Sign In

Most Disappointing Aspect of Sequel Trilogy? Most Satisfying? * TROS SPOILERS WITHIN * — Page 18

Author
Time

I also don’t think one of the major messages of Canto Bight is “don’t abuse animals.” Obviously, you shouldn’t abuse animals. You also shouldn’t be a war profiteer. Pretty sure that was the primary thematic function of the trip to Canto Bight. Finn loves the decadence of the city at first, and is provided an opportunity (in the form of DJ) to put his morals on pause (or abandon them altogether) in order to enjoy it in the future. DJ’s function isn’t to replicate Lando’s character, because Lando and DJ are basically nothing alike. Like Hello very smartly pointed out - DJ’s function is to be the devil to Rose’s angel on his shoulder. “Look kid - it’s all rigged. It’s all a racket. You can be a sucker if you want, but why not be smart and above it all, like me.”

I was honestly surprised that Phasma didn’t come back for Rise of Skywalker though. Abrams could have easily brought her back, he just… didn’t.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

But the whole “don’t abuse animals” thing feels so ham-fisted and forced, and it comes across as pandering rather than organic writing. Also, the very idea of a character who at first is helping the heroes but later betrays them to the bad guys is way too similar to Lando in The Empire Strikes Back; same with the very idea of a villain revealing the horrifying truth to the protagonist about their parentage.

The unfortunate reality of the Star Wars prequel and Disney trilogies is that they will always be around. Forever. They will never go away. It can never be undone.

I also prefer to be referred to as TNT, not Freezing.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I don’t even get where you think “don’t abuse animals” was even PART of the main message of that trip. I’m legitimately confused as to how you thought “don’t abuse animals” played any real part in the storytelling. There’s not really any emphasis on it. It’s incidental. Of course war profiteers at the giant casino are so self-centered that they’re not treating ANYONE who isn’t also rich with any respect. The KIDS being abused was more of a big deal than the Fathiers were.

This reads to me like people who got super upset with Luke drinking Sea Cow milk? Where the point of the scene was “look at him trying to show off and freak out Rey and show how much he doesn’t need society anymore” but all anyone could focus on was “titty milk” (as if there is animal milk that doesn’t feature “titties” producing it. People were really showing their asses with their bizarre fixation on “titties” in that scene). I don’t know: Canto Bight isn’t really about animal abuse at all. I can’t agree with the notion the “ham-fisted” writing was “pandering” to an anti-abuse narrative, because I honestly don’t think it’s even really IN there to any degree beyond “how do we make these amoral people look more amoral.”

Animal Abuse isn’t the point of anything on Canto Bight. It’s a symptom of a larger moral absence and malaise. The Child Abuse is a bigger point being made - and even that isn’t really the point of Canto Bight at all.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

FreezingTNT2 said:

Another very disappointing idea: Rey not being either a Skywalker or a Solo (with Skywalker blood). Seriously, why have the first six movies in the Skywalker saga be focused on the Skywalker family, then have the last three movies in the entire Skywalker saga be about a nobody who is the granddaughter of Darth Sidious and has no biological connection to the Skywalker family whatsoever?

I mean, that’s the whole point.

FreezingTNT2 said:

But the whole “don’t abuse animals” thing feels so ham-fisted and forced, and it comes across as pandering rather than organic writing.

Genuine question - in what way is this true?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

This is actually an issue I do take with TLJ. The moralizing, while not central to the story is way too on the nose. First of all, the issues in question are comically black and white. We see the animal abuse and child abuse first-hand. We see the mustache twirling, vulgar rich war profiteering people of Canto Bight. It’s obvious to a person even with a low propensity for critical analysis that these things are wrong. But then, the movie goes a step further and tells the audience flat-out that these things are bad, as if we didn’t already know. It’s lacking in subtlety and I think a little insulting to the viewer.

I think a better solution would have been to paint a more subtle picture of the injustice and amorality of Canto Bight and let the viewer come to their own conclusion. I’m not big on movies telling its audience what to think, even if is the right thing.

Author
Time

Nail on the head, pleasehello! I know it’s a children’s movie but it still feels like it even talks down to them, I just remember groaning over it all at how hamfisted the delivery was for me, even DJ’s don’t join message felt too boilerplate there was nothing left to dig into, it’s not the ideas in concept but personally I felt it all needed another draft that wasn’t so paint by numbers as I felt it was.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

pleasehello said:

This is actually an issue I do take with TLJ. The moralizing, while not central to the story is way too on the nose. First of all, the issues in question are comically black and white. We see the animal abuse and child abuse first-hand. We see the mustache twirling, vulgar rich war profiteering people of Canto Bight. It’s obvious to a person even with a low propensity for critical analysis that these things are wrong. But then, the movie goes a step further and tells the audience flat-out that these things are bad, as if we didn’t already know. It’s lacking in subtlety and I think a little insulting to the viewer.

I’m not sure this is true. This is the offending speech by Rose where she explains why Canto Bight is bad:

Look closer. My sister and I grew up in a poor mining system. The First Order stripped our ore to finance its military… then shelled us to test their weapons. They took everything we had. And who do you think these people are? There is only one business in the galaxy that’ll get you this rich. Selling weapons to the First Order. I wish… I could put my fist through this whole lousy beautiful town.

Author
Time

To me the very thing of Rose giving a direct speech to explain why Canto Bight is bad is the exact thing that I would categorize as part of the problem. And seeing Finn initially excited to be there just for the sake of receiving an explanation feels very maclunkey for my own tastes.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

pleasehello said:

This is actually an issue I do take with TLJ. The moralizing, while not central to the story is way too on the nose. First of all, the issues in question are comically black and white. We see the animal abuse and child abuse first-hand. We see the mustache twirling, vulgar rich war profiteering people of Canto Bight. It’s obvious to a person even with a low propensity for critical analysis that these things are wrong. But then, the movie goes a step further and tells the audience flat-out that these things are bad, as if we didn’t already know. It’s lacking in subtlety and I think a little insulting to the viewer.

I’m not sure this is true. This is the offending speech by Rose where she explains why Canto Bight is bad:

Look closer. My sister and I grew up in a poor mining system. The First Order stripped our ore to finance its military… then shelled us to test their weapons. They took everything we had. And who do you think these people are? There is only one business in the galaxy that’ll get you this rich. War. Selling weapons to the First Order. I wish… I could put my fist through this whole lousy beautiful town.

While that doesn’t leave much to the imagination, I suppose she doesn’t outright say it in her balcony speech. But, what’s worse than that is what she says before we even get to Canto Bight. “It’s a horrible place filled with the worst people.”

Before we even get there, the movie is telling us what to expect. And then (surprise!) we get it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

IIRC, nobody at any point says anything like “child and animal abuse is bad.”

The “speech” that Dom just excerpted (comprising probably about 3 total lines of dialog on the page) says “look closer” as the only direct reference to what’s happening. And then she tells the story of her own upbringing, via a completely different example of First Order oppression.

“this is the sort of place that enables the system that kidnapped you” is what she’s saying - without actually really saying that.

I think the idea that “This is a horrible place” and then you get there and it’s a literal vacation spot - it’s Fhloston Paradise, basically - is supposed to make you laugh a little. “Yeah. Super-horrible, Rose.”

Author
Time

pleasehello said:

DominicCobb said:

pleasehello said:

This is actually an issue I do take with TLJ. The moralizing, while not central to the story is way too on the nose. First of all, the issues in question are comically black and white. We see the animal abuse and child abuse first-hand. We see the mustache twirling, vulgar rich war profiteering people of Canto Bight. It’s obvious to a person even with a low propensity for critical analysis that these things are wrong. But then, the movie goes a step further and tells the audience flat-out that these things are bad, as if we didn’t already know. It’s lacking in subtlety and I think a little insulting to the viewer.

I’m not sure this is true. This is the offending speech by Rose where she explains why Canto Bight is bad:

Look closer. My sister and I grew up in a poor mining system. The First Order stripped our ore to finance its military… then shelled us to test their weapons. They took everything we had. And who do you think these people are? There is only one business in the galaxy that’ll get you this rich. War. Selling weapons to the First Order. I wish… I could put my fist through this whole lousy beautiful town.

While that doesn’t leave much to the imagination, I suppose she doesn’t outright say it in her balcony speech. But, what’s worse than that is what she says before we even get to Canto Bight. “It’s a horrible place filled with the worst people.”

Before we even get there, the movie is telling us what to expect. And then (surprise!) we get it.

Whether it works, I don’t think that’s actually the intention. I see the idea as playing with the “wretched hive of scum and villainy” expectation, where we’re supposed to be surprised once we actually see Canto Bight, because it’s this gorgeous place of luxury rather than a hovel filled with scoundrels. Again, whether or not it works, Finn is the POV character here and you’re supposed to be caught up in the excitement of the casino like he is, until Rose gives her speech (which for me works because she talking sideways at the issue, rather than hitting us over the head as some have suggested).

Author
Time

No matter what your opinions on the Canto Bight scene are, can we all agree that “I want to put my fist through this lousy beautiful town” is a terrible line? It reminds me of something Padme would say in the prequels, and that’s why I personally felt the Canto Bight scene was very ham-fisted in its messaging. It’s a symptom of a wider problem throughout the movie: telling the audience what to think, when you should let them interpret the message themselves.

My preferred saga experience:
TPM/AOTC/ROTS (Hal 9000 edits), ANH/ESB/ROTJ (Despecialized), The Mandalorian.
May the midichlorians be with you.

Author
Time

I also love how the film is “telling the audience what to think” and yet some people still don’t understand what the movie is saying.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Nope.

Could you please explain why you like it? I’m genuinely interested.

My preferred saga experience:
TPM/AOTC/ROTS (Hal 9000 edits), ANH/ESB/ROTJ (Despecialized), The Mandalorian.
May the midichlorians be with you.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

I also love how the film is “telling the audience what to think” and yet some people still don’t understand what the movie is saying.

That’s because some people are willfully obtuse and refuse to accept a message that’s right in their face. It’s the type of people who think the message of the movie is “let the past die,” when that line was spoken by the literal villain of the movie. Some people just want to hate everything about this movie, for some bizarre reason.

My preferred saga experience:
TPM/AOTC/ROTS (Hal 9000 edits), ANH/ESB/ROTJ (Despecialized), The Mandalorian.
May the midichlorians be with you.

Author
Time

StarkillerAG said:

DominicCobb said:

Nope.

Could you pleas explain why you like it? I’m genuinely interested.

It sounds like it came straight from a Old Hollywood picture, like a 1940s noir film. Which is a spirit that is in keeping with the series.

Personally I don’t get the hate. Calling Canto Bight “lousy” doesn’t seem terribly heavy handed to me.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

StarkillerAG said:

DominicCobb said:

Nope.

Could you pleas explain why you like it? I’m genuinely interested.

It sounds like it came straight from a Old Hollywood picture, like a 1940s noir film. Which is a spirit that is in keeping with the series.

Personally I don’t get the hate. Calling Canto Bight “lousy” doesn’t seem terribly heavy handed to me.

I guess I understand your point of view, but I personally felt the line was too cheesy, although that seems to be the reason why you like it. It reminds me of some of the worst lines from the prequels. It’s all subjective though.

My preferred saga experience:
TPM/AOTC/ROTS (Hal 9000 edits), ANH/ESB/ROTJ (Despecialized), The Mandalorian.
May the midichlorians be with you.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

StarkillerAG said:

DominicCobb said:

Nope.

Could you pleas explain why you like it? I’m genuinely interested.

It sounds like it came straight from a Old Hollywood picture, like a 1940s noir film. Which is a spirit that is in keeping with the series.

It might have sounded cool if Philip Marlowe had said it. Not so much when Rose Tico says it.

Author
Time

For me the line that really hurt was this:

Rose: Only one business can get you this rich.

Finn: War.

Rose: Selling weapons to the First Order.

It feels so redundant and tacked, being even more on the nose then the message already was, and it totally kills the flow of the dialog.

Author
Time

FreezingTNT2 said:

Another very disappointing idea: Rey not being either a Skywalker or a Solo (with Skywalker blood). Seriously, why have the first six movies in the Skywalker saga be focused on the Skywalker family, then have the last three movies in the entire Skywalker saga be about a nobody who is the granddaughter of Darth Sidious and has no biological connection to the Skywalker family whatsoever?

They’re partly about Ben Solo, who is Anakin’s grandson, Leia’s son, Han’s son, and Luke’s nephew. Why do so much of AOTC and ROTS follow Obi Wan, who’s not a Skywalker? Why does the OT spend so much time on Han’s debt to Jabba?

Star Wars plays with which heroes and villains are Skywalkers or not - Skywalker as a hero for two movies, then Skywalker crosses into the dark side, then two movies with two good and one bad Skywalkers, and a third movie where the bad Skywalker crosses back over, then two movies with a bad Skywalker (and two good ones but they’re old and not the main focus), then he crosses back over.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

sade1212 said:

FreezingTNT2 said:

Another very disappointing idea: Rey not being either a Skywalker or a Solo (with Skywalker blood). Seriously, why have the first six movies in the Skywalker saga be focused on the Skywalker family, then have the last three movies in the entire Skywalker saga be about a nobody who is the granddaughter of Darth Sidious and has no biological connection to the Skywalker family whatsoever?

They’re partly about Ben Solo, who is Anakin’s grandson, Leia’s son, Han’s son, and Luke’s nephew. Why do so much of AOTC and ROTS follow Obi Wan, who’s not a Skywalker? Why does the OT spend so much time on Han’s debt to Jabba?

Star Wars plays with which heroes and villains are Skywalkers or not - Skywalker as a hero for two movies, then Skywalker crosses into the dark side, then two movies with two good and one bad Skywalkers, and a third movie where the bad Skywalker crosses back over, then two movies with a bad Skywalker (and two good ones but they’re old and not the main focus), then he crosses back over.

Anakin is the central protagonist of the prequels. Luke is the central protagonist of the originals. So if Rey is the central protagonist of the Disney trilogy, why can’t she be a biological Skywalker, whether she is Luke’s or Leia and Han’s daughter?

It’s just so strange to have the first two trilogies have a Skywalker as the central protagonist in each trilogy, only to switch to the granddaughter of Darth Sidious in the final trilogy as the central protagonist.

Kathleen Kennedy even said that the Star Wars saga is about the Skywalker family.

The unfortunate reality of the Star Wars prequel and Disney trilogies is that they will always be around. Forever. They will never go away. It can never be undone.

I also prefer to be referred to as TNT, not Freezing.

Author
Time

See this is why I don’t like calling it the Skywalker Saga. It’s about more than just the Skywalkers.

Author
Time

One of the bigger disappointments about The Rise Of Skywalker is precisely how badly they botched making that point, when it was absolutely key that they did so. The exact question, the very notion that bloodline is THAT important, when legacy can (and should) be and mean more than simply blood and familial connections - the first two movies laid a lot of road to arrive at a destination where that entire question is answered definitively. The legacy of the Skywalker family SHOULD BE, by the end of Rise of Skywalker, that the family name doesn’t need to be tied to blood in order to have meaning and power. That by the end of their saga, the ultimate lesson they’ve passed on is one that is inclusive, hopeful, and meaningful. You can be what they were, and that name can apply to you, because it’s no longer just the name of a family, but the name of a philosophy, or an outlook on life, and living.

Rise of Skywalker didn’t get anywhere NEAR that, and while I don’t believe that sequels can retroactively ruin the movies they follow, that the quality and status of that preceding film is what it is, and that work stands on its own FOR what it is, no matter what - I do think that Rise of Skywalker dropping that ball as hard as it did makes the road the preceding two movies laid down a lot less stable. It puts a lot of potholes in the sequel trilogy, basically.

Smaller disappointment: Lando got the Falcon back and there was no real moment of significance attached to it. I think there was barely a reaction shot, in fact?