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.

Voss wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Snoke's line about light rising to meet darkness isn't an explanation, really. Actually, the line itself is yet another thing that requires explanation. Is that really how the Force works? According to who? Since when? Is Luke a response to Vader and is Ben a response to Luke, if Rey is a response to Ben? Is this something that only started recently? Is that the Awakening? Is it speeding up? Should we expect a new bad guy to arise is response to Rey now?

See, I don't think the filmmaker is on the hook to explain anything beyond the simple concepts stated by Snoke and Luke in the film. It doesn't seem genuinely important to this narrative.

Well, that's the problem. Nothing seems important to this narrative. Its why this film dead ends. It raises no issues, leaves no hooks. It just stops in the exact scenario it started with.

A contrary viewpoint would be that it leaves story possibilities wide open for the next film -- not unlike AHN -- instead of burdening the next director in the way that TFA did.

 Overread wrote:
It's kind of interesting how the main theme of the film was about the past not mattering and trying to let go of the shackles of history and yet one of the biggest gripes now being aired in the thread is that people want to be shackled to the past as such - that Rey's past defines her as a character.

I think that we can honestly make it through the whole series never knowing for sure who her parent are. Considering that Force Powers are not known to follow bloodlines perfectly anyway and that the Force is not bound by blood in the same way that our genetics are; there is no reason for Rey to be related to anyone important. Indeed junkers with no real history to them are just as valid as if her parents are someone important already established within the series.

Either way it changes little of who she is as a character since she grew up without them. It's important to HER but not to the greater story as such.


I think Snokes history is more important to the story because we lack the growth of him into what he is as a character and how he gained power etc... but for Rey we already know the bulk of her history.

I don't want to be shackled to the past. The majority of fans displeased with TLJ would have been ecstatic with any number of scenarios which involved an epic light saber duel with Luke Sky-walker. Preferably with Snoke or the knights of Ren. I actually expect him to die in this movie anyways. Luke dying while not doing anything is just an insult. As is everything they did with his character. This is where the majority of fan angst comes from for many of us Luke was our greatest hero when we were young.

I agree that the snoke bit is more disappointing than Rey. Snoke is the reason for all of this and we know nothing about him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:

Voss wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Snoke's line about light rising to meet darkness isn't an explanation, really. Actually, the line itself is yet another thing that requires explanation. Is that really how the Force works? According to who? Since when? Is Luke a response to Vader and is Ben a response to Luke, if Rey is a response to Ben? Is this something that only started recently? Is that the Awakening? Is it speeding up? Should we expect a new bad guy to arise is response to Rey now?

See, I don't think the filmmaker is on the hook to explain anything beyond the simple concepts stated by Snoke and Luke in the film. It doesn't seem genuinely important to this narrative.

Well, that's the problem. Nothing seems important to this narrative. Its why this film dead ends. It raises no issues, leaves no hooks. It just stops in the exact scenario it started with.

A contrary viewpoint would be that it leaves story possibilities wide open for the next film -- not unlike AHN -- instead of burdening the next director in the way that TFA did.

Trilogies should all have the same director - that way you don't have to burden the next director with anything.

How hard is it for disney to say this when figuring directors? "We are going to do 3 films in 3 years and we need you on for all of them, can you do this?" Anyone who couldn't shouldn't even be considered.

See I like what they did with Luke because in my view the fact that he failed; didn't sweep in and save everyone etc... actually makes him a more realistic and more developed character than many others in the series.

Sure I liked Luke the saviour, but I can get behind Luke hte failure too. Seeing him struggling to come to terms with his failed act; seeing him starting to rise up and make some big changes (ending the Jedi) and heck he stands there and faces a whole Imperial strike force; doesn't take a single hit and then strides forth to taunt Kylo into a fight. He doesn't have to win the fight, he loses sure but its more like how Ben died to Vader in that he chose to die rather than to fight on.


That said writing a depressed/failed hero character is VERY hard to achieve as people like their heroes and lead characters to be someone to aspire to be. So having one who fails and is depressed with that failure its a hard pill to swallow.

 Overread wrote:
See I like what they did with Luke because in my view the fact that he failed; didn't sweep in and save everyone etc... actually makes him a more realistic and more developed character than many others in the series.

Sure I liked Luke the saviour, but I can get behind Luke hte failure too. Seeing him struggling to come to terms with his failed act; seeing him starting to rise up and make some big changes (ending the Jedi) and heck he stands there and faces a whole Imperial strike force; doesn't take a single hit and then strides forth to taunt Kylo into a fight. He doesn't have to win the fight, he loses sure but its more like how Ben died to Vader in that he chose to die rather than to fight on.


That said writing a depressed/failed hero character is VERY hard to achieve as people like their heroes and lead characters to be someone to aspire to be. So having one who fails and is depressed with that failure its a hard pill to swallow.

I fully expected luke to fail and die in battle in this film. Then Rey has to take on the burden of being the last Jedi. Why not have him come out in front of all the ATAT in person and get freaking blasted. Or He just blocks all the shots but then loses in battle to Kylo?!? Come on man. That would have been way better and saved a ton of fan hate. The problem is though - fans just don't matter. The film made a billion in a week and probably over half the viewers never rewatched a starwars film.

Voss wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Snoke's line about light rising to meet darkness isn't an explanation, really. Actually, the line itself is yet another thing that requires explanation. Is that really how the Force works? According to who? Since when? Is Luke a response to Vader and is Ben a response to Luke, if Rey is a response to Ben? Is this something that only started recently? Is that the Awakening? Is it speeding up? Should we expect a new bad guy to arise is response to Rey now?

See, I don't think the filmmaker is on the hook to explain anything beyond the simple concepts stated by Snoke and Luke in the film. It doesn't seem genuinely important to this narrative.

Well, that's the problem. Nothing seems important to this narrative. Its why this film dead ends. It raises no issues, leaves no hooks. It just stops in the exact scenario it started with.

That's all bad enough but even more deeply the problem is that what little does happen, even considering it is almost as quickly undone, is not grounded in any sense of setting. Whether it's however the Force works or what the dimensions of the politics are in this self-confessed political conflict, the films don't provide sufficient context. The reason is, tie-in licensing.

Voss wrote:

overread wrote:It's kind of interesting how the main theme of the film was about the past not mattering and trying to let go of the shackles of history

Some of the characters do claim that on behalf of Johnson, but it isn't even vaguely true. Skywalker heirs (blood heirs or otherwise) refighting the old struggle between Empire and Rebels is the only thing going on.

I wonder if that's not the actual theme. I mean, immediately after giving his "kill the past" speech, in which he proposes leaving behind all the SW tropes, he falls right back in the grooves of proposing, essentially, "let's be Sith buddies."

 gorgon wrote:
A contrary viewpoint would be that it leaves story possibilities wide open for the next film -- not unlike AHN -- instead of burdening the next director in the way that TFA did.

I agree that TFA raises issues that we expected to be fleshed out in TLJ. Rian Johnson may not have wanted that responsibility but he accepted it and therefore he's open to being criticized for shirking it. Let's just say for the sake of argument (because I don't think it's actually the case) that Rian left things open for J.J. to come back and do Episode IX however he wants. That's also not praiseworthy. TLJ was the second part of a trilogy. It's function is to deepen the conflict introduced by the first installment and set up the crisis which the third installment resolves. TLJ may have done so but we won't know until Episode IX comes out. After TFA, I looked forward to seeing Episode VIII because TFA raised interesting issues and introduced interesting characters. TLJ handwaived those issues away and relentlessly undermined the characters I liked. So naturally I'm no longer looking forward to new SW movies.

I liked Snoke. I had high hopes for him to be an interesting and terrifying Villain, an ancient Sith Lord (more ancient than Plagueis) like Darth Vitiate, a literal vampire who consumes the life force of entire worlds to sustain his immortality.

They hyped and built him up to be an interesting villain with a mysterious backstory, planting easter eggs and subtle references (using a similar theme to Plagueis)...only to pull a bait and switch and killed him off like a punk. It was frankly insulting.

I enjoyed the following light sabre battle though.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I liked Snoke. I had high hopes for him to be an interesting and terrifying Villain, an ancient Sith Lord (more ancient than Plagueis) like Darth Vitiate, a literal vampire who consumes the life force of entire worlds to sustain his immortality.

They hyped and built him up to be an interesting villain with a mysterious backstory, planting easter eggs and subtle references (using a similar theme to Plagueis)...only to pull a bait and switch and killed him off like a punk. It was frankly insulting.

At what point were they going to have time to develop this rich, interesting villain though, with a full slate of heroes plus Ben/Kylo, and one movie already in the books with nothing learned about him? They were following the same troubled path as in the OT, in which the interesting villain was the lackey and the master villain was a blank slate. And Rey and Kylo have a much more interesting dynamic than Rey and Snoke.

Look, I realize that TLJ feels like a sharp right turn after TFA, but I understand the director's obvious assessment that the many characters, questions, etc. coming out of TFA were more of a hindrance than help with telling new stories. The Finn subplot isn't strong, and that feels like the director didn't know what to do with him either, but had to keep him around. But his focus on the Rey/Kylo dynamic is right on the money IMO, and this cackling old Force wizard seemed every bit as disposable as the first one was in the OT.

Re: Cinemascore-

Coming out of the theater I would have said I enjoyed the movie, and I'd have been telling the truth.

After the second viewing and a few nights of contemplation I will also be telling the truth when I tell people going forward I don't think it is a good movie and I am put off of the story.

 gorgon wrote:

Voss wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Snoke's line about light rising to meet darkness isn't an explanation, really. Actually, the line itself is yet another thing that requires explanation. Is that really how the Force works? According to who? Since when? Is Luke a response to Vader and is Ben a response to Luke, if Rey is a response to Ben? Is this something that only started recently? Is that the Awakening? Is it speeding up? Should we expect a new bad guy to arise is response to Rey now?

See, I don't think the filmmaker is on the hook to explain anything beyond the simple concepts stated by Snoke and Luke in the film. It doesn't seem genuinely important to this narrative.

Well, that's the problem. Nothing seems important to this narrative. Its why this film dead ends. It raises no issues, leaves no hooks. It just stops in the exact scenario it started with.

A contrary viewpoint would be that it leaves story possibilities wide open for the next film -- not unlike AHN -- instead of burdening the next director in the way that TFA did.

Thats a terrible reason. It makes the trilogy disgustingly disjointed. If you have multiple directors for a series IMO they should be working together to create a cohesive trilogy instead of 3 disjointed films. Many TV series, like game of thrones, have multiple directors and manage just fine to stay cohesive. Sometimes you even have multiple directors on the one film working at different filming units.

ANH gets a pass because it was the first in the saga. It had to stand by itself in case it turned out to be the only film.

 gorgon wrote:

Voss wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Snoke's line about light rising to meet darkness isn't an explanation, really. Actually, the line itself is yet another thing that requires explanation. Is that really how the Force works? According to who? Since when? Is Luke a response to Vader and is Ben a response to Luke, if Rey is a response to Ben? Is this something that only started recently? Is that the Awakening? Is it speeding up? Should we expect a new bad guy to arise is response to Rey now?

See, I don't think the filmmaker is on the hook to explain anything beyond the simple concepts stated by Snoke and Luke in the film. It doesn't seem genuinely important to this narrative.

Well, that's the problem. Nothing seems important to this narrative. Its why this film dead ends. It raises no issues, leaves no hooks. It just stops in the exact scenario it started with.

A contrary viewpoint would be that it leaves story possibilities wide open for the next film -- not unlike AHN -- instead of burdening the next director in the way that TFA did.

Well, that certainly is a contrary viewpoint. And objectively bad storytelling for a trilogy. I'm imagining a variant of the Peter Jackson's version of Two Towers where they decide to double down with completely missing the point of Faramir, and Frodo just shrugs, flips him the Ring and goes home. Wouldn't want to be burdened by things that might restrict story possibilities, after all.

But Johnson didn't seem to feel excessively burdened (he quite enjoyed trolling on his twitter account, with things like 'your Snoke theory is wrong'), and didn't appear to hesitate dropping anything he didn't want to deal with (everything)

It also isn't particularly true for the original. It gave a moment of fulfilled triumph, without a feeling that any wars were magically won when no one was looking. Han had deal with the consequences of not paying Jabba back, Luke had to learn about the Jedi and the Force, Leia deepened her command role. Vader followed up on the cheeky rebels and the 'force-is-strong one' The character arcs and traits that were set up in the first film were paid off in the second.

I do feel one of the underlying themes of TLJ is that of breaking expectations. Both those from the first film in the series but also ones in this movie. Luke throwing away the light saber, Rey having no heritage, the Finn subplot being pointless, Carrie Fisher being the one to stun Poe, Poe's plan resulting in many lost lives, the low lives on casino planet, Snoke being cut in half, Holdo's sacrifice, Luke projecting on to Hoth version 2, the code breaker double cross. The list is huge that is just what immediately came to mind. Even little things like the hook with the woman with the master code breaker giving Finn and Rose a curious look as if she'd have a part to play in the story but it doesn't actually go anywhere.

Wasn't one of the lines in the trailer Luke saying "this isn't going to happen like you expect" or some such?

While I like the idea of of breaking expectations, I don't think it makes for a great premise for every facet of a movie because it turns in to a jumbled mess of storylines that were cut short and an audience (at least this member of it) losing interest in the hooks because most of them seem to go nowhere.

It resulting in feeling like the reset button had been pushed. At the end of the movie I was left thinking "is there even going to be a third movie?" rather than "I can't wait for the third movie".

One thing the fans need to consider. If Luke came out with a light saber swinging, and does all sorts of kick ass stuff before he died in TLJ, then he would have substantially overshadowed all of the up and coming young uns.

The focus is on the new generation, yet at the same time, they were fortunate enough to have some of the old guard around to help. But for that the series has longevity, they would always need to raise up the new young generation and slowly phase out the old.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

They hyped and built him up to be an interesting villain with a mysterious backstory, .

Uh... No they didn't.

He was a bit character lurking in the background. Any hype came from people just assuming he was important to the ongoing story.

Insaniak, that's blinkered. Snoke was certainly positioned as a mysterious lynchpin character in TFA, the marketing for TFA, and the licensed stuff, such as visual guides and art books.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
One thing the fans need to consider. If Luke came out with a light saber swinging, and does all sorts of kick ass stuff before he died in TLJ, then he would have substantially overshadowed all of the up and coming young uns.

The focus is on the new generation, yet at the same time, they were fortunate enough to have some of the old guard around to help. But for that the series has longevity, they would always need to raise up the new young generation and slowly phase out the old.

My problem with Luke wasn't that he didn't come out light saber blazing but rather he was out of character and seemed to learn nothing (or retained any knowledge) from the original trilogy.

Mark Hamill said he didn't agree with the portrayal of Luke in this film and I agree with him.

I would have been happy enough with a Luke that never raised a light saber in anger but acted more logically. Yoda was a cool character in the original trilogy in spite of never once using a light saber. While I don't think Luke should have been Yoda 2.0, he could have carved out his own passive role in the film without feeling like someone completely different to the hero we grew up with in the original trilogy.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Mark Hamill said he didn't agree with the portrayal of Luke in this film and I agree with him..

He said that after reading the script for the first time. He changed his mind and admitted he was wrong after seeing the finished movie.

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Mark Hamill said he didn't agree with the portrayal of Luke in this film and I agree with him..

He said that after reading the script for the first time. He changed his mind and admitted he was wrong after seeing the finished movie.

I think he's said it a lot of times in various interviews. In interviews I've seen (and I hardly researched it closely) he's said he didn't like the way Luke was acting but also accepted that the films were no longer about him.

As far as him changing his tune, it wouldn't surprise me if people started telling Mark to shut up about Luke being a poor portrayal because it was hurting the image of the film.

Mark is also a massive fanboy of Star Wars himself, he strikes me as someone who could enjoy the movie while disliking parts of it (which is basically where I stand, I enjoyed the movie overall in spite of thinking it did a lot of things poorly, though I'm no where near a superfan.)

To me, the semiotics of Star Wars quickly make it plain that Rey is the new "Luke", so it doesn't need pre-figuring, Chechov's guns or a training montage to explain her force and fighting abilities. In fact it would be pointless to recapitulate Luke's journey as we've already seen that.

This is a personal view, of course.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To me, the semiotics of Star Wars quickly make it plain that Rey is the new "Luke", so it doesn't need pre-figuring, Chechov's guns or a training montage to explain her force and fighting abilities. In fact it would be pointless to recapitulate Luke's journey as we've already seen that.

This is a personal view, of course.

Why is the only option mirroring Luke or terrible training montage? Can the Disney team not come up with an original backstory and/or journey to develop Rey?

Rey's lack of a journey is being compared to Luke's not because we want it to be the same.

I mean, sure, we can live with a character who is just obviously meant to be awesome and therefore is awesome and we don't need to know why or have any journey of learning, trials, triumphs, etc.... but to me it's one of those things that takes it from "meh, it was an enjoyable movie with a mediocre story" to something great, a classic that I'll buy on <insert preferred movie platform> and watch a dozen times. Any Star Wars has the potential to be the latter because I'm already hooked in to the universe.

I think of other movies and books which have had moments which have really hit me emotionally and ask the question why it did; it's not simply because of the position the character finds themselves in but rather because I've becoming invested in the journey the character has taken to end up in that position. When the character has no journey it doesn't matter what position they end up in I'm never going to be more than an unattached observer.

Where trilogies and long sagas can be amazing is when they can really build a strong connection between the character and the audience.

I could have been sad about Luke fading away in the end because of the ride I've taken with him, instead of indifferent because he's not even acting like the Luke I know and love. And we get Rey telling us how she feels instead of showing it and us relating to it. I could be elated (or maybe conflicted) when Snoke bites the dust but the film has given me no reason to even care. I could be celebrating when Rey lifts the rocks away from the exit because I know the journey and struggles she's been through to get there and the struggle it is for her to achieve the goal of saving her friends.

So yeah, while I enjoyed the movie I think it fell far short of what it could have been.

They haven't mirrored Luke and that seems to be what people are complaining about.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They haven't mirrored Luke and that seems to be what people are complaining about.

If you want to ignore every conversation sure, but most are complaining that she's not getting a heroes journey so much as she already seems to be very powerful, strong, without any buildup as to why she's already this amazing jedi thus far without need for assistance or training.

She doesn't need to really be Luke so much as the odd narrative of what a plucky scavenger whose lived her entire life gathering scrap for food tokens is now suddenly able to mind trick and lightsaber duel with the best of them. It seems like it wants to have it's cake of "The hero improves overall through their journey" while having "Strong powerful character who really doesn't have too many hurdles to overcome". Which is why it's hard for me to take the stakes for IX seriously at this point where it seems like the main problem facing the resistance is that they aren't that competent and the only reason they are around still is because the First Order is even more incompetent.

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Mark Hamill said he didn't agree with the portrayal of Luke in this film and I agree with him..

He said that after reading the script for the first time. He changed his mind and admitted he was wrong after seeing the finished movie.

Right, and I'm sure getting a late night phone call from an irate Disney Rep had nothing to do with that...

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They haven't mirrored Luke and that seems to be what people are complaining about.

If you want to ignore every conversation sure, but most are complaining that she's not getting a heroes journey so much as she already seems to be very powerful, strong, without any buildup as to why she's already this amazing jedi thus far without need for assistance or training.

She doesn't need to really be Luke so much as the odd narrative of what a plucky scavenger whose lived her entire life gathering scrap for food tokens is now suddenly able to mind trick and lightsaber duel with the best of them. It seems like it wants to have it's cake of "The hero improves overall through their journey" while having "Strong powerful character who really doesn't have too many hurdles to overcome". Which is why it's hard for me to take the stakes for IX seriously at this point where it seems like the main problem facing the resistance is that they aren't that competent and the only reason they are around still is because the First Order is even more incompetent.

From the start of TFA to the end of TLJ how much time has elapsed? A month, maybe? Junk scavenger to going toe-to-toe with the most elite hand-to-hand Stormtroopers and a powerful force user with maybe 20 years of training under two other powerful force users all in a month's time.

How long? Not long. maybe 3-4 days.

Although I am no expert or super fan, I can see the plot holes being brought up.

But, what was my biggest gripe in the film that immediately made me say, "That is not right..."? - the star cruisers blasting away at the rebel fleet and the shots arcing like a cannon shot clearly affected by gravity. They should have just not had the original force and impact at the extreme range and why the ships were able to hold out as long as they did. Also, when a ship was hit, it would sink, just like affected by gravity - What the flip?? Was this explained and I missed it?
Maybe so...

Anyway, not sure if this had been brought up previously, as I started reading the first few pages and then skipped to the last few!

 Xenomancers wrote:
How long? Not long. maybe 3-4 days.

As usual with this film - nothing really makes any sense and because of the plodding pace of the film its much more apparent as it lurches from plot hole to plot hole.

The First Order have apparently conquered the entire galaxy in between the two films, wiped out the entirety of the opposition military - even if they did destroy the main fleet at the capital you would have assumed there are some ships, substantial garrisons and forces that were keeping an eye on a galaxy of planets!

It seems to have only been a day or two since the end of the last film and their main weapon has been destroyed, but they have loads of dreadnoughts and empty ISDs instead so they are not bothered. The rebel cruiser and its rag tag fleet doing a poor imitation of the excellent BSG episode "33" seem to have been war for some time but that seems to contradict the time passed in other elements.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Voss wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Snoke's line about light rising to meet darkness isn't an explanation, really. Actually, the line itself is yet another thing that requires explanation. Is that really how the Force works? According to who? Since when? Is Luke a response to Vader and is Ben a response to Luke, if Rey is a response to Ben? Is this something that only started recently? Is that the Awakening? Is it speeding up? Should we expect a new bad guy to arise is response to Rey now?

See, I don't think the filmmaker is on the hook to explain anything beyond the simple concepts stated by Snoke and Luke in the film. It doesn't seem genuinely important to this narrative.

Well, that's the problem. Nothing seems important to this narrative. Its why this film dead ends. It raises no issues, leaves no hooks. It just stops in the exact scenario it started with.

A contrary viewpoint would be that it leaves story possibilities wide open for the next film -- not unlike AHN -- instead of burdening the next director in the way that TFA did.

Thats a terrible reason. It makes the trilogy disgustingly disjointed. If you have multiple directors for a series IMO they should be working together to create a cohesive trilogy instead of 3 disjointed films. Many TV series, like game of thrones, have multiple directors and manage just fine to stay cohesive. Sometimes you even have multiple directors on the one film working at different filming units.

ANH gets a pass because it was the first in the saga. It had to stand by itself in case it turned out to be the only film.

Well, GoT is a terrible example since it's a writer-driven TV program with directors brought on to shoot the script. Clearly Disney has given its SW directors far more ownership. Personally I wish they had another director for Ep. 9 to provide a third vision in this trilogy. That's more interesting to me than consistency and predictability. *shrug*



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bbb wrote:
From the start of TFA to the end of TLJ how much time has elapsed? A month, maybe? Junk scavenger to going toe-to-toe with the most elite hand-to-hand Stormtroopers and a powerful force user with maybe 20 years of training under two other powerful force users all in a month's time.

Take a minute and really consider everything that farmboy-with-no-training Luke does in ANH.

It's fascinating how people are willing to make huge allowances for Luke, but not for Rey.

 gorgon wrote:
Personally I wish they had another director for Ep. 9 to provide a third vision in this trilogy. That's more interesting to me than consistency and predictability. *shrug*

What?? Thats not how a Trilogy is supposed to work. A Trilogy is one continuous story, it HAS To be consistent. Otherwise its just a horribly disjointed and incoherent mess.

Imagine what the Lord of the Rings would have been like, if Fellowship of the Ring was directed by Peter Jackson, Two Towers was directed by Michael Bay and then Return of the King was directed by Quentin Tarantino.

The original three films were directed by three different directors.

 gorgon wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Take a minute and really consider everything that farmboy-with-no-training Luke does in ANH.

Except he does receive training. Or was he just playing space baseball on the millenium falcon?