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.

The first Transformers genuinely was a good film. Surprisingly good mix of action, humor and heart for a Michael Bay movie. The rest...were not so surprising.

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, I think the biggest issue SW has had since it's inception is this pathological need to explain and write history for every single detail and relationship no mater how minor. Background characters with no lines in the movies have entire stories written about them. It's done a LOT of bad.

Which leads to people demanding that the Knights of Ren get significant screen time in a 400ish-minute trilogy with too many characters and already full of holes, inconsistencies, and stuff that just plain should have been explained better.

Been thinking that the Mandalorian format might be the best path forward for the franchise. Gives creators more time to tell their story and more creative space to focus on and explore particular aspects and events in that universe.

I just can't get my head around the idea that they are going to spend hundreds of millions on talented actors, amazing effects artists, set designers, costume designers, film on location around the world...and they can't be arsed working on the scripts for long enough to make them actually good.

I am sure it is all to do with hollywood bs, but don't the money people realise that crap scripts tank movies that are good in all other respects really reliably?

 gorgon wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, I think the biggest issue SW has had since it's inception is this pathological need to explain and write history for every single detail and relationship no mater how minor. Background characters with no lines in the movies have entire stories written about them. It's done a LOT of bad.

Which leads to people demanding that the Knights of Ren get significant screen time in a 400ish-minute trilogy with too many characters and already full of holes, inconsistencies, and stuff that just plain should have been explained better.

If you're talking about my comments earlier, I couldn't give a crap about the Knights of Ren specifically, I was just pointing out the absurdity of them not existing in the 2nd film then coming back in the 3rd, and lamenting that they could have been used to create a story arc that actually cut through the entire series.

Instead we get characters like Rose, who only popped up in the 2nd film for a side quest that didn't need to happen, she might as well not have existed in the 3rd film, and who's removal would have had no effect on the overall story (actually maybe would have had a positive effect if Finn got more attention in her absence). And we get fetch quests like C3PO's that again doesn't need to be there and the only consequence of it (wiping his memory) is almost immediately rectified.

I'm not desperate to have the Knights expanded, from what I understand they are expanded in the books and whatnot (I haven't read any of that, but it's my understanding at least). They could be dropped entirely for all I care, I just used them as an example of how badly the trilogy as a whole has been managed.

The 400ish-minute trilogy was packed with stuff that didn't need to be there, I'm not asking for them to make it longer, but rather hack out some of the pointless crap in favour of some scenes that link the movies and create broader arcs.

 Col Hammer wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
And then she kills him, which is what he wanted to happen a few minutes before, right after, puzzlingly, he attempts to kill her, but no worries, although she did kill him like he wanted I guess it wasn’t quite in the way he wanted because what he said would happen when she killed him didn’t.

When Palpy asked Rey to kill him (to make the spirit transfer or whatever) he was attached to the Zombie-crane-lifesupport-thingy machine.

He also said that she would strike him down with her hate and anger (or something along those dark side lines). When she kills him (debatable that she technically did as she was directing his own lightning back at him), she is not drawing on the dark side, but the light.

Her emotional state and using the dark side was probably important to the transfer ritual.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
4. Did you really watch TF and think “This is the level of quality films should aspire to.”? Really?

Bob, the main argument in PRAISE for TLJ has always been “it’s dumb as gak” — and now the same thing is true of TROS.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Instead we get characters like Rose, who only popped up in the 2nd film for a side quest that didn't need to happen, she might as well not have existed in the 3rd film, and who's removal would have had no effect on the overall story (actually maybe would have had a positive effect if Finn got more attention in her absence).

The Knights of Ren also might as well have not existed in the third film. They never interact with any of the main characters on screen except for Kylo Ren. And their main interaction with him is to die.

Rose actually had stuff to do on screen in TLJ, even if that stuff wasn't vitally important when you look back on it from after the ending of the film (though it is important for contributing to Poe's development as it is his dangerous plan which gets the fleet killed). The KoR just kinda walk around with their big weapons, doing nothing but standing in shadows and then get killed by their boss.

If that was all that JJ could think to do with them then RJ was absolutely correct to ignore them completely in TLJ.

A Town Called Malus 781649 10675884 47baf75c699644f41ce48a92a5ea1340 wrote:Her emotional state and using the dark side was probably important to the transfer ritual.

This is almost certainly the case but what we can guess about the implications* is not really at issue when one is watching the film in the moment, thinking, uhhh wat. TROS shows us scene after scene of Rey frustrated to the point of rage and losing control of her actions as she lashes out. If there was a coherent emotional through-line for her conflict in the movie, the Palpatine scene would make more sense. But like everything, it is hyper rushed. Rey is just suddenly not angry anymore because of some Jedi voices

*for example, Palpatine’s actual motive in killing Rey’s parents could have been to immerse her in a lifetime of painful isolation, setting her up to hate him like a megaton blast when she finds out

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Instead we get characters like Rose, who only popped up in the 2nd film for a side quest that didn't need to happen, she might as well not have existed in the 3rd film, and who's removal would have had no effect on the overall story (actually maybe would have had a positive effect if Finn got more attention in her absence).

The Knights of Ren also might as well have not existed in the third film. They never interact with any of the main characters on screen except for Kylo Ren. And their main interaction with him is to die.

Rose actually had stuff to do on screen in TLJ, even if that stuff wasn't vitally important. The KoR just kinda walk around with their big weapons, doing nothing but standing in shadows and then get killed by their boss.

Sure, whatever, my whole point in that post was that I didn't care specifically about the Knights.

Alternatively they could have made Rose a more meaningful character, introduce her sister in the first film perhaps, then expand Rose's role in the 3rd, drop that whole speeder stupidity.

I just used the Knights as an example because they existed from the beginning and at the end and clearly have some backstory that could have been explored.

They should have more leveraged the fact they were making a trilogy.

The Knights of Ren had one great scene in TROS: there is a moment in the film where we get a helicopter shot of a bunch of cosplayers standing awkwardly at the top of some rock they were airlifted climbed on for some reason accompanied by an over the top Williams dramatic chipmunk flourish, duh-da-DUN. That gave me at least five minutes of chuckles.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
4. Did you really watch TF and think “This is the level of quality films should aspire to.”? Really?

Bob, the main argument in PRAISE for TLJ has always been “it’s dumb as gak” — and now the same thing is true of TROS.

I enjoyed TLJ as a sci fi movie the same way I enjoy Flash Gordon or Krull. If main trilogy Star Wars wasn’t dead to me, I’d have been really angry.

I also enjoyed TROS for reasons the filmmaker never intended. It’s the Showgirls of Star Wars movies.

Doesn’t mean I would ever describe the films as good Star Wars movies.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Col Hammer wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
And then she kills him, which is what he wanted to happen a few minutes before, right after, puzzlingly, he attempts to kill her, but no worries, although she did kill him like he wanted I guess it wasn’t quite in the way he wanted because what he said would happen when she killed him didn’t.

When Palpy asked Rey to kill him (to make the spirit transfer or whatever) he was attached to the Zombie-crane-lifesupport-thingy machine.

He also said that she would strike him down with her hate and anger (or something along those dark side lines). When she kills him (debatable that she technically did as she was directing his own lightning back at him), she is not drawing on the dark side, but the light.

Her emotional state and using the dark side was probably important to the transfer ritual.

That was my read too. Killing him in the first instance would have been an act of revenge/vengeance and therefore motivated by dark side, when she does finally do it, it was in defence of the lives of her friends and the rest of the Resistance.

Motivation matters in these cases, that's why Obi Wan puts up his saber, and why the throne room fight pans out how it does in Jedi.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, I think the biggest issue SW has had since it's inception is this pathological need to explain and write history for every single detail and relationship no mater how minor. Background characters with no lines in the movies have entire stories written about them. It's done a LOT of bad.

Which leads to people demanding that the Knights of Ren get significant screen time in a 400ish-minute trilogy with too many characters and already full of holes, inconsistencies, and stuff that just plain should have been explained better.

If you're talking about my comments earlier, I couldn't give a crap about the Knights of Ren specifically, I was just pointing out the absurdity of them not existing in the 2nd film then coming back in the 3rd, and lamenting that they could have been used to create a story arc that actually cut through the entire series.

That wasn't specifically aimed at you. The Knights seem to have a following in some corners, and I was addressing that. I think their story is being told in a comic series now anyway...?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

I just used the Knights as an example because they existed from the beginning and at the end and clearly have some backstory that could have been explored.

They should have more leveraged the fact they were making a trilogy.

Alternately, they should have been cut to ease the bloated run times. I could go either way with the knights as a concept, but given the way they were used, they should have been cut. In a different story (Kylo trying to found a dark legacy, with no first order, just the lurking menace of a dark side threat, and the legacy of vader or something), they could have been used well.

There are lots of oversight moments that should have resulted in either:
A) we should do more with this element
or
B) we should cut this entirely because it serves no purpose and just muddies the storytelling in favor of a fleeting visual.

Probably the biggest gripe I have with the new trilogy is almost everything on screen fits into A or B and almost nothing fits into C: useful and necessary for an interesting story the films are actually trying to tell.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If that was all that JJ could think to do with them then RJ was absolutely correct to ignore them completely in TLJ.

Which I think points to JJ never really having a plan for what came next. It wasn't his plan to make anyway, since Johnson and Trevorrow were tasked with writing and directing the next installments.

I don't think JJ picked up TFA threads in TROS because he was restoring anything that was derailed by TLJ. He just didn't have any better ideas. Had JJ directed TLJ, it probably would have had lots of whiz-bang action, introduced a bunch of kewl stuff just for the kewls, and involved the good guys trying to eliminate a bad guy superweapon. *shrug*

To be clear, I don't take SW seriously and had a fine time at TROS. My kids liked it, and that was cool. Seeing what looks like a pretty large creative process fail just frustrates me as a creative professional.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Going to keep this really simple for you. Consider how ANH wraps up compared to how TFA wraps up. World of difference.

Ah... ANH: Death star blew up. TFA: Death star planet blew up.

Yeah. Huge difference.

Are you for real?


I mean, are you also a fan of Star Wars: Krull? It ends with them blowing up the Death Star castle. Same thing, right?

Then tell me what this oh-so-enormous difference is between the two. Rather than be insulting, try being convincing.

eD.

Over the last couple pages, people more invested than I am spelled it out for you quite clearly. One is a stand alone film which tells a complete story. The other is incomplete and (although the side quest is completed) the main goal for the protagonists is left on a cliffhanger, with many questions left unanswered and character arcs left undecided. The tones of the endings are different. The details are different. The plot functions are different.

For ANH to have the same kind of ending, the film would need to stop when the heroes get R2 to Yavin and the tech plugs in the doohickey that downloads the Death Star plans—directed by George Lucas, do dadoot dadoot dadoodoodoodoot Dah Duh Dah Duh duh DUH Dah duh duh DUH DunDunDunDun!

You make some valid points there. But since TFA and ANH hit all the same plot points with almost exactly the same timing, my point is equally valid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
It’s a fethup, same as Luke completing just how much training to almost become a complete Jedi in the time it takes Han to hide in a comet worm and escape to meet Lando.

Star Wars is full of screwups like that, half hearted retcons to attempt to fix those continuity mistakes, and logical inconsistencies.

Pretending that this started with Disney and that they somehow ruined Star Wars because of it is stupid, and that’s my point. Episode 7-9 is full of the same logical errors, inconsistencies, and continuity screwups that the series always had. Disney’s Star Wars isn’t really any different than Lucas’ Star Wars. I enjoyed them all for the same reason.

To be fair, Han is going from the asteroid belt of the Hoth system to a gas giant in a completely different system WITHOUT A HYPERDRIVE.

He could have been in transit for years, for all we know, although it's unlikely he had enough food to go that long. But weeks to months is certainly not out of the question given that limitation. Even if it puts Hoth and Bespin EXCEEDINGLY close, on an astronomical scale...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

You have it backwards. The movie is crap, and that’s why these inconsistencies don’t get a pass. “Less than 12 parsecs” gets a pass* because Star Wars was a good movie.

The line confused me for a while, then I realized what was going on. "You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?" 'Good,' Han thinks to himself. 'I can lie to them and jack up the price! It's just an old man and an ignorant farm boy, what do they know about smuggling?'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Col Hammer wrote:

Also, hyperspace ramming and Deathstar (and why the two newer met). Maybe Deathstar was equipped with the gravity well generators that the Interdictor had

Except TFA showed gravity fields had no effect on hyperspace travel.

And TROS shows ships entering and exiting hyperspace I the midst of tall buildings and cubic miles of atmosphere. Setting rules and limitations don’t matter to some ‘storytellers’.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This reminds me of something I wanted to address earlier. Someone said that the movies never explained hyperdrive, so hyperramming and hyperskipping weren’t against the rules, and not seeing them happen before doesn’t make them impossible.

Dude, it’s called “show, don’t tell”. The previous movies SHOWED us how hyperdrive works. By not showing hyperramming or hyperskipping numerous times when intelligent or experienced characters would clearly have used those techniques, the setting has “told” us the limitations of hyperspace travel. Remember that a hero is only as clever as the obstacles (including rules of the setting) are difficult to overcome. When a filmmaker changes the rules for convenience, he is actively making his characters less clever.

The Sequels have consistently made the villains less threatening and the rules less limiting, which makes the heroes less heroic and more stupid in turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss, Star Wars was all about destroying the Death Star, and they did it. TFA was all about finding Luke so he could help the Resistance, and they didn’t fit that in the movie. Even though the movies look alike in bullet point form, the actual character motivations and developments are completely different. The actual meats of the movies—the parts that make films resonate with the audience—are very different.

 Manchu wrote:
And then she kills him, which is what he wanted to happen a few minutes before, right after, puzzlingly, he attempts to kill her, but no worries, although she did kill him like he wanted I guess it wasn’t quite in the way he wanted because what he said would happen when she killed him didn’t.

Initially, she was supposed to kill him, at which point his spirit and the combined spirits of the Sith would pass into her.

Instead, he drained the twin-life energy from Rey and Kylo, which healed him and allowed him to take on the spirits of the Sith himself. At that point, he no longer needed Rey, and so was free to kill her.



So far as killing of Kylo goes, to me that was the only sensible outcome. Either he was going to stay evil, in which case someone was going to kill him, or he would return to the light... which is great, and all, but he's still done some pretty horrible things. One of the things that bugged me in the EU was the frequency with which Jedi turned to the Dark Side, did horrible things and then came back to the Light, and everyone just went 'S'awright, he's good again now. All is forgiven, nothing to see here...'

Having him sacrifice himself for Rey completes his redemption while also not leaving him awkwardly hanging around.

With a nod to his grandfather's arc too.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


What are you talking about? It’s only been an inconsistency since the prequels existed, it was remarked upon instantly and constantly, and doesn’t matter because everyone hates the prequels anyway.

It was popular to bash the prequels, but the truth is that both critic and audience opinions were and still are divided. ROTS is actually considered one of the better movies...because it has the highground.

It’s likely that the same people who have problems with the sequels had problems with the prequels, so please mentally add an appropriate disclaimer to my statement limiting it to the appropriate segment of the fandom. That is, one can’t convince fans who don’t uncritically accept the prequels that the prequels are a good reason to uncritically accept the sequels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, a lot of people liking a thing does not make that thing actually good. See: Transformers movies.

Oh, I see what you mean, Bob. Fair play.

Regarding your second point...what makes a good film is subjective - "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and all that jazz. However, if a film is positively recieved by both critics and audience alike, then thats where a film gets its recognition.

The Transformer movies - box office aside - has had its ups and downs with both critics and audiences. First one was well recieved(obviously not without its faults), but the series gradually gradually fell out of favour with both camps. Bumblebee, on the other hand, proved that less is more and is well regarded by both critics and audience alike. Bumbleebee also focused on its target audience - the young at heart.

Today we have lost sight on what is good or bad. When someone says Justice League or The Phantom Menace are bad movies then they clearly haven't been exposed to the horrors of King Kong Lives or The Neverending Story Part 3. As much as I think the MCU is overrated and question why we need 3-5 films a year, I honestly cannot say I have seen a bad Marvel movie.

 gorgon wrote:
The first Transformers genuinely was a good film. Surprisingly good mix of action, humor and heart for a Michael Bay movie. The rest...were not so surprising.

This.

 Lance845 wrote:
Yeah, I think the biggest issue SW has had since it's inception is this pathological need to explain and write history for every single detail and relationship no mater how minor. Background characters with no lines in the movies have entire stories written about them. It's done a LOT of bad.

This is fair.

Which leads to people demanding that the Knights of Ren get significant screen time in a 400ish-minute trilogy with too many characters and already full of holes, inconsistencies, and stuff that just plain should have been explained better.

I disagree with this solely because the lead up materials to the first film seemed to be setting the Knights of Ren up as an important group of bads, only for none of them to ever matter. They got Phasma'd harder than Phasma. Maybe that's just a case of deceptive marketing, or imo I think the Knights were intended by JJ to be a bigger part of the films than they ended up being.

Just got back from the cinema, I have not read the thread up to this point because I have been avoiding spoilers. I am glad I decided not to spoiler myself because despite all the negativity I rather liked it. I can see why some dislike it and the film has its flaws, and do believe it would have been best split into two films or given an half hour for better pacing. However I do not believe it deserved the reputation it has garnered. Episode 8 left things in a mess and to fix that and finish the trilogy was a hard job. I don't rate Jar Jar Abrams as a director but he did a passable job here.

I did turn up at the cinema willing to just watch it and enjoy it for what it was, with low expectations, so I set the bar low enough to enjoy it. Maybe that was the difference and casualization is the key..

 Orlanth wrote:
Just got back from the cinema, I have not read the thread up to this point because I have been avoiding spoilers. I am glad I decided not to spoiler myself because despite all the negativity I rather liked it. I can see why some dislike it and the film has its flaws, and do believe it would have been best split into two films or given an half hour for better pacing. However I do not believe it deserved the reputation it has garnered. Episode 8 left things in a mess and to fix that and finish the trilogy was a hard job. I don't rate Jar Jar Abrams as a director but he did a passable job here.

I did turn up at the cinema willing to just watch it and enjoy it for what it was, with low expectations, so I set the bar low enough to enjoy it. Maybe that was the difference and casualization is the key..

I avoided the thread till I saw it and felt the same. I rather liked it and it had a few good surprises for me because I avoided spoilers. I'll enjoy sitting down with my kiddos and watching it at home once it comes out to stream.

 LordofHats wrote:


I disagree with this solely because the lead up materials to the first film seemed to be setting the Knights of Ren up as an important group of bads, only for none of them to ever matter. They got Phasma'd harder than Phasma. Maybe that's just a case of deceptive marketing, or imo I think the Knights were intended by JJ to be a bigger part of the films than they ended up being.

Agreed. Being the "Master of the Knights of Ren", he practically spends two movies having nothing to do with them, yet the flash backs suggest they are a bit of a biker gang.

First viewing of Last Jedi was a bit confusing as I assumed the red-clad dudes in Snoke's room were the Knights of Ren. It seemed like the same number of them with individual suits(turned out they were in pairs). When Snoke knocked Kylo to the floor, I assumed they were threatening Snoke and a look from Kylo was to say "Don't worry about it". To enforce that assumption it was said that the Knights of Ren were "Darth Vader fanboys", so maybe Kylo had them looking after Snoke as part of a pact - in return helping Kylo to realise his destiny as the next vader. I assumed the red suits were their First Order uniforms...

I think it would have been cool if Kylo sent the Knights with Phasma to hunt down Finn and Rose - no one escapes.

 Da Boss wrote:
I just can't get my head around the idea that they are going to spend hundreds of millions on talented actors, amazing effects artists, set designers, costume designers, film on location around the world...and they can't be arsed working on the scripts for long enough to make them actually good.

I am sure it is all to do with hollywood bs, but don't the money people realise that crap scripts tank movies that are good in all other respects really reliably?

Except for the fact that Kylo looks like Young Anakin PT. 2.
Rey has no facial expressions and all the personality of a brick sitting underneath my porch.
Finn is just there because "black dude points" and so on.
The white rebel fighter pilot...what's his name? Can't remember, super who cares about him.
Po's Power Ranger girlfriend...you know, because Toys.
Babu Frick...you know, more toys. He Heyyyy!!

Seriously name me one character from the Force Awakens to the Rise of Skywalker that you cared about.

Just cap this franchies in the head and leave everything to the Mandelorian, which is so far superior to the rest of the franchise movies, that it makes them all look like amateur college films.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss, Star Wars was all about destroying the Death Star, and they did it. TFA was all about finding Luke so he could help the Resistance, and they didn’t fit that in the movie. Even though the movies look alike in bullet point form, the actual character motivations and developments are completely different. The actual meats of the movies—the parts that make films resonate with the audience—are very different.

I have no idea why this is directed at me. Did you mean Vulcan? Because thats who you were arguing with a couple pages back about TFA vs New Hope.

Was it just me, or when the Ewoks look up to see a Destroyer exploding, does it look like it was Hyperspace-rammed?

 Togusa wrote:

Seriously name me one character from the Force Awakens to the Rise of Skywalker that you cared about.

To be fair, we cared enough to want to know more about them, its just that they took too long to get around to telling us enough about them, and probably too little at the end.

I went to a second viewing again this afternoon...and I wonder if the sequel trilogy is going to get an animated series to explore things they didn't have enough time for in the movies - much like the Prequels had Clone Wars.

Voss wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss, Star Wars was all about destroying the Death Star, and they did it. TFA was all about finding Luke so he could help the Resistance, and they didn’t fit that in the movie. Even though the movies look alike in bullet point form, the actual character motivations and developments are completely different. The actual meats of the movies—the parts that make films resonate with the audience—are very different.

I have no idea why this is directed at me. Did you mean Vulcan? Because thats who you were arguing with a couple pages back about TFA vs New Hope.

Probably got confused by the V’s. Apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Was it just me, or when the Ewoks look up to see a Destroyer exploding, does it look like it was Hyperspace-rammed?

Yes. Apparently that is officially what happened. That shot was 2 in a million.

1 in 500,000?

 Scrabb wrote:
"Your Snoke theory sucks"-Rian Johnosn.

Yeah, I'm only imagining RJ's disdain. Drink that green titty milk Luke!

Johnson was right, though. When I watched TFA, I did not find Snoke particularly gripping villain. He came out cookiecutter and boring, evil person for sake of being evil. But there was one thing going for him - he was his own thing. He was not a Sith, he wasn't clone of Palpatine or any of that stupid crap. Lots of people gushed about his 'mystery', but there was never any actual mystery around him. Protagonists of the movie seemed to know about him and nobody ever acted like Snoke was some kind of mystery to be solved.

So when Johnson began writing TLJ, he had inherited this fairly boring main villain. What to do with him? Well, the obvious - kill him off to set up something better. I wholly applaud the decision in principle, though result maybe left something to be desired as the franchise was left without a big scary villain. Then TRoS drops out and JJ half-heartedly 'reveals' that Snoke was Palpatine's creation - completely contradicting two previous movies and extended canon. Such a reveal has only value if it was somehow set up, fitting into previous events and plot points so that viewer connects the dots in his/her mind. Nothing like that was ever done with Snoke in Episodes 7 & 8. JJ's Snoke 'reveal' was tepid, and served further to underline chief problem of the post-OT Star Wars writing - huge galaxy which feels small and inbred as everyone is connected or related to each other.

Snoke was invented to fill a gap. Or rather two gaps.

TFA introduces Kylo Ren as a villain but characterizes him throughout as a tertiary protagonist. This was a really great idea and clearly meant to echo (RotJ) Vader, like everything else about Kylo.

But it was also quite daring because it left the new Star Wars trilogy with no clear antagonist at its outset. And we can all agree that Disney wanted guardrails around everything with TFA.

So we get Snoke, a clear parallel to the (RotJ) Emperor. Usefully, this also pads the Kylo/Vader parallel theme.

The second gap Snoke fills is, an explanation for why Kylo Ren has any standing in the FO.

I think TFA, and the Disney Trilogy at large, would be significantly better without Snoke. Having a main antagonist pulling double duty as protagonist from the start of the saga is risky but also interesting. As for explaining his status in the FO, all that was needed was a tiny bit more explanation of the FO. Just make it clear that, unlike the Empire, the FO is essentially a cult and the Grandson of Vader is the cult figurehead. This would have raised the core conflict within Ben/Kylo to greater heights while also setting up the FO as the eventual real villain (an idea, rather than just a single person) of the trilogy, sort of inverting the way that in the OT this massive Empire we see in ANH somewhat disappointingly collapses into one man, the Emperor, by RotJ.