total commitment to emotionless aesceticism led to them encountering all kinds of moral injustice and Wile E. Coyote level traps throughout the prequels and just blithely accepting them. And if the setup for TFA tells us anything, it's that trying to set up everything the same way just failed faster and harder.
I think the prequels do a good job of painting the Jedi as fallible, and not as wholesome as Obi-Wan insinuates. And yes, it probably is for the best to not have a Jedi order, at least with their teachings. However, I'd argue that we don't need another sequel trilogy to go over that in the first place, and that we shouldn't have had a new trilogy from a narrative standpoint anyways.
I think viewing the story from the perspective of a patented Disposable Dark Side Apprentice we see so many of come and go throughout the prequels is an interesting perspective, as is handing us another Anakin-level "Chosen One" right after we saw the whole fall of Anakin in the prequel trilogy.
And in that vein, I don't see why we'd need another trilogy. We've seen the how the Sith can rise and the Jedi fall. We see how the Sith fall and the Jedi rise back into ascendancy. I honestly don't think we needed another trilogy, at least tied into the Skywalker saga.
We need more media in the Star Wars universe, I think, but not media about the Skywalkers.
As to Obi-wan being justified in beating Maul because "we know he's good at jumping"...
There was far more than that, as I said. Obi-Wan doesn't beat him "because he's good at jumping" - the only reason I mentioned that was it at least sets up what he's capable of.
If Obi-Wan had never demonstrated being able to do something like that, and then just gets to do it at the end because Protagonist Power, that would be unearned. However, it is shown of repeatedly that that kind of acrobatic skill is something easily in his skill set.
Rey, on the other hand, does not get this treatment. Rey never demonstrates lightsaber prowess, she's never even turned one on prior to this. She has quarterstaff skills against untrained thugs, but against a decently trained and experienced lightsaber wielder? Her being able to turn the tide as quickly as she does, with no prior input isn't established as a thing.
I can see how that could be done well, I just disagree that it was in any way during Phantom Menace. Maul is clearly supposed to be the arrogant, hot-headed, eager bad guy who gets beaten because of his hubris, but there is basically no setup for that. If anything, every time he's on screen previously in the film he's moving slowly, deliberately, and methodically, patiently tracking the heroes and even doing stuff like deliberately pulling his hood back and delivering lines slowly. His reaction time up until that point in the fight is practically superhuman, he fights two people at once to a standstill and the second he's alone against a jedi master he takes him down in an extremely short period of time.
Not really. The impression I get of Maul is sadistic, over anything else. He's silent, deliberate and methodical, but that feels like a veneer for cruel energy radiating beneath the surface, like it's all bottled in and waiting to be released.
Don't forget, he kills the actual Jedi Master, and is left dealing with an emotionally compromised apprentice - he has every right to get cocky. But he doesn't even let his guard down until he knocks Kenobi into the shaft - by this point, from his perspective, there is very little that can be done now. By all respects, he's beaten two Jedi back to back. He's showing off and flinging sparks in Kenobi's face. He looks to be silently revelling in it. The padawan jumping up and taking a lightsaber from the other Jedi who was defeated prior is not something I think Maul would anticipate.
Holy crap, did you just try to quote an article from four months ago? You're way behind the "What's going on in Star Wars" game. You've missed about a dozen points where they've made clear that's not going to happen. But, you can keep hoping if it makes you feel more internet-superior I suppose?
Holy crap, did you just try to quote an article from four months ago? You're way behind the "What's going on in Star Wars" game. You've missed about a dozen points where they've made clear that's not going to happen. But, you can keep hoping if it makes you feel more internet-superior I suppose?
I've heard conflicting stories regarding Rian future involvement. As far as I understand it, all SW movie projects are currently on hold, but also might be alternating with the Avatar movies each Christmas to come. I do wish they would make their minds up which ever it is.
Given a choice, my dream team would be Kathleen Kennedy and Rian Johnson as they are, but also with Dave Filoni and Timothy Zahn to provide the story. That there is the new trilogy I can only hope for. If not Johnson then Ron Howard(loved Solo!), but I'd rather he would work on that Willow sequel we've hoped for since 1988...
I also hope Disney stop pushing LucasFilm beyond their means. Producing both the Sequals AND the Story movies was a recipe for disaster, and LucasFilm has done well considering they've also produced Rebels, Resistance and The Mandalorian since Disney took over - not to mention a new season of Clone Wars.
It was a self contained story that wrapped everything up. There isn't any need or point to a continuation, and that leads to fairly tired old actors barely trying to pretend that they care, and I guess a grown-up baby who's now a problem child and needs a life lesson about peasants or something equally tropey. Just no. If you need a fix, just rewatch the existing film.
Voss wrote: A Willow sequel sounds honestly terrible.
It was a self contained story that wrapped everything up. There isn't any need or point to a continuation, and that leads to fairly tired old actors barely trying to pretend that they care, and I guess a grown-up baby who's now a problem child and needs a life lesson about peasants or something equally tropey. Just no. If you need a fix, just rewatch the existing film.
I thought they announced it would be series in which Willow would only play a small role, so basically more like a spin-off than a second instalment. Like any fantasy world, there is enough room for a new adventure with similar world elements. Considering that the universe of Willow is an extremely common fantasy universe, it's not exactly all that difficult to imagine. Plus, most live-action fantasy series these days seems to aim for young adult male as their core audience. Having one targetting a slightly younger audience of both gender wouldn't be a bad thing in my opinion.
Breotan wrote: Ignoring the rest of this thread cause spoilers and debates. I just want to know one thing. Is this movie worth the price of a ticket to watch on the big screen?
Its Star Wars at Christmas - what else do you want to see on the big screen?
Voss wrote: A Willow sequel sounds honestly terrible.
It was a self contained story that wrapped everything up. There isn't any need or point to a continuation, and that leads to fairly tired old actors barely trying to pretend that they care, and I guess a grown-up baby who's now a problem child and needs a life lesson about peasants or something equally tropey. Just no. If you need a fix, just rewatch the existing film.
I thought they announced it would be series in which Willow would only play a small role, so basically more like a spin-off than a second instalment. Like any fantasy world, there is enough room for a new adventure with similar world elements. Considering that the universe of Willow is an extremely common fantasy universe, it's not exactly all that difficult to imagine. Plus, most live-action fantasy series these days seems to aim for young adult male as their core audience. Having one targetting a slightly younger audience of both gender wouldn't be a bad thing in my opinion.
I wasn't aware of any announcements- I thought Samus was talking about a theoretical film
But yes, it is a standard fantasy universe- that's part of the problem. There aren't any specific stories to tell that need the IP or the characters.
Apparently the throw-away explanation for the giant star destroyer fleet is 'a wizard did it.'
A line somewhere that Palps 'conjured' the ships.
Just.... what?
Pretty sure palp said they had been building them. Could misremember though. Been over a week i saw it.
Even just building has massive logic issues but that's no surprise. Disney isn't even trying to be logical. Just go easiest route and copy original trilogy for easy money.
Instead of a Willow sequel, they should make a Krull sequel. Fantasy with a galactic setting and consequences? I think the world is ready.
I’ll happily accept a fleet of Death Stars if they just give us one shot of a quintillion labor droids working a trillion assembly lines to the tune of Raymond Scott's Powerhouse.
Wha...urgh...EXACTLY! Its Star Wars at Christmas - what else do you want to see on the big screen?
LOL...
Jumanji: Now that was a lot of fun. Loved it! 1917: I live in the UK so it aint out until the 10th of Jan. Depends where you live, though. Looks kinda depressing. Frozen 2: C'mon, let it go already...
Huh, Frozen2 was easily better than any of the new SW movies.
Holy crap, did you just try to quote an article from four months ago? You're way behind the "What's going on in Star Wars" game. You've missed about a dozen points where they've made clear that's not going to happen. But, you can keep hoping if it makes you feel more internet-superior I suppose?
I've heard conflicting stories regarding Rian future involvement. As far as I understand it, all SW movie projects are currently on hold, but also might be alternating with the Avatar movies each Christmas to come. I do wish they would make their minds up which ever it is.
Given a choice, my dream team would be Kathleen Kennedy and Rian Johnson as they are, but also with Dave Filoni and Timothy Zahn to provide the story. That there is the new trilogy I can only hope for. If not Johnson then Ron Howard(loved Solo!), but I'd rather he would work on that Willow sequel we've hoped for since 1988...
I also hope Disney stop pushing LucasFilm beyond their means. Producing both the Sequals AND the Story movies was a recipe for disaster, and LucasFilm has done well considering they've also produced Rebels, Resistance and The Mandalorian since Disney took over - not to mention a new season of Clone Wars.
Disney's original plan was something akin to "Star Wars Cinematic Universe" where they could release multiple SW movies a year, like MCU. It didn't quite pan out.
I doubt RJ's trilogy is going to happen. It sounds too radical for Disney, going forward so much in time that the Galaxy looks little like Star Wars we're used to see. Even if the story convinces the execs, too much departure from the estabilished universe style is probably too risky.
Stevefamine wrote: It ruined Star Wars for me to the point where I'm sort of just disgusted about the entire series and how let down I was. It was unbeleiveable bad.
I’m right there with you but we have to be honest with ourselves, was this really the final straw or is this movie actually just the crater left by 20 years of near relentless diarrhea from this IP?
RotJ was all fine and dandy up until those creepy murderous teddy bears appeared, then it all went downhill swiftly and took my childhood with it (I was 14 at the time).
Stevefamine wrote: It ruined Star Wars for me to the point where I'm sort of just disgusted about the entire series and how let down I was. It was unbeleiveable bad.
I’m right there with you but we have to be honest with ourselves, was this really the final straw or is this movie actually just the crater left by 20 years of near relentless diarrhea from this IP?
There have been some really great things made in the IP in the last twenty years as well as lots of tripe. Three Tv series, a few books, at least one film, some tabletop games and video games. So I really disagree with that statement as whilst the three sequel films were utter trash from my perspective it doesn't make every thing that went before it suddenly bad. I will just ignore those films and continue to like what I liked previously, they are no way over ridden or cease to exist just because the owners of the IP say they are.
the johnson trilogy won't happen. I think reading between the lines it's obvious whats happened. Kennedy thought TLJ was great, a "bold fresh look at star wars" and randomly blurted out she wanted him to do a new trilogy and then the negative reactions started rolling in. It's become obvious that a lot of people wheren't happy with Johnson's take on SW, even among the movie crew, as a result disney has cooled on the idea of giving him a stand alone truilogy. right now it sounds like they're still "in talks" which suggests to me Johnson is peioridlcly calling them up with ideas and peridicly being shot down
I mean, technically, it’s been more than twenty years of steaming turds. But I just thought we’d stick to film and date it back to Phantom Menace. And please note, I posted near relentless diarrhea. Not absolutely relentless. There were bound to be a few things other than turds washed in on the fecal tidal wave of Star Wars. Just as a matter of statistics. We are nonetheless still talking a tsunami of gak. Rise of Skywalker is just an average reading on the gak o meter for this IP, not even a spike (like Attack of the Clones). Sure, it makes Rian Johnson look competent by comparison but, again, The Last Jedi also wasn’t a series low. These latest pieces of crap films did not ruin Star Wars; they just pull back the curtain on how rotten it’s been for a long, long time now.
Just watched the movie I would say it was okay. Not great, but not bad either. It was a good movie but without much to it. I have to admit though that after the three movies, Rey is probably the most interesting protagonist of the three trilogies with Luke being a bit too bland and "perfect" and Anakin being insufferable. Daisy Ridley did some heavy carrying job on several stretches of both last movies.
All in all, this trilogy feels too hastily thrown together, but isn't bad. The difference in style between the three movies can be pretty jaring with the first one being almost a remake, the second one trying to be complete deconstruction and the last one finally striking a certain balance. If I were to rank it, it's not quite as good as the original trilogy, but is better than the prequels. Ironically, with some fiddling like George Lucas did with the original trilogy, adding a few scenes and removing a few others, you could have a very strong trilogy.
Ultimately the sequal trilogy suffers from lacking that singular vision, and at the end of the day that's 100% at Kathleen Kennedy's door. Abrams should be given credit the film was as good as it was, and a lot of the weaknesses laid at the door of the woman who didn't think having a show runner with a vision for the trilogy excersing dictatoral power over the directors was nesscary
Manchu wrote: I mean, technically, it’s been more than twenty years of steaming turds. But I just thought we’d stick to film and date it back to Phantom Menace. And please note, I posted near relentless diarrhea. Not absolutely relentless. There were bound to be a few things other than turds washed in on the fecal tidal wave of Star Wars. Just as a matter of statistics. We are nonetheless still talking a tsunami of gak. Rise of Skywalker is just an average reading on the gak o meter for this IP, not even a spike (like Attack of the Clones). Sure, it makes Rian Johnson look competent by comparison but, again, The Last Jedi also wasn’t a series low. These latest pieces of crap films did not ruin Star Wars; they just pull back the curtain on how rotten it’s been for a long, long time now.
Film only does not the IP make... If we are discussing just the films then I would concur that there have been more hits than misses but that is not the whole story. With TV series this ration goes 3-1, I say that because I have not heard a single person defend "Resistance" whilst the other series have been quite widely acclaimed. Also there are some people who actually liked the prequel series (also the sequels..), I know its hard to imagine but they do exist! Personally I have found the prequels bearable to watch in various edits (Fall of the Jedi being my favourite) and for all of their faults they are still SW and feel SW which is the minimum of what should be expected and something I think the Sequel series failed at spectacularly. The same with the reboot ST series, I just don't get why anyone would choose to write a film in an existing IP and just ignore everything that makes that IP what it is bar the most obvious "skin". In RoS we see this with the bloody stupid hyperspace skipping thing, it has long been established that a ship cant jump to lightspeed in a gravity well and that hyperspace travel takes time but suddenly one can skip from planet to planet instantaneously.... It makes no sense and that is the issue with KK and JJA, they are not very good at what they do, they are good at making things pretty but that is it. The best that I can say for the sequels is that they didint have JarJar (but they did just as a director...).
BrianDavion wrote: Ultimately the sequal trilogy suffers from lacking that singular vision
While wincing through the cacophony of Episode IX, I considered whether there could have been something, anything worthwhile about Abrams’s films that had been disrupted by Johnson’s. It’s tempting because I’d like to think Star Wars could be saved from the Prequels. But, no. That’s just more stockholm syndrome. The glaring truth is, TFA was a stairway to nothing. TLJ was a sarcastic commentary on that failure. And ROS is a desperate attempt to pin the blame on TLJ for its own lack of ideas. Two hacks pointing accusingly at each other doesn’t make either less guilty.
ingtaer wrote: In RoS we see this with the bloody stupid hyperspace skipping thing, it has long been established that a ship cant jump to lightspeed in a gravity well and that hyperspace travel takes time but suddenly one can skip from planet to planet instantaneously.... It makes no sense
Like the, ahem, Holdo Maneuver, hyperspace skipping pissed me off when I saw it. But you and me inwardly screaming “It doesn’t work like that!” amounts to exactly nothing in a world where the Force has been reduced to midi chlorians. It’s over, yes; but it’s been over for a long time.
BrianDavion wrote: Ultimately the sequal trilogy suffers from lacking that singular vision
While wincing through the cacophony of Episode IX, I considered whether there could have been something, anything worthwhile about Abrams’s films that had been disrupted by Johnson’s. It’s tempting because I’d like to think Star Wars could be saved from the Prequels. But, no. That’s just more stockholm syndrome. The glaring truth is, TFA was a stairway to nothing. TLJ was a sarcastic commentary on that failure. And ROS is a desperate attempt to pin the blame on TLJ for its own lack of ideas. Two hacks pointing accusingly at each other doesn’t make either less guilty.
ingtaer wrote: In RoS we see this with the bloody stupid hyperspace skipping thing, it has long been established that a ship cant jump to lightspeed in a gravity well and that hyperspace travel takes time but suddenly one can skip from planet to planet instantaneously.... It makes no sense
Like the, ahem, Holdo Maneuver, hyperspace skipping pissed me off when I saw it. But you and me inwardly screaming “It doesn’t work like that!” amounts to exactly nothing in a world where the Force has been reduced to midi chlorians. It’s over, yes; but it’s been over for a long time.
Aye, that kind of thing really annoys me... Price of being a nerd I suppose. However it is not over, The Mandalorian just finished its first series and was mostly fantastic and it managed to be so with out ruining everything that went before! Soon we will have the next series of the Clone Wars as well and hopes are high. The films may be in an horrific place (alleviated somewhat by both Rogue One and Solo) but that does not mean all of the Star Wars is now a steaming pile of horse gak. It just means that 4-5 films have been.
The skipping part mainly annoyed me because it’s “traveling fast” and not “teleporting”, and they would have crashed through all kinds of things going in and out of all those places.
BrianDavion wrote: Ultimately the sequal trilogy suffers from lacking that singular vision, and at the end of the day that's 100% at Kathleen Kennedy's door.
Yet there wasn't a "singular vision".
The sequel trilogy was what Disney wanted out of the aquisition and to form the basis of their theme parks and merchandising. They are the ones paying LucasFilm's bills and Kathleen - to a certain point - has to do what she is told.
BrianDavion wrote: Ultimately the sequal trilogy suffers from lacking that singular vision, and at the end of the day that's 100% at Kathleen Kennedy's door.
Yet there wasn't a "singular vision".
The sequel trilogy was what Disney wanted out of the aquisition and to form the basis of their theme parks and merchandising. They are the ones paying LucasFilm's bills and Kathleen - to a certain point - has to do what she is told.
Except it clearly didn't work that way in practice. Disney thought they had another Marvel on their hands, and that Kennedy - who is after all a veteran producer who's worked with Lucas and Spielberg for decades - was a Feige-esque safe pair of hands. They gave her a brief - "George's outlines are a bit too out-there, make something safer to reassure the existing audience and bring in some new kiddies" - and TFA, for all its flaws, indicated she was working to it, and was successful enough to buy her plenty of leeway to do things her own way.
The problem is she evidently didn't have a way, or a plan, or really any idea what she wanted to do with the ST except the whole "The Force Is Female" thing(which, before anyone starts, was a problem of execution and marketing/branding, rather than concept). By the time TLJ came out and Solo's production woes were common knowledge, and the aftermath of those, what could Iger & Disney do except what they did(ie, pull the "buck stops here" routine for investors, and start putting things in place to sideline Kennedy & co, whether they can contractually/optically be rid of her or not).
Disney have responsibility in a technical sense, but the fact is they gave someone a job to do and the job wasn't done. Given there was nothing to suggest to them that the someone they had wasn't capable of doing the job, the fault is Kennedy & co's IMO.
I just hope they're learning the right lessons from this and Kennedy, the Story Group, and that increasingly bitter old git Hidalgo all get their jotters asap - I don't think Star Wars is beyond saving, even as a cinematic franchise providing the next film/trilogy nails it, but if the current batch remain in charge in anything other than name only, it won't survive another Holdo Maneuver.
ingtaer wrote: [ In RoS we see this with the bloody stupid hyperspace skipping thing, it has long been established that a ship cant jump to lightspeed in a gravity well and that hyperspace travel takes time but suddenly one can skip from planet to planet instantaneously
When? By who? I don't remember any movie ever explaining us exactly how hyperspace travel works or even what "hyperspace" actually means besides you travel faster than light. Plus, if it takes a few days let's say for a ship to go from Tatooine to Alderaad which are very far away, how long would it take from a ship to travel from one planet to another in the same system or even a system away? Probably seconds at most. Let's not even think about the fact that hyperspace technology might have changed or improved over the years of conflict in the Star Wars universe. We do see ship design changes from movie to movie which let's me think the universe isn't completely stagnant in terms of innovation. This, to me, seems like an example of someone who is desperately clutching at straws because those Star Wars movies weren't their Star Wars movies.
d-usa wrote: Episode 7 established that you could jump out of hyperspace within a gravity well at least.
Ships in Star Wars are regularly picture entering and leaving hyperspace in a planet's high atmosphere much closer than a moon is meaning they are leaving and arriving within a planet's gravitational pull. Of course a planet's gravitationnal pull will vary in function of its mass.
There just haven't really been that many great star wars movies. The original Star Wars and Empire are both really good, Return of the Jedi is okay. The prequels are all crap, with Clones being the worst and Sith having a few redeeming features. (Though looking at it now, at least Lucas was still doing some original stuff in the prequels and trying to tell a story that he thought was cool. The new stuff is very cynically designed it seems to me).
The Force Awakens was alright as well, I thought. I was optimistic for the new series. The Last Jedi has some interesting ideas (I liked Luke and the idea that the Jedi were as big a problem as the Sith was interesting, the final battle sequence was visually spectacular) but the flaws in the film are too severe for it to stand up. Not as bad as the prequels, worse than Return of the Jedi. I think people got WAY too upset over it, mind you, especially given we have had a lot of bad star wars movies at this point, and bullying the actors online is pathetic.
Solo and Rogue One were...fine. Did we need them? Feth no. Rogue One sort of undermines the original movie by making Luke less special, I guess. And it has some problems with it#s script and the characters involved It has some cool action scenes and visuals generally though. Solo is actually better than it, but it is still pretty mediocre.
So where does that leave us? 11 films, 3 of them good, 4 mediocre, 4 bad? Why are people still excited about this franchise at this point? Or surprised when some of the films are bad?
One thing that is obvious is that Disney obviously think you don't have to have any sort of consistency to the story in these films and you can basically make everything up as you go along, because they hold the audience in contempt. Sometimes, looking at the discourse around the films, I can see why that is.
I would make the argument that Star Wars may not be as relevant today as it used to be, beyond the nostalgia value many have for the series.
For one, a lot of what gave Star Wars its appeal back in the day was it’s amazing VFX at the time, a VFX technology that STILL holds up today for the most part. The stories themselves were okayish, and from a strictly writing point of view, they aren’t anything groundbreaking. It’s essentially the hero’s journey set in space with space wizards. There was nothing out at the time that really rose to the level of visual inventiveness and spectacle that Star Wars was at.
Even during the prequels era, VFX was revolutionized again, though maybe not as much as before. That series would’ve been better had George Lucas not gone off the deep end. Episode 3 was actually a really great entry, only bogged down by the flaws of Episode 1 and 2.
Now though, there’s nothing much new about the VFX space that Star Wars can add to. Marvel movies, and many other films, have made amazing VFX more commonplace. At this point it’s the aesthetics that we watch for, and there’s no doubt that Star Wars has amazing aesthetics and world design, Enter the new movies and where they failed: they never took Star Wars beyond the old and familiar. This single decision, to retread the old trilogy, more than anything else, is what really brought down the whole sequel trilogy imo. There’s really nothing new here. The story beats were very familiar in Episode 7.
Episode 8 did try to be bolder and subvert expectations. It took risks, which is really the only reason I liked it a lot. Admittedly not every risk paid off, especially the Canto Blight sequence which seemed a bit too long. Things could’ve gone in an interesting direction from here, but they were already limited by the bad choices in Episode 7 of sticking with a familiar old setting. My main gripe with 9 then is that it completely shifts direction away from both 7 and 8 and does its own thing, introducing so many unexplained plot points that it became tough to follow anything. And finally, it was essentially a retread of Return of the Jedi, though maybe not as much as Episode 7 was a retread of a New Hope. 9 did have some potentially good ideas introduced, but they were bogged down by many issues.
These movies just aren’t that relevant because in terms of new stories and concepts that could’ve been explored, they tried very very little. 8 had an attempt that could’ve been good, but ultimately was just written over in 9.
In short, there’s nothing very memorable about these new movies. 8 tried, but with no real plan on how to expand on those ideas, it all fell apart. The lack of a vision is huge, but if you’re gonna make a new Star Wars trilogy, make something NEW, not a retread of the OT, just with modern CG.
I should also add that I really enjoyed the OT, save for parts of RoJ, and I actually think that Episode 3 is a really solid film, save for issues that mar it from Phantom Menance and Clones. It’s really unfortunate that these sequels turned out the way they did. On paper, they had a lot that could make them succeed.
Star Wars has some of the same problems as Avatar. Avatar is at best an OK story, and I haven’t watched it once since it left the big screen. But it was a “must watch” and pioneer in visual effects and 3D technology.
Star Wars just starts to fall apart when you look at it too closely I reckon. It is broad brushstrokes stuff, but as soon as you start looking at it or thinking about it it turns to mush.
So focusing on details from the first trilogy (who Darth Vader was, what the Sith are, how the Jedi Order works, what the Republic is and so on) is a big mistake made by the prequels, the sequels and the stand alone movies.
Nerds love getting into the details of things, and the EU stuff encouraged this, but it hasn't worked.
Just take the Sith and the Jedi - both points of view are totally weird and inhuman, and neither are particularly good. But the movies sort of act like the Jedi are these awesome good guys, when in fact they are a bunch of really weird people that when played straight are pretty unlikeable.
By focusing on the Force to such a huge degree it sort of highlights the problems with this set up, and also encourages lazy writing where everything happens because of the force and so on.
Probably you could make it all work but you need then to have proper writers writing this stuff, and you need a pretty robust and critical editorial process. They got the guy who did Batman vs Superman and Justice League, for some reason.
Da Boss wrote: There just haven't really been that many great star wars movies. The original Star Wars and Empire are both really good, Return of the Jedi is okay. The prequels are all crap, with Clones being the worst and Sith having a few redeeming features. (Though looking at it now, at least Lucas was still doing some original stuff in the prequels and trying to tell a story that he thought was cool. The new stuff is very cynically designed it seems to me).
The Force Awakens was alright as well, I thought. I was optimistic for the new series. The Last Jedi has some interesting ideas (I liked Luke and the idea that the Jedi were as big a problem as the Sith was interesting, the final battle sequence was visually spectacular) but the flaws in the film are too severe for it to stand up. Not as bad as the prequels, worse than Return of the Jedi. I think people got WAY too upset over it, mind you, especially given we have had a lot of bad star wars movies at this point, and bullying the actors online is pathetic.
Solo and Rogue One were...fine. Did we need them? Feth no. Rogue One sort of undermines the original movie by making Luke less special, I guess. And it has some problems with it#s script and the characters involved It has some cool action scenes and visuals generally though. Solo is actually better than it, but it is still pretty mediocre.
So where does that leave us? 11 films, 3 of them good, 4 mediocre, 4 bad? Why are people still excited about this franchise at this point? Or surprised when some of the films are bad?
One thing that is obvious is that Disney obviously think you don't have to have any sort of consistency to the story in these films and you can basically make everything up as you go along, because they hold the audience in contempt. Sometimes, looking at the discourse around the films, I can see why that is.
"Bullying the actors online is pathetic..." it is. Of course it's also pathetic when people continue to pretend this was actually a significant percentage of even the fans who disliked TLJ, let alone all SW fans, of whom there are literally tens if not hundreds of millions. This is the internet, trolls exist, and a couple of percent of any group, anywhere, that formed for any reason or around any franchise are arseholes. Feeding their ego by building them up into "the Fandom Menace" only emboldens them. Of course, generalising the most extreme reactions to something out to everyone who disliked it is a time honoured way of feeling super-smart because the person generalising is obviously just objective and Spock-esque in their appreciation of said something, unlike those people with their emotional reactions fahfahfah.
"Lots of bad Star Wars movies at this point..." I mean, that rather depends on what you're looking for from a Star Wars movie. A lot of folk enjoy the Prequels despite their flaws, glaring though they are, especially when you can rewatch them in light of the additional character development and narrative breathing room granted by the Clone Wars series. For my money, Rogue One and Solo are solid entries. Five great films, three decent enough ones, one tolerable missed opportunity(TFA), one complete gakshow(TLJ), and one utterly illogical epileptic seizure in movie form(RoS). That's a better win/loss ratio than any film franchise except the MCU.
More than that of course, for a lot of people "Star Wars" is not just 11 films. It's 11 films plus 50 years of comics, novels, TV shows, videogames, fan stories, and tabletop games. People are still excited at the prospect of Star Wars films because they've seen the wealth of potential for great stories that whole setting contains, and they continue to be surprised when the films don't live up to that because it really shouldn't be that difficult to cherry-pick the best of it and hammer it into a three-act structure adventure movie.
Your last comment is just a right old chucklefest, because I can guarantee that you'd be equally contemptuous of the part of the audience who walked away when served up slop in the Sequels - they're those "overly emotional" types from earlier on.
I would gently suggest that if you think most Star Wars films have been guff and the bit you liked from the Sequels was trashing Luke's character and doing the Expectation Subverted thing with the idea that the Force is balance and the Dark Side is imbalance & corruption("the Jedi failed to live up to their ideals" is not the same as "the Jedi & Sith are two sides of the same coin and both need to die because I'm Rian Johnson and I remember watching some youtube video about yin and yang one night when I was bored" aren't equivalent notions), the reason you're struggling to fathom what fans are thinking is you're not one anymore? Which is fine, but not being a fan of something isn't an inherently superior position to occupy.
d-usa wrote: Star Wars has some of the same problems as Avatar. Avatar is at best an OK story, and I haven’t watched it once since it left the big screen. But it was a “must watch” and pioneer in visual effects and 3D technology.
Didn't the last airbender movie bomb? Or are you thinking of something else forgettable?
d-usa wrote: Star Wars has some of the same problems as Avatar. Avatar is at best an OK story, and I haven’t watched it once since it left the big screen. But it was a “must watch” and pioneer in visual effects and 3D technology.
Didn't the last airbender movie bomb? Or are you thinking of something else forgettable?
You are projecting a lot onto me there, Yodhrin. I make no claims to ultimate objectivity, and I can be as emotional as anyone else when it comes to things I love.
You probably have a point though- I have never really been "into" star wars, and I would not consider myself a fan really. I liked the original three films when I watched them with my older brother as a kid, but never really got into the comics and video games and all that.
I didn't like the prequels at all, and I was one of the people who walked away from them thinking they were pretty crap, which was a common enough view.
Definitely don't see anything wrong with being a fan. I am a huge spiderman fan, to the point that I was making excuses for the Amazing Spiderman movie, the first one at least.
BrianDavion wrote: Ultimately the sequal trilogy suffers from lacking that singular vision, and at the end of the day that's 100% at Kathleen Kennedy's door.
Yet there wasn't a "singular vision".
The sequel trilogy was what Disney wanted out of the aquisition and to form the basis of their theme parks and merchandising. They are the ones paying LucasFilm's bills and Kathleen - to a certain point - has to do what she is told.
Except it clearly didn't work that way in practice. Disney thought they had another Marvel on their hands, and that Kennedy - who is after all a veteran producer who's worked with Lucas and Spielberg for decades - was a Feige-esque safe pair of hands. They gave her a brief - "George's outlines are a bit too out-there, make something safer to reassure the existing audience and bring in some new kiddies" - and TFA, for all its flaws, indicated she was working to it, and was successful enough to buy her plenty of leeway to do things her own way.
The problem is she evidently didn't have a way, or a plan, or really any idea what she wanted to do with the ST except the whole "The Force Is Female" thing(which, before anyone starts, was a problem of execution and marketing/branding, rather than concept). By the time TLJ came out and Solo's production woes were common knowledge, and the aftermath of those, what could Iger & Disney do except what they did(ie, pull the "buck stops here" routine for investors, and start putting things in place to sideline Kennedy & co, whether they can contractually/optically be rid of her or not).
Disney have responsibility in a technical sense, but the fact is they gave someone a job to do and the job wasn't done. Given there was nothing to suggest to them that the someone they had wasn't capable of doing the job, the fault is Kennedy & co's IMO.
I just hope they're learning the right lessons from this and Kennedy, the Story Group, and that increasingly bitter old git Hidalgo all get their jotters asap - I don't think Star Wars is beyond saving, even as a cinematic franchise providing the next film/trilogy nails it, but if the current batch remain in charge in anything other than name only, it won't survive another Holdo Maneuver.
While I respect your opinion, I still hold to Disney interferring too much and are trying to twist Star Wars into another MCU. They have pushed LucasFilm way beyond their means and the fact that Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker were put back to Christmas(both were scheduled for May of their respective years), and a third Story movie has been put on hold(cancelled?), is clear evidence of that.
Seriously, LucasFIlm of the past - they released a film once in a while. Disney - ramming MCU movies down our throats practically every three-to-six months. The sequel trilogy was rushed and the proof is in the pudding.
As for the female-empowerment issue - well, yes, she is a woman and not surprisingly she'd want to encourage more female roles in her films that she produces. Its happening all over the shop I'm afraid in other franchises. Take Dr Who for example, The 100 or Batwoman. LOL, for a good laugh on the subject, look up "The Worm that turned" by The Two Ronnies - so bloomin funny, and true! In my day job I'm one of few blokes in a female-dominated team and I do long for more male company and topics. Sometimes I wish they would introduce our new manager as DCI Gene Hunt...
The EU showed Star Wars was mortal, and the prequels killed it for me. Afterwards, I wandered into the snowy wastes to live in the fairy castle of head canon, where I have been happy if unmotivated by Star Wars. Solo and Rogue One drew me out a bit, but if Disney doesn’t make another Star WRs movie, I’ll be fine.
Da Boss wrote: You are projecting a lot onto me there, Yodhrin. I make no claims to ultimate objectivity, and I can be as emotional as anyone else when it comes to things I love.
You probably have a point though- I have never really been "into" star wars, and I would not consider myself a fan really. I liked the original three films when I watched them with my older brother as a kid, but never really got into the comics and video games and all that.
I didn't like the prequels at all, and I was one of the people who walked away from them thinking they were pretty crap, which was a common enough view.
Definitely don't see anything wrong with being a fan. I am a huge spiderman fan, to the point that I was making excuses for the Amazing Spiderman movie, the first one at least.
I don’t think anyone is claiming objectivity, but as someone who really enjoyed the original trilogy, and episode 3 when I was younger, I sort of agree with your points. Admittedly I fell out of being a Star Wars fan recently, so maybe I am biased as well. I guess what my main point was that the plot of the original movies wasn’t groundbreaking. It’s the Hero’s Journey. George Lucas has said so multiple times. What made those movies special was the visualization of a galaxy far far away. The spectacle of massive planet sized planet killing battle stations, of fighters skirmishing in space, of giant four legged walkers destroying an embattled rebellion, and of space wizards dueling with energy swords. It was fantastic imagination with fantastic VFX.
The prequels, for all their flaws, did continue that world building. Never before had we seen the more urban side of Star Wars. The VFX proved to be equally revolutionary. I would argue that 3 is actually a solid film, though that’s just my opinion.
I just think that the new trilogy never did anything new or special, and it’s markedly difficult now to really do anything new or special, since just it’s just not that age anymore, when Star Wars, and only Star Wars had the ability to craft amazing worlds and suck you into it. Lord of the Rings became an amazing cinematic masterpiece around the time the prequels were still going. Game of Thrones, in spite of its really bad last season, sold us a harsh fantasy world not so different from our own. Hell, the amount of series and movies now that rival Star Wars in terms of depth and scope, along with the visual capability to render them, is staggering. It doesn’t help that there was no plan with these new movies, and that they decided to not really do much new at all really. I had been looking forward to seeing the shipyards of Kuat made real, kind of like how Coruscant was made real in the prequels, but instead we got more barren and desolate worlds. The story beats didn’t tell anything new either, other than what we had already seen. 8 took some risks and tried to tell something new. But hey, it’s just an opinion.
I want to say that you can be a fan and like 8. You can also be a fan and not like 8. No need to cast judgement either way.
While I respect your opinion, I still hold to Disney interferring too much and are trying to twist Star Wars into another MCU. They have pushed LucasFilm way beyond their means and the fact that Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker were put back to Christmas(both were scheduled for May of their respective years), and a third Story movie has been put on hold(cancelled?), is clear evidence of that.
I'd argue the opposite. Disney didn't do nearly enough to control the new trilogy, and just went along with whatever terrible ideas were being spun out on the spur of the moment. Had it been more like the MCU (planned and interlinked, with an overall view of little connections but largely self-contained stories), it would have been a lot better. Amazingly better.
As for LucasFilm being pushed beyond their means, I don't know what you mean. LucasFilm is mostly sound and effects, and they had far too much time to overpack unnecessary crap into every frame until the films are incoherent messes of noise and randomly pulsating lights.
Da Boss wrote: Why are people still excited about this franchise at this point? Or surprised when some of the films are bad?
This is exactly where I am with Star Wars — not only asking these questions generally, but posing them to myself at this point. And a few more: Why have I bothered to care about this for so long considering it’s rarely any good, sometimes okay, and mostly terrible? Can I bother to continue, for example by buying into Legion and other games, care about this IP considering how it lets me down 80% and more of the time? The OT will always be good but what reason is there to believe, after so many years later full of examples to the contrary, that anything with the Star Wars label will ever come close?
While I respect your opinion, I still hold to Disney interferring too much and are trying to twist Star Wars into another MCU. They have pushed LucasFilm way beyond their means and the fact that Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker were put back to Christmas(both were scheduled for May of their respective years), and a third Story movie has been put on hold(cancelled?), is clear evidence of that.
I'd argue the opposite. Disney didn't do nearly enough to control the new trilogy, and just went along with whatever terrible ideas were being spun out on the spur of the moment. Had it been more like the MCU (planned and interlinked, with an overall view of little connections but largely self-contained stories), it would have been a lot better. Amazingly better.
As for LucasFilm being pushed beyond their means, I don't know what you mean. LucasFilm is mostly sound and effects, and they had far too much time to overpack unnecessary crap into every frame until the films are incoherent messes of noise and randomly pulsating lights.
Disney are the biggest control freaks in the business. Rushing through multiple projects is exactly Disneys calling card. Thats why everyone groaned when Disney aquired LucasFilm.
I think if you put SW in it's box as a fun thing to see on occasion, this was a great addition/conclusion.
SW's gift, IMHO, has always been economy of story telling.
"I served with your father during the clone wars, he was a Jedi knight".
That's a collection of meaningless nonsense words but, in context, fire the imagination of the viewer and make the world seem alive. It look 20+ years to get around to telling that story but we were cool with that.
Rise has lots of plot holes but they're papered over with efficiency. How does hyperspace work? Well you can 'skip' into a planet's atomosphere but it's risky and you might blow up and even the best pilot's going to get trash his ship doing it. I can work with that.
And since the Dark Empire comic was 'my' choice for the future of SW I was happy to see Palpatine back.
So yeah, as one of the guys who saw SW in the theater in 1977, got lots of toys, had the bed sheets, used his Buck Rogers Tigerman action figure as Darth Vader till he got a real Darth... I was happy with it.
That's something I didn't quite get, why was the Holdo Maneuver all of a sudden one in a million?
If it's called the Holdo Maneuver, that implies that she was the first to do it, or that it wasn't popular/well known beforehand. No-one else was aboard the ship at the time, so if there were any difficulties or technical problems she encountered while doing it, they wouldn't know that (and as viewers, we didn't see any).
The new trilogy has made it very clear that lightspeed isn't how it used to be, and the existing restrictions (getting too close to celestial bodies, using it within atmosphere, ramming other vessels, and even minor teleportation - in the start sequence of RoS, the Falcon "skips" through the mouth of a space worm thing, and doesn't blow a hole in the back of it's head) no longer seem to apply to cause any problems.
Unless the Resistance has been testing the Holdo Maneuver themselves, with their already tiny skeleton crew, how would they know it's a "one in a million chance"?
At least with Han's comment of "one in a million" about Luke firing a proton torpedo into the Death Star, we know that characters have been talking about how difficult it is because of it's size and the concept of hitting a small target while moving in a starship while being shot at yourself sounds like it would be a difficult thing. It's heavily suggested that Luke *only* pulls it off because he is Force sensitive, and uses it to guide his shot.
We get none of that with the Holdo Maneuver. There doesn't seem to be any obstacles she needs to overcome, and unfortunately, in the real world, we are well aware of the deadliness and relative ease such a ramming action has.
My pet theory is Holdo was also Force Sensetive and she alone could pick the right second the shields would flicker and the ramming would work.
This is what I mean about SW is good if you keep it in it's box. It was a cool scene, a great visual, I liked how they turned off the sound for it to make it more stark. But obviously once you start asking why they don't have racks of hyperspace capable missiles blowing up who enemy fleets, it stops working. May as well ask why the Jedi don't have Gatling Lightsabre cannons cutting through enemy armies.
Yeah, Star Wars is not supposed to be scrutinised like that, but because it has gone on so long and nerds being nerds, everything has been scrutinised to high heaven.
i think all franchises collapse under the weight of their own success after a while.
You wind up with too many call backs or knowing nods to the older movies to let the long term fans know that the creators are fans/know the story too -- which wind up essentially being repeats of what we've seen before - desert world, giant tree land, weird old ruins, super super bigger space station etc etc etc -- , whilst struggling to replace the older characters even if the actors/actresses are tool old/fat/dead etc -- tbf as we discussed in another thread recently the possibility of licensing a persons image for use might well stop this and we'll forever have a "young".. well middle aged Harrison Ford Indianna Jones forever.
Think back to the 80s and the home video market which extended this issue :
there's something like 10 or so Hellraiser films, with talk of yet another reboot.
IIRC first one or two of a series made it to the cinema, then normally by about the 3rd film it might well go straight to video -- possibly after a (very) limited release in some small country you've never heard of where part of it was filmed for tax purposes.
Then normally there's none of the original cast left by film 3 or 4... maybe the villain is allowed to stick around as they're hopelessly typecast by now -- until a few films later when one of the original cast will return as an older, wiser kickass warrior type who i etc etc etc .
Sgt_Smudge wrote: That's something I didn't quite get, why was the Holdo Maneuver all of a sudden one in a million?
If it's called the Holdo Maneuver, that implies that she was the first to do it, or that it wasn't popular/well known beforehand. No-one else was aboard the ship at the time, so if there were any difficulties or technical problems she encountered while doing it, they wouldn't know that (and as viewers, we didn't see any).
The new trilogy has made it very clear that lightspeed isn't how it used to be, and the existing restrictions (getting too close to celestial bodies, using it within atmosphere, ramming other vessels, and even minor teleportation - in the start sequence of RoS, the Falcon "skips" through the mouth of a space worm thing, and doesn't blow a hole in the back of it's head) no longer seem to apply to cause any problems.
Unless the Resistance has been testing the Holdo Maneuver themselves, with their already tiny skeleton crew, how would they know it's a "one in a million chance"?
At least with Han's comment of "one in a million" about Luke firing a proton torpedo into the Death Star, we know that characters have been talking about how difficult it is because of it's size and the concept of hitting a small target while moving in a starship while being shot at yourself sounds like it would be a difficult thing. It's heavily suggested that Luke *only* pulls it off because he is Force sensitive, and uses it to guide his shot.
We get none of that with the Holdo Maneuver. There doesn't seem to be any obstacles she needs to overcome, and unfortunately, in the real world, we are well aware of the deadliness and relative ease such a ramming action has.
Because if it works reliably it entirely breaks the space combat in half. Capital ships are worthless, you just deadfire the smallest possible vehicle you can strap a hyperspace engine to, and win, every time. Computing is advanced enough that you don't even have to use people, its simple vector intersection. The only effective ships become small ships and fighters that are fast enough that they can't be targeted reliably in that fashion. Everything else is just a target that hasn't been blown up yet.
And given how long hyperspace travel has been around in the setting (there are thousands of years of history, basically using the same ships, and a lot of space battles), the idea that no one had done it before is pants on head stupid and unlikely. In a universe where the Holdo Maneuver works, star destroyers and deaths stars would never be considered viable, and never would have been built,
So, by introducing the 'Holdo Maneuver,' Johnson basically destroyed how space combat in the SW setting works. The 'one in a million' is Abrams tossing out an easy dialogue fix to a Johnson problem so he doesn't have to deal with it.
Actually, I must just give a nod to Jurassic World, when the two Brothers find the old Rotunda. That whole set piece was quite literally me and my older Brother back in 1993, going on a bit of a trek - without mum and dad - to see the original Jurassic Park at the Odeon in Ipswich - which is still there, but abandoned. To see JW, with the brother felt really special - as if they filmed that bit just for us. Except for the younger brother in the film - he was a little bit better behaved and less hyperactive!
SW has weird technology. There is computing but it's all done manually and analog instead of digital. A droid can calculate a hyperspace jump, but it has to touch controls to input the data the pull a lever to do it.
Despite being able to build droids, ships don't have AI's.
And worse, SW tech is more or less stagnant until someone wants to build a ever bigger gun.
Thats the world that SW started with. It's how it is in the old republic, the new republic, the empire, and that SW comic where it's like 20 generations later and lukes descendant is a thief and a pirate or some crap.
You can't argue things like "Why don't they just put a hyperdrive into what amounts to a bullet with a droid brain programmed to fire at targets". Because nobody ever has so nobody ever will. Thats Starwars. It's dumb.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: That's something I didn't quite get, why was the Holdo Maneuver all of a sudden one in a million?
If it's called the Holdo Maneuver, that implies that she was the first to do it, or that it wasn't popular/well known beforehand. No-one else was aboard the ship at the time, so if there were any difficulties or technical problems she encountered while doing it, they wouldn't know that (and as viewers, we didn't see any).
The new trilogy has made it very clear that lightspeed isn't how it used to be, and the existing restrictions (getting too close to celestial bodies, using it within atmosphere, ramming other vessels, and even minor teleportation - in the start sequence of RoS, the Falcon "skips" through the mouth of a space worm thing, and doesn't blow a hole in the back of it's head) no longer seem to apply to cause any problems.
Unless the Resistance has been testing the Holdo Maneuver themselves, with their already tiny skeleton crew, how would they know it's a "one in a million chance"?
At least with Han's comment of "one in a million" about Luke firing a proton torpedo into the Death Star, we know that characters have been talking about how difficult it is because of it's size and the concept of hitting a small target while moving in a starship while being shot at yourself sounds like it would be a difficult thing. It's heavily suggested that Luke *only* pulls it off because he is Force sensitive, and uses it to guide his shot.
We get none of that with the Holdo Maneuver. There doesn't seem to be any obstacles she needs to overcome, and unfortunately, in the real world, we are well aware of the deadliness and relative ease such a ramming action has.
Because if it works reliably it entirely breaks the space combat in half. Capital ships are worthless, you just deadfire the smallest possible vehicle you can strap a hyperspace engine to, and win, every time. Computing is advanced enough that you don't even have to use people, its simple vector intersection. The only effective ships become small ships and fighters that are fast enough that they can't be targeted reliably in that fashion. Everything else is just a target that hasn't been blown up yet.
And given how long hyperspace travel has been around in the setting (there are thousands of years of history, basically using the same ships, and a lot of space battles), the idea that no one had done it before is pants on head stupid and unlikely.
So, by introducing the 'Holdo Maneuver,' Johnson basically destroyed how space combat in the SW setting works. The 'one in a million' is Abrams tossing out an easy dialogue fix to a Johnson problem so he doesn't have to deal with it.
That's pretty much how I see it.
I'm not denying it looks awesome, it was a very cool moment - but with the amount of inconsistencies it spawns in it's wake, was it worth it? I don't think it's fair to say "that's what happens when you overanalyse, stop caring about consistency and just appreciate it for what it is" - if it hadn't been included, then we wouldn't be analysing it. Honestly, I have to question what the narrative point of that scene was and why it was so important to the plot.
From a thematic standpoint, I guess it's supposed to be a support of the idea of heroic sacrifice and saving your friends, at any cost - but this message is subverted minutes later when Finn is denied the chance to do exactly the same, and told that "that's how we're gonna win. Not fighting what we hate. Saving what we love", which is exactly what both he AND Holdo were doing.
So, it's not thematic. How about narratively necessary?
Holdo's maneuver stops the large ship destroying the fleeing Rebel ships, I guess, but doesn't stop the other ships in the fleet pursuing them. It saves Finn and Rose (unknowingly). It breaks up the stalemate between Kylo and Rey (again, unknowingly). But could these be done in other ways, without causing as many inconsistencies within the universe? Probably - I'll make up a plot that resolves these, without needing Holdo to do a lightspeed ram.
Instead of ramming the First Order ship, Holdo moves her own ship to intercept and block shots from the fleet. This then puts her "in range" of the ship's guns, and she willing acts as a body shield for the escape pods. The First Order, unable to target the escape pods, vent their frustrations on the ship, and destroy it above Crait.
The Kylo/Rey duel and the Finn/Rose executions are broken up either by BB-8 doing some kind of manual detonation of some critical system (a magazine explosion? engine failure? idk) aboard the ship, rewriting the plot to allow for BB-8 to escape from the rest of the group when they get captured - maybe include a droid vs droid fight here between him and the evil BB droid we saw, similar to the Duel of the Droids episode in Clone Wars.
Alternatively, Kylo and Rey create a massive Force Explosion (probably completely made up), which rocks through the whole ship, and causes catastrophic damage.
Things play out as they did before, with Finn defeating Phasma, Rose and Finn escaping in an Imperial shuttle, and Rey finding her way back onto the Falcon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: You can't argue things like "Why don't they just put a hyperdrive into what amounts to a bullet with a droid brain programmed to fire at targets". Because nobody ever has so nobody ever will. Thats Starwars. It's dumb.
Honestly though, I've never had that problem with "what if we put a hyperdrive into a bullet and get a droid to fire it", because I just assume, as you say, because it's never been done, it's somehow impossible.
If we don't see it done, it's not possible, and even if we see something done that we previously thought to be impossible, we're usually shown why it is so rare.
That's why I have such a problem with the Holdo Maneuver. Because no-one pulled off Holdo Maneuvers, we just learned to accept that hyperspeed ramming wasn't possible for whatever reason in the setting. Within the realism of that universe, it's just not done - and that was fine.
But when someone actually *does* do the Holdo Maneuver, and we're never given any indication of why it can't be done more frequently, and why it is a "one in a million" thing, that creates a narrative inconsistency.
Dudes, Holdo was either force sensitive or that @#$% good or that %$#@ lucky.
"It was a one in a million shot" and she did it. Done. Other people can't. Droids can't.
Like the hyperspace skipping, I figure it's an extension of what Han did in SW7, Han can do it, Poe can do it, the Falcon can do it. A whole bunch of TIEs tried and died. Prior movies established the Empire can track through hyperspace, so a new counter had to be tried. It works for me.
It's a heroic universe. Batman can swing around Gotham City without dislocating his shoulders or missing a rope and falling to his death. No one asks why GCPD doesn't do that too. Think of the gas money they'd save!
I tend to agree. The hyperspace jump I think mostly gets picked on because people already did not like the character of Holdo for various other reasons. It was a cool bit of cinema.
But everything gets picked on when you extend stuff like this for so long and into so many media.
Da Boss wrote: I tend to agree. The hyperspace jump I think mostly gets picked on because people already did not like the character of Holdo for various other reasons. It was a cool bit of cinema.
But everything gets picked on when you extend stuff like this for so long and into so many media.
That's just an excuse not to think about the media you consume. 'Don't think about it' is a very bizarre stance to take on anything.
And no, equating any criticism to some wackjob opinions about a character is not a reason to not analyze the implications of events in the film.
As for 'coolness,' I honestly don't care. It was a bizarre glorification of pointless suicide to end a very boring sequence of events that made no sense. That Johnson tried (and failed, personally) to make it visually striking is neither here nor there.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Dudes, Holdo was either force sensitive or that @#$% good or that %$#@ lucky.
There isn't any particular reason to think the former, and the latter doesn't hold up. Matching up two vectors of linear movement isn't hard. Seriously at all. The giant ship is moving straight at her ship. She goes along the same line in the opposite direction. Boom, done. The 'maneuver' is actually really simple. She just blasts through another ship with hyperspeed engaged. Preventing it would be very difficult, but doing it is dead simple.
To be fair, it seemed a bit far-fetched when she took out almost the whole fleet.
The bigger issue, though is that they have a fleet of Star Destroyers - including a super-big one(oo-er) and yet they don't have enough fighters and bombers to take down a single crusier and a frigate? And they are worried about not getting covering fire from the crusiers?
Yet back in 1994, we were sent out to clear a mine field in an unshielded craft!
Star Wars does not deserve to be thought about. The people writing it don't think about it, they make it up as they go along. It is schlock, it is not a serious subject. It is a big budget B movie. When I watch Godzilla, I am not thinking "Wait, radiation doesn't work like that!" because I know what I am watching. It bugs me, of course! But like, so do the bombs falling zero gravity, the noises in space, Han Solo not wearing a space suit when he disembarks from the Falcon inside the weird asteroid monster, the likelyhood of said asteroid monster existing, the fact that all the planets and also places like Endor have Earth gravity and breathable atmospheres and so on and so on.
I am not equating "any criticism", I am sayiing that a lot of (not all of, so feel free to exclude yourself if you don't think this applies to you) criticism for Holdo seems to be coming from a position of not liking the character for other reasons.
Coolness? I mean okay, but then why are you watching Star Wars at all? Rule of cool is the only thing that keeps this show on the road.
I think the important words in my quoted post that I perhaps didn't emphasise was "things like this". By that I mean, things that are popular because they look and feel cool and have a good (ish) story attached to them but are actually pretty dumb schlock that the creators made up as they went along.
One of the biggest weaknesses of the prequels and the sequels to me is the focus on the Force all the time. The Force, Light Side and Dark Side is some of the most half baked crap in the movies. It works as a mysterious otherworldly source of mystery, a hint of the divine in this story. But once you start systemising it and nailing it down it becomes a set of super powers rather than a mystery, and once the philosophy that is supposed to go behind the Force is shown it starts to fall apart. Celibate Jedi, but the force is genetic? Only 2 sith at a time, but they are always trying to lure more people in? Jedi are weird unemotional freaks and Sith are all raving lunatics.
But who cares, did you see the new force power in the movie?! (btw, I love dumb schlock. )
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Dudes, Holdo was either force sensitive or that @#$% good or that %$#@ lucky.
There isn't any particular reason to think the former, and the latter doesn't hold up. Matching up two vectors of linear movement isn't hard. Seriously at all. The giant ship is moving straight at her ship. She goes along the same line in the opposite direction. Boom, done. The 'maneuver' is actually really simple. She just blasts through another ship with hyperspeed engaged. Preventing it would be very difficult, but doing it is dead simple.
Yeah hitting something is easy, hitting something with defenses and force fields and suchwot is hard. Hence luck/good/magical, pick one.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Dudes, Holdo was either force sensitive or that @#$% good or that %$#@ lucky.
"It was a one in a million shot" and she did it. Done. Other people can't. Droids can't.
But why? Just saying "that was one in a million" doesn't really work when we aren't told or shown what about it was particularly difficult.
I'm more than happy to buy that droids can't do it, in the same way that droids in Star Wars exist as this weird mix of sentient and slave being (C-3PO no being able to speak Sith, despite wanting to, because of programming issues - and seeing that suicide droids aren't really a thing, I guess, programming one with the express intent to act as a lightspeed torpedo delivery system isn't possible). I'm happy to accept that. But why can't other humans do it? Why is it a "one in a million" shot? Why would those characters come to that conclusion? What thing about it was so difficult it could never be done before? Why does a Force Sensitive need to be the one to do it? What did the force have to do with anything? It's not like it was a really difficult shot, or being able to predict something. It was as simple as facing something, and pulling the hyperspace lever.
If Rian had demonstrated that she did something that was incredibly difficult or shown somehow why it wasn't just done by any particularly desperate pilot, then maybe I'd be fine with it. But in the film itself, we get nothing, and it's shown to be no more difficult than Finn driving straight at the Death Star laser on treads, and in the film after, it's handwaved by a "it's a one in a million move" without explaining why.
Basically, I don't need an explanation for things that are shown to be possible, or for things that simply aren't done (like why lasers don't travel at the speed of light, or why there's sound in space, or what the Force is). I do want explanations for when things happen that have never been done before, and why they weren't done before - like the Holdo Maneuver, or Force Healing.
Like the hyperspace skipping, I figure it's an extension of what Han did in SW7, Han can do it, Poe can do it, the Falcon can do it. A whole bunch of TIEs tried and died. Prior movies established the Empire can track through hyperspace, so a new counter had to be tried. It works for me.
But why can Han do it in SW7, when all 6 films prior have demonstrated that this simply isn't done?
I'm okay with things not being possible "because we've never seen it done". I'm less okay with things being able to be done, when there's no reason they shouldn't be possible earlier on.
Even if the *First Order hadn't invented hyperspace tracking, there's still plenty of cases where people would want to use hyperspace skipping - the blockade of Naboo, Jango Fett escaping from Kamino, the blockade of Ryloth and other planets in the Clone Wars, the Rebel fleet escaping Hoth, etc etc. The fact that blockades exist in the Star Wars universe would suggest that they're useful to some degree. Including things like hyperspace skipping calls the existence of such blockades into question.
Similarly, we aren't told of any sort of technical improvement or innovation that would suddenly make hyperspace skipping or Holdo Maneuvers suddenly possible - if one had been included ("gee, I'm sure glad we upgraded the Falcon with that new hyperspace technology they've just created from Convenientia!") it would be far less headscratching.
It's a heroic universe.
Good heroic universes still have consistency. They don't need to be grounded in reality, and not everything needs to be explained, but they're still consistent.
Superman is weak to kryptonite. Why? He just is. There's probably explanations, some of them probably conflicting, but the general point is that he is weak to it. If Superman suddenly came along a piece of kryptonite, and wasn't made weaker as a result, then that would require an explanation.
In Star Wars, it is established through 6 films that ships are limited in where they can use lightspeed. They still need to use sub-light movement to travel to and from planets and dock. They are never used as weapons, only as a fast method of transport. I don't need an explanation why, because that's what's been established. When that established knowledge is undermined, I want to know why.
Batman can swing around Gotham City without dislocating his shoulders or missing a rope and falling to his death. No one asks why GCPD doesn't do that too.
Because it's established that superheroes can do that, where superheroes can survive massive beatings and bludgeonings because "we're the superheroes".
They can do it because they've always been able to do it, and we've never seen the GCPD do it, to therefore they can't.
In Star Wars, ships haven't been seen used as lightspeed projectiles, therefore, they cannot do it, without explicit explanation. Ships are never seen using lightspeed to land straight on a planet, therefore it cannot be done without explanation.
Is it too much to ask for basic continuity to be kept in fictional universes? Or, when another sequel or prequel of another property comes out that violates the established rules of that setting, I should just sit back and pretend that nothing's happening? I'm not saying "it's the end of the world, they're messing with a fictional universe, oh the humanity!". I'm saying "is it really so hard to not mess up the consistency of a pretty simple universe, and you couldn't have done anything else instead?"
You guys defending SW don’t realize it is making fun of you.
In the very same movie that the Holdo Maneuver is said to be one-in-a-million, the same maneuver is shown to have been performed again in the celebration montage in the shot over Endor.
And we have people here insisting Holdo is Force-sensitive in order to rationalize this garbage.
And defnding something by insisting it’s dumb is its own can of worms, btw.
Sure it did. Starwars episode 4. How does the Falcon lift straight up into the air with no jets on it's bottom and without disturbing the ground AT ALL. Nobody is blasted away by the force needed to propel that big of a metal ship up off the ground and then away at speed. Why does luke just have a grappling hook? Hes a farm boy. Why is the galactic empire so inept that a ship is pulled into their secret base with tractor beams but the ship is able to take off and leave? Why are space fights handled like WW1 dog fights with people looking out windows to see targets? Why is there a droid language at all? Shouldn't all droid only speak in a users language? How come when the guy gets his arm chopped off there is blood but when obiwan gets cut he turns into a pile of robes? BTW, his robes don't get cut at all. They just drop to the ground as though vader hit them with a wiffle-ball bat. Why can't stormtroopers hit ANYTHING.
There is more. SW is dumb. It's dumb fantasy in space. It's enjoyably dumb, but you only have to start thinking about it a little bit and it's easy to see just how little sense any of it makes.
At some point the fault is on the viewer for expecting more science and consistency, and not with the movie failing to deliver more than space fantasy.
And that's okay. It's okay for things not to make sense in a fictional universe compared to real life.
What is less okay is when things don't make sense within the established rules and logic of the fiction itself.
No-one's saying "Star Wars always made sense and there was no kind of suspension of disbelief!" Yeah, the first episode has all the things you've described - but that's the first episode, and those things just are possible, because they are. It's when previously established things are called into question because someone decided that lightspeed worked differently that people get antsy.
d-usa wrote: At some point the fault is on the viewer for expecting more science and consistency, and not with the movie failing to deliver more than space fantasy.
Science, yes, but consistency? I disagree - I don't think it should ever be an audience's fault for expecting consistency, or at the very least, an explanation for the inconsistency. Maybe in a small budget student, fan or indie film, I can understand overlooking something like that.
But for a film as large as this, with the House of Mouse behind it, with a whole Story Team behind it? No chance. For a film with apparently a $275 billion budget (Ep. 9, that is), I'd expect them to do a lot better.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:And that's okay. It's okay for things not to make sense in a fictional universe compared to real life.
What is less okay is when things don't make sense within the established rules and logic of the fiction itself.
No-one's saying "Star Wars always made sense and there was no kind of suspension of disbelief!" Yeah, the first episode has all the things you've described - but that's the first episode, and those things just are possible, because they are. It's when previously established things are called into question because someone decided that lightspeed worked differently that people get antsy.
Okay. At no point in any scene past the guy loosing his arm in Mos Isley is there blood from a light saber. So starwars stopped being consistent with it's own rules after a single scene establishing the rules of light sabers. Again, it's always been this dumb.
Manchu wrote:“Dumb” is not a synonym for fantasy. Kind of surprising to need to post this.
Agree. I didn't say fantasy was dumb. I said Starwars was dumb.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
d-usa wrote: At some point the fault is on the viewer for expecting more science and consistency, and not with the movie failing to deliver more than space fantasy.
Science, yes, but consistency? I disagree - I don't think it should ever be an audience's fault for expecting consistency, or at the very least, an explanation for the inconsistency. Maybe in a small budget student, fan or indie film, I can understand overlooking something like that. But for a film as large as this, with the House of Mouse behind it, with a whole Story Team behind it? No chance. For a film with apparently a $275 billion budget (Ep. 9, that is), I'd expect them to do a lot better.
Look above about the blood. If you are 9 movies in an expecting consistency after the lack of it in the orig trig and then the butchering of it in the prequels then what are you even watching these for anymore? This is what SW has always been.
Sgt Smudge, you are really being impressively patient about this, considering this isn’t the first or even second time we’ve been on this particular merry go round. I salute you!
d-usa wrote: At some point the fault is on the viewer for expecting more science and consistency, and not with the movie failing to deliver more than space fantasy.
Science, yes, but consistency? I disagree - I don't think it should ever be an audience's fault for expecting consistency, or at the very least, an explanation for the inconsistency. Maybe in a small budget student, fan or indie film, I can understand overlooking something like that.
But for a film as large as this, with the House of Mouse behind it, with a whole Story Team behind it? No chance. For a film with apparently a $275 billion budget (Ep. 9, that is), I'd expect them to do a lot better.
The Empire Strikes Back was inconsistent with what was established in A New Hope. Every single movie has been inconsistent and hasn’t bothered to explain stuff.
So if you are walking into RoS expecting that to suddenly not be a problem, then you just might be the problem.
Just saw it. Maybe Cats got me in the mood to laugh at bad decisions, but I started laughing at
Spoiler:
”The Dead Speak!”
and mostly kept on at least chuckling.
PS: my wife thinks I’m super nerdy for noticing this, but did anyone else enjoy the measure of pettiness it takes to replace the cockpit of Kylo’s TIE Silencer, the best ship design in the sequel trilogy, with a JJ-style TIE/fo ball?
PPS: <3 The bad guy from Hudson Hawk <3
Automatically Appended Next Post: Different aliens’ blood cauterizes differently?
Oh, and we were amused by the
Spoiler:
ship dongs...and that the space battle had more shots to the nuts
Sgt_Smudge wrote:And that's okay. It's okay for things not to make sense in a fictional universe compared to real life.
What is less okay is when things don't make sense within the established rules and logic of the fiction itself.
No-one's saying "Star Wars always made sense and there was no kind of suspension of disbelief!" Yeah, the first episode has all the things you've described - but that's the first episode, and those things just are possible, because they are. It's when previously established things are called into question because someone decided that lightspeed worked differently that people get antsy.
Okay. At no point in any scene past the guy loosing his arm in Mos Isley is there blood from a light saber.
*Is* that blood? Maybe it's something else.
Maybe, because the guy's an alien, it's alien blood that reacts differently.
But, that's the establishing scene. As I recall, we don't see a lightsaber used offensively before that.
As for Kenobi being cut in half, he's a space wizard. It's not just a random guy having an arm lopped off in a bar brawl. It's a Jedi, clearly in some form of meditation, and considering we later have him speaking to Luke via the Force, this works. It's another establishment - that when a Jedi who is one with the Force dies, they just disappear - something reinforced with Yoda's death and Luke's.
So starwars stopped being consistent with it's own rules after a single scene establishing the rules of light sabers.
That's not what happened.
They established what a lightsaber could do to an alien. Later on, far after the first "single scene", a completely different set of circumstances occur.
The main "rule" of the lightsaber is that it's a energy sword of some kind, that projects a beam of light that can cut through things and deflect blaster bolts. We don't need to know about how and why it does this, only that it does. If something comes along and changes that without altering the context, then that's something that needs addressing.
Again, it's always been this dumb.
To you, perhaps, but you're welcome to your opinion.
d-usa wrote:The Empire Strikes Back was inconsistent with what was established in A New Hope. Every single movie has been inconsistent and hasn’t bothered to explain stuff.
Manchu wrote: How exactly is ESB inconsistent with ANH?
Spoiler:
Ep.4
Ep.5
Thank you for elaborating. Now, if I may show how those don't really show inconsistencies: In ANH, the lightsaber is established primarily as being able to cut through, well, anything, but especially limbs and people. It just so happens that in this case, there was something that "looked" like blood. Was it? Maybe. Because he's an alien, maybe it's alien blood, that works in a different way and didn't cauterise. The main point is that "lightsabers cut through limbs".
In the Wampa Cave, it is consistent that a lightsaber cuts through limbs and body parts. However, no blood - why is this? Well, the Wampa is still an alien. Maybe it just bleeds out slower. Maybe, because of the freezing conditions, it's not going to be pumping out blood. But at the very least, there's clearly a different context - new species, new planet. The context has changed.
In the last example, the ability of lightsabers to cut through limbs is still present. We don't see Luke bleed - why? Maybe because only the alien in the first film bleeds, or that wasn't even blood to start with! Luke also gets to clutching his hand away VERY quickly, and so we're not exactly treated to examining his blood flow.
As I see it, these don't contradict eachother at all, and neither are exactly important to the plot if they bleed or not.
But when plot problems that would be crippling for one trilogy would be totally circumvented by solutions only shown in another, that creates problems. Why would the Trade Federation blockade Naboo if the Naboo could just hyperspace skip? Why would the Rebels try to fire torpedos down the Death Star shaft, when they could just ram X-Wings in at lightspeed? Why wouldn't Vader just Force Heal his own crippling injuries, or Palpatine heal himself after Mace Windu nearly defeats him?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should again clarify that I don’t think that many of the complaints are inaccurate, it’s just that they’ve always been the same issue and expecting them to change now seems strange.
d-usa wrote: Your father is dead and killed by Vader vs Your father is Vader.
Which is explained. Hence my whole point of "explain things that don't make sense". If JJ had explained WHY the Holdo Maneuver was "one in a million", then I wouldn't be complaining about why nobody else uses it.
It's why I'm not really complaining about Snoke any more - because we see who Snoke was (generally speaking).
Darth Vader is an underling to a Moff vs Darth Vader is 2nd in command of the Empire.
*Grand* Moff, who dies before the second film. And I didn't exactly get the impression that Vader was an underling to Tarkin, rather that Vader was outside the chain of command, and acted as an enforcer.
Did blowing up Alderan actually accomplish anything?
Yes - to demonstrate to Leia (and the audience) the power of the Death Star.
Is it ever mentioned again at any point?
I believe it is, when Leia reaches Yavin IV. As for after ANH, I believe it *might* be mentioned in RotJ. However, as the primary narrative importance of Alderaan is essentially as a redshirt for the Death Star to kill off, I think it serves it's purpose alone in ANH.
When did Darth Vader find time between the two movies to train in sword fighting?
The entire time between the two movies? And I didn't get the impression that he was untrained to begin with.
The easy things that come to mind.
Not really. None of them pose as an inconsistency to me.
Palpatine's face, that's one, but because it's importance to the plot is negligible, it's not a massive plot point (unlike "we destroyed the enemy fleet by lightspeed ramming them!")
Because if it works reliably it entirely breaks the space combat in half. Capital ships are worthless, you just deadfire the smallest possible vehicle you can strap a hyperspace engine to, and win, every time. Computing is advanced enough that you don't even have to use people, its simple vector intersection. The only effective ships become small ships and fighters that are fast enough that they can't be targeted reliably in that fashion. Everything else is just a target that hasn't been blown up yet.
And given how long hyperspace travel has been around in the setting (there are thousands of years of history, basically using the same ships, and a lot of space battles), the idea that no one had done it before is pants on head stupid and unlikely. In a universe where the Holdo Maneuver works, star destroyers and deaths stars would never be considered viable, and never would have been built,
So, by introducing the 'Holdo Maneuver,' Johnson basically destroyed how space combat in the SW setting works. The 'one in a million' is Abrams tossing out an easy dialogue fix to a Johnson problem so he doesn't have to deal with it.
And in addition to that, it also makes the death star and it's successors completely pointless. Just strap a hyperdrive onto a decent sized asteroid and away you go. Sure, the planetary mass will still be there... completely molten, all the way through. Sterilized and stripped of it's volatile compounds like air and water. It's for certain nothing survives. And it not only solves the problem of what to do with rebellious planets, but leaves the planetary mineral resources right there, easily found.
There was nothing about any of the sequels that "forced"* them into making the inconsistencies they did. I'll go over a few: TFA - "We can't just land, there's an energy field over the planet that stops us getting in! We'll need to use lightspeed to end up inside the field, even though doing lightspeed in orbit isn't a thing!" Correction - "There's a massive battery of defence guns, that would prevent any massed fleet getting near. We'll need to send in a single craft, maybe with a cloaking device, and slip past them to disable the guns!" OR "There's massive battery of guns, but we have a rebel Stormtrooper and a captured First Order ship (perhaps from the Takodana battle) who can fly us in unnoticed, just like we were one of them!"
TLJ - "The only way to save the escape pods is to hyperspace ram!" Correction - "I could shield the escape pods with the bulk of my ship, even though such an action will kill me!" or even simpler "I'll just drive at full speed (sub light) into the distracted First Order flagship, and, through luck and their own distractedness with the escape craft, ram into them at sub-light speed (like we see many ships in Star Wars do).
RoS - "We need to lose these TIE fighters by hyperspace skipping!" Correction - "Let's just lose them in an asteroid field with some impressive flying skills!"
Small things, that add up to the same result, without the inconsistencies.
You now, outside of the movies, making an argument that that aliens blood doesn't cauterize is just that. You, now, coming up with an excuse to explain it away. It's not explained in the movie. We see one thing the first time it's used. And we see something different every time after that. There is no in universe explanation. It's just George deciding that he wanted to market more towards kids and blood was probably a bad choice.
None of your TFA solutions require the “best pilot and best ship” to participate in the mission though. They build Han and the Falcon up to such a mythological status that they needed a stupid hard mission to justify using them rather than Expandable Rebel Pilot Extra #3.
As far as Alderan, it didn’t even accomplish getting Leia to spill the beans. So it didn’t actually do anything.
Overall, this movie made me sad. It made me sad because it was actually a good movie, that had been preceded by two movies with completely inconsistent plots and non-existent character development.
If the prior two movies had done a decent job of setting up the plot, this movie would actually have been, well, amazing. It was a grand finale in desperate need of some foreshadowing and setup.
The whole Palpatine angle would have worked amazingly, if they had actually set it up in the previous two movies. If Rey had had related visions of Palpatine, her being on the throne of the Sith, etc... If maybe we had seen Palpatine's mysterious transmission on-screen.
Stupid things in the movie.
Hux being the Resistance informant and getting unceremoniously killed off. I mean, 1) It is completely out of his established character. He literally gave us a Star Wars Nuremberg Rally speech, but now he's working with the good guys? Yeah, he hates Kylo, but he would never stoop to working with the enemy. 2) This story arc served no purpose other than some mcguffin for them to escape being captured, which could have been done in many other ways.
Kylo/Ben Solo dying. I confess I was a Reylo fan. But him dying was unnecessary and sort of robbed us of a happy ending. We got a bittersweet and unsatisfying ending, but I'm not sure I was expecting anything more.
Lance845 wrote: SW has weird technology. There is computing but it's all done manually and analog instead of digital. A droid can calculate a hyperspace jump, but it has to touch controls to input the data the pull a lever to do it.
Despite being able to build droids, ships don't have AI's.
And worse, SW tech is more or less stagnant until someone wants to build a ever bigger gun.
Thats the world that SW started with. It's how it is in the old republic, the new republic, the empire, and that SW comic where it's like 20 generations later and lukes descendant is a thief and a pirate or some crap.
You can't argue things like "Why don't they just put a hyperdrive into what amounts to a bullet with a droid brain programmed to fire at targets". Because nobody ever has so nobody ever will. Thats Starwars. It's dumb.
Which does explain why the Empire went to such great lengths to get Galen Erso to work on the Death Star. Apparently people who could genuinely innovate are vanishingly rare in the SW galaxy.
There's one minute thing that impressed me in the most recent movie. Despite being played by many different actors and voice actors Palpatine always seems to sound exactly the same. He has the same ham, the same tone, the same volume. It amazes me that this character always feel and sound the same no matter who is playing him.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. What’s the implication on the setting? Nothing whatsoever.
Can a starship jumping to hyperspace be used as a superweapon?
Well, what would the implication be? Uh, it would dramatically affect the balance of power in the galaxy to say nothing of fundamentally disrupting the specific plot of the previous movies.
If this distinction is lost on you, you are likely to be a fan of anything Disney expects you to buy.
@d-usa, based on your proffered examples, I don’t think we share the same concept of inconsistency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
epronovost wrote: There's one minute thing that impressed me in the most recent movie. Despite being played by many different actors and voice actors Palpatine always seems to sound exactly the same. He has the same ham, the same tone, the same volume. It amazes me that this character always feel and sound the same no matter who is playing him.
Palpatine was played by Ian McDairmid in the special edition of ESB, in RotJ, in TPM, AotC, RotS, and now also TROS.
Except they are. For example, the Imperial Probe Droid on Hoth. Once you have that, having one programmed to do a hyperdrive ram isn't any harder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: None of your TFA solutions require the “best pilot and best ship” to participate in the mission though. They build Han and the Falcon up to such a mythological status that they needed a stupid hard mission to justify using them rather than Expandable Rebel Pilot Extra #3.
As far as Alderan, it didn’t even accomplish getting Leia to spill the beans. So it didn’t actually do anything.
It did plenty. Among other things, it established that Grand Moff Tarkin and the Empire would do literally anything to rule the galaxy, including killing millions of people and destroying all the resources of a planet. It shows the Empire is capital E.V.I.L. on a scale even 1930s Germany would be intimidated by.
It also gets the Death Star, and Princess Leia, to Alderaan so the heroes en route to Alderaan can rescue her and learn where to go next. If the Empire doesn't blow up Alderaan, the princess dies in captivity and the Death Star plans never make it to the Rebellion in Yavin IV.
Lance845 wrote: SW has weird technology. There is computing but it's all done manually and analog instead of digital. A droid can calculate a hyperspace jump, but it has to touch controls to input the data the pull a lever to do it.
Despite being able to build droids, ships don't have AI's.
And worse, SW tech is more or less stagnant until someone wants to build a ever bigger gun.
Thats the world that SW started with. It's how it is in the old republic, the new republic, the empire, and that SW comic where it's like 20 generations later and lukes descendant is a thief and a pirate or some crap.
You can't argue things like "Why don't they just put a hyperdrive into what amounts to a bullet with a droid brain programmed to fire at targets". Because nobody ever has so nobody ever will. Thats Starwars. It's dumb.
Which does explain why the Empire went to such great lengths to get Galen Erso to work on the Death Star. Apparently people who could genuinely innovate are vanishingly rare in the SW galaxy.
Its like elves in fantasy. They live for 800 years but in 4 life times nobody has figured out firearms? Its still just the same level of tech as everyone else? Yup. In 10,000 years sw tech is the same it always was.
The Star Wars universe is kinda meant to be incredibly old. In terms of its society. There has been a more or less continuous galactic civilization for untold aeons. There may not be complete recorded history, and much of it has become legend, but all of the galaxy's spacefaring civilizations have had constant contact with each other unbroken for tens of thousands of years. So much so that many species don't even remember what their homeworld was.
Presumably this melting pot of millions of different species has mostly exhausted the limits of their technology. Their existing technology also sees to all of their needs just fine. Meaning there is little incentive for innovation as its all been done and what more could you need? You can make robot servants to cater to your every whim, advanced enough that they can achieve sentience. Most of their technology is bordering on the miraculous in terms of what it actually does, but its also worn and stretched thin. Everything is used and battered. The only innovation that exists is trying to find some lost technology from a great civilization of the past and harness it in a new and clever way, usually by making it into a ridiculously huge gun.
Even the Death Star is not really any new technology. At its core its really just using the same technology as a lightsaber, and that tech predates most of the histories of the Star Wars universe.
Small things, that add up to the same result, without the inconsistencies.
The inconsistencies also go away if you ignore the EU, as the movies are doing, and as Lucas did whenever it suited him to do things differently.
The idea that gravity wells pulled ships out of hyperspace was from the EU, and never made much sense given Han's comment in ANH about flying through a star making for an unpleasant experience. It was one of the bigger errors introduced by the EU, up there with putting a space station in Han (it's too big to be a space station) Solo's home system that was even bigger than the Death Star.
Lance845 wrote:You now, outside of the movies, making an argument that that aliens blood doesn't cauterize is just that. You, now, coming up with an excuse to explain it away. It's not explained in the movie. We see one thing the first time it's used. And we see something different every time after that. There is no in universe explanation. It's just George deciding that he wanted to market more towards kids and blood was probably a bad choice.
Yep, there's no explanation, it just is, and we're told to just accept that. And for something as utterly forgettable and unimportant to the plot, I don't think that's hard to ask.
But when certain key events happen that call into question the very fundamental aspects of some key parts of the setting, those aren't so easy to ignore. "That lightsaber didn't cause a fountain of blood!" is a very weak criticism compared to "If the Resistance can solve their problems using lightspeed ramming, why doesn't everyone?" It's pandora's box - the moment something like that is added, it retroactively calls every prior film into question, and without addressing why it was only done in that unique moment, it sticks out.
Unless you can't tell the difference between a bit of set dressing and a key part of a story's plot, a bit of blood and hyperspace ramming are very much different concerns.
d-usa wrote:None of your TFA solutions require the “best pilot and best ship” to participate in the mission though. They build Han and the Falcon up to such a mythological status that they needed a stupid hard mission to justify using them rather than Expandable Rebel Pilot Extra #3.
No, but Han still has personal stakes to go, and as a hero of the Resistance (he is a war hero, and more than likely very experienced). In my revision, he insists on going, saying that if they want the best chance of it succeeding, they'd send him, the person with the most experience sneaking into places than anyone else, and Leia, knowing that Han also intends to "save" Kylo, agrees.
As far as Alderan, it didn’t even accomplish getting Leia to spill the beans. So it didn’t actually do anything.
In universe, it works to essentially prove to Leia that they believe they're in control, and to demoralise her. Out of universe, it works to show us the Empire are DEFINITELY bad, and what the Death Star does.
Grey Templar wrote:Hux being the Resistance informant and getting unceremoniously killed off. I mean, 1) It is completely out of his established character. He literally gave us a Star Wars Nuremberg Rally speech, but now he's working with the good guys? Yeah, he hates Kylo, but he would never stoop to working with the enemy. 2) This story arc served no purpose other than some mcguffin for them to escape being captured, which could have been done in many other ways.
Pryde should almost certainly have been replaced by Hux. Get rid of the spy, or just have it be another rogue Stormtrooper, who might have been in Finn's unit, but keep Hux as the Tarkin-esque leader of the First Order.
I mostly attribute TLJ making his character lean too much on the comedic side and played for laughs ("Hugs?" This is Hux!") which would have made him suddenly going back to being how he was in TFA feel very jarring. As a result, they needed to bring in another "evil admiral" figure.
Manchu wrote:Does a lightsaber wound bleed?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. What’s the implication on the setting? Nothing whatsoever.
Can a starship jumping to hyperspace be used as a superweapon?
Well, what would the implication be? Uh, it would dramatically affect the balance of power in the galaxy to say nothing of fundamentally disrupting the specific plot of the previous movies.
If this distinction is lost on you, you are likely to be a fan of anything Disney expects you to buy.
Exactly. A lightsaber wound bleeding has a negligible impact on the plot. The rules and limitations of lightspeed changing without a shift in technological innovation does, because the plots of many films could have changed drastically with access to hyperspace rams and being able to ignore blockades and energy fields.
epronovost wrote: There's one minute thing that impressed me in the most recent movie. Despite being played by many different actors and voice actors Palpatine always seems to sound exactly the same. He has the same ham, the same tone, the same volume. It amazes me that this character always feel and sound the same no matter who is playing him.
Palpatine was played by Ian McDairmid in the special edition of ESB, in RotJ, in TPM, AotC, RotS, and now also TROS.
He even reprises the role in Rebels. He *might* be in some episodes of Clone Wars, but I think someone else does the majority of his lines there.
Except they are. For example, the Imperial Probe Droid on Hoth. Once you have that, having one programmed to do a hyperdrive ram isn't any harder.
Ah, my mistake. Although giving probe droid lightspeed tech might not be possible for whatever reason, they are apparently capable to self-destruction.
Small things, that add up to the same result, without the inconsistencies.
The inconsistencies also go away if you ignore the EU, as the movies are doing, and as Lucas did whenever it suited him to do things differently.
The idea that gravity wells pulled ships out of hyperspace was from the EU, and never made much sense given Han's comment in ANH about flying through a star making for an unpleasant experience. It was one of the bigger errors introduced by the EU, up there with putting a space station in Han (it's too big to be a space station) Solo's home system that was even bigger than the Death Star.
I never really read the EU - my understanding was completely based on the films and TV shows. I just accepted that, because we didn't see any ships doing lightspeed skipping or Holdo Maneuvers, that such things were not possible.
Them being introduced now, EU or no EU, retroactively makes other films weaker.
insaniak wrote: If nothing could happen that hasn't been previously shown, all of the movies after the first one would have been considerably duller...
That's not what I mean - new things are great, until they start rewriting what can and cannot be done with key plot points.
For example, in the prequels, we see double ended lightsabers. That's cool, but not everyone has them, even in the prequels, and Maul having a double-ended lightsaber is never plot critical, so it doesn't negatively affect continuity.
I might add, the prequels definitely do cause continuity problems in places, but they never feel as egregious as the ones in the sequels IMO.
The thing is, the hyperspace ram and the jump into the planet's atmosphere are, once you discount the EU, only continuity errors if you choose to make them such.
We're told that jumping so close to a planet is a bad idea, and then that bad idea plays out on screen. There's your explanation right there for why he hasn't performed that maneouvre before...
Likewise, we've now been told that the Holdo Maneouvre was a one in a million chance. So that's why it hasn't been a common tactic...and while it would be nice to have an 'official' explanation as to why, it doesn't take a heck of a lot of imagination to come up with a headcannon reason - I assumed from the start that it was just a particularly lucky congruence of placement and ship mass that would be difficult to replicate, and moved on.
We're also shown why Hyperspace Skipping is a bad idea... Illustrated with a ship that's on fire. So, again, not something that is generally done, and Han gave us the reason way back in the first movie... Not that it was impossible, just that it wasn't a good idea.
At the end of the day, when something doesn't seem to quite fit, I'd rather assume there's an explanation that we just haven't been given yet and get on with enjoying the movie than to fixate on the details. YMMV, obviously.
So having seen it now (yes, I commented before I saw it!) -Actors, artists and designers did an amazing job on this film and deserve praise. - Specific parts were well directed as well, so Abrams is not a total waste of space. - Man, the plot and script were terrible! - Weirdly petty toward TLJ, which strikes me as unprofessional. Would have thought the Mouse would have prevented that sort of nonsense.
The film is structurally a mess. Individual scenes are well done, but the premise and overall execution is terrible.
My favourite part was the McGuffin chase, the ending was really pretty bad.
And CGI Carrie Fisher is about as good at acting as IRL Carrie Fisher.
Really? I would have thought this was obvious!Well, they pretty much went out of their way to undo everything from that movie in a really blatant way. Rose was sidelined, they reversed the throwing the lightsaber away scene, they undid the Rey is no one scene and so on. I felt it was quite obviously a bit of a slap down to Rian Johnson, and okay I suppose, Rian Johnsons movie was basically saying "All these mystery box things are stupid, lets resolve them!", leaving Abrams in a difficult position.
I am just surprised that Disney, of all corporations, let two creatives get into a pissing contest in a multibillion dollar franchise like this. Seems really really badly organised from an outsiders point of view, I would have thought they would have had a broad strokes plan sketched out from the start, particularly if the idea was to have each film directed and written by a different person.
I think you're reading far more animosity into it than was actually present.
The Lightsaber scene was a throwaway line for a quick laugh. Rey's parents were still nobody - we're not even told their names. And Rose... Well, she's still there, but there were a lot of characters to keep track of as it was, so not too surprising that she didn't have much to do in this one.
For what it's worth, I agree that it's mind-boggling that Disney didn't insist on the trilogy being properly mapped out from the start and the directors directly collaborating to get it where it needed to go. And JJ certainly had to bend some bits a little to make them fit where he wanted them to go... But I think it's reaching to suggest that there was anything malicious about it.
I admit, like Da Boss, when I saw Luke catch the light sabre and say "a jedi's weapon deserves more respect" or whatever it was, it did feel like JJ was pissing on Rian a bit there, but one person's "pissing on" is another's "joking" I guess.
In addition to the Rey parents thing and Rose being ignored (they even added Monaghan's character who basically could have just been Rose), you also had Kylo's mask being remade, bringing back the Knights of Ren that TLJ completely ignored and it seemed like Rian might have been going somewhere with the force sensitive kid at the end of TLJ (though maybe he wasn't).
The three movies all feel quite disconnected, with TLJ feeling like an interruption to the TFA and TROS movies.
Maybe if I didn't know they were different directors, I might not have noticed though, but then the reason I know they were different directors was because of how jarring TLJ was, I possibly never would have found out if it was more consistent in the first place.
TBF I reckoned this was always something of a planned change/reveal -- much like how Luke and Vader's relationship was altered in the original trilogy.
insaniak wrote: Likewise, we've now been told that the Holdo Maneouvre was a one in a million chance.
Again, we’re told it’s one-in-a-million then shown that it happens again in the same movie.
I'd have to go back and watch it again but I got the feeling that ships were just going down all across the galaxy. Outside of the slight whiteness that all of them had I didnt see any relation to the holdo results. Could be wrong I guess.
I am just surprised that Disney, of all corporations, let two creatives get into a pissing contest in a multibillion dollar franchise like this. Seems really really badly organised from an outsiders point of view, I would have thought they would have had a broad strokes plan sketched out from the start, particularly if the idea was to have each film directed and written by a different person.
The lack of a plan, or a willingness to chuck it in the bin at a moments notice, is a surprise to me in many big film and computer game series!
I can understand when it's like Pirates of the Carribean, where metro-sexual zombie pirates were a surprise hit and they had to spin it out into another 4 films, but I guess maybe I'm underestimating how many edits/ reshoots are caused by focus groups, exectutives, fan feedback, prevailing market trends etc.
Even Georgie Porgie at the peak of his creative freedom was forced to write Jar Jar out of the prequels.
He was clearly a big fan of the character and Jar Jar got a huge push in terms of marketting and merchendising when The Phantom Menace released.
When the man holding the purse strings gets worried, you have to bend the knee no matter how it impacts your artistic vision.
insaniak wrote:At the end of the day, when something doesn't seem to quite fit, I'd rather assume there's an explanation that we just haven't been given yet and get on with enjoying the movie than to fixate on the details. YMMV, obviously.
That's fair enough. For me, when something doesn't fit, depending on how egregiously, I assume it's a mistake or error, but am happy to call it canon if it's later explained/reinforced.
That's why I'm not as bothered about Snoke as I was, but I'm very bothered about their treatment of lightspeed.
As other have said:
Luke catching the lightsaber ("a Jedi weapon deserves more respect" - yet he tosses it over his shoulder in the film prior)
Rose being sidelined and replaced with characters who spring out from nowhere (I like Dominic, but we already have Rose. Unfortunately, I have a suspicion that she was cut out largely because of her character being hated because of RJ's terrible writing choices re. Canto Bight and "not by destroying what we hate, but saving what we love", which is disgusting on Disney's part).
Kylo's helmet being reforged, for no real reason beyond "it's iconic". (I thought he'd abandoned the whole "trying to be the new Vader" thing?)
It is a lot like if you found out that Darth Vader was Luke's father (a twist that was controversial at the time, remember) and then the next movie they were like "Nah just kidding!"
Nobody needs to nitpick these movies to criticize them. They are nightmare level disasters on the macro scale, including their very structure. I accept that people can enjoy terrible movies, I do too. I don’t try to gaslight the people who point out that they’re terrible.
I agree with that. What is sad is that obviously a lot of care and attention goes into the visuals, and I think the actors are trying pretty hard. But the people making the film just don't seem to think basics like plot and script are that important, resulting in structural collapse of these otherwise carefully made and well acted films.
It is baffling. The guy that co-wrote this also apparently co-wrote Batman Vs. Superman and Justice League. I mean, why would Disney give this film to someone with a track record of failure so recent? And how could they make a purchase worth billions and then have no real idea of what they were going to do with it other than a release schedule and some bullet points?
I mean, now that I think about it, most managers and senior executive types I have ever worked with have been incompetents who have failed upward, but it really stands out with these films.
Rose being sidelined and replaced with characters who spring out from nowhere (I like Dominic, but we already have Rose. Unfortunately, I have a suspicion that she was cut out largely because of her character being hated because of RJ's terrible writing choices re. Canto Bight and "not by destroying what we hate, but saving what we love", which is disgusting on Disney's part).
I thought that too, but there was an article the other day from an interview with the writers and apparently they actually had a bunch of Rose scenes filmed and a whole arc back at the base with Rose & Leia, but the GFX they used to create new Leia scenes wasn't turning out that great and they chose to chop out those scenes instead of pour more resources into getting it to look OK.
As for Holdo Maneuver, they should have just said it had something to do with the hyperspace tracking, which also wasn't a thing before TLJ. In fact they made it out to be such a big deal in TLJ that it strikes me as the obvious McGuffin for a writer to use to handwave away why hyperspace ramming can't otherwise be used. They wouldn't have even needed to really explain it if TLJ, just had one extra line about it linking the ships together or somesuch.
It reminds me of all the arguments about warp speed ramming in Star Trek, which has wisely never done it for all the exact reasons SW fans are arguing over the Holdo Maneuver now. There's a bunch of technical essays written (mostly by fans) on why warp speed ramming can't be a thing, but it's mostly just reasoning out why Trek has never done it. Holdo Maneuver was an AWSOME scene, but it's one of those fundamental setting shifts that it needs a reason (even a crappy handwavium reason) that it can't be used often or reliably, and at least JJ realized that enough to throw in a the "1 in a million" line when Rian Johnson SHOULD have recognized it and dealt with it in TLJ.
You know what, I think the reason I think SW movies are GOOD movies is because I don't critique them as MOVIES but rather modern mythologies. The plots of Greek Mythologies and Arthurian Legends aren't exactly what the best either. But they stood the test of time for so long because they spoke of the human condition. Those tales also "starred" Heroes of noble or divine birth.
Viewed with this lens, it's really hard for me to fault SW movies for having silly plot holes or inconsistencies, because in the end, those aren't the point. Star Wars is awesome, even the prequels (and we don't talk about non-SW movies like the holiday special and Ewok movies)
TBF I reckoned this was always something of a planned change/reveal -- much like how Luke and Vader's relationship was altered in the original trilogy.
Yeah, her name is REY. Rey is Spanish for King. Who's the closest thing to a king in SW? It would have to be a coincidence for that not to be a callback to Darth Vader = Dark Father
They don’t scan as mythological to me. More like, consumer products of such immense scale that they went off the rails because of a failure to manufacture them in a context of commercial or even artistic accountability.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Rose being sidelined and replaced with characters who spring out from nowhere (I like Dominic, but we already have Rose. Unfortunately, I have a suspicion that she was cut out largely because of her character being hated because of RJ's terrible writing choices re. Canto Bight and "not by destroying what we hate, but saving what we love", which is disgusting on Disney's part).
I thought that too, but there was an article the other day from an interview with the writers and apparently they actually had a bunch of Rose scenes filmed and a whole arc back at the base with Rose & Leia, but the GFX they used to create new Leia scenes wasn't turning out that great and they chose to chop out those scenes instead of pour more resources into getting it to look OK.
I see - I still honestly question why they introduced Dominic's character, instead of just having Rose do all of his lines instead. It's the same with Pryde - realistically, Hux should just just do everything Pryde does.
I wasn't keen on Rose's character in TLJ by any stretch, but that doesn't mean she needed to be sidelined as much as she was.
As for Holdo Maneuver, they should have just said it had something to do with the hyperspace tracking, which also wasn't a thing before TLJ. In fact they made it out to be such a big deal in TLJ that it strikes me as the obvious McGuffin for a writer to use to handwave away why hyperspace ramming can't otherwise be used. They wouldn't have even needed to really explain it if TLJ, just had one extra line about it linking the ships together or somesuch.
They could've, but they didn't, and that's my main point, which you seem to support. It's not that they did it in the first place - it's that they had other options, and they still could have made it better simply by explaining why it can't just be done all the time!
Seriously, one line of dialogue explaining it, instead of "it's one in a million", and I'm fine with it. Was that too much to ask for?
It reminds me of all the arguments about warp speed ramming in Star Trek, which has wisely never done it for all the exact reasons SW fans are arguing over the Holdo Maneuver now. There's a bunch of technical essays written (mostly by fans) on why warp speed ramming can't be a thing, but it's mostly just reasoning out why Trek has never done it. Holdo Maneuver was an AWSOME scene, but it's one of those fundamental setting shifts that it needs a reason (even a crappy handwavium reason) that it can't be used often or reliably, and at least JJ realized that enough to throw in a the "1 in a million" line when Rian Johnson SHOULD have recognized it and dealt with it in TLJ.
Agreed. I *love* the visuals of that scene. Gorgeous, stunning silence. But at least throw in a line why we couldn't have had that any other time, eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: You know what, I think the reason I think SW movies are GOOD movies is because I don't critique them as MOVIES but rather modern mythologies.
The plots of Greek Mythologies and Arthurian Legends aren't exactly what the best either. But they stood the test of time for so long because they spoke of the human condition.
Those tales also "starred" Heroes of noble or divine birth.
Viewed with this lens, it's really hard for me to fault SW movies for having silly plot holes or inconsistencies, because in the end, those aren't the point.
Star Wars is awesome, even the prequels (and we don't talk about non-SW movies like the holiday special and Ewok movies)
I treat the MCU movies as modern legends and mythologies, and I've never had the same hangups about plot holes and inconsistencies* about them as I have with these sequels. Being a modern legend isn't an excuse to throw consistency and coherent narratives out of the window, IMO.
*That's not to say they don't have them, but there's clearly degrees of inconsistency here.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Luke catching the lightsaber ("a Jedi weapon deserves more respect" - yet he tosses it over his shoulder in the film prior)
Luke was in a very dark place at the start of TLJ. Now he isn't. It was a tongue in cheek dig at himself, not a meta-criticism of the previous movie.
Kylo's helmet being reforged, for no real reason beyond "it's iconic". (I thought he'd abandoned the whole "trying to be the new Vader" thing?)
He destroyed the helmet when Snoke ridiculed it. Once he killed Snoke, there was no reason to not re-adopt it, if only to thumb his nose at his former 'not-Dad'...
Indeed, Sgt_Smudge, we are of the same opinion on this. My point is that you could basically have the movies exactly as they are, but with a simple extra line of dialogue fix the ENTIRE problem that the Holdo Maneuver.
That's actually my problem with the new trilogy, the movies ALMSOT work out great, but the details are all wrong. I'm convinced that If Disney had the scripts for 3 movies as they exist right now but before they filmed any of them, you could do a final once-over edit and with very few changes turn the 3 movies from mediocre into amazing. All the main story beats are there, they just need to be polished, a little more setup and foreshadowing added here and there, change some character lines around and add some better reasoning behind it. Nix a few unnecessary plotlines and use that time to give the characters a bit of downtime to interact and process what's happening.
You can both "subvert expectations" and also give old fans an occasional wink and a nod without going full fanservice, TLJ went too subversive while RoS went too fanservicey, you need a better mix of old and new than either movie gave us, but the overall story could have worked out just fine with a little more unified vision
It is baffling. The guy that co-wrote this also apparently co-wrote Batman Vs. Superman and Justice League. I mean, why would Disney give this film to someone with a track record of failure so recent? And how could they make a purchase worth billions and then have no real idea of what they were going to do with it other than a release schedule and some bullet points?
Chris Terrio won an Academy award for Argo as well as other various awards.
For Dawn of Justice and Justice League, Chris rewrote the scripts for both films - which is a situation of damage control, and seems to be the case for not only those two movies, but for Rise of Skywalker as well. The loss of a leading actor is not a small script problem to overcome - especially at the tail end of a trilogy. According to LucasFilm itself, Carrie originally had a much larger role. Also, he might not have had all his edits approved if he was a co-writer on any of these three movies.
Compare this to Argo where he wrote it from start to finish. He got an Academy award. He probably took on editing the two DC scripts due to having a previous working relationship with Ben Affleck - helping out a friend and all. It seems those producing Rise of Skywalker appreciates that kind of person - like Ron Howard with Solo, or Tony Gilroy on Rogue One.
Also, what is in the script is not always what we get on screen. A director can choose to ignore or edit scenes, and on top of that the producer and suits can in turn dismiss even the director in the editing stage.
Just reading now, Chris says that Rose was originally penned to be with Leia back at the rebel base and had a larger role, but due to Carrie's death they ultimately couldn't do those scenes for obvious reasons.
That's why I'm not as bothered about Snoke as I was, but I'm very bothered about their treatment of lightspeed.
I'm honestly confused as to why.
How lightspeed works has never been explained in the movies. The closest we've come was Han pointing out in the first one that it's possible (and not a good idea) to fly through a star while in Hyperspace. Anything beyond that is left up in the air. The fact that specific maneouvres haven't been shown in previous movies doesn't mean that previous background is being ignored... when you only have a handful of movies as your source material, there's an awful lot of possibilities that have never been explored.
If the Holdo maneouvre does show up again in ROS (and I obviously missed it if so) I still don't see a problem... Once you've seen something done, there's always the chance to recreate it (that '1' in a million is still 1 chance, after all). The odds are too remote to use it as a reliable tactic, but it's still something that can happen... and may well have happened in the past, without having been mentioned in the previous movies, but discarded by military forces as a tactic for that same reason.
I dunno, maybe I'm just more forgiving of continuity issues than most. I've certainly read enough Star Trek novels (which are almost all treated as non-canon, and are often contradictory) to develop a tolerance for plot holes and contradictions... And the old EU did its own share of creating as many continuity issues as it plugged. While it can be irritating, I've never let it get in the way of enjoying the story.
That's why I'm not as bothered about Snoke as I was, but I'm very bothered about their treatment of lightspeed.
I'm honestly confused as to why.
How lightspeed works has never been explained in the movies. The closest we've come was Han pointing out in the first one that it's possible (and not a good idea) to fly through a star while in Hyperspace. Anything beyond that is left up in the air. The fact that specific maneouvres haven't been shown in previous movies doesn't mean that previous background is being ignored... when you only have a handful of movies as your source material, there's an awful lot of possibilities that have never been explored.
Just because we're not told exactly how it works doesn't mean we can't make inferences.
When things like the Holdo Maneuver aren't being pulled off where it would be completely sensible to do so (Death Stars 1 and 2), and things like blockades are used (even though ships should just be able to "lightspeed skip" past them, it doesn't really make sense within the fiction we're being asked to believe.
It's not just a case of "if we don't see it, it can't happen". It's more along the lines of "if they can now do this, why didn't they do it earlier?"
If the Holdo maneouvre does show up again in ROS (and I obviously missed it if so) I still don't see a problem... Once you've seen something done, there's always the chance to recreate it (that '1' in a million is still 1 chance, after all). The odds are too remote to use it as a reliable tactic, but it's still something that can happen... and may well have happened in the past, without having been mentioned in the previous movies, but discarded by military forces as a tactic for that same reason.
But why is it a one-in-a-million? What was unique about the situation in both TLJ and ROS to allow for it to happen?* Why, if it's been used by people beforehand, is it called the Holdo Maneuver?
*especially the one in ROS, which I believe takes place over the Forest Moon of Endor, with Ewoks watching: if it can be done in orbit over Endor, why couldn't they do it to the Death Star II?
I dunno, maybe I'm just more forgiving of continuity issues than most. I've certainly read enough Star Trek novels (which are almost all treated as non-canon, and are often contradictory) to develop a tolerance for plot holes and contradictions... And the old EU did its own share of creating as many continuity issues as it plugged. While it can be irritating, I've never let it get in the way of enjoying the story.
I'm normally very good for ignoring plot holes in favour of rule of cool. As I see it, who cares if I drive over a few cracks and lumps in the road to have a good experience?
Unfortunately, the sequels were asking me to drive over gaping cracks and chasms, and they heavily tarnished the experience for me, personally.
I'm not going to be the kind of person who says "if you enjoyed it, then your tastes are bad and you should feel bad!" though - as I said with my girlfriend (who actually did enjoy it), I'm honestly happy for you if you did like it. I just didn't.
I think what seeing the Holdo Maneuver again at the end of TROS tells us is that Finn’s explanation of it being a one-in-a-million shot is simply unreliable. Why would he know anything about it anyway?
Da Boss wrote: Really? I would have thought this was obvious!Well, they pretty much went out of their way to undo everything from that movie in a really blatant way. Rose was sidelined, they reversed the throwing the lightsaber away scene, they undid the Rey is no one scene and so on. I felt it was quite obviously a bit of a slap down to Rian Johnson, and okay I suppose, Rian Johnsons movie was basically saying "All these mystery box things are stupid, lets resolve them!", leaving Abrams in a difficult position.
I am just surprised that Disney, of all corporations, let two creatives get into a pissing contest in a multibillion dollar franchise like this. Seems really really badly organised from an outsiders point of view, I would have thought they would have had a broad strokes plan sketched out from the start, particularly if the idea was to have each film directed and written by a different person.
I've seen the film now. I don't think it was a p*ssing contest exactly. More like a natural result of directors trying to find their way to do what they were hired to do within the parameters they were given.
As I said earlier in the thread, JJ's TFA didn't deliver what ANH did or even TPM did. Those films set the table for their respective trilogies but didn't dictate what came next. TFA delivered about 12 suitcases of baggage to RJ - characters in exile, others in comas, a big bad with an mysterious background, a protagonist with a mysterious background, bunches of tertiary characters with mysterious backgrounds and no real importance to the story, an entire galaxy with a murky political situation, a cliffhanger ending, and 'memberberries raining down from the sky.
Seems clear enough that this wasn't a Marvel situation, with a studio in control and hiring directors to work like episode directors in TV. There was no detailed master plan in place. That can still work, but it requires each director to 'play nice' and tidy up after themselves. Instead, TFA was kind of a big gak sandwich for RJ and Trevorrow, who probably thought that they were hired to do their thing...not clean up JJ's 'memberberry juice. So RJ took a axe to a lot of JJ's stuff. People didn't like how that went, and yeah, there did seem to be a lot of commentary on TFA within TLJ. Personally, I think that RJ's instincts were largely right about who the big bad should be and what the central concepts and conflict should be. If you want to argue about the execution, fine...but I think RJ did identify lots of the problems with TFA.
Trevorrow -- or lots of other directors -- might have taken that baton and run with it. Hell, when RJ started writing it, doing Trevorrow a solid was probably a main goal. But -- likely in an act of desperation on Kennedy's part -- the job went back to JJ after Trevorrow left. And he didn't know how to run with it. TFA suggests he either had only one locked-in idea how everything should go, or (more likely) absolutely no idea how things should conclude. So the third film was another course change, back to something resembling the heading of TFA and more in JJ's comfort zone. Which ended up illustrating some of the problems with the course he set in the first place with TFA.
If JJ wanted to run the whole thing, then he should have demanded that from the beginning. If he didn't know how to wrap things up, then he shouldn't have said yes to Ep. 9. And obviously the studio needed a coherent, workable plan. I know nerds wanna blame RJ for everything, but that dude ended up in a bad, bad spot created by JJ and the studio.
gorgon wrote: As I said earlier in the thread, JJ's TFA didn't deliver what ANH did or even TPM did. Those films set the table for their respective trilogies but didn't dictate what came next. TFA delivered about 12 suitcases of baggage to RJ - characters in exile, others in comas, a big bad with an mysterious background, a protagonist with a mysterious background, bunches of tertiary characters with mysterious backgrounds and no real importance to the story, an entire galaxy with a murky political situation, a cliffhanger ending, and 'memberberries raining down from the sky.
I'm actually really glad you put that into words, because I was starting to feel that but couldn't articulate it, but I think you're pretty right on that.
I'll focus on TPM (because ANH is the complete original, so dealing with a non-original trilogy makes more sense compared to another). We get a pretty good establishment of the state of the Star Wars universe (the Jedi are more known about, at the peak of their power, the galactic government feels distinct from the future Empire, with all the perks and drawbacks of it, the look of the technology feels like the galaxy is at it's zenith and at a time of prosperity). But, despite setting up the world, how things progress from TPM are pretty open ended. It's got enough threads that it doesn't just close off naturally, but the threads that are around aren't exactly urgent ones, and more than anything else, we're left with a sense of "what next?" rather than "what about this, and that, and those?"
It ends solidly, with room to grow, but not to rely on other films to support it. Basically, you could watch almost any of the first 6 films, and they all have solid endings. They have room to move afterwards, but you're not left unfulfilled, at least, in my eyes.
Of all the Skywalker Saga, TFA never hits that mark for me. It just... stops, with a dozen threads up in the air.
While I might not like TLJ, I have to feel sorry for RJ for being dealt an awful hand.
After TFA ended, I wanted to see the sequel ASAP. How Luke would react to Rey, how the Republic would react to the FO, how Snoke would complete Kylo’s training, what kind of fun adventure Finn and Poe would get into ... I was super excited to see all of this.
JJ set up Rian Johnson with likeable characters in interesting situations and without exception Johnson willfully ruined al of it.
Manchu wrote: Visual Guide as well as official wiki.
Edit: And, I guess I should also mention, the film itself (for crying out loud).
I was just asking because it didn't look like the holdo did in TLJ. Which finding a photo of it online still doesn't. There is no stream after the ship. The streak in TLJ continued past the ship which I'd actually watched twice (once myself and once with the wife) before we went to see Rise of Skywalker. I don't own the visual guide so I can't comment. The wiki's I, briefly, looked for said people thought it might be one. Nothing conclusive. But sure, be a smug douche about a movie series. I fully endorse anyone's hobby
Manchu wrote: JJ set up Rian Johnson with likeable characters in interesting situations and without exception Johnson willfully ruined al of it.
In all fairness, as much as I didn't like what JJ did with a lot of the sequels, he definitely did start with good characters. Finn is easily one of my favourites, and I'm fond of Poe as well (minus that first quippy scene with Kylo on Jakku).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But why is it a one-in-a-million? What was unique about the situation in both TLJ and ROS to allow for it to happen?*
Honestly? I don't care. I assume that it's something to do with the specific position and relative sizes of the ships involved, and that will do me until a more official explanation comes along.
Why, if it's been used by people beforehand, is it called the Holdo Maneuver?
Probably because that's the most recent example of it that actually matters to the people involved. In the same way as I refer to my wife's meatball recipe as being hers, despite it probably having been cooked by other people in the past.
*especially the one in ROS, which I believe takes place over the Forest Moon of Endor, with Ewoks watching: if it can be done in orbit over Endor, why couldn't they do it to the Death Star II?
Again, it doesn't really matter. We know they didn't do it, so presumably it wasn't an option. Why it wasn't an option would require that explanation for how it works or doesn't work, but as above, I would assume that the sheer size of the Death Star meant that it would have just resulted in the ship smeared across the Death Star, rather than destroying it.
I don't know the 'right' answer, but I don't need to. I can choose to assume that the events of the new movies 'break' the setting, or I can assume that there are mechanics behind those things that just haven't been explained yet, and enjoy the spectacle. One of those choices makes the investment in the movie ticket a better deal, so I choose to go with that.
Yeah I like all the main cast in terms of both their performances and their characters. TFA is an ANH retread sure but coming up with likeable new main characters was a huge achievement.
insaniak wrote: I can choose to assume that the events of the new movies 'break' the setting, or I can assume that there are mechanics behind those things that just haven't been explained yet, and enjoy the spectacle. One of those choices makes the investment in the movie ticket a better deal, so I choose to go with that.
THIS. RIGHT HERE.
Is why I'll always enjoy SW even with the occasional "What?! How'd they do that?!" moments. There's a ton of stuff IN REAL LIFE that doesn't make much sense, or is too complicated to adequately explain to a casual observer. So as far as I'm concerned, inconsistencies actually make it feel MORE realistic to me, not less
insaniak wrote: If nothing could happen that hasn't been previously shown, all of the movies after the first one would have been considerably duller...
If you can hyperspace skip or jump to/from hyperspace from the lower atmosphere, then how did the Trade Federation expect to maintain a blockade of Naboo from high orbit? Why did Naboo need help raising the blockade when hyperspace skips or jumping into hyperspace from the lower atmosphere was eminently possible? Or for that matter, why not just use some of those fighters to do hyperspace rams on the blockading ships? The Battle of Coruscant ends with a Confederation victory as they slam Venator after Venator with droid-piloted transports. On Jedha, Saw Gurrera moves heaven and earth to get a shot at that ISD hovering in the atmosphere WHERE IT'S SHIELDS APPARENTLY DO NOT WORK (thank you TROS). Scarif ends with two old Y-wings blasting into the two ISDs on duty, and a third taking out the shield ring. No battle of Yavin; no thermal exhaust port to attack on the hyperspeed asteroid launched at the rebel base - and no time for them to respond anyway. No more Luke, no more Leia, no more Han, no ESB, RotJ, or sequel trilogy.
Changing the way hyperspace works basically invalidates EVERYTHING that went before. The movies DO NOT WORK anymore, if this is canon.
Manchu wrote: Why did you even bother to lie to me that you were “genuinely curious” when it is now clear you just wanted to argue? And I’m the smug douche
I was genuinely curious. Instead of providing any real information and links nor anything you answered in a snarky and douche manner. Good for you.
Kalamadea wrote: As for Holdo Maneuver, they should have just said it had something to do with the hyperspace tracking, which also wasn't a thing before TLJ.
If you watch closely in Rogue One, one of the projects they find while looking for the Death Star plans is a hyperspace tracker....
And that's the frustrating part about Disney Wares! They did a solid job with Rogue One, and even planted that little tidbit in to justify the First Order having it in TLJ. They clearly CAN do good Star Wars movies when they choose to!
After TFA ended, I wanted to see the sequel ASAP. How Luke would react to Rey, how the Republic would react to the FO, how Snoke would complete Kylo’s training, what kind of fun adventure Finn and Poe would get into ... I was super excited to see all of this.
JJ set up Rian Johnson with likeable characters in interesting situations and without exception Johnson willfully ruined al of it.
Well, sure...cliffhangers and endless unanswered questions make you want to see the next installment. But RJ didn't want to spend his entire film explaining Knights of Ren and parentage and where have they beens instead of advancing the main story and central conflict. Cripes, every second spent on CGI Snoke or the Knights is a second better spent on Ben/Kylo, the most interesting villain going played by the best actor in the bunch. I firmly believe RJ wasn't wrong about some of that gak.
You can say RJ shouldn't have signed on, but I'd lay money that he expected to be handed something closer to ANH or TPM. Something that introduces the characters and settings and sparks interest, but isn't such an incomplete thought. Hell, the Marvel movies are episodic and the last two Avengers movies are obviously part 1/2 works done by the same directors. And Infinity War still feels more complete and tied-off than TFA.
TL;DR - I thought TFA was a fun popcorn film, and that's how I view SW films anyway. But JJ bears some real responsibility for boxing in the directors to follow instead of setting them up to do their thing. It was kind of a jagoff move, really. You hand the next guy a cliffhanger that needs immediate resolution? So much for any "two years later" story you wanted to tell. And the studio bears a lot of responsibility for letting all that nonsense take place. IMHO.
If you can hyperspace skip or jump to/from hyperspace from the lower atmosphere, then how did the Trade Federation expect to maintain a blockade of Naboo from high orbit? Why did Naboo need help raising the blockade when hyperspace skips or jumping into hyperspace from the lower atmosphere was eminently possible?
ROS didn't establish that any ship or any pilot can do this. It established that a particular, heavily-modified, light freighter in the hands of an extremely capable pilot did it, at a very high risk, and wound up with the entire ship on fire, and almost destroyed several times along the way. Which doesn't really seem like a viable tactic for regular civilian or militia ships to try to break a blockade.
Or for that matter, why not just use some of those fighters to do hyperspace rams on the blockading ships?
Because, (once again) it's a '1 in a million' chance of working, and so can't be relied on as a viable military tactic.
Changing the way hyperspace works basically invalidates EVERYTHING that went before. The movies DO NOT WORK anymore, if this is canon.
Or, you know, not.
They haven't changed the way hyperspace works. They've just shown some very lucky, and very rare applications of hyperspace travel. This only breaks the movies if you choose to apply headcannon in a way that breaks the movies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: You hand the next guy a cliffhanger that needs immediate resolution? So much for any "two years later" story you wanted to tell.
To be fair. the end of TFA didn't actually need an immediate resolution. RJ could easily have (had he choosen a different story arc for the characters) to have picked up 'some time' after Rey met Luke, with Rey in training and the First Order having spent the interim building their stranglehold on the galaxy. He chose to take up the story immediately as TFA ended, but there are any number of other directions he could have gone in.
Having said that (and speaking as someone who enjoyed TLJ, and the sequel trilogy in general) I'll reiterate that I can't understand why the whole trilogy wasn't mapped out before TFA started filming.
I felt pretty alone after TFA because I never understood how anyone in the audience couldn’t see through the mystery box gimmick. I still don’t get how anyone could see TFA as anything other than an admission that Disney had no good ideas.
TROS is pretty much exactly what I expected from a series started by TFA. I’m only disappointed that R2D2 never got to fight that lava snake...
Rose being sidelined and replaced with characters who spring out from nowhere (I like Dominic, but we already have Rose. Unfortunately, I have a suspicion that she was cut out largely because of her character being hated because of RJ's terrible writing choices re. Canto Bight and "not by destroying what we hate, but saving what we love", which is disgusting on Disney's part).
It was a good move. Her character served no purpose other than making the movie worse. An awkward love triangle that added nothing to the movie. She's that throwaway NPC in an RPG that the party somehow becomes attached to and the GM has to slap together some shoddy backstory because she's being dragged along for no good reason.
As someone who had their entire childhood RUUUINED by those fething ewoks (I saw Jedi as a 14 year old - the movie was going fine until those teddy fething bears showed up). I found the lack of them refreshing (in the trailer).
Spoiler:
But NOOOOOOOOOO ... they had to go and feth this one up with the furry little melonfethers too. Wicket from Jedi and his crotchfruit.
Rose being sidelined and replaced with characters who spring out from nowhere (I like Dominic, but we already have Rose. Unfortunately, I have a suspicion that she was cut out largely because of her character being hated because of RJ's terrible writing choices re. Canto Bight and "not by destroying what we hate, but saving what we love", which is disgusting on Disney's part).
It was a good move. Her character served no purpose other than making the movie worse. An awkward love triangle that added nothing to the movie. She's that throwaway NPC in an RPG that the party somehow becomes attached to and the GM has to slap together some shoddy backstory because she's being dragged along for no good reason.
Perhaps, but then did we really need half of the new characters we were given in RoS? We didn't need Dominic's character - that should have been Rose.
The other ex-Stormtrooper, aside from reinforcing the Stormtrooper Paradox (of them simultaneously being real people enslaved in a military that they often don't support themselves, but also faceless goons for the good guys to shoot while cheering), doesn't do anything for the plot. Poe's love interest (ugh, no thank you - give me FinnPoe any day) similarly doesn't need half the screen time she's given.
Well, I hope people are equally disturbed by the setting being broken by Palpatine being able to make a fleet of sixty squillion star destroyers with death star guns on them. (God damnit that was baaaaad).
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope people are equally disturbed by the setting being broken by Palpatine being able to make a fleet of sixty squillion star destroyers with death star guns on them. (God damnit that was baaaaad).
He's had 30 years to do it.
So yes, I'm equally as disturbed by that as I am by the other issues discussed so far...
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope people are equally disturbed by the setting being broken by Palpatine being able to make a fleet of sixty squillion star destroyers with death star guns on them. (God damnit that was baaaaad).
He's had 30 years to do it.
People are becoming more aware of logistics.
You don't just build space ships, especially not that many of them "in secret." The idea that all the materials, workers, and logistics to build all those ships could somehow be hidden is a complete break from suspension of disbelief for anyone who has ever worked in supply chains. You just can't hide the footprint that comes with that, or the ripple effects. If one were so inclined, it's easy to write off Palpatine as still being alive. It's a lazy as feth plot point that wasn't foreshadowed at all in the prior two movies, but it's not like space magic needs much explanation.
Building a fleet of star destroyers, with all the crew and personnel needed to achieve the task, in secret with no one noticing, is patently absurd. It's one of the gripes against the First Order from all the way back in TFA. When the Galactic Empire built super weapons, it got noticed even if people didn't know exactly what they did, and that was when the Empire controlled the galaxy. Palpatine is supposed to be hiding on some secret planet no one knows how to find, except a massive gak ton of people know how to find it and they built an entire shipyard there.
So...why did he announce to the galaxy that he was gonna do it, rather than just getting those destroyers off world and spreading them around the galaxy, so that there are a squillion billion death stars, potentially anywhere, and then just be like "Hi. I am in charge now."
Instead he warns everyone about what he is going to do...then...what?
It is bonkers stuff. I mean, it is already a bit rough having to accept that they just built another Death Star in ROTJ, and that the Empire just came back from nothing to reconquer the galaxy after ROTJ despite a crushing defeat. Now we have to accept that Palpatine on a desolate and barren planet with no apparent resources made and crewed a bajillion star destroyers with weapon on them that previously required a moon sized superstructure to provide the power for it...
So like, they beat the First Order now. But if any of the people on Exogar escape, then there now exists technology to put planet destroying weapons on a bog standard star destroyer, which apparently are pretty easy to build.
It is pretty bad, and there was no need for it to be like that.
I was trying to figure out who the entire building full of people cheering him on were, but in my head they are just all his random clones because he got bored and lonely.
If you can hyperspace skip or jump to/from hyperspace from the lower atmosphere, then how did the Trade Federation expect to maintain a blockade of Naboo from high orbit? Why did Naboo need help raising the blockade when hyperspace skips or jumping into hyperspace from the lower atmosphere was eminently possible?
ROS didn't establish that any ship or any pilot can do this. It established that a particular, heavily-modified, light freighter in the hands of an extremely capable pilot did it, at a very high risk, and wound up with the entire ship on fire, and almost destroyed several times along the way. Which doesn't really seem like a viable tactic for regular civilian or militia ships to try to break a blockade.
The film also established that a bunch of TIE fighters could also do it in the same scene...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I felt pretty alone after TFA because I never understood how anyone in the audience couldn’t see through the mystery box gimmick. I still don’t get how anyone could see TFA as anything other than an admission that Disney had no good ideas.
Eh. I found TFA to be fairly dull and forgettable (the same, but More Bigger!), but the 'mystery box' wasn't a problem. Its easy to make mystery boxes pay off in interesting and satisfying ways over the course of a trilogy.
The problem was lack of oversight. Letting Johnson pee all over the only plot hooks in TFA was beyond baffling, and letting Abrams double down (apparently out of spite) and go for Even Much More Bigger on rehashing his terrible ideas of what the OT was makes no sense at all.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I felt pretty alone after TFA because I never understood how anyone in the audience couldn’t see through the mystery box gimmick. I still don’t get how anyone could see TFA as anything other than an admission that Disney had no good ideas.
Eh. I found TFA to be fairly dull and forgettable (the same, but More Bigger!), but the 'mystery box' wasn't a problem. Its easy to make mystery boxes pay off in interesting and satisfying ways over the course of a trilogy.
The problem was lack of oversight. Letting Johnson pee all over the only plot hooks in TFA was beyond baffling, and letting Abrams double down (apparently out of spite) and go for Even Much More Bigger on rehashing his terrible ideas of what the OT was makes no sense at all.
No. It's easy to make mysteries pay off in big ways when you write the whole story to involve and solve those mysteries. When you come in at part one and do nothing but ask questions and then pass the the story to another person who had/has no idea what any of that is supposed to do it's not easy. Especially when there is then supposed to be a part three that is supposed to be passed to yet another person.
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope people are equally disturbed by the setting being broken by Palpatine being able to make a fleet of sixty squillion star destroyers with death star guns on them. (God damnit that was baaaaad).
I do wonder how Palpatine, AFTER losing his throne, his legitimacy, his influence over most of the galaxy, is able to make MORE Star Destroyers and MORE Death Star lasers than when he was actually running the galaxy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I was trying to figure out who the entire building full of people cheering him on were, but in my head they are just all his random clones because he got bored and lonely.
I did wonder that as well. Does anyone actually know who those acolytes were? I thought they were just tricks of the light or hallucinations, but no, they actually looked like they were there?
Told my buddy they could have gotten the same plot effect if instead of stopping several hundred Star Destroyers with Death Star guns, if the Resistance would have found out that since the initial rise of the Empire, Palpatine had been building the Eclipse in secret, with just an escort of Star Destroyers.
Even then you have the phantom logistics issue, but would still be a nod to the old EU. But then again, that would have worked even better as a replacement for Starkiller Base.
Honestly, people shouldn't complain about how crazy he went with his Star Wars stuff if they had ever seen any of the Transformer movies.
gorgon wrote: But RJ didn't want to spend his entire film explaining Knights of Ren and parentage and where have they beens instead of advancing the main story and central conflict. Cripes, every second spent on CGI Snoke or the Knights is a second better spent on Ben/Kylo, the most interesting villain going played by the best actor in the bunch. I firmly believe RJ wasn't wrong about some of that gak.
You can say RJ shouldn't have signed on, but I'd lay money that he expected to be handed something closer to ANH or TPM. Something that introduces the characters and settings and sparks interest, but isn't such an incomplete thought. Hell, the Marvel movies are episodic and the last two Avengers movies are obviously part 1/2 works done by the same directors. And Infinity War still feels more complete and tied-off than TFA.
TL;DR - I thought TFA was a fun popcorn film, and that's how I view SW films anyway. But JJ bears some real responsibility for boxing in the directors to follow instead of setting them up to do their thing. It was kind of a jagoff move, really. You hand the next guy a cliffhanger that needs immediate resolution? So much for any "two years later" story you wanted to tell. And the studio bears a lot of responsibility for letting all that nonsense take place. IMHO.
I mostly blame RJ in the sense that I didn't like TLJ but didn't mind the JJ movies. They all had their highs and lows, but the JJ movies I walked out thinking they had some stupid stuff but overall were okay movies.
We could argue that RJ was handed something he didn't want, but it's just crazy he, I dunno, didn't get on the phone to JJ and ask where he was going with some of his threads.
I don't know how involved RJ was in the writing anyway. Really, there should be writers that handle all the various story arcs and ensure certain points are hit through the series, we shouldn't have these 3 movies that seemingly ignore large chunks of the other movies in the series.
It's absurd that the Knights of Ren just go on a holiday for a whole movie with no explanation. It seems like they could have had a cool story fleshed out through the 3 films, concluding in the scene in TROS where Kylo fights them all, it could have made that scene so much cooler and deeper if we'd actually been following and learning about the Knights throughout the series.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I still don’t get how anyone could see TFA as anything other than an admission that Disney had no good ideas.
A darksider tempted by the light side? Pretty interesting idea, I’d say.
And I also like the idea of a defecting Storm Trooper.
But I’d be lying if I said I could think of any others from TFA.
Yeah, I forgot about Kylo. He was the only character who was written in an interesting way.
The defecting storm trooper concept was used so poorly, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope people are equally disturbed by the setting being broken by Palpatine being able to make a fleet of sixty squillion star destroyers with death star guns on them. (God damnit that was baaaaad).
When he reanimated those undead Star Destroyers, I really wanted him to make them sword-fight Sinbad. "Follow! Follow! Kill! Kill!"
Instead, he gave them horse dongs.
PS: So, there were only two Sith Moanas to guide people to Esticle, but we saw General Darwin Mayflower with Huxx at the First Order fleet and also at Esticle. Sure, he could have carpooled with Kylo at the beginning, but how did he commute after Rey stole the thingy? How did Kylo get to Exicle? How did all the workers and parts that weren't conjured into existence get to Esticle?
The so-called “Storm Trooper paradox” brought up above, the notion that Storm Troopers are both real people as well as faceless mooks, makes me realize another under appreciated strength of TFA — the portrayal of Storm Troopers is really solid throughout. Obviously, the flagship example is FN-2187. But Storm Troopers get a lot of great scenes. The “TRAITOR” scene is outright iconic. Never before have we seen this kind of dimensionality to the run of the mill baddies in SW. There’s also the Storm Troopers who decide to head a different way after almost walking past Kylo’s temper tantrum plus Daniel Craig’s force-manipulated Storm Trooper portrayal. TFA really took the cue from the Clone Troopers as portraying Storm Troopers with some degree of point of view.
Unfortunately, this was yet another promising thread in TFA totally dumped by Rian Johnson.
Yeah I was excited after TFA to see the rebel stormtrooper angle expanded a bit more. It was touched on in RoS, which was nice, but I would have enjoyed seeing more.
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope people are equally disturbed by the setting being broken by Palpatine being able to make a fleet of sixty squillion star destroyers with death star guns on them. (God damnit that was baaaaad).
He's had 30 years to do it.
People are becoming more aware of logistics.
You don't just build space ships, especially not that many of them "in secret." The idea that all the materials, workers, and logistics to build all those ships could somehow be hidden is a complete break from suspension of disbelief for anyone who has ever worked in supply chains. You just can't hide the footprint that comes with that, or the ripple effects. If one were so inclined, it's easy to write off Palpatine as still being alive. It's a lazy as feth plot point that wasn't foreshadowed at all in the prior two movies, but it's not like space magic needs much explanation.
Building a fleet of star destroyers, with all the crew and personnel needed to achieve the task, in secret with no one noticing, is patently absurd. It's one of the gripes against the First Order from all the way back in TFA. When the Galactic Empire built super weapons, it got noticed even if people didn't know exactly what they did, and that was when the Empire controlled the galaxy. Palpatine is supposed to be hiding on some secret planet no one knows how to find, except a massive gak ton of people know how to find it and they built an entire shipyard there.
The simple explanation would be that the shipyard as well as the personnel and good potion of the fleet was moved there prior to the fall of the Empire as some sort safety assurance. To ascend to his position Palpatine had to learn how to "fall upward". A large stretch of the fleet and its personnel might have been pre-built, moved there into hidding and for upgrade. The rest was fed by the First Order, bt unknown to them. Snoke was basically nothing more than a Palpatine puppet.
They should make a movie where the villain spends his time setting up all his contingency backup plans for the sequels.
“Yes, my apprentice. Etch that dagger into a map. The. Hide this device in a temple full of booby traps on the other side of the galaxy. Next, I need you to vaporize the paperwork for that thing we’re constructing in the outer darkness. No, the other thing. Then I want final approvals for this personnel roster for Operation Third Time’s The Charm.”
Automatically Appended Next Post: “Everything is proceeding according to my design. But, just in case I want a plan B, a plan C, and a Hail Mary ready to go. Trust in the Dark Side, but backup your Death Star.
I love the TR-8R Stormtrooper. Even under the helmet, you can feel the hatred and sense of personal betrayal that Finn would desert them. And obviously the Empire/First Order are evil, but as Finn demonstrates, not all the stormtroopers are immune to a change of heart.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I felt pretty alone after TFA because I never understood how anyone in the audience couldn’t see through the mystery box gimmick. I still don’t get how anyone could see TFA as anything other than an admission that Disney had no good ideas.
Eh. I found TFA to be fairly dull and forgettable (the same, but More Bigger!), but the 'mystery box' wasn't a problem. Its easy to make mystery boxes pay off in interesting and satisfying ways over the course of a trilogy.
The problem was lack of oversight. Letting Johnson pee all over the only plot hooks in TFA was beyond baffling, and letting Abrams double down (apparently out of spite) and go for Even Much More Bigger on rehashing his terrible ideas of what the OT was makes no sense at all.
No. It's easy to make mysteries pay off in big ways when you write the whole story to involve and solve those mysteries. When you come in at part one and do nothing but ask questions and then pass the the story to another person who had/has no idea what any of that is supposed to do it's not easy. Especially when there is then supposed to be a part three that is supposed to be passed to yet another person.
Yeah. That's my point. With proper oversight and direction, its easy. Letting each director do things independently is an obviously stupid decision, yet that's what they did.
That there wasn't an overall trilogy story bible from the start of the project is just baffling, that they didn't keep either of these two idiots in check equally so.
The thing about the out-of-nowhere Sith fleet is, once again the movie itself points out how dumb this is.
A lot of folks praising the film don’t seem to have paid close attention so may have missed that the Sith is a faction separate from and initially at odds with the First Order.
Therefore, the First Order cannot have been feeding the Sith the personnel and material to build the preposterously gigantic Sith fleet; if anything, it is more likely the other way around as it was Palpatine, after all, who was behind Snoke the whole time.
None of this is covered in anything close to sufficient coherency in the films but in TROS there is a line in the FO briefing scene where someone says the FO is facing a manpower shortage. This is meant to contextualize both Kylo Ren’s reliance on Palpatine’s Sith fleet as well as what we find later on is a much more widespread than previously thought issue of Storm Trooper defection.
In any case, on the movie’s own terms, there is no way to explain the scope of the Sith fleet or the logistics behind it or the technology involved. This is just another “and then ... and then ...” type childishness, like Palpatine suddenly appearing 5 minutes into the film with no one batting an eye.
And to a point I can hand wave or forgive stuff like that in a Star Wars movie, but not when it is so incredibly over the top and stupid that it snaps me out of the film.
It really does feel like a kid playing with their friends and being like "But then Palpatine had a million star destroyers and they ALL have death star cannons!!! pewpewpew!"
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I love the TR-8R Stormtrooper. Even under the helmet, you can feel the hatred and sense of personal betrayal that Finn would desert them. And obviously the Empire/First Order are evil, but as Finn demonstrates, not all the stormtroopers are immune to a change of heart.
Finn has multiple changes of heart - he's distraught when his stormtrooper friend is killed, but then whoops with delight as he guns down scores of his former friends and comrades during his escape with Poe.
The film also established that a bunch of TIE fighters could also do it in the same scene...
The TIE fighters that were all destroyed?
I can jump a car off a bridge. There's a small chance that will turn out ok for me, although it might not be good for the car. There's a much bigger chance that it won't go so well, so as a rule, I would not jump a car off a bridge unless there was a really compelling reason to do so.
Seriously, though, it's like people are actively looking for things to poke holes in, rather than imagining how things could work. I don't understand why you would pay good money to see a movie, and then spend the time afterwards expanding on all the reasons to dislike it, rather than reflecting on what was good about it. It's just bizarre.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: So...why did he announce to the galaxy that he was gonna do it, rather than just getting those destroyers off world and spreading them around the galaxy, so that there are a squillion billion death stars, potentially anywhere, and then just be like "Hi. I am in charge now."
Because the most important part of his plan involved luring Rey to him so that he could possess her, and then go out and reconquer the galaxy.
Now we have to accept that Palpatine on a desolate and barren planet with no apparent resources made and crewed a bajillion star destroyers with weapon on them that previously required a moon sized superstructure to provide the power for it...
Why would you accept that, rather than that he built a bajillion star destroyers on a planet that presumably had the resources to do so?
Who says he transported them anywhere? Was the planet barren before he started?
Although there's also the possibility that at least some of them were Imperial Star Destroyers that were stashed away much earlier and just retrofitted with the new guns.
I'm sure I remember a time when it was ok for movies to not give us all of the answers, because it was fun to speculate. Remember that movie where some evil guy in a black robe took over the galaxy, and after 9 movies we still didn't know why he actually did that? What were those movies called?
Manchu wrote: Then he transported them all to a barren planet to store them until a completely arbitrary point?
There’s no saving this crap.
Transported and buried them. Mustn't forget that the best place to store your fully crewed space fleet (which can't fly up without a navigational beacon to guide them) is underground!
Manchu wrote: Then he transported them all to a barren planet to store them until a completely arbitrary point?
There’s no saving this crap.
I get where Insaniak is coming from. Certain people.....just can't relax and watch a movie. They are filled with a need for something to be messed up so they can save us by pointing out how smart they are by pointing out "flaws".
If you left the Mon Calamari or Corellia alone for 20 years I'm pretty sure you could build a heck of a fleet (given I'm pretty sure it's still cannon that both of those are major shipyard worlds). Add in obvious cloning technology and the possibility of stashing equipement and resources away in an area of space apparently only available to access thru a spacial anomoly (my biggest issue with it honestly) and you've got all the handwaving you need. Especially since it's start wars. I mean, they must be able to build large starships in job lots and fast if Clone Wars is anything to go by. They lose at least 2 capital ships or more per episode in just 2 seasons that focus on just 2 jedi for the most part. I've never seen anyone knocking the cartoon for poor logistics.
This isn't a novel. It's a movie. Did terminator 2 tell you all about how skynet got all the resources to build all the robots and go into detail about how time travel worked? Nope. And it's considered an excellent film. It might just be good because the internet wasn't in full swing for cutting down instead of building up. If you hate this stuff so much just. don't. watch. it.....
You kind of disproved your own point, though. Terminator 2 ruins the continuity and rules of time travel from Terminator 1, that has been recognized since it came out, but people are willing to overlook it because the movie is so good. Audiences tend to notice and care about these kinds of issues when the movie is already bad. If TROS has excellent plot structure, characters, themes and dialogue in a well-paced, well-edited film, people would be happier to overlook Hyperspace Skipping. (After all, Star Tours already established it in canon along with the third Death Star.)
Hulksmash wrote: If you left the Mon Calamari or Corellia alone for 20 years I'm pretty sure you could build a heck of a fleet (given I'm pretty sure it's still cannon that both of those are major shipyard worlds). Add in obvious cloning technology and the possibility of stashing equipement and resources away in an area of space apparently only available to access thru a spacial anomoly (my biggest issue with it honestly) and you've got all the handwaving you need. Especially since it's start wars. I mean, they must be able to build large starships in job lots and fast if Clone Wars is anything to go by. They lose at least 2 capital ships or more per episode in just 2 seasons that focus on just 2 jedi for the most part. I've never seen anyone knocking the cartoon for poor logistics.
But why didn't Palp make these BEFORE he was overthrown (literally)?
And if he did, why did he need to hide for 30 years, after burying these ships with planet killing weaponry?
This isn't a novel. It's a movie. Did terminator 2 tell you all about how skynet got all the resources to build all the robots and go into detail about how time travel worked?
Because the main characters in the first film don't succeed in blowing up all of Skynet, and then it all gets not only replaced but upgraded in the next.
We're told in the first film that Skynet simply *did* succeed, and that they *have* time travel. That's enough, because it's the first film of the franchise, and that's what we're working with. In the sequel, nothing about that changes.
A more adequate example would be in the first film, the heroes destroy all of Skynet's production facilities AND their time travel capabilities, and those things coming back in the sequel. It also helps that any inconsistencies within it are so trivial and so inoffensive to the plot that no-one cares, unlike in ROS. I can't tell you *how* the ones in ROS are more egregious, but my rule of plot holes tends to be "if I didn't notice it, it's not a problem".
Entertain me (and believe me, I wanted to like ROS), and I'll be entertained.
If you hate this stuff so much just. don't. watch. it.....
Because if I knew it had that stuff, I wouldn't have watched it? Simple as that.
And regardless, if the ending to a story you genuinely cared about sucked in your opinion, can you honestly say you wouldn't be the slightest bit annoyed that what you liked got a bad treatment from the people who made it?
It's not a case that people were begging to dislike this movie and actively seek out reasons - it's that the direction on these films, from an overarching standpoint, has been rather lacklustre, and the audience has every right to criticise it if they feel appropriate, like any piece of media.
You guys are giving too much credit when you call the Sith fleet a fleet of “Death Stars”. This is JJ Abrams we’re talking about. His Enterprise was twice as long as the original Enterprise. His Star destroyers were twice as long as the OT Star destroyers. His Death Star has a diameter many times the original Death Star’s.
In The Last Jedi, RJ gave us the dreadnought with a big bombardment cannon underneath it that could destroy any planetary base. No ship is allowed to be better hung than JJ’s!
The Sith were building a fleet of Feth You Rian Johnson.
I liked the Force Awakens and thought the Last Jedi was good but flawed. So I do like these films. I would rank them: 1. Empire Strikes Back 2. Star Wars 3. Force Awakens 4. Return of the Jedi 5. The Last Jedi 6. Solo 7. Rogue One 8. Rise of Skywalker 9. Revenge of the Sith 10. Phantom Menace 11. Attack of the Clones.
So with regard to the sequels, I had had a good experience with the first one and I liked the second even though it was flawed. I was hoping the final installment would be good, which was why I went to see it. The only outright bad Star Wars movies in my opinion are the prequels, the rest are mediocre to good.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: We could argue that RJ was handed something he didn't want, but it's just crazy he, I dunno, didn't get on the phone to JJ and ask where he was going with some of his threads.
I don't know how involved RJ was in the writing anyway. Really, there should be writers that handle all the various story arcs and ensure certain points are hit through the series, we shouldn't have these 3 movies that seemingly ignore large chunks of the other movies in the series.
It's absurd that the Knights of Ren just go on a holiday for a whole movie with no explanation. It seems like they could have had a cool story fleshed out through the 3 films, concluding in the scene in TROS where Kylo fights them all, it could have made that scene so much cooler and deeper if we'd actually been following and learning about the Knights throughout the series.
I don't think JJ really knew where he was going with all his puzzle boxes. RoS doesn't exactly make it seem like he did. And again, if he had intended one specific answer for Rey's parents, or exactly why Luke exiled himself but not really, or a host of other things...then that's kind of a jagoff move if he really never intended to direct another one. It's just not how you would pass something to a fellow creative.
RJ wrote and directed TLJ.
And you really think there was time to flesh out the backstories to the Knights of Ren? Or that it would lend anything to the central story and conflict? Again, I think that's a prime example of RJ showing some good judgement. They're a faceless throw-in that don't matter.
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope people are equally disturbed by the setting being broken by Palpatine being able to make a fleet of sixty squillion star destroyers with death star guns on them. (God damnit that was baaaaad).
Not just building them, but also finding 30,000 trained crewpeople for each of them.
And yet somehow NOT providing a navigator for any of them...
Voss wrote: Yeah. That's my point. With proper oversight and direction, its easy. Letting each director do things independently is an obviously stupid decision, yet that's what they did. That there wasn't an overall trilogy story bible from the start of the project is just baffling, that they didn't keep either of these two idiots in check equally so.
Studio oversight is a solution. Another is just having each director play nice and collaborate. You can create things such that you tee it up for the next person without dictating to them. JJ could have been better there with TFA, and also could have rolled with the events in TLJ instead of saying "I'M PUTTING KYLO REN BACK IN THE RIDICULOUS HELMET, DAGUMMIT!" RJ probably could have done without the (apparent) underlying WTF! commentary in TLJ about TFA.
I know I'm sounding too JJ vs. RJ, and that's not exactly my point. It's not the specific personalities involved, but the positions they were put/placing each other in. It needed to be a collaborative effort, and the whole thing just wasn't.
I think what Gorgon means by referencing the end of ANH is, a more or less self-contained story as opposed to ending with a cliffhanger.
Doesn’t strike me as a particularly realistic expectation. Lucas thought he would be lucky to get one made. Disney expected to make them forever. JJ was likely hired specifically to set up a bunch of “ooh what will happen next?” excitement for the product line.
By willfully smacking all of that down, Rian Johnson created a catastrophe and more or less nothing could repair the trilogy — which I don’t mean as an excuse for the ridiculous mess that is TROS.
I’m not impossible to please. I don’t have impossibly high standards. I am not asking for another ESB. I am on record here since 2015 consistently praising TFA while acknowledging its flaws. TFA was not a deeply meaningful movie but it was fun and it managed to give us likeable characters; something Lucas utterly failed to do with the Prequels.
Rian Johnson followed up a fun movie with a deliberately un-fun movie. TLJ goes out of its way to make sure no fun occurs. New unlikeable characters were even invented to demean the likeable characters from TFA. TLJ is such an obvious fething disaster; it’s truly astounding what a failure it is as a sequel.
And following this purposely mean-spirited piece of gak we have TROS which is just stuff stuff and more stuff thrown in with no meaning, consequence, or purpose. Sound and fury signifying nothing. It’s just a monument to narrative indifference.
Don’t tell me to relax and enjoy these pieces of gak. And don’t pretend like me accurately describing them as total failures means there is no possibility of pleasing me. All I wanted was the B-/C+ effort of TFA. It’s absolutely shocking that with so many talented actors and artists and technical people they couldn’t even get to B-/C+.
I was pretty indifferent to this move the first time, but got to see it a second time with my Dad and felt much better about it. Feels on par with the first of the trilogy to me now. So, just putting that out there - might be worth a second viewing if you can risk it
Would've been way better if J.J.Abrams had done the whole trilogy, obviously, and not been forced to try to undo some of what was done in the second installment... but he did try, at least!
I’m not impossible to please. I don’t have impossibly high standards. I am not asking for another ESB. I am on record here since 2015 consistently praising TFA while acknowledging its flaws. TFA was not a deeply meaningful movie but it was fun and it managed to give us likeable characters; something Lucas utterly failed to do with the Prequels.
Rian Johnson followed up a fun movie with a deliberately un-fun movie. TLJ goes out of its way to make sure no fun occurs. New unlikeable characters were even invented to demean the likeable characters from TFA. TLJ is such an obvious fething disaster; it’s truly astounding what a failure it is as a sequel.
What I find interesting about this perception is that, for me, TLJ is the movie that feels the most like ESB. ESB wasn't a 'fun' movie. It was much darker than ANH or RotJ, and overall was pretty serious, with the mood only being lightened occasionally by the usual smattering of Star Wars-ish one-liners.
TLJ was the same (as was, to a slightly lesser extent, Rogue One). It had plenty of the same sort of 'fun' as ESB, from the moment Luke tosses his saber over his shoulder and stalks off onwards. I suspect that the real issue is simply that the humour that was there fell flat for you because you didn't like the characters.
And following this purposely mean-spirited piece of gak ...
And this perception is what finishes it off. You've taken Johnson's attempt to give his audience actual surprises as a middle finger to fandom, which is never how it was intended.
And don’t pretend like me accurately describing them as total failures...
If 'total failure' was an accurate description, there wouldn't be people here pointing out that they liked them...
Would've been way better if J.J.Abrams had done the whole trilogy, obviously, and not been forced to try to undo some of what was done in the second installment...
He didn't undo anything, though. He took what had been set up, and moved forward with it. Some of that resulted in characters acting differently to TLJ, yes... that's part of character advancement.
gorgon wrote: It's just not how you would pass something to a fellow creative.
RJ wrote and directed TLJ.
If that's the case then I definitely blame RJ. To not have continuity of writers through a series is crazy. Even TV series have writing teams that flesh out the broader stories of the main writers and also help ensure some level of internal consistency.
And you really think there was time to flesh out the backstories to the Knights of Ren?
You really think there wasn't?
A large chunk of TLJ was a side quest that could be removed and not affect the story one bit. It only existed to make a couple of throw away points (oh noes, some people make money of war!) and develop the characters of Rose and Finn to culminate in the stupid speeder scene, characters who in turn did almost nothing in the TROS.
A large chunk of TROS was fetch quests that didn't need to take as long as they did (the whole C3PO fetch quest could have not existed and the outcome of the movie would not have changed).
Or that it would lend anything to the central story and conflict?
Potentially, yes, maybe no, but at the moment what we have feels like 3 movies that exist separately from each other (or 2 movies that are a continuation of each other with one in the middle that is just a speed bump on the road of the other two).
Again, I think that's a prime example of RJ showing some good judgement. They're a faceless throw-in that don't matter.
That's my point, they're a faceless throw-in that doesn't matter. The absurdity is that they exist in movie 1, don't exist in movie 2, and exist again in movie 3. They clearly have a story, they're all uniquely dressed and armed and they're related to Kylo's back story. Why not flesh that out some? Or just don't have them there at all.
After thinking about the Rise of Skywalker I think I can make a ranking of the various Star Wars movies.
The following are the truly good movies of the Star Wars franchise.
1) A New Hope
2) The Empire Strikes Back
3) Rogue One
The following are the average, fun, but not great movies
4) Rise of Skywalker
5) The Last Jedi
6) The Return of the Jedi
7) The Force Awakens
8) Solo
The following are the bad Star Wars movies that are still somewhat fun on a rainy Sunday.
9) The Clone Wars
10) Revenge of the Sith
The following are the truly bad Star Wars that require courage to pass through once you have passed the age of 14.
11) Attack of the Clones
12) The Phantom Menace
Overall, I found it interesting to notice that Star Wars is a fairly average film franchise in general, yet one that made a very strong impression on me. When I think of the series though be they Rebels, Clone Wars or the Mandalorian (I haven't watched Resistence yet), these are all quite good, in general much better than the movies. Maybe the future of Star Wars lies there. Series allows for more world building and more "meaty" character development. Then again, TV has surpassed often movies in the last decades when it comes to story telling.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: You kind of disproved your own point, though. Terminator 2 ruins the continuity and rules of time travel from Terminator 1, that has been recognized since it came out, but people are willing to overlook it because the movie is so good. Audiences tend to notice and care about these kinds of issues when the movie is already bad. If TROS has excellent plot structure, characters, themes and dialogue in a well-paced, well-edited film, people would be happier to overlook Hyperspace Skipping. (After all, Star Tours already established it in canon along with the third Death Star.)
This is pretty much what I think. I have no problem with any of the decisions or TechnoMagick(TM) introduced as part of the Star Wars canon in RoS. My main issue is that the movie had absolutely terrible writing and pacing. When the first half is a difficult to follow confused mess with ideas poorly introduced and never fully given time to be absorbed, it’s just a bad movie. Even in the end random things are introduced fast.
And to the point about Rian Johnson being the cause of the ruination of the series, I don’t think he came in to troll the new series. He made a pretty earnest attempt. You might not like it, and that’s fine, I respect your opinion. That said, J.J. Abrams didn’t even try to work with TLJ. There are a lot of ways Episode 9 could’ve mostly followed the same plot beats and actually have built off of TLJ. That’s also on J.J. Abrams. Not Rian Johnson.
But even leaving that aside, it was structurally a poorly made movie. That’s all on J.J. Abrams, not Rian Johnson.
That said, it is shocking that Disney had zero clue where the trilogy was gonna end up. How the hell did they end up going that way?
Would've been way better if J.J.Abrams had done the whole trilogy, obviously, and not been forced to try to undo some of what was done in the second installment...
He didn't undo anything, though. He took what had been set up, and moved forward with it. Some of that resulted in characters acting differently to TLJ, yes... that's part of character advancement.
Just to be clear, I'm not on the hate train for the second movie . But I do think, given the trilogy that we now have, it stands out as a bit odd/different compared to the other two. If Disney had a crystal ball and could go back in time, they almost certainly wouldn't have had a different director advance the characters a certain way, then bring back the first director to "unadvance" them as it were.
I actually like a LOT of things about the second movie, it just doesn't seem continuous with the others. I was reading back up in the thread, and actually missed when watching the third movie the "one in a million" line regarding the lightspeed ramming. But I'm really glad they did that! It's almost certainly a retcon, though, because it wasn't presented that way at all in the second movie.
So, all I'm saying is that it's clear J.J. Abrams tried to get things back on track to what his vision of the trilogy would have been - and that was different than Rian Johnson's. I think it would've benefited from a single vision throughout... but the end result was as good as they could've managed it with where things ended up after the second movie, imo.
insaniak wrote: What I find interesting about this perception is that, for me, TLJ is the movie that feels the most like ESB.
This is kind of a red herring argument. As I understand it, what you’re really saying here is, ESB was dark so why should TLJ be fun? After all, they’re both the middle installments of their respective trilogies. But what a middle installment actually needs to do is develop characters and their relationships as well set up the major conflict to be resolved in the final act. Instead of this, TLJ breaks all of its characters apart from each other, pairs them up with brand new characters who themselves are not developed and undermines them. And as far as the major conflict moving forward, TLJ is rather aimed backwards, attacking the premises of TFA rather than pointing the way toward Episode IX. TLJ did not need to be darker than TFA (a movie where Han Solo is murdered by his son). Nor is it actually darker; it’s just anti-TFA.
insaniak wrote:I suspect that the real issue is simply that the humour that was there fell flat for you because you didn't like the characters.
Which characters? If you mean, Admiral Holdo, Rose Tico, DJ, and the character Johnson called Luke, then yup I don’t like them. I don’t like them because I like Rey, Finn, Poe, and Kylo Ren. Johnson wrote the new characters (including “Luke”) to undermine the new main characters from TFA. The “TLJ characters” constantly (sometimes literally) slap down the TFA characters. Johnson’s film isn’t just an explicit rebuke to people who like the Original Trilogy; it’s also rebuking audience members for liking TFA characters.
insaniak wrote:You've taken Johnson's attempt to give his audience actual surprises as a middle finger to fandom, which is never how it was intended.
Yeah, in a very significant sense, that was exactly what the intention was. In fact, critics picked up on this and praised the film for it.
insaniak wrote:If 'total failure' was an accurate description, there wouldn't be people here pointing out that they liked them...
People can like bad movies. Liking a movie doesn’t make it good.
It’s not my idiosyncratic opinion, it’s the actual impact of TLJ. TFA had detractors but there was a general sense of unity among fans. TLJ quite explicitly made fun of a substantial portion of its audience. Whether you want to cll it what it is or use marketing euphemisms (“subverting expectations”), the result is the same: a huge mess.
The fact that people are still in denial about this is astonishing. The reason Disney is backing off Star Wars is obviously not because things are going too well.
Even people who didn’t dislike TLJ can see how this movie disrupted the new trilogy. Whether JJ would have made something worthwhile had his vision been borne out in Episode VIII is highly debatable but TLJ being a huge mistake is beyond question.
even then eh ? 