logo Sign In

The Rise Of Skywalker — Official Review and Opinions Thread — Page 15

Author
Time

Broom Kid said:

there’s some good stuff in there, though!

If you sift long enough there’s some corn to be found…

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yesterday i saw TROS a second time. The story, macguffin hunt and the overall character drama, especially Rey & Ben Solo, was much better to process as at my first viewing. I feel that my criticism against TLJ starts to soften, because some interesting elements from that movie were carried over and expanded in TROS. Surprisingly i was also happy with Lukes screen time. I thought killing him off in TLJ was rather disadvantageous, but his absence actually supports Rey to be the main hero. I get the impression that Daisy Ridleys performance as Rey is much better and energetic under Abrams’ direction. Her being a Palaptine relative i have zero problems with. At least she isn’t a Skywalker, Solo or Kenobi - that would have been much less interesting in my opinion. I went in TROS complete spoiler-free by the way. I read none of the leaks.

All in all a nice and fun third movie in the trilogy. It has this ROTJ vibe like George Lucas is saying: “Let’s wrap this up as fast as we can!”. It does not feel like a Skywalker Saga nine-movies conclusion as the advertising was promoting. To me TROS concludes the Sequel Trilogy and that is all it needs to do. TROS had to remove a lot of rocks that TLJ put on the road, but it managed to deliver a satisfying ending.

7,5 / 10

Rogue One is redundant. Just play the first mission of DARK FORCES.
The hallmark of a corrupt leader: Being surrounded by yes men.
‘The best visual effects in the world will not compensate for a story told badly.’ - V.E.S.
‘Star Wars is a buffet, enjoy the stuff you want, and leave the rest.’ - SilverWook

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Seeing this again tomorrow. The second viewing always seems to cement how I feel about a new SW movie. Some have stayed the same (prequels were still not for me), others have been better (Rogue One & Solo), and some have dropped a bit (TLJ…still like it though).

I have to say, I’m super excited to go back and I hope I enjoy TROS just as much the second time around.

EDIT: Saw it in a 2/3 full theater (Dolby Cinema) at 11:40 AM this morning. Still enjoyed it thorougly.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:

Both JJ and RJ reverse engineered the OT to figure out where to go with their part(s) of the story either in an attempt to replicate the Star Wars formula, or to deliberately starkly deviate from it at key moments, but neither feels like a good, and natural way of developing a story to me. It feels very artificial, like the writer is constantly aware someone (the audience) is watching over their shoulders, and so the entire trilogy is shaped by what the writers’ believe are the audience’s expectations, and they either chose to cater to, or subvert those expectations.

There are only 2 films I can think of in the entire saga that didn’t do the above (Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back).

Writers are always aware the audience is watching/reading. Knowing that isn’t a bad thing. Catering to it CAN be a bad thing, depending on how indulgent the writers get. Pandering is absolutely a bad thing. But many good, natural ways of developing stories involve keeping the audience in mind. “Write for yourself first” is great advice for any storyteller, but that “First” implies that there ARE other concerns to keep in mind as well.

But creation (especially on a scale this big) isn’t all inspiration and desire. Sometimes you have to plink and plunk at it, and that can feel (or appear to be from the backseat) artificial in the moment. That’s where the craft comes in. Passion can’t get a project across the line alone. Often you have to “artificially” introduce things that didn’t just appear in a flash, hand-delivered from the muse.

But that’s also a huge part of why I feel like judging finished work mostly on suppositions of behind-the-scenes machinations and making-of anecdotes isn’t very useful. Most of the audience will never know HOW a thing got made, or what went into its making, or even think to wonder about that aspect, and it honestly shouldn’t really matter. What matters is if it works or if it doesn’t - and if it doesn’t, WHY it doesn’t should be pretty clearly explained without having to go “I bet the guy who wrote it just didn’t feel it like this other guy did.”

Granted, The Rise of Skywalker was very obviously fumbled in its execution and I imagine there are plenty of behind-the-scenes stories we’ll hear eventually as to why it’s such a mess. But acting like the very business of creating fiction is somehow “artificial” because they had knowledge of “the formula” and chose to tinker with the recipe for their own purposes seems like a weird read considering how often that exact bit of business is NECESSARY as a creator to come up with solid work.

Just because we notice the artifice involved in creating and maintaining good fiction doesn’t mean that by the mere fact of our noticing it that it’s now BAD. That’s unfair not only to the writer, but to us as well, because it assumes that we shouldn’t be smart enough to spot seams if we’re looking for them. Of course we are. Most audience members are, honestly. The magic of a good story is that it distracts us from looking, or it engenders enough goodwill that even if we do spot the seams - we don’t care. In some cases, even the seams look good to us.

Basically, what I’m saying is: The Rise of Skywalker doesn’t work because the elements IN the story aren’t well-thought-out, and aren’t executed very well on top of that. If I’m not willing to indulge an imaginative exercise as to how a fabulous movie I watched this weekend was written and executed - like, for example, I didn’t finish watching Little Women the other day and conjure up a possible story as to how Greta Gerwig adapted the book to explain why it worked the way it did - I don’t know that it makes sense for me to do that when JJ Abrams and Chris Terrio drop the ball.

I do think it’s safe to assume they didn’t MEAN to drop the ball.

Well, not all of us think they dropped the ball.

No offense, but I don’t understand how one can think that they didn’t drop the ball. To me, after seeing the movies and the lack of consistent character development, and hearing about all of the drama behind the scenes, I don’t get how one could hear and see all this and think that Disney did a great job.

No offense, kid, but I don’t think you know how to boil water.

Author
Time

Yeah I have to agree, this is a movie I found entertaining despite a huge amount of problems. It’s so ramshackle.

Author
Time

I know the odds of there being an extended version are about as good as there being original versions on the upcoming box set - but I have to believe this thing got at least a half hour cut out of it at the last minute, if not maybe even 40-45 minutes. I don’t know if that extra time would have helped, or if it just would have been a half hour of more “what the hell - why are these people doing all these things?” but knowing that they edited Lando and Jannah’s final scene to make it look like he was hitting on her when we know they SHOT that scene as the closing of both their character’s arcs and beginning of a father/daughter adventure…

if that storyline existed on film and became THAT ending by the time the movie crossed the finish line, then it makes me wonder if every question I have about the messy, truncated, dead-end plotting in this movie actually DOES have an answer, it’s just on a hard drive somewhere marked “Deleted scenes.”

There are some good things in the movie! I just wish there was a better movie surrounding those moments. There’s a LOT of movie. But not so much a better one. I wonder if the better one got shaved to death.

Author
Time

liamnotneeson said:

yotsuya said:

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:

Both JJ and RJ reverse engineered the OT to figure out where to go with their part(s) of the story either in an attempt to replicate the Star Wars formula, or to deliberately starkly deviate from it at key moments, but neither feels like a good, and natural way of developing a story to me. It feels very artificial, like the writer is constantly aware someone (the audience) is watching over their shoulders, and so the entire trilogy is shaped by what the writers’ believe are the audience’s expectations, and they either chose to cater to, or subvert those expectations.

There are only 2 films I can think of in the entire saga that didn’t do the above (Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back).

Writers are always aware the audience is watching/reading. Knowing that isn’t a bad thing. Catering to it CAN be a bad thing, depending on how indulgent the writers get. Pandering is absolutely a bad thing. But many good, natural ways of developing stories involve keeping the audience in mind. “Write for yourself first” is great advice for any storyteller, but that “First” implies that there ARE other concerns to keep in mind as well.

But creation (especially on a scale this big) isn’t all inspiration and desire. Sometimes you have to plink and plunk at it, and that can feel (or appear to be from the backseat) artificial in the moment. That’s where the craft comes in. Passion can’t get a project across the line alone. Often you have to “artificially” introduce things that didn’t just appear in a flash, hand-delivered from the muse.

But that’s also a huge part of why I feel like judging finished work mostly on suppositions of behind-the-scenes machinations and making-of anecdotes isn’t very useful. Most of the audience will never know HOW a thing got made, or what went into its making, or even think to wonder about that aspect, and it honestly shouldn’t really matter. What matters is if it works or if it doesn’t - and if it doesn’t, WHY it doesn’t should be pretty clearly explained without having to go “I bet the guy who wrote it just didn’t feel it like this other guy did.”

Granted, The Rise of Skywalker was very obviously fumbled in its execution and I imagine there are plenty of behind-the-scenes stories we’ll hear eventually as to why it’s such a mess. But acting like the very business of creating fiction is somehow “artificial” because they had knowledge of “the formula” and chose to tinker with the recipe for their own purposes seems like a weird read considering how often that exact bit of business is NECESSARY as a creator to come up with solid work.

Just because we notice the artifice involved in creating and maintaining good fiction doesn’t mean that by the mere fact of our noticing it that it’s now BAD. That’s unfair not only to the writer, but to us as well, because it assumes that we shouldn’t be smart enough to spot seams if we’re looking for them. Of course we are. Most audience members are, honestly. The magic of a good story is that it distracts us from looking, or it engenders enough goodwill that even if we do spot the seams - we don’t care. In some cases, even the seams look good to us.

Basically, what I’m saying is: The Rise of Skywalker doesn’t work because the elements IN the story aren’t well-thought-out, and aren’t executed very well on top of that. If I’m not willing to indulge an imaginative exercise as to how a fabulous movie I watched this weekend was written and executed - like, for example, I didn’t finish watching Little Women the other day and conjure up a possible story as to how Greta Gerwig adapted the book to explain why it worked the way it did - I don’t know that it makes sense for me to do that when JJ Abrams and Chris Terrio drop the ball.

I do think it’s safe to assume they didn’t MEAN to drop the ball.

Well, not all of us think they dropped the ball.

No offense, but I don’t understand how one can think that they didn’t drop the ball. To me, after seeing the movies and the lack of consistent character development, and hearing about all of the drama behind the scenes, I don’t get how one could hear and see all this and think that Disney did a great job.

I am one of the apparently large number of people who really enjoyed the film. I have yet to find any major problems with it. I liked what the characters did, and where the movie went and I loved the ending. I thought that part was perfect. And frankly, I don’t really care what drama happens behind the scenes on a movie. Often the most drama filled productions turn out to be the best films. So many greats in cinema history have had troubled productions that it seems to be a requirement for a truly great film. And I found the character development in the three films to be very consistent. And to be clear, Disney cares about the end product and I have yet to hear of any interference with either Marvel or Lucasfilm. All the good and bad things about this film have the stamp of Abrams all over them (and I found little to complain about - as I said in another post, I thought some of the Leia scenes were a bit off, though most were perfect). So I found nothing to bring this down to the level of TFA (which I think shows off some of Abrams worst writing/editing decisions) or AOTC. I find I want to see it again, which tends to mean that I thought it was a very great film. And Williams did his best job since TPM. I’d love to see him get an Oscar for it. After seeing it twice, I find most of the complaints to be unfounded. It doesn’t quite come up to the greatness of ANH or TESB, but it far from the worst Star Wars film. I think I need to do another Saga Marathon before it leaves theaters and really compare each of them. My current feeling is that TROS, TLJ, and Rogue One rank right below the OT. Definitely better than the PT, though I need to think about TPM and ROTS as individual films.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I for one really wish they would have just used Lucas’ treatments, brought in some good writers, and directors, and given us a new story, rather than regurgitating an old one. I really don’t see the point in rebels beating an empire, and Palpatine again, or having another Jedi apprentice turn bad, and be redeemed. All they ultimately have done is greatly diminish the importance of many of the story arcs, and characters in the OT, introduce the nihilistic idea, that the same evil has to be beaten over, and over again, and have new less interesting characters fulfill the destinies of the old ones. I really believe the Star Wars universe, and lore would have been greatly expanded upon, if Lucas’ story would have been followed, and we would have gotten a real sense of finality to the story, rather than having more or less the same ending, which the ST has already proven does not have to be the end. There’s nothing in the ST story, that would prevent Palpatine from returning again, as the means of his return is so vague, that it can be used again, and again. So, from my perspective the Skywalker Saga is six films, while the ST is a reboot/adaptation marketed as sequels. I hope we will one day find out how Lucas’ story was supposed to end.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DrDre said:

I for one really wish they would have just used Lucas’ treatments, brought in some good writers, and directors, and given us a new story, rather than regurgitating an old one. I really don’t see the point in rebels beating an empire, and Palpatine again, or having another Jedi apprentice turn bad, and be redeemed. All they ultimately have done is greatly diminish the importance of many of the story arcs, and characters in the OT, introduce the nihilisric idea, that the same evil has to be beaten over, and over again, and have new less interesting characters fulfill the destinies of the old ones. I really believe the Star Wars universe, and lore would have been greatly expanded upon, if Lucas’ story would have been followed, and we would have gotten a real sense of finality to the story, rather than having more or less the same ending, which the ST has already proven does not have to be the end. There’s nothing in the ST story, that would prevent Palpatine from returning again, as the means of his return is so vague, that it can be used again, and again.

Agree 100%. At worst, a competent execution of Lucas’ concepts would’ve been of Rebels quality. I could’ve braved the likes of helicopter lightsabers and light-slingshots so long as I was spared green milk.

Fortunately for me, I’m capable of unplugging myself from shit I don’t care for and discarding it as negligible apocrypha*, so the ST as-is isn’t as great a burden on my soul as it may be on others’.

*On my good days, anyway.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DrDre said:

All they ultimately have done is greatly diminish the importance of many of the story arcs, and characters in the OT, introduce the nihilistic idea, that the same evil has to be beaten over, and over again, and have new less interesting characters fulfill the destinies of the old ones.

It’s as if Kennedy and Abrams confused Star Wars with Legend of Zelda.

Author
Time

I hope someday Lucas’s treatments do come out, I’d be curious. But knowing his past writing processes (on the OT and PT), it’s more likely than not that his treatments were pretty short and vague. More importantly, even if Lucas himself had made the films he would have certainly changed the story of his treatments significantly over the course of time. So the idea that they should have chained themselves to those treatments just because they had Lucas’s name on them is monumentally silly.

More importantly, the idea that evil will always return is “nihilistic” is ridiculous. It’s just factually true. The idea that evil can be defeated once and for all is pretty naive. It works for a fairy tale yes, but Star Wars has been becoming less and less a fairy tale with each new entry. The idea that evil will always return is sophisticated and nuanced (perhaps too much so for some viewers, which is why they ditched it in TROS), and the message that there will always be good to face that evil is anything but nihilistic. It’s the very heart of what Star Wars is - never ending hope in the face of potential despair.

Author
Time

And see, I find it to be a very fitting end to Star Wars. The gist of the entire ST is to not lose what our parents fought for. Not to let the old evil regain its power. In the ST, the First Order and the Emperor’s new Last Order never rise to supremacy and rule the galaxy. They are stopped before they get to that point. It isn’t the rebellion vs. empire again because there is no empire. This story goes back to the PT and stops Palpatine before he can forge his new Empire, what Obi-Wan, Yoda, Mace, Anakin, and Padme failed to do. The victory over the Empire remains intact but is in danger and the ST characters save the Galaxy from that take over. Some worlds were taken over, but not the all encompassing Empire of the OT. It never reached that level. A year is not enough time. The Resistance was victorious in stopping the resurrection of the Empire, even if they weren’t able to save the Republic. So the story is very different than either the PT or OT. And we get to see those who helped Palpatine destroyed as well as Palpatine himself, so the chance of him coming back is pretty non-existent (where in ROTJ we see him fall down a shaft and an explosion of blue light but not what happened to his body). I found this story to be much more satisfying than anything the EU every created. The Zahn Trilogy was fun, but this felt more in line with the rest of the saga. I also found it very in keeping with the Flash Gordon serials that inspired all this and with the ancient myths where the new generation has to keep what their parents achieved. I can’t help thinking of Uther, Arthur, and Mordred. Arthur lost (in the end) what his father had built. The echos are strong that if Kylo had not been turned back to Ben, that what Leia and Luke worked so hard for would have been lost. Instead, Ben and Rey were able to save it.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

I hope someday Lucas’s treatments do come out, I’d be curious. But knowing his past writing processes (on the OT and PT), it’s more likely than not that his treatments were pretty short and vague. More importantly, even if Lucas himself had made the films he would have certainly changed the story of his treatments significantly over the course of time. So the idea that they should have chained themselves to those treatments just because they had Lucas’s name on them is monumentally silly.

More importantly, the idea that evil will always return is “nihilistic” is ridiculous. It’s just factually true. The idea that evil can be defeated once and for all is pretty naive. It works for a fairy tale yes, but Star Wars has been becoming less and less a fairy tale with each new entry. The idea that evil will always return is sophisticated and nuanced (perhaps too much so for some viewers, which is why they ditched it in TROS), and the message that there will always be good to face that evil is anything but nihilistic. It’s the very heart of what Star Wars is - never ending hope in the face of potential despair.

Exactly. We do know that they kept some of what Lucas had come up with. They also revisited a lot of his abandoned ideas for earlier films. I would love to see his treatments, but if you read some of his other treatments, the final films came out much different. And in history and myth, evil is something always lurking and endangering the good we create. The idea that Star Wars should somehow deviate from that and must keep what the heroes of the OT worked so hard to win is indeed silly. Each generation has their own fight and some generations lose that fight (the PT).

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

I hope someday Lucas’s treatments do come out, I’d be curious. But knowing his past writing processes (on the OT and PT), it’s more likely than not that his treatments were pretty short and vague. More importantly, even if Lucas himself had made the films he would have certainly changed the story of his treatments significantly over the course of time. So the idea that they should have chained themselves to those treatments just because they had Lucas’s name on them is monumentally silly.

More importantly, the idea that evil will always return is “nihilistic” is ridiculous. It’s just factually true. The idea that evil can be defeated once and for all is pretty naive. It works for a fairy tale yes, but Star Wars has been becoming less and less a fairy tale with each new entry. The idea that evil will always return is sophisticated and nuanced (perhaps too much so for some viewers, which is why they ditched it in TROS), and the message that there will always be good to face that evil is anything but nihilistic. It’s the very heart of what Star Wars is - never ending hope in the face of potential despair.

It’s nihilistic, because it’s become cyclical, fighting the same evil over and over with diminished returns. Ben’s redemption works, because he is a great actor, but it’s also less impactful than Vader’s redemption, because we have seen it all before. Same goes for Palpatine’s death. Aside from being a very poorly set up character in this trilogy, it was very unlikely they could top the character’s death in ROTJ, and surprise, surprise it’s spectacular visually, but emotionally vapid, another deja vu in a trilogy filled with them. I mean how many times can the destruction of the rebel fleet be used as leverage against our hero? How many Death Stars can you introduce? They’re on ships now. How original…too bad they don’t really affect the plot. What’s the next step, blasters with Death Star tech? It’s become a parody of itself.

There’s nothing wrong with introducing new threads, and new challenges for characters old and new, that expand the universe, and the lore of the Star Wars universe, just look at the Mandalorian. It is very telling that the ultimate fate of one of the characters at the end of the season is so much more emotionally impactful than for any of the characters in the ST. Aside from better writing (imo), the fact that the Mandalorian isn’t just recycling story beats from Star Wars’ greatest hits is, what makes its story and character developments surprising, and impactful, and what makes this series fairly univerally loved.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

I hope someday Lucas’s treatments do come out, I’d be curious. But knowing his past writing processes (on the OT and PT), it’s more likely than not that his treatments were pretty short and vague. More importantly, even if Lucas himself had made the films he would have certainly changed the story of his treatments significantly over the course of time. So the idea that they should have chained themselves to those treatments just because they had Lucas’s name on them is monumentally silly.

More importantly, the idea that evil will always return is “nihilistic” is ridiculous. It’s just factually true. The idea that evil can be defeated once and for all is pretty naive. It works for a fairy tale yes, but Star Wars has been becoming less and less a fairy tale with each new entry. The idea that evil will always return is sophisticated and nuanced (perhaps too much so for some viewers, which is why they ditched it in TROS), and the message that there will always be good to face that evil is anything but nihilistic. It’s the very heart of what Star Wars is - never ending hope in the face of potential despair.

Exactly. We do know that they kept some of what Lucas had come up with. They also revisited a lot of his abandoned ideas for earlier films. I would love to see his treatments, but if you read some of his other treatments, the final films came out much different. And in history and myth, evil is something always lurking and endangering the good we create. The idea that Star Wars should somehow deviate from that and must keep what the heroes of the OT worked so hard to win is indeed silly. Each generation has their own fight and some generations lose that fight (the PT).

I don’t agree with everything your saying but it is important to remember Flash Gordon. Star Wars, like old space opera serials, is supposed to be a never ending saga, where we know no matter what the heroes will always be there to save the dar. If the evil can be defeated for forever, that’s it’s not really never ending is it?

This gets back to the fact that I fully believe that many people just fundamentally did not want to see movies made set after ROTJ, whether they say so or not. Simply put, to make a story set after ROTJ, you needed to undo that ‘happily ever after’ victory. What made TFA and TLJ so great is that they didn’t just wantonly undo it, they gave a thematic reason for doing so that justified their addition to the story. TROS… not so much.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

I hope someday Lucas’s treatments do come out, I’d be curious. But knowing his past writing processes (on the OT and PT), it’s more likely than not that his treatments were pretty short and vague. More importantly, even if Lucas himself had made the films he would have certainly changed the story of his treatments significantly over the course of time. So the idea that they should have chained themselves to those treatments just because they had Lucas’s name on them is monumentally silly.

More importantly, the idea that evil will always return is “nihilistic” is ridiculous. It’s just factually true. The idea that evil can be defeated once and for all is pretty naive. It works for a fairy tale yes, but Star Wars has been becoming less and less a fairy tale with each new entry. The idea that evil will always return is sophisticated and nuanced (perhaps too much so for some viewers, which is why they ditched it in TROS), and the message that there will always be good to face that evil is anything but nihilistic. It’s the very heart of what Star Wars is - never ending hope in the face of potential despair.

It’s nihilistic, because it’s become cyclical, fighting the same evil over and over with diminished returns. Ben’s redemption works, because he is a great actor, but it’s also less impactful than Vader’s redemption, because we have seen it all before. Same goes for Palpatine’s death. Aside from being a very poorly set up character in this trilogy, it was very unlikely they could top the character’s death in ROTJ, and surprise, surprise it’s spectacular visually, but emotionally vapid, another deja vu.

The cyclical nature is the whole point. I’m not going to argue with you about how it concludes, because there’s nothing to argue. They fucked it up.

There’s nothing wrong with introducing new threads, and new challenges for characters old and new, that expand the universe, and the lore of the Star Wars universe, just look at the Mandalorian. It is very telling that the ultimate fate of one of the characters at the end of the season is so much more emotionally impactful than for any of the characters in the ST. Aside from better writing (imo), the fact that the Mandalorian isn’t just recycling story beats from Star Wars’ greatest hits is, what makes its story and character developments surprising, and impactful, and what makes this series fairly univerally loved.

I don’t see how that makes sense as a comparison, The Mandalorian is telling a story separate from the main saga. I also cannot comment on how it ends, because I have not seen the finale yet. And the idea that it is better because it’s original is silly. It has the same level of fan service as any of the films, and most of its plots come recycled from old westerns and samurai films. What matters isn’t whether the story has been told before, but how well they tell it. My favorite episode of the show is chapter 4, and that’s a story that has been done countless times in the Star Wars universe. And I wouldn’t be so sure that the series is “fairly universally loved,” I’ve seen plenty of detractors and know quite a few people who think it’s an outright bad show. Using audience consensus to back up your argument isn’t really going to help you any, it’s impossible to accurately gauge and it doesn’t mean anything. By all accounts TFA is the most popular thing Disney has done with the Star Wars brand and yet I’m sure that fact doesn’t change whether you think it was successful, nor should it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

I hope someday Lucas’s treatments do come out, I’d be curious. But knowing his past writing processes (on the OT and PT), it’s more likely than not that his treatments were pretty short and vague. More importantly, even if Lucas himself had made the films he would have certainly changed the story of his treatments significantly over the course of time. So the idea that they should have chained themselves to those treatments just because they had Lucas’s name on them is monumentally silly.

More importantly, the idea that evil will always return is “nihilistic” is ridiculous. It’s just factually true. The idea that evil can be defeated once and for all is pretty naive. It works for a fairy tale yes, but Star Wars has been becoming less and less a fairy tale with each new entry. The idea that evil will always return is sophisticated and nuanced (perhaps too much so for some viewers, which is why they ditched it in TROS), and the message that there will always be good to face that evil is anything but nihilistic. It’s the very heart of what Star Wars is - never ending hope in the face of potential despair.

Exactly. We do know that they kept some of what Lucas had come up with. They also revisited a lot of his abandoned ideas for earlier films. I would love to see his treatments, but if you read some of his other treatments, the final films came out much different. And in history and myth, evil is something always lurking and endangering the good we create. The idea that Star Wars should somehow deviate from that and must keep what the heroes of the OT worked so hard to win is indeed silly. Each generation has their own fight and some generations lose that fight (the PT).

I don’t agree with everything your saying but it is important to remember Flash Gordon. Star Wars, like old space opera serials, is supposed to be a never ending saga, where we know no matter what the heroes will always be there to save the dar. If the evil can be defeated for forever, that’s it’s not really never ending is it?

This gets back to the fact that I fully believe that many people just fundamentally did not want to see movies made set after ROTJ, whether they say so or not. Simply put, to make a story set after ROTJ, you needed to undo that ‘happily ever after’ victory. What made TFA and TLJ so great is that they didn’t just wantonly undo it, they gave a thematic reason for doing so that justified their addition to the story. TROS… not so much.

Lots of people wanted to see movies made after ROTJ, but they wanted new stories, and new settings, not a reset to Empire vs rebels without so much as an explanation. There’s nothing wrong with The New Republic facing a new thread, or even a thread with some links to the past. However, the ST presents us with a New Republic as ineffective as the old one, when Palpatine took control. That is a very cynical outcome, especially since our heroes fought and bled for its establishment.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

I hope someday Lucas’s treatments do come out, I’d be curious. But knowing his past writing processes (on the OT and PT), it’s more likely than not that his treatments were pretty short and vague. More importantly, even if Lucas himself had made the films he would have certainly changed the story of his treatments significantly over the course of time. So the idea that they should have chained themselves to those treatments just because they had Lucas’s name on them is monumentally silly.

More importantly, the idea that evil will always return is “nihilistic” is ridiculous. It’s just factually true. The idea that evil can be defeated once and for all is pretty naive. It works for a fairy tale yes, but Star Wars has been becoming less and less a fairy tale with each new entry. The idea that evil will always return is sophisticated and nuanced (perhaps too much so for some viewers, which is why they ditched it in TROS), and the message that there will always be good to face that evil is anything but nihilistic. It’s the very heart of what Star Wars is - never ending hope in the face of potential despair.

Exactly. We do know that they kept some of what Lucas had come up with. They also revisited a lot of his abandoned ideas for earlier films. I would love to see his treatments, but if you read some of his other treatments, the final films came out much different. And in history and myth, evil is something always lurking and endangering the good we create. The idea that Star Wars should somehow deviate from that and must keep what the heroes of the OT worked so hard to win is indeed silly. Each generation has their own fight and some generations lose that fight (the PT).

I don’t agree with everything your saying but it is important to remember Flash Gordon. Star Wars, like old space opera serials, is supposed to be a never ending saga, where we know no matter what the heroes will always be there to save the dar. If the evil can be defeated for forever, that’s it’s not really never ending is it?

This gets back to the fact that I fully believe that many people just fundamentally did not want to see movies made set after ROTJ, whether they say so or not. Simply put, to make a story set after ROTJ, you needed to undo that ‘happily ever after’ victory. What made TFA and TLJ so great is that they didn’t just wantonly undo it, they gave a thematic reason for doing so that justified their addition to the story. TROS… not so much.

Lots of people wanted to see movies made after ROTJ, but they wanted new stories, and new settings, not a reset to Empire vs rebels without so much as an explanation. There’s nothing wrong with The New Republic facing a new thread, or even a thread with some links to the past. However, the ST presents us with a New Republic as ineffective as the old one, when Palpatine took control. That is a very cynical outcome, especially since our heroes fought and bled for its establishment.

If the PT taught us anything it’s that we should never fully trust our political institutions. The heroes fought for freedom, and they had it for 30 years. The fact that the system that was put in place ended up failing doesn’t discredit their achievements. Again, the cyclical nature is the whole point, and the cynicism of such an outcome is precisely the thing that serves as the main conflict of the trilogy. The hope in the OT was hope in the face of tyranny. The hope in the ST is hope in the face of cynicism and despair. It’s a permutation and a maturation of the themes of the original films.

Maybe it’s not what you would have done personally (I’m not sure if it’s what I would have done) but it’s crazy how stubborn people are that they won’t take something at face value and they can’t get past the simple fact that it’s not what they imagined. So what? Look at what the films are actually saying. They’re wrestling with these exact things.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

I hope someday Lucas’s treatments do come out, I’d be curious. But knowing his past writing processes (on the OT and PT), it’s more likely than not that his treatments were pretty short and vague. More importantly, even if Lucas himself had made the films he would have certainly changed the story of his treatments significantly over the course of time. So the idea that they should have chained themselves to those treatments just because they had Lucas’s name on them is monumentally silly.

More importantly, the idea that evil will always return is “nihilistic” is ridiculous. It’s just factually true. The idea that evil can be defeated once and for all is pretty naive. It works for a fairy tale yes, but Star Wars has been becoming less and less a fairy tale with each new entry. The idea that evil will always return is sophisticated and nuanced (perhaps too much so for some viewers, which is why they ditched it in TROS), and the message that there will always be good to face that evil is anything but nihilistic. It’s the very heart of what Star Wars is - never ending hope in the face of potential despair.

Exactly. We do know that they kept some of what Lucas had come up with. They also revisited a lot of his abandoned ideas for earlier films. I would love to see his treatments, but if you read some of his other treatments, the final films came out much different. And in history and myth, evil is something always lurking and endangering the good we create. The idea that Star Wars should somehow deviate from that and must keep what the heroes of the OT worked so hard to win is indeed silly. Each generation has their own fight and some generations lose that fight (the PT).

I don’t agree with everything your saying but it is important to remember Flash Gordon. Star Wars, like old space opera serials, is supposed to be a never ending saga, where we know no matter what the heroes will always be there to save the dar. If the evil can be defeated for forever, that’s it’s not really never ending is it?

This gets back to the fact that I fully believe that many people just fundamentally did not want to see movies made set after ROTJ, whether they say so or not. Simply put, to make a story set after ROTJ, you needed to undo that ‘happily ever after’ victory. What made TFA and TLJ so great is that they didn’t just wantonly undo it, they gave a thematic reason for doing so that justified their addition to the story. TROS… not so much.

Lots of people wanted to see movies made after ROTJ, but they wanted new stories, and new settings, not a reset to Empire vs rebels without so much as an explanation. There’s nothing wrong with The New Republic facing a new thread, or even a thread with some links to the past. However, the ST presents us with a New Republic as ineffective as the old one, when Palpatine took control. That is a very cynical outcome, especially since our heroes fought and bled for its establishment.

If the PT taught us anything it’s that we should never fully trust our political institutions. The heroes fought for freedom, and they had it for 30 years. The fact that the system that was put in place ended up failing doesn’t discredit their achievements. Again, the cyclical nature is the whole point, and the cynicism of such an outcome is precisely the thing that serves as the main conflict of the trilogy. The hope in the OT was hope in the face of tyranny. The hope in the ST is hope in the face of cynicism and despair. It’s a permutation and a maturation of the themes of the original films.

Maybe it’s not what you would have done personally (I’m not sure if it’s what I would have done) but it’s crazy how stubborn people are that they won’t take something at face value and they can’t get past the simple fact that it’s not what they imagined. So what? Look at what the films are actually saying. They’re wrestling with these exact things.

The New Republic was turned into a cipher in TFA, not because it made narrative sense in terms of the first six episodes in the saga, but because it made financial sense, since the OT iconography is more marketable than a new story, and setting would be. I would also argue, that it would have been far more satisfying, if our new generation of heroes had to overcome new challenges, rather than have the old generation fail spectacularly at almost every turn, such that the new generation can effectively take their place. While there are some good narrative reasons for Rey to choose the Skywalker name, it’s also quite interesting to note, that Luke and Anakin’s victory is now Rey’s, as she is the one to “finally” destroy the Sith, and becomes the last Skywalker, and last Jedi. She quite literally replaced them. I will also note, that the cyclical nature was not Lucas’ intention, I believe. The Old Republic stood for a thousand generations. That is what our heroes were fighting to re-establish. The fall of the Old Republic was presented as a rather unique set of circumstances, that through the manipulation, and corruption of the Senate by a Sith Lord was turned into an Empire. It was the fact, that the Sith had been secretly undermining the Old Republic for a thousand years, like a game of galactic chess, that gave their final victory weight in the grand scheme of things. I feel the way the ST just pulls dark lords, massive fleets, super weapons, and resources out of thin air greatly undermines the meaning and weight of both the victory of the Sith at the end of ROTS, and the Jedi at the end of ROTJ. That to me is not a maturation of the themes of the original films.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Please understand everything I say about the trilogy has an asterisk that says “excluding TROS.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Please understand everything I say about the trilogy has an asterisk that says “excluding TROS.”

I understand, but I think it is also fair to say that all ST movies have the same roots in a lot of ways. A notorious gambler can take a big win, which to many might represent TFA, or TLJ. That same gambler may take a catastrophic loss, which may represent TROS. However, to some of us the main point is not the individual win or loss, but the fact that the man is a gambler. It is the creative process behind these films, that have caused them to be reactionary, and disjointed to varying degrees. TROS is a symptom of an underlying condition, is what many are arguing, a condition that has been present from the very beginning.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The underlying condition is that the LFL and Disney board members seem to have no clue when to draw certain lines and when to put real writers and real film makers to work. Why did they hire someone like Terrio? Why did they let JJ out of the director’s chair and into other areas he’s not good with? It’s baffling when you think they might have just sat down rationally and called back someone like Kasdan. Or even one of their other story group people to fix everything, it really wouldn’t have been a big job.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

I hope someday Lucas’s treatments do come out, I’d be curious. But knowing his past writing processes (on the OT and PT), it’s more likely than not that his treatments were pretty short and vague. More importantly, even if Lucas himself had made the films he would have certainly changed the story of his treatments significantly over the course of time. So the idea that they should have chained themselves to those treatments just because they had Lucas’s name on them is monumentally silly.

More importantly, the idea that evil will always return is “nihilistic” is ridiculous. It’s just factually true. The idea that evil can be defeated once and for all is pretty naive. It works for a fairy tale yes, but Star Wars has been becoming less and less a fairy tale with each new entry. The idea that evil will always return is sophisticated and nuanced (perhaps too much so for some viewers, which is why they ditched it in TROS), and the message that there will always be good to face that evil is anything but nihilistic. It’s the very heart of what Star Wars is - never ending hope in the face of potential despair.

Exactly. We do know that they kept some of what Lucas had come up with. They also revisited a lot of his abandoned ideas for earlier films. I would love to see his treatments, but if you read some of his other treatments, the final films came out much different. And in history and myth, evil is something always lurking and endangering the good we create. The idea that Star Wars should somehow deviate from that and must keep what the heroes of the OT worked so hard to win is indeed silly. Each generation has their own fight and some generations lose that fight (the PT).

I don’t agree with everything your saying but it is important to remember Flash Gordon. Star Wars, like old space opera serials, is supposed to be a never ending saga, where we know no matter what the heroes will always be there to save the dar. If the evil can be defeated for forever, that’s it’s not really never ending is it?

This gets back to the fact that I fully believe that many people just fundamentally did not want to see movies made set after ROTJ, whether they say so or not. Simply put, to make a story set after ROTJ, you needed to undo that ‘happily ever after’ victory. What made TFA and TLJ so great is that they didn’t just wantonly undo it, they gave a thematic reason for doing so that justified their addition to the story. TROS… not so much.

Lots of people wanted to see movies made after ROTJ, but they wanted new stories, and new settings, not a reset to Empire vs rebels without so much as an explanation. There’s nothing wrong with The New Republic facing a new thread, or even a thread with some links to the past. However, the ST presents us with a New Republic as ineffective as the old one, when Palpatine took control. That is a very cynical outcome, especially since our heroes fought and bled for its establishment.

If the PT taught us anything it’s that we should never fully trust our political institutions. The heroes fought for freedom, and they had it for 30 years. The fact that the system that was put in place ended up failing doesn’t discredit their achievements. Again, the cyclical nature is the whole point, and the cynicism of such an outcome is precisely the thing that serves as the main conflict of the trilogy. The hope in the OT was hope in the face of tyranny. The hope in the ST is hope in the face of cynicism and despair. It’s a permutation and a maturation of the themes of the original films.

Maybe it’s not what you would have done personally (I’m not sure if it’s what I would have done) but it’s crazy how stubborn people are that they won’t take something at face value and they can’t get past the simple fact that it’s not what they imagined. So what? Look at what the films are actually saying. They’re wrestling with these exact things.

The New Republic was turned into a cipher in TFA, not because it made narrative sense in terms of the first six episodes in the saga, but because it made financial sense, since the OT iconography is more marketable than a new story, and setting would be. I would also argue, that it would have been far more satisfying, if our new generation of heroes had to overcome new challenges, rather than have the old generation fail spectacularly at almost every turn, such that the new generation can effectively take their place. While there are some good narrative reasons for Rey to choose the Skywalker name, it’s also quite interesting to note, that Luke and Anakin’s victory is now Rey’s, as she is the one to “finally” destroy the Sith, and becomes the last Skywalker, and last Jedi. She quite literally replaced them. I will also note, that the cyclical nature was not Lucas’ intention, I believe. The Old Republic stood for a thousand generations. That is what our heroes were fighting to re-establish. The fall of the Old Republic was presented as a rather unique set of circumstances, that through the manipulation, and corruption of the Senate by a Sith Lord was turned into an Empire. It was the fact, that the Sith had been secretly undermining the Old Republic for a thousand years, like a game of galactic chess, that gave their final victory weight in the grand scheme of things. I feel the way the ST just pulls dark lords, massive fleets, super weapons, and resources out of thin air greatly undermines the meaning and weight of both the victory of the Sith at the end of ROTS, and the Jedi at the end of ROTJ. That to me is not a maturation of the themes of the original films.

Barring the revelation of exactly what Lucas’s treatments were about, I’m not sure we can say definitively that he didn’t come up with exactly what you are complaining about. Kennedy did say they started with his treatments and then let the story grow from there. Abrams completely restructured it when he did TFA (Luke was supposed to appear midway through the film and probably die at the end). That means the entire story had to be redone at that point. And I still don’t agree that the ST just redoes the Empire/Rebellion conflict. It is much different and the stakes are vastly different. They aren’t fighting to topple an evil empire that had ruled for 20 years. They are fighting the invasion of a powerful enemy rather than toppling the existing order. And it is setup as so many post-revolution democracies are, very light on the military side (unless the need presents itself).

And once we had the Death Star in Episode IV, there is no reason not to continue the technology. You complain about the appearance of the Emperor’s fleet out of nothing and yet in ROTJ we had a second (and larger) Death Star show up the same way. I really get the sense that you do not carefully think how the OT may done similar things before you judge the ST so harshly. Now, 31 years later, we can have that sort of weapon on ship (well, not really the same, the Death Star weapon fired a quick blast and these new ships fired a long steady beam). So ultimately you are upset that the ultimate weapon was introduced in the very first movie. When you put it in historical terms, Alderaan is the Star Wars Hiroshima and the Death Star is the atomic bomb. Now 35 years later we have the hydrogen bomb and a much smaller bomb can destroy a much larger target. You are basically arguing that the bad guys should abandon the Death Star technology instead of perfect it. That didn’t happen in reality with atomic/nuclear weapons so that is an unrealistic complaint of the Star Wars universe. And this in a universe where we had Starkiller base with a weapon that could destroy an entire system from a completely different system (it was called a hyper-lightspeed weapon), ship based planet killers isn’t so far fetched. We survived a cold war in reality based on weapons that can destroy cities that improved exponentially over a 30 year period. And the fleet we see in TROS would fit inside the first Death Star and rattle around, so its existence is supported by the chronology the ST lays out.

And I still haven’t figure out why TROS can be considered a mess and a failure. It is well written, with definite goals, a solid plot, and en emotional ending. It is connecting with Star Wars fans around the globe. So they did something right.