Sign In

The Rise Of Skywalker — Official Review and Opinions Thread — * SPOILERS * — Page 19

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

I thought it would’ve been interesting if it took 4-8 Star Destroyers firing at the core together in order to destroy a planet. Each Destroyer isn’t equally as powerful as one Death Star, instead it sacrifices firepower for mobility.

2 Destroyers would have been enough for me (that they are powerful and to be feared, but not as powerful as a Death Star) - and also to mirror the dyad of Rey and Ben being more powerful when working together. I think it could have worked better like that; especially if the timing of the two scenes could have been matched up to highlight this? ‘Ifs and buts’ 😉

Author
Time

The thing is they missed an opportunity with the Star Destroyers. Because of the size of the fleet, they could have had each stationed in every system, waiting to fire. Wouldn’t that have been interesting? If we saw the “people” rising up to fight across the galaxy, rather than just on Exegol? It would have made the pay off (Star Destroyers falling over various planets) make more sense.

Speaking of, what a massive whiff to not have one of the prequel planets in that montage. They literally had three planets (Bespin, Endor, Jakku), it was right there for them to do one from each trilogy.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

The thing is they missed an opportunity with the Star Destroyers. Because of the size of the fleet, they could have had each stationed in every system, waiting to fire. Wouldn’t that have been interesting? If we saw the “people” rising up to fight across the galaxy, rather than just on Exegol? It would have made the pay off (Star Destroyers falling over various planets) make more sense.

Speaking of, what a massive whiff to not have one of the prequel planets in that montage. They literally had three planets (Bespin, Endor, Jakku), it was right there for them to do one from each trilogy.

Yes. The “Battle of Exogel” was a pretty lame final fight for the saga: a galaxy-wide fight would have been pretty cool, and provide natural fanservice for every star wars movie (ex: show Naboo, Kamino, Kashyyk, Tatooine, Bespin, Endor, Jakku, and Canto Bight as having their own battles).

Maul- A Star Wars Story

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Building more and more Death Stars is logical within the Star Wars universe, but it doesn’t make for good storytelling. It just makes the movies feel repetitive and uninspired.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The planet-killing Star Destroyers were one of many reasons I see TROS as ROTJ done better. Not that it’s necessarily the greatest idea on earth, but more because it was a cool way to retain that ‘super weapon/final showdown’ idea without the blatant retread of the Death Star.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Wanderer_ said:

The unbridled rage take on the movie is here, and it’s awesome: https://youtu.be/0528-TlRODI

A 2 hour long youtube video from ‘MauLer’ on bashing TROS? Titled ‘TROS: An Unbridled Rage’?

No thanks - personally I’d rather watch something with balance to their videos, something without a pre-conceived agenda - and not 2 hours of a ‘video ranting about a crappy movie’ - or ‘Disney’s failure is now complete’.

Though fair play to those that do.
 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

I find that answer vague and unconvincing. Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves?
Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shopping Maul said:

The planet-killing Star Destroyers were one of many reasons I see TROS as ROTJ done better. Not that it’s necessarily the greatest idea on earth, but more because it was a cool way to retain that ‘super weapon/final showdown’ idea without the blatant retread of the Death Star.

I don’t agree, because while the idea of planet-killing Star Destroyers might seem more original, and interesting on paper, it is used in the lamest way possible in the film. Essentially, they show one of these Destroyers blow up a planet, in an attempt to artificially raise the stakes, to then never use the lasers again for the rest of the movie. At least in ROTJ the Death Star was used in an interesting way, to lure the rebels to it, and then as a twist, have it be be operational. It was also actively used in the space battle to increase tension, forcing the rebels to engage the Star Destroyers at point blank range. Lastly, the part where the rebels fly through the Death Star super structure, has turned out to be so iconic, that thusfar each of the ST entries have rehashed it in some way:

Author
Time

It’s funny to think Orwell was using a light touch when envisioning a worst-case scenario future. And yet, who needs a two-minute-hate when you can have a monetized Two-Hour-Rage on the freevee?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

oojason said:

Wanderer_ said:

The unbridled rage take on the movie is here, and it’s awesome: https://youtu.be/0528-TlRODI

A 2 hour long youtube video from ‘MauLer’ on bashing TROS? Titled ‘TROS: An Unbridled Rage’?

No thanks - personally I’d rather watch something with balance to their videos, something without a pre-conceived agenda - and not 2 hours of a ‘video ranting about a crappy movie’ - or ‘Disney’s failure is now complete’.

Though fair play to those that do.
 

Have you watched it? 90% of the video pretty much sums up the problems, plot holes and inconsistencies in this film. The other 10% is well deserved redicule of the planning/writing behind this trilogy.

Author
Time

Hiding reasonable, justified criticisms behind something called “two-hour-rage” is ridiculously counterproductive. Why would anyone want to watch a “two-hour-rage” directed at anything?

If the criticisms are reasonable and justified what’s the benefit in presenting them as two hours of concentrated rage?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

In fairness some of the script issues that he points out are so amateurish and insulting that you can’t help but be enraged.

Author
Time

Broom Kid said:

Hiding reasonable, justified criticisms behind something called “two-hour-rage” is ridiculously counterproductive. Why would anyone want to watch a “two-hour-rage” directed at anything?

If the criticisms are reasonable and justified what’s the benefit in presenting them as two hours of concentrated rage?

These sort of videos have been popular ever since the days of good ol’ Plinkett.

Author
Time

oojason said:

Wanderer_ said:

The unbridled rage take on the movie is here, and it’s awesome: https://youtu.be/0528-TlRODI

A 2 hour long youtube video from ‘MauLer’ on bashing TROS? Titled ‘TROS: An Unbridled Rage’?

No thanks - personally I’d rather watch something with balance to their videos, something without a pre-conceived agenda - and not 2 hours of a ‘video ranting about a crappy movie’ - or ‘Disney’s failure is now complete’.

Though fair play to those that do.
 

Its a very fair, balanced review though. That said, i understand how people who loved the movie cant take well constructed criticism, as seen with TLJ.

Fyi, its not a rant or enraged review despite the name of the channel.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DrDre said:

These sort of videos have been popular ever since the days of good ol’ Plinkett.

Plinkett never called his videos “two-hour-rages” though. Plinkett’s early-internet popularity is the curse that keep giving, absolutely, and was very instrumental in the YouTube grift that is actively making the world a worse place every day, despite the fact all Red Letter Media really wanted to do was have fun goofing on Star Wars and Star Trek —they didn’t intend to help lay the groundwork for a Tantrum-Throwing-Industrial-Complex, obviously. But Red Letter Media has never gone out of their way to either suggest their critique is all that meaningful, and they’ve, so far as I know, never bald-face presented their work as the product of pure rage, either. Even their most acid takes are presented as easy-going, not-all-that-important jests.

If you click on something called “Two Hour Rage” and you actually watch all of it, and feel frustrated trying to convince people the title isn’t an accurate description of its contents, I don’t understand. Movie-length-reviews of movies are honestly a thing that barely justify their existence even IF they’re well-made and presented as rational and reasonable. If you stack the deck even further against yourself by making your critique encompass the behind-the-scenes making-of (that is almost hardly ever made public and necessitates assumption, conjecture, theory-crafting applied to REAL people, and typically a bunch of bad information) and then you couch the actual film criticism part of your review as a “two hour rage” it shouldn’t be a mystery as to why people might avoid it on general principle.

Advocates for this sort of online rage obviously benefit financially from this approach because appealing to prurient interests and unearned anger is a good grift on the algorithm-focused platform that is YouTube. But it’s also worth keeping in mind a lot of people prefer to enjoy things, and not “rage” at them. If you present a thing that is asking for two-hours of your time and you’re promising it will be filled with “rage” people will probably give it a pass as there’s enough “rage” inducing content out there in people’s real lives that giving more time to it (over something as low-stakes as a Star Wars movie) will seem pretty unappealing.

I still haven’t read or heard a piece of criticism about Rise of Skywalker that did as much to point out the film’s weaknesses in a clear, concise, easy-to-understand (and feel) manner than the film freak central review, and even if someone took the harshest possible interpretation of that review as a “rage” it still wouldn’t come close to 10 minutes if someone simply read it aloud, and it takes even less time to actually read. “Two Hour Rage” is the sort of indulgence that only in a very, very rare instance could possibly justify itself, and I have hard time believing “MauLer” on YouTube is gonna manage that justification.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Wanderer_ said:

oojason said:

Wanderer_ said:

The unbridled rage take on the movie is here, and it’s awesome: https://youtu.be/0528-TlRODI

A 2 hour long youtube video from ‘MauLer’ on bashing TROS? Titled ‘TROS: An Unbridled Rage’?

No thanks - personally I’d rather watch something with balance to their videos, something without a pre-conceived agenda - and not 2 hours of a ‘video ranting about a crappy movie’ - or ‘Disney’s failure is now complete’.

Though fair play to those that do.
 

Its a very fair, balanced review though. That said, i understand how people who loved the movie cant take well constructed criticism, as seen with TLJ.

Fyi, its not a rant or enraged review despite the name of the channel.

You assume that only those who ‘loved the movie can’t take well constructed criticism, as seen with TLJ’? I don’t know - I don’t love the movie… you’d have to ask someone who does.

Seems many people who didn’t like TLJ or TROS or X, Y & Z also don’t like those type of videos - it is not a mutual thing.
 

The title of the video is ‘TROS: An Unbridled Rage’.

‘video ranting about a crappy movie’ is taken from from the video’s own description. As is ‘Disney’s failure is now complete’ from another part of the description.
 

A ‘very fair, balanced review’ and ‘constructive criticism’? Doesn’t seem like it - and I’ve no wish spending two hours finding out. It’s also not much of an endorsement from someone who states ‘people who loved the movie cant take well constructed criticism, as seen with TLJ’ - a bit narrow minded, that.
 

I’ve seen enough of the ‘monetised hate’ type of videos out there already, thanks.

Like I said, fair play to those that enjoy those type of videos - it’s not for me.
 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

I find that answer vague and unconvincing. Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves?
Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:

These sort of videos have been popular ever since the days of good ol’ Plinkett.

Plinkett never called his videos “two-hour-rages” though. Plinkett’s early-internet popularity is the curse that keep giving, absolutely, and was very instrumental in the YouTube grift that is actively making the world a worse place every day, despite the fact all Red Letter Media really wanted to do was have fun goofing on Star Wars and Star Trek —they didn’t intend to help lay the groundwork for a Tantrum-Throwing-Industrial-Complex, obviously. But Red Letter Media has never gone out of their way to either suggest their critique is all that meaningful, and they’ve, so far as I know, never bald-face presented their work as the product of pure rage, either. Even their most acid takes are presented as easy-going, not-all-that-important jests.

If you click on something called “Two Hour Rage” and you actually watch all of it, and feel frustrated trying to convince people the title isn’t an accurate description of its contents, I don’t understand. Movie-length-reviews of movies are honestly a thing that barely justify their existence even IF they’re well-made and presented as rational and reasonable. If you stack the deck even further against yourself by making your critique encompass the behind-the-scenes making-of (that is almost hardly ever made public and necessitates assumption, conjecture, theory-crafting applied to REAL people, and typically a bunch of bad information) and then you couch the actual film criticism part of your review as a “two hour rage” it shouldn’t be a mystery as to why people might avoid it on general principle.

Advocates for this sort of online rage obviously benefit financially from this approach because appealing to prurient interests and unearned anger is a good grift on the algorithm-focused platform that is YouTube. But it’s also worth keeping in mind a lot of people prefer to enjoy things, and not “rage” at them. If you present a thing that is asking for two-hours of your time and you’re promising it will be filled with “rage” people will probably give it a pass as there’s enough “rage” inducing content out there in people’s real lives that giving more time to it (over something as low-stakes as a Star Wars movie) will seem pretty unappealing.

I still haven’t read or heard a piece of criticism about Rise of Skywalker that did as much to point out the film’s weaknesses in a clear, concise, easy-to-understand (and feel) manner than the film freak central review, and even if someone took the harshest possible interpretation of that review as a “rage” it still wouldn’t come close to 10 minutes if someone simply read it aloud, and it takes even less time to actually read. “Two Hour Rage” is the sort of indulgence that only in a very, very rare instance could possibly justify itself, and I have hard time believing “MauLer” on YouTube is gonna manage that justification.

Right… So you’re basically judging a book by its cover.

Author
Time

Broom Kid said:

Hiding reasonable, justified criticisms behind something called “two-hour-rage” is ridiculously counterproductive. Why would anyone want to watch a “two-hour-rage” directed at anything?

If the criticisms are reasonable and justified what’s the benefit in presenting them as two hours of concentrated rage?

In Mauler’s defence the whole ‘Rage’ thing is a result of his initial ‘success’ being a response to his TLJ ‘rant’ - which was just that - a rant (which I personally found hilarious). After that he did a proper critique of the film over several hours, and then sought to differentiate between his ‘rants’ and his critiques. I haven’t watched this one yet but I’m assuming it’s a big combination of both approaches.

I absolutely agree with you about the post-Plinkett Internet, but I have to say I like Mauler a lot. While I don’t agree with everything he says, he seems to have a good grasp of the subjective vs the objective in his assessments. But like I said, I haven’t watched this one yet.

Author
Time

oojason said:

A ‘balanced review’ and ‘constructive criticism’? Doesn’t seem like it - and I’ve no wish spending two hours finding out.
;

Your choice of course. I find suspicious that people get put off by the name of the channel, honestly its clear to me that any review pointing put flaws and problems on the sequel trilogy wpuld get dismissed by random reasons.

Screen Rant for example is one of most thoughtful and chilled movie critiques on YouTube… But it has “rant” in the name so im going to dismiss it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

idir_hh said:

Right… So you’re basically judging a book by its cover.

Of course I am. That’s an old cliche, not a binding rule of life and media consumption. Discernment and judgment play a huge part in deciding what media you consume, and when “the cover” in question is telling you “I’m a two-hour rant video full of unbridled rage” and I’m not in the market for consuming YouTube “film criticism” comprising two-hours of “unbridled rage” I don’t think I’m at fault for deciding to give it a pass, especially when I know (because I’ve seen and read it) there is a lot of incisive, insightful, and meaningful writing on this movie (writing that has a primarily critical bent, and negatively critical at that) that won’t take anywhere near as much time to consume and isn’t primarily focused on how much “unbridled rage” and “ranting” it contains.

If a food product said “Made with bile, vinegar, and feces” I wouldn’t eat it. Especially not if you told me I had to spend the length of a movie eating it. And if someone accused me of being closed-minded for choosing not to consume bile, vinegar, and feces, more power to them but I’d disagree with the assessment. There’s a very thick line between “open minded” and “open to self-abuse.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

Hiding reasonable, justified criticisms behind something called “two-hour-rage” is ridiculously counterproductive. Why would anyone want to watch a “two-hour-rage” directed at anything?

If the criticisms are reasonable and justified what’s the benefit in presenting them as two hours of concentrated rage?

Reasonable critique gets less clicks of course.

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Wanderer_ said:

oojason said:

A ‘balanced review’ and ‘constructive criticism’? Doesn’t seem like it - and I’ve no wish spending two hours finding out.
;

Your choice of course. I find suspicious that people get put off by the name of the channel, honestly its clear to me that any review pointing put flaws and problems on the sequel trilogy wpuld get dismissed by random reasons.

Screen Rant for example is one of most thoughtful and chilled movie critiques on YouTube… But it has “rant” in the name so im going to dismiss it.

No, not the name of the channel - the title of the video and two of it’s descriptions therein. As I said before, I’ve seen enough of those similar type of ‘monetised hate’ videos - after a while they seem pretty much the same - and also other reasons given previously too.

I’m not much of a fan of ScreenRant either - but not because it has rant in it’s title though.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

I find that answer vague and unconvincing. Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves?
Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Author
Time

Let’s not pretend everyone should enjoy video critiques from randos that take as long to watch as it takes to view the movie itself. It shouldn’t be surprising that not everybody is going to care about that sort of thing.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

idir_hh said:

Right… So you’re basically judging a book by its cover.

Of course I am. That’s an old cliche, not a binding rule of life and media consumption. Discernment and judgment play a huge part in deciding what media you consume, and when “the cover” in question is telling you “I’m a two-hour rant video full of unbridled rage” and I’m not in the market for consuming YouTube “film criticism” comprising two-hours of “unbridled rage” I don’t think I’m at fault for deciding to give it a pass, especially when I know (because I’ve seen and read it) there is a lot of incisive, insightful, and meaningful writing on this movie (writing that has a primarily critical bent, and negatively critical at that) that won’t take anywhere near as much time to consume and isn’t primarily focused on how much “unbridled rage” and “ranting” it contains.

If a food product said “Made with bile, vinegar, and feces” I wouldn’t eat it. Especially not if you told me I had to spend the length of a movie eating it. And if someone accused me of being closed-minded for choosing not to consume bile, vinegar, and feces, more power to them but I’d disagree with the assessment. There’s a very thick line between “open minded” and “open to self-abuse.”

That’s pretty unreasonable if you ask me. You might not like the title but that doesn’t take away from the critique’s analytical merit. Let go of your presumptions, grab some popcorn and enjoy an entertaining 2h00 dissection of bad filmmaking.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The title ABSOLUTELY takes away from whatever merit it might have. That’s the whole point. It’s not unreasonable to be discerning about what you put into your body and your head. If someone is voluntarily choosing to advertise their “content” as a rant comprising two hours of unbridled rage it’s perfectly reasonable for me (or anyone else) to avoid it.

Again, it’s not like an all-or-nothing thing here, either. There are multitudes of opinions (most from people with better standing and resumes in terms of cultural analysis and critical thought than “MauLer” on YouTube) I can seek out if I want to read an unsparing analysis of where The Rise of Skywalker went wrong. I’m not being unfair to “MauLer” by choosing someone else’s offerings because they presented an option that’s much more appealing by dint of not presenting as an online reactionary monetizing anger on YouTube.

How bout this - I’m almost 100% convinced there isn’t anything MauLer is going to say in this video that hasn’t already been said somewhere else, by someone else, in a much more intelligent and less “upset” manner, and I don’t need to spend two hours to hear it all again from a YouTube personality, especially since I already agree that it’s a broken, misguided mess of a film.