Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

On the flipside, A Waititi film, if needed to be about established characters, would be GREAT for a Lando-centric movie.

Yes, that would work.

Mind you, he'd be a pretty great choice to continue the Solo story, as well.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
If...and it's a big if, they finally force Kennedy out and get someone worth a gak in her place (read: Favreau, etc.), then it could be a good film.

If it's under Kennedy...it'll be a stifled ham-fisted film stuffed with obnoxious politics....and will thus suck ass.

rumor has it once Kennedy's contract runs out (January IIRC) she's going to be replaced by Favreau and Filoni.

Lets sacrifice a small goat to Tzeench...

and then Tzeentch gives you Uwe Boll.

Because Tzeentch.

Ah ah ah.

Whilst the Chaos Gods all express pride in Uwe Boll, none are actually owning up to him.

Easy E wrote:He should make a movie about a little boy growing up in the Empire who imagines he is best friends with a cartoon version of Palpatine. That would be great!

Grimskul wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
He should make a movie about a little boy growing up in the Empire who imagines he is best friends with a cartoon version of Palpatine. That would be great!

I see what you did there. And if it's like Robot Chicken version of Palpatine, it'd be even better. We can call it.....Jojo Ewok. Or Jojo's Star Wars Adventures

I want this idea more than I want my next breath.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Fionli, as frustrating as a person as he is, is Lucas' heir. He needs to be the guy heading up the creative process at Lucasfilm.

And you should see Episode 9. How else will you come to know the Great Sith Dagger of Ultimate Contrivance?

Ancient relics are kind of a thing for Jedi and Sith. Why is it a problem that a Sith relic is needed to find a hidden Sith world? Feels reasonably “Star Wars” to me.

Also, to Yohdrin: Finn became one of the commanders in 9. JJ gave him his time to shine. Didn’t feel like comic relief at any point in the movie. Just straight up badass. We got the Finn we wanted after seeing his potential in TFA.

How old was that dagger in TROS? Because there’s something about it that’s bothering me.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Fionli, as frustrating as a person as he is, is Lucas' heir. He needs to be the guy heading up the creative process at Lucasfilm.

And you should see Episode 9. How else will you come to know the Great Sith Dagger of Ultimate Contrivance?

Ancient relics are kind of a thing for Jedi and Sith. Why is it a problem that a Sith relic is needed to find a hidden Sith world? Feels reasonably “Star Wars” to me.

Because the 'ancient relic' uses... approximately 30 year old rubble as its major signpost.
It was crafted to use the silhouette of the second death star wreckage to locate a thing inside that wreckage after it all fell from space. It all fell out of orbit perfectly and stayed perfectly in place despite the very violent ocean and nothing, not even the container for the wayfinder within the rubble moved so much as an inch in thirty years of weather, waves and tidal action after atmospheric re-entry.

Right....

Voss wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Fionli, as frustrating as a person as he is, is Lucas' heir. He needs to be the guy heading up the creative process at Lucasfilm.

And you should see Episode 9. How else will you come to know the Great Sith Dagger of Ultimate Contrivance?

Ancient relics are kind of a thing for Jedi and Sith. Why is it a problem that a Sith relic is needed to find a hidden Sith world? Feels reasonably “Star Wars” to me.

Because the 'ancient relic' uses... approximately 30 year old rubble as its major signpost.
It was crafted to use the silhouette of the second death star wreckage to locate a thing inside that wreckage after it all fell from space. It all fell out of orbit perfectly and stayed perfectly in place despite the very violent ocean and nothing, not even the container for the wayfinder within the rubble moved so much as an inch in thirty years of weather, waves and tidal action after atmospheric re-entry.

Right....

This is what I’m hinting at yes.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Voss wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Fionli, as frustrating as a person as he is, is Lucas' heir. He needs to be the guy heading up the creative process at Lucasfilm.

And you should see Episode 9. How else will you come to know the Great Sith Dagger of Ultimate Contrivance?

Ancient relics are kind of a thing for Jedi and Sith. Why is it a problem that a Sith relic is needed to find a hidden Sith world? Feels reasonably “Star Wars” to me.

Because the 'ancient relic' uses... approximately 30 year old rubble as its major signpost.
It was crafted to use the silhouette of the second death star wreckage to locate a thing inside that wreckage after it all fell from space. It all fell out of orbit perfectly and stayed perfectly in place despite the very violent ocean and nothing, not even the container for the wayfinder within the rubble moved so much as an inch in thirty years of weather, waves and tidal action after atmospheric re-entry.

Right....

This is what I’m hinting at yes.

Yeah....that whole waypoint thing was super contrived and frankly begged more questions than it answered. The worst part is that they literally only happen to find it because they sank into the ground during that whole chase scene. So does that mean if that never happened that they would basically have been screwed until Kylo showed up with his? The story feels like its been railroaded like in a DND campaign rather than a story naturally unfolding.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Voss wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Fionli, as frustrating as a person as he is, is Lucas' heir. He needs to be the guy heading up the creative process at Lucasfilm.

And you should see Episode 9. How else will you come to know the Great Sith Dagger of Ultimate Contrivance?

Ancient relics are kind of a thing for Jedi and Sith. Why is it a problem that a Sith relic is needed to find a hidden Sith world? Feels reasonably “Star Wars” to me.

Because the 'ancient relic' uses... approximately 30 year old rubble as its major signpost.
It was crafted to use the silhouette of the second death star wreckage to locate a thing inside that wreckage after it all fell from space. It all fell out of orbit perfectly and stayed perfectly in place despite the very violent ocean and nothing, not even the container for the wayfinder within the rubble moved so much as an inch in thirty years of weather, waves and tidal action after atmospheric re-entry.

Right....

This is what I’m hinting at yes.

Yeah....that whole waypoint thing was super contrived and frankly begged more questions than it answered. The worst part is that they literally only happen to find it because they sank into the ground during that whole chase scene. So does that mean if that never happened that they would basically have been screwed until Kylo showed up with his? The story feels like its been railroaded like in a DND campaign rather than a story naturally unfolding.

See this is the problem I find myself having with the sequels. The more times I watch them, or even think about them, the stupider I find them becoming. They’re just...so poor.

The only thing I can praise them for is the aesthetics...to a degree. Visually they ‘look’ like Star Wars to me (more so than the prequels) but beyond that I’ve got little else to say.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Voss wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Fionli, as frustrating as a person as he is, is Lucas' heir. He needs to be the guy heading up the creative process at Lucasfilm.

And you should see Episode 9. How else will you come to know the Great Sith Dagger of Ultimate Contrivance?

Ancient relics are kind of a thing for Jedi and Sith. Why is it a problem that a Sith relic is needed to find a hidden Sith world? Feels reasonably “Star Wars” to me.

Because the 'ancient relic' uses... approximately 30 year old rubble as its major signpost.
It was crafted to use the silhouette of the second death star wreckage to locate a thing inside that wreckage after it all fell from space. It all fell out of orbit perfectly and stayed perfectly in place despite the very violent ocean and nothing, not even the container for the wayfinder within the rubble moved so much as an inch in thirty years of weather, waves and tidal action after atmospheric re-entry.

Right....

This is what I’m hinting at yes.

Yeah....that whole waypoint thing was super contrived and frankly begged more questions than it answered. The worst part is that they literally only happen to find it because they sank into the ground during that whole chase scene. So does that mean if that never happened that they would basically have been screwed until Kylo showed up with his? The story feels like its been railroaded like in a DND campaign rather than a story naturally unfolding.

See this is the problem I find myself having with the sequels. The more times I watch them, or even think about them, the stupider I find them becoming. They’re just...so poor.

The only thing I can praise them for is the aesthetics...to a degree. Visually they ‘look’ like Star Wars to me (more so than the prequels) but beyond that I’ve got little else to say.

It's definitely a case of "all flash, no substance". I WANT to like the First Order based on their aesthetic, but they never come across as competent villains, basically only blundering into "victory" by virtue of lacking any real resistance at all from the main cast or otherwise. Similarly, the heroes of the story just waltz into plot devices to move the story forward. It boggles my mind that they decided to make the trilogy without an actual plan ahead of time and it shows from how poorly connected the three movies are, it's pretty much a Frankenstein trilogy to me.

Voss wrote:

Because the 'ancient relic' uses... approximately 30 year old rubble as its major signpost.
It was crafted to use the silhouette of the second death star wreckage to locate a thing inside that wreckage after it all fell from space. It all fell out of orbit perfectly and stayed perfectly in place despite the very violent ocean and nothing, not even the container for the wayfinder within the rubble moved so much as an inch in thirty years of weather, waves and tidal action after atmospheric re-entry.

I had assumed that while the knife was old, the wreckage silhouette was added by Ochi.

Even if not, though, given that Palpatine had the foresight to predict everything that happened through the entire Clone Wars and his rise to power, the idea that some ancient Sith had a vision that led him to carve a specific shape into a dagger that would only be useful to one person at one specific time in the distant future isn't really that out there an idea...

And yet...the Force moves things and had no problem conceiving a child (Anakin) without male genetic makeup to do it. I’m pretty sure the Force can manipulate some sinking sand (or position people along a path that puts them in sinking sand) to make sure events transpire the way they should. Seems more like the criticism of this comes from those who don’t understand the Star Wars mythos. Like it or not, it makes perfect sense within the SW universe. JJ understands they mythos as a whole and worked within it. It’s one of the reasons I appreciate his film and had such resistance to RJ’s film.

Is it an ancient Relic? Is it really?

We know the guy that had it was a Jedi Hunter. And that he was active post-Empire, when he abducted Rey’s Parents.

Even if we ignore that it's clearly meant to evoke pretty much every "ancient artifact" trope in the Babby's First Big Book Of Films that is JJ's bible, it's still monumentally dumb because there is literally zero indication of where you're meant to go to look through the entirely-dependent-on-perspective viewfinder. Some will immediately reach for the Force to try and explain away just how silly it all is, but that both diminishes the Force from something cool and mysterious to mere filler used to cover up narrative cracks and fridge logic, and is also unnecessary: I get that some people, for some reason I can't fathom, actually and genuinely like the sequels, but you can like them while also acknowledging their flaws, you don't have to tie yourself in knots trying to explain away the problems in the story that are clearly the result of external IRL issues impacting the quality of the narrative, you can just say "meh, I like them anyway".

As for Finn's outing in RoS, he gets some token nods, but they couldn't even find time to cram in the what, 30 second scene of him actually telling Rey he believes he's Force sensitive, and frankly he needed a lot more time & effort than what we got to rehabilitate him from the actual literal slapstick clown wee Rian "the Ruiner" Johnson portrayed him as in TLJ. And I'm hardly alone in that assessment, heck, the actor himself spends what seems like half his social media time these days taking sideways potshots at Disney & Lucasfilm

 Yodhrin wrote:
I get that some people, for some reason I can't fathom, actually and genuinely like the sequels, but you can like them while also acknowledging their flaws, you don't have to tie yourself in knots trying to explain away the problems in the story that are clearly the result of external IRL issues impacting the quality of the narrative, you can just say "meh, I like them anyway".

You seem to feel that it takes some sort of intellectual gymnastics to explain minor plot issues. Yes, there are genuine issues with the sequels, as there were with all of the preceding movies. Most of them, however, fall more into the 'they didn't take time to explain this' camp rather than being genuine issues. And for most of those there is either a fairly obvious potential answer, or it's something to wonder about that may or may not be explained elsewhere.

So the flipside of your comment above is that it's perfectly ok to like or dislike the movies, but I can't fathom why some people seem so determined to not think about how those 'holes' could possibly be explained, and prefer to see them as flaws in the movie.

For those of us that liked the movies, finding explanations for the holes isn't as difficult as you seem to think. For those who disliked them... why waste your time and ours endlessly complaining about them and seemingly wallowing in bitterness? Move on, dude.

 insaniak wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I get that some people, for some reason I can't fathom, actually and genuinely like the sequels, but you can like them while also acknowledging their flaws, you don't have to tie yourself in knots trying to explain away the problems in the story that are clearly the result of external IRL issues impacting the quality of the narrative, you can just say "meh, I like them anyway".

You seem to feel that it takes some sort of intellectual gymnastics to explain minor plot issues. Yes, there are genuine issues with the sequels, as there were with all of the preceding movies. Most of them, however, fall more into the 'they didn't take time to explain this' camp rather than being genuine issues. And for most of those there is either a fairly obvious potential answer, or it's something to wonder about that may or may not be explained elsewhere.

So the flipside of your comment above is that it's perfectly ok to like or dislike the movies, but I can't fathom why some people seem so determined to not think about how those 'holes' could possibly be explained, and prefer to see them as flaws in the movie.

For those of us that liked the movies, finding explanations for the holes isn't as difficult as you seem to think. For those who disliked them... why waste your time and ours endlessly complaining about them and seemingly wallowing in bitterness? Move on, dude.

Dude, this is *DAKKA*, you of all people should know that

On a more serious note, when it comes to the sequel movies, I find there's a lot more narrative incoherency with the sequels than anything involved with the originals, and for many, myself included, is kinda how it undercuts the narrative of the original movies, partiuclarly Luke (who always sees the possibility of redemption, and worked so hard to redeem anakin, to just kinda throw it all away with his nephew) and then they killed off the original cast in ways that really didn't fit what were childhood heroes and archetypes for many. Granted, I haven't seen Ep9, and really have no desire to at this point (I'll watch it if someone puts it on, but I have no desire to go out of my way to see it), but Han and Leia were supposed to live happily ever, Han was not supposed to get ganked by his kid. Luke was going to go be the great jedi, not go out as some old gross self-defeated hermit pulled unwillingly from retirement to be blown up by his *extremely* whiny nephew in an Avengers-esque CG extravaganza scene. When we get into stuff that people held so dearly, and were such powerful childhood memories, it bothers a lot of people very deeply.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why some people dislike the directions taken for some of the characters, even if I don't agree with that opinion.

It's the actively choosing to interpret perceived plotholes as errors rather than making a minimal effort to explain them that I don't understand.

I also agree that the sequels tended to skimp on the actual narrative, and even moreso than the prequels were largely just a series of action sequences tied together by barebones plot. I just don't see that as a big problem, because I'm just as happy watching 'Explosion! The Movie!' as I am watching a story. YMMV.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I get that some people, for some reason I can't fathom, actually and genuinely like the sequels, but you can like them while also acknowledging their flaws, you don't have to tie yourself in knots trying to explain away the problems in the story that are clearly the result of external IRL issues impacting the quality of the narrative, you can just say "meh, I like them anyway".

You seem to feel that it takes some sort of intellectual gymnastics to explain minor plot issues. Yes, there are genuine issues with the sequels, as there were with all of the preceding movies. Most of them, however, fall more into the 'they didn't take time to explain this' camp rather than being genuine issues. And for most of those there is either a fairly obvious potential answer, or it's something to wonder about that may or may not be explained elsewhere.

So the flipside of your comment above is that it's perfectly ok to like or dislike the movies, but I can't fathom why some people seem so determined to not think about how those 'holes' could possibly be explained, and prefer to see them as flaws in the movie.

For those of us that liked the movies, finding explanations for the holes isn't as difficult as you seem to think. For those who disliked them... why waste your time and ours endlessly complaining about them and seemingly wallowing in bitterness? Move on, dude.

Dude, this is *DAKKA*, you of all people should know that

On a more serious note, when it comes to the sequel movies, I find there's a lot more narrative incoherency with the sequels than anything involved with the originals, and for many, myself included, is kinda how it undercuts the narrative of the original movies, partiuclarly Luke (who always sees the possibility of redemption, and worked so hard to redeem anakin, to just kinda throw it all away with his nephew) and then they killed off the original cast in ways that really didn't fit what were childhood heroes and archetypes for many. Granted, I haven't seen Ep9, and really have no desire to at this point (I'll watch it if someone puts it on, but I have no desire to go out of my way to see it), but Han and Leia were supposed to live happily ever, Han was not supposed to get ganked by his kid. Luke was going to go be the great jedi, not go out as some old gross self-defeated hermit pulled unwillingly from retirement to be blown up by his *extremely* whiny nephew in an Avengers-esque CG extravaganza scene. When we get into stuff that people held so dearly, and were such powerful childhood memories, it bothers a lot of people very deeply.

Yeah, I think that's a big reason behind the backlash for the sequels and you really nailed it on the head. For all the prequels problems (cringey dialogue and Anakin's portrayal as a person in general, pacing problems with Phantom Menace, midichlorians), it at least tied to the main trilogy's theme of redemption and how Anakin did eventually fulfill the prophecy of bringing balance to the force and more importantly, key characters like Palpatine weren't undermined as characters. Anakin's fall wasn't perfect, but I still feel like his transition to Darth Vader made sense and it opened up an entire new idea of the galaxy at large which was great for world building. Look at all the great games and content that came out of the Clone Wars. Compare that to now....where pretty much the sequel era is practically void of any meaningful or interesting side material.

The overwhelming blandness of the new trilogy is something which I think Waititi could really undo.

 insaniak wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why some people dislike the directions taken for some of the characters, even if I don't agree with that opinion.

It's the actively choosing to interpret perceived plotholes as errors rather than making a minimal effort to explain them that I don't understand.

I also agree that the sequels tended to skimp on the actual narrative, and even moreso than the prequels were largely just a series of action sequences tied together by barebones plot. I just don't see that as a big problem, because I'm just as happy watching 'Explosion! The Movie!' as I am watching a story. YMMV.

Ah, well. That's a pretty fundamental disconnect. I stopped caring about fireworks a couple decades ago. Skimping on the narrative in a film or other form of storytelling is completely unacceptable to me. Trading it for the 20-30 minute CGI sequences makes it even worse, since most modern filmmakers seem to think that while those bits are running they don't have to do any work.

Its particularly ridiculous in Rise, since all they had to do was slow down and chase fewer pointless McGuffins so they had time to talk and breathe. Get the thing to get the thing to get thing that ends up being destroyed and the characters get to <place> anyway is something that should be axed on the very very first read-through of the script. Better, the writers should pause halfway through and question their existences.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Voss wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Fionli, as frustrating as a person as he is, is Lucas' heir. He needs to be the guy heading up the creative process at Lucasfilm.

And you should see Episode 9. How else will you come to know the Great Sith Dagger of Ultimate Contrivance?

Ancient relics are kind of a thing for Jedi and Sith. Why is it a problem that a Sith relic is needed to find a hidden Sith world? Feels reasonably “Star Wars” to me.

Because the 'ancient relic' uses... approximately 30 year old rubble as its major signpost.
It was crafted to use the silhouette of the second death star wreckage to locate a thing inside that wreckage after it all fell from space. It all fell out of orbit perfectly and stayed perfectly in place despite the very violent ocean and nothing, not even the container for the wayfinder within the rubble moved so much as an inch in thirty years of weather, waves and tidal action after atmospheric re-entry.

Right....

This is what I’m hinting at yes.

Yeah....that whole waypoint thing was super contrived and frankly begged more questions than it answered. The worst part is that they literally only happen to find it because they sank into the ground during that whole chase scene. So does that mean if that never happened that they would basically have been screwed until Kylo showed up with his? The story feels like its been railroaded like in a DND campaign rather than a story naturally unfolding.

I’m surprised no one looted the Emperor’s throne room in all that time.

Voss wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why some people dislike the directions taken for some of the characters, even if I don't agree with that opinion.

It's the actively choosing to interpret perceived plotholes as errors rather than making a minimal effort to explain them that I don't understand.

I also agree that the sequels tended to skimp on the actual narrative, and even moreso than the prequels were largely just a series of action sequences tied together by barebones plot. I just don't see that as a big problem, because I'm just as happy watching 'Explosion! The Movie!' as I am watching a story. YMMV.

Ah, well. That's a pretty fundamental disconnect. I stopped caring about fireworks a couple decades ago. Skimping on the narrative in a film or other form of storytelling is completely unacceptable to me. Trading it for the 20-30 minute CGI sequences makes it even worse, since most modern filmmakers seem to think that while those bits are running they don't have to do any work.

Its particularly ridiculous in Rise, since all they had to do was slow down and chase fewer pointless McGuffins so they had time to talk and breathe. Get the thing to get the thing to get thing that ends up being destroyed and the characters get to <place> anyway is something that should be axed on the very very first read-through of the script. Better, the writers should pause halfway through and question their existences.

It’s almost like JJ was trying to fit two films plot in one film...

As others have mentioned, it was a fundamental mistake to produce the sequel trilogy without even a vague plan of an arc for the three films. They might have got away with it if they’d had JJ in involved in all three (let’s face it, there was no plan for the original trilogy other than what was in Lucas’ head, but a t least he wrote all three, which gives them consistency), although I really don’t like JJ’s work*. However I’ve seen at least one reviewer point out that they also forgot one of the key rules of improv; “yes, and”. If you’re making it up on the fly you need to take what you’ve been given and build upon it. As soon as you go “no, instead”, you kill all narrative momentum and that’s basically what happens at the start of IX.

* I get why Rian Johnson’s ideas have upset a lot of people, but for me TLJ is the best of the sequels; I’d much rather have controversial and interesting than just empty and dumb and boy, do the JJ films have a lot of immersion breaking dumb stuff.

As evidence of my position, the one bit JJ continued from TLJ was the force link between Rey and Kylo and to me it is one of the most interesting and fun elements of RoS.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Ancient relics are kind of a thing for Jedi and Sith. Why is it a problem that a Sith relic is needed to find a hidden Sith world? Feels reasonably “Star Wars” to me.

Because this Sith relic:



As I said, contrivance. And that's after all the contrivances they go through to get the damned thing.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
JJ gave him his time to shine.

He spent most of the film screaming "REY!" and doing nothing.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And yet...the Force moves things and had no problem conceiving a child (Anakin) without male genetic makeup to do it.

You think the Force did that? Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise?

What does Plageus have to do with anything? Qui Gon told us he may have been conceived by the Force. I’m pretty sure if the Force can grow a baby inside of a woman, it can nudge people “hey look in this direction over here, the key I’ve provided MIGHT be in the area”.

Honestly, half the garbage spewed in here sounds like people thinking the script isn’t how THEY would write it. Of course, if it had been, we’d probably end up with something worse than Johnson’s work. I’ll keep the film I’m happy with, thank you.

And I actually enjoyed TFA as well. AND the JJ Star Treks. Huh, it’s almost as if I enjoy Abrams’ work in general...is it “deep”? No. But I want to enjoy stuff. So if you need deep, philosophical movies that challenge you to question if life is worth living, then great. But if you want a fun movie, then what’s the big deal? Really feels like a bunch of saltiness, honestly. Or just hatred of a director. In which case, the cure is not watching his movies; cuz you’re gonna be disappointed!

 Jadenim wrote:

It’s almost like JJ was trying to fit two films plot in one film...

As others have mentioned, it was a fundamental mistake to produce the sequel trilogy without even a vague plan of an arc for the three films. They might have got away with it if they’d had JJ in involved in all three (let’s face it, there was no plan for the original trilogy other than what was in Lucas’ head, but a t least he wrote all three, which gives them consistency), although I really don’t like JJ’s work*. However I’ve seen at least one reviewer point out that they also forgot one of the key rules of improv; “yes, and”. If you’re making it up on the fly you need to take what you’ve been given and build upon it. As soon as you go “no, instead”, you kill all narrative momentum and that’s basically what happens at the start of IX.

* I get why Rian Johnson’s ideas have upset a lot of people, but for me TLJ is the best of the sequels; I’d much rather have controversial and interesting than just empty and dumb and boy, do the JJ films have a lot of immersion breaking dumb stuff.

But so does TLJ. They're all bad. Consider that the beginning of TLJ does the _exact same_ "No, instead" that you have a problem with at the start of Rise. Everything from Awakens is tossed over Luke's shoulder, and every plot element is burned to the ground, and the immersion breaking dumb stuff achieves a new level.

timetowaste85 wrote:No. But I want to enjoy stuff. So if you need deep, philosophical movies that challenge you to question if life is worth living, then great. But if you want a fun movie, then what’s the big deal?

This is a false dichotomy. A little thought and planning isn't a need for deep philosophy, and they aren't exclusive to fun.
Though... building a case that these are fun movies at all seems difficult to me. A rushed series of overpacked CGI sequences don't make a fun film.

insaniak wrote:Even if not, though, given that Palpatine had the foresight to predict everything that happened through the entire Clone Wars and his rise to power, the idea that some ancient Sith had a vision that led him to carve a specific shape into a dagger that would only be useful to one person at one specific time in the distant future isn't really that out there an idea...

I was under the impression that Palpatine wasn't using foresight in the Clone Wars, but was basically holding all the cards, and was a master manipulators behind the scenes.

insaniak wrote:Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why some people dislike the directions taken for some of the characters, even if I don't agree with that opinion.

It's the actively choosing to interpret perceived plotholes as errors rather than making a minimal effort to explain them that I don't understand.

I also agree that the sequels tended to skimp on the actual narrative, and even moreso than the prequels were largely just a series of action sequences tied together by barebones plot. I just don't see that as a big problem, because I'm just as happy watching 'Explosion! The Movie!' as I am watching a story. YMMV.

That's entirely fair, and treating Ep8 as "explosions the movie" is basically how my brain got through it and I can totally get why people can accept it for that. I think however, because of the effect the other major flaws the movies have and the effect that has on many fans, it's hard to see plotholes as anything but errors, that benefit of the doubt has evaporated for many, particularly when it happens in multiple concurrent movies.

Grimskul wrote:
Yeah, I think that's a big reason behind the backlash for the sequels and you really nailed it on the head. For all the prequels problems (cringey dialogue and Anakin's portrayal as a person in general, pacing problems with Phantom Menace, midichlorians), it at least tied to the main trilogy's theme of redemption and how Anakin did eventually fulfill the prophecy of bringing balance to the force and more importantly, key characters like Palpatine weren't undermined as characters. Anakin's fall wasn't perfect, but I still feel like his transition to Darth Vader made sense and it opened up an entire new idea of the galaxy at large which was great for world building. Look at all the great games and content that came out of the Clone Wars. Compare that to now....where pretty much the sequel era is practically void of any meaningful or interesting side material.

Aye, the prequel trilogy was...poorly executed, to say the least, but yeah, it didn't go out of its way to undermine or confuse the fundamental arc or narrative, and didn't break people's connections to characters, though in fairness, I'm not sure how much of that came from being ahead of the original series as opposed to after it

As disappointed as I was with TLJ, it is a masterpiece compared to Ep IX.

Tapping Taika for >unnamed project< smells desperate. But these are obviously desperate times for Lucasfilm.