Sign In

The Rise Of Skywalker — Official Review and Opinions Thread — * SPOILERS * — Page 20

Author
Time
 (Edited)

This discussion is funny, but not “ha ha” funny.

Watch a 2-hour critique of a movie you love/hate/have mixed feelings on/indifferent towards or don’t. Whatever.

Virgin since 1987, horny since 1999. Thank God I’m not an incel.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

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.

Lol you can’t go around criticising things you haven’t seen, it’s absurd .

If you don’t want to watch a video that’s up to you I don’t really care.

Author
Time

The purpose of a title is to attract consumers. So a title very well might make you decide not to partake or it make spark your interest. That is what titles are for. Some things rise above their titles (titles aren’t the only marking tactic). So anyone is justified in seeing a title and going “no thanks”. It means, at least for them, the title failed to do its job.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

idir_hh said:

If you don’t want to watch a video that’s up to you I don’t really care.

If you didn’t care, none of what just happened this afternoon would have happened at all. Nothing wrong with caring.

Also, I never actually criticized the video because I never watched it. Because of the counterproductive, off-putting title that describes an experience promising a rant-filled two hours of unbridled rage.

Author
Time

Broom Kid said:

Also, I never actually criticized the video because I never watched it.

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,

You assumed his video was a less unintelligent retread of other critique’s.

If you didn’t care, none of what just happened this afternoon would have happened at all. Nothing wrong with caring.

What I care about is discussing peoples work in a fair manner.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

This discussion is funny, but not “ha ha” funny.

Watch a 2-hour critique of a movie you love/hate/have mixed feelings on/indifferent towards or don’t. Whatever.

Truth.

What a grand and intoxicating innocence. How could you be so naive? There is no escape. Come, lay down your weapons. It is not too late for my mercy.
A New Hope Technicolor Recreation (Released!)
The Force Awakens Restructured (V3 Released!) and The Starlight Project (WORKPRINT RELEASED!)

Author
Time

idir_hh said:

Broom Kid said:

Also, I never actually criticized the video because I never watched it.

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,

You assumed his video was a less unintelligent retread of other critique’s.

If you didn’t care, none of what just happened this afternoon would have happened at all. Nothing wrong with caring.

What I care about is discussing peoples work in a fair manner.

That is one of the things that irks me about some critiques of the ST films. Not saying anyone in particular (just had an FB friend share a YouTube review of TROS that was ridiculous), but I keep finding so many complaints about something in the ST that is exactly like in the OT. And so many just plain missed things that were so obvious to me. Again, not talking about anyone here. Most of the time it is on FB or YouTube. Most of the reasoning on here is pretty well though out even if I don’t agree with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

idir_hh said:

You assumed his video was a less unintelligent retread of other critique’s.

I’m not reviewing his video. I didn’t critique his critique. I assumed it was less intelligent than others because he’s presenting it in an unintelligent way. I don’t know why I’d want to “give him a chance” when it seems like what he’s offering is more YouTube negativity which I feel like there’s already way too much of. Again, I’m not discussing his work at all. I’m discussing that presentation and why it’s a turnoff for me. It’s not that hard. There’s probably a ton of stuff you don’t ever watch or read simply because it doesn’t seem like it’d appeal to you. Everyone does this. They’re not wrong for doing it.

It’s a two hour YouTube video about a movie I already know I don’t like and I already know what it is I don’t like about it, because I’ve spent some time thinking about it, I’ve spent some time talking about it, and I’ve already spent some time reading other critics who I already know I enjoy and appreciate. All by itself, on that alone, it’s a hard sell. Adding the whole “two-hour rage rant” thing makes it extra-unattractive.

I don’t know what else to tell you. And since people keep piping up to pitch their two cents in on whatever this has been, it’s probably good to just let it lie.

Author
Time

Maybe there should be a dedicated thread for those that wish to give an advert and credibility to monetised YouTube videos that bash on Star Wars films? Or to discuss how great or not those videos are?

And instead leave this discussion thread to having actual discussions of the film by actual members of this site?

Soon someone else will post another monetized bashing video in here - and a similar conversation to the one we have just had will take place, like they repeatedly did with TLJ, for Solo and for X, Y, Z too.

That someone posts up a review or opinion YouTube video of any discernable length in discussion threads and says they agree with it all (or 90%, or 80%, or most of it, or ‘watch this - it is awesome!’) instead of talking about the film themselves seems lazy to me, and that post is not worth engaging with.
 

It is just a possible idea to improve the flow and quality of discussion on here about the films themselves - and not talk about monetized YouTube videos that people seem intent on sharing as some sort of proof or validation of something - instead of contributing their own opinions and thoughts.

 

  • I don’t mean to exclude informative videos that help to highlight what has taken place in the film, or give various insights or interpretations of scenes or events in the film, from the thread.
Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shopping Maul said:

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.

Good post SM and I agree. His original TLJ unbridled rage video where you get to watch a watermelon slowly decay into rott was literally a rage filled rant which was just good for some catharsis if the film royally pissed you off (which it did for me) as well as a good laugh at times. Regardless of the ridiculous method of conveying criticism though, it was all pretty much on point. As you said, he did then follow up with a far more detailed and level headed break down of the whole movie and these two approaches pretty much defined his new channel and so he’s continued with that formula for the other movies.

In regards to this latest one for TROS, it’s definitely longer than normal but I think that is down to how much is compressed into TROS and how much is wrong with it, especially how it affects the saga at large. I don’t feel the “rage” was authentic here as it was in his TLJ rant, he is obviously pretty pissed at some things but more in an exasperated manner but moreover this one feels a bit more manufactured, especially his carefully crafted insults which after 1hr were really starting to get completely over the top and on the nose (and unnecessary, I think he’s really just trying to make the rant fit it’s own “unbridled rage” title and over doing it). All the points he makes though again sound completely on point, at least so far as I understand and from snippets of footage he has obviously pulled from a pirated source. You could say he nitpicks a lot as well (which could also be said of his massive critiques) but they again are on point and the sheer amount of them add up to the fact that the writers clearly have no real understanding of the IP they are working within.

Anyway this one wasn’t nearly as entertaining for me, more just sad as to the abysmal state the DT ended up at.

Author
Time

It wasnt my intention to detour the thread to discuss review formats, i know the video is long as it talks about the whole sequel trilogy, but going forward ill have those things in mind.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Force-Abel said:

Maybe there should be a dedicated thread for those that wish to give an advert and credibility to monetised YouTube videos that bash on Star Wars films? Or to discuss how great or not those videos are?

And instead leave this discussion thread to having actual discussions of the film by actual members of this site?

Soon someone else will post another monetized bashing video in here - and a similar conversation to the one we have just had will take place, like they repeatedly did with TLJ, for Solo and for X, Y, Z too.

That someone posts up a review or opinion YouTube video of any discernable length in discussion threads and says they agree with it all (or 90%, or 80%, or most of it, or ‘watch this - it is awesome!’) instead of talking about the film themselves seems lazy to me, and that post is not worth engaging with.
 

It is just a possible idea to improve the flow and quality of discussion on here about the films themselves - and not talk about monetized YouTube videos that people seem intent on sharing as some sort of proof or validation of something - instead of contributing their own opinions and thoughts.

 

  • I don’t mean to exclude informative videos that help to highlight what has taken place in the film, or give various insights or interpretations of scenes or events in the film, from the thread.

I like this idea.

It is also difficult to have conversations with people who post similar videos in here and who have not seen the film themselves. If you were to ask aquestion about the video they post or film they cannot discuss it: they have not seen the film.

 

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.
 

i understand how people who loved the movie cant take well constructed criticism, as seen with TLJ.

Congratulations on your generalizations.

People who love movies can’t take contructed criticism because they don’t want to watch a monetized and self desrcibed rant / unbridled rage / bash video?

From a member who tries to twist moderators words to make a point, and in first posts on here said…

Wanderer_ said:

i would say TLJ fans are the ones who just use racism and sexism as a card against people who have genuine criticism of the movie. Its quite toxic really,

but when moderator challenges you, you then say…

Wanderer_ said:

Im sorry to hear there was indeed a lot of hate and racism thrown into the mix…

^ Yet you have no problem with throwing it around yourself!

You seem to want to antagonize people who like the films or have different opinions, to build ‘sides’ or further a ‘us vs them’ mentality. I hope to be wrong, your posts here will probably prove that: one way or the other. It is the same for others who post similar to you.

Opinions do not matter as much as sides of a debate: the mindset of ‘I am right and they are wrong’ and will prove it by posting this: X, Y + Z, instead of actually reading posts and talking with people about their thoughts on the films.

 
 

So when you state the video is “The unbridled rage take on the movie is here, and it’s awesome” and later claim that “Its a very fair, balanced review though”, deny the words of the video’s own title descriptions (“video ranting about a crappy movie” & “Disney’s failure is now complete”), and put them with your other posts above:

…to quote Duracell:

DuracellEnergizer said:

R4

Author
Time
 (Edited)

mykyta-R4 said:

Force-Abel said:

From a member who tries to twist moderators words to make a point, and in first posts on here said…

Wanderer_ said:

i would say TLJ fans are the ones who just use racism and sexism as a card against people who have genuine criticism of the movie. Its quite toxic really,

but when moderator challenges you, you then say…

Wanderer_ said:

Im sorry to hear there was indeed a lot of hate and racism thrown into the mix…

^ Yet you have no problem with throwing it around yourself!

Excuse me? The mod was refering to racist remarks used to bash the movies, or hate speech towards the actors. Something i never saw myself… Ths review i posted has non of that. Its a well written review…

This is exactly what i mean, any semblance of criticism makes some ultra sensitive people go mad and twist words and take things out of context. Its toxic, it destroys discussions and you are being an example of it.

Next time if you want to throw shade at someone check the material they posted instead of assuming things. And if you dont care for that material you wont be in a position to judge.

Author
Time

Wanderer_ said:

mykyta-R4 said:

Force-Abel said:

From a member who tries to twist moderators words to make a point, and in first posts on here said…

Wanderer_ said:

i would say TLJ fans are the ones who just use racism and sexism as a card against people who have genuine criticism of the movie. Its quite toxic really,

but when moderator challenges you, you then say…

Wanderer_ said:

Im sorry to hear there was indeed a lot of hate and racism thrown into the mix…

^ Yet you have no problem with throwing it around yourself!

Excuse me? The mod was refering to racist remarks used to bash the movies, or hate speech towards the actors. Something i never saw myself… Ths review i posted has non of that. Its a well written review…

This is exactly what i mean, any semblance of criticism makes some ultra sensitive people go mad and twist words and take things out of context. Its toxic, it destroys discussions and you are being an example of it.

Next time if you want to throw shade at someone check the material they posted instead of assuming things. And if you dont care for that material you wont be in a position to judge.

‘Assuming things’ and ‘throw shade’? No, I highlight your words and claims - not the review itself.

It is not toxic to do so - these are your words. But I am not surprised you accuse people of highlighting your words as toxic.

You accuse TLJ fans use the race card to defend the films:

Wanderer_ said:

i would say TLJ fans are the ones who just use racism and sexism as a card against people who have genuine criticism of the movie. Its quite toxic really,

and then when moderator challenges you, you say:

Wanderer_ said:

Im sorry to hear there was indeed a lot of hate and racism thrown into the mix…

Yet it was you who throw subject of race into the subject of conversation.

 

As I said before:

mykyta-R4 said:

So when you state the video is “The unbridled rage take on the movie is here, and it’s awesome” and later claim that “Its a very fair, balanced review though”, deny the words of the video’s own title descriptions (“video ranting about a crappy movie” & “Disney’s failure is now complete”), and put them with your other posts above:

…to quote Duracell:

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

and you claim it is toxic to highlight your words?

Thankyou for making me laugh. A lot.

R4

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Wanderer_ & mykyta-R4 - that is enough, from the both of you.

I strongly suggest you both get back to discussing the film itself - or leave the thread.
 

6.32pm Edit: the same applies for everyone else too - thank you.
 

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

Valheru_84 said:

Shopping Maul said:

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.

Good post SM and I agree. His original TLJ unbridled rage video where you get to watch a watermelon slowly decay into rott was literally a rage filled rant which was just good for some catharsis if the film royally pissed you off (which it did for me) as well as a good laugh at times. Regardless of the ridiculous method of conveying criticism though, it was all pretty much on point. As you said, he did then follow up with a far more detailed and level headed break down of the whole movie and these two approaches pretty much defined his new channel and so he’s continued with that formula for the other movies.

In regards to this latest one for TROS, it’s definitely longer than normal but I think that is down to how much is compressed into TROS and how much is wrong with it, especially how it affects the saga at large. I don’t feel the “rage” was authentic here as it was in his TLJ rant, he is obviously pretty pissed at some things but more in an exasperated manner but moreover this one feels a bit more manufactured, especially his carefully crafted insults which after 1hr were really starting to get completely over the top and on the nose (and unnecessary, I think he’s really just trying to make the rant fit it’s own “unbridled rage” title and over doing it). All the points he makes though again sound completely on point, at least so far as I understand and from snippets of footage he has obviously pulled from a pirated source. You could say he nitpicks a lot as well (which could also be said of his massive critiques) but they again are on point and the sheer amount of them add up to the fact that the writers clearly have no real understanding of the IP they are working within.

Anyway this one wasn’t nearly as entertaining for me, more just sad as to the abysmal state the DT ended up at.

You’re right Val, I’m about an hour in and it seems Mauler is trying a bit too hard to be Mauler - and it’s more nitpicky than his usual fare. But it is interesting so I’ll keep going…

Author
Time

DrDre said:

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:

I absolutely see your point, but for me the spectacular (and as you say iconic) aspects of DS II were drowned out by the silliness of it. When I saw ROTJ in '83 I was disappointed by the story but absolutely wowed by the SPFX. Naturally SPFX alone can’t really sustain the love forever. For me the Star Destroyers were at least logical (well, Star Wars logical) as a next step for the Empire whereas DS II was obviously something of a desperate story move. Plus I had issues with such pedantry as the size of the ship-destroying beam relative to its source, the size of the DS next to the Endor moon (as a reflection of its planet-destroying capabilities) and such. But I see your point regarding the tension and stakes as well as the great visuals.

I mean my anti-ROTJ bias is in full flight here and I freely admit that. TROS is the one OT clone that gets a pass from me because it just feels like what I always wanted Revenge of the Jedi to be. But if I had a higher regard for ROTJ I’d be writing TROS off as a retread along with TFA and TLJ.

Author
Time

It’s a good point that in both TFA and TROS Abrams doesn’t seem to understand the basic tension principles at play that made the climax of Star Wars and Jedi work. It wasn’t just that the weapon was destructive, and could cause destruction. It’s that the destructive weapon was pointed at people we cared about, and the heroes had to disarm and destroy the weapon before it went off in the worst way.

It’s why fan-edits that combine Starkiller firing on Hosnian Prime with the climax of the movie tend to make that film work better. The battle at the end of TFA and ESPECIALLY the battle here at the end of TROS are dramatically inert because THAT’S the difference between knocking a gun off a table and KILLING THE PERSON POINTING A GUN AT YOU.

ROTJ’s climax was a re-tread (a lot of ROTJ was a re-tread, Lucas admitted as much a couple times - it’s his ANH makeup with more money) but at least the idea of the gun being aimed (and even fired) at our heroes directly was still intact and it added stakes and tension to the proceedings. In TROS you had an entire fleet of Star Destroyers, some of which had planet-destroying guns, but there was never any goal but “Don’t let them get out.”

They should have already gotten out and the race was to stop them from being able to fire.

Author
Time

Broom Kid said:

It’s a good point that in both TFA and TROS Abrams doesn’t seem to understand the basic tension principles at play that made the climax of Star Wars and Jedi work. It wasn’t just that the weapon was destructive, and could cause destruction. It’s that the destructive weapon was pointed at people we cared about, and the heroes had to disarm and destroy the weapon before it went off in the worst way.

It’s why fan-edits that combine Starkiller firing on Hosnian Prime with the climax of the movie tend to make that film work better. The battle at the end of TFA and ESPECIALLY the battle here at the end of TROS are dramatically inert because THAT’S the difference between knocking a gun off a table and KILLING THE PERSON POINTING A GUN AT YOU.

ROTJ’s climax was a re-tread (a lot of ROTJ was a re-tread, Lucas admitted as much a couple times - it’s his ANH makeup with more money) but at least the idea of the gun being aimed (and even fired) at our heroes directly was still intact and it added stakes and tension to the proceedings. In TROS you had an entire fleet of Star Destroyers, some of which had planet-destroying guns, but there was never any goal but “Don’t let them get out.”

They should have already gotten out and the race was to stop them from being able to fire.

Now, hold on a sec. ANH and TFA share the exact same pacing of the use of the weapon (the one area I do see a clear parallel). In ANH it is test on Alderaan and then is menacing the base on Yavin IV. In TFA it is tested on the Hosnian system and then turns to D’Qar in the Ileenium system to destroy the Resistance base. So how can the battle of the First Death Star and the Battle of Starkiller Base have less dramatic tension? We see them preparing to fire in both (something added to ANH late in development). And ROTJ and TROS do the same thing. We see the weapon in action and then there is a race to destroy it. And in the case of TROS, there are many weapons ready to go out and force the surrender of all the major worlds of the Republic. The stakes are even higher and I got that. Each one of these films and every time I see it that tension is clear. If anything, ROTJ is the weakest because the Death Star is not mobile yet and any threat to other systems is more distant while the threat to the fleet is what is imminent. Each battle handles the situation in a different way. ANH requires the McGuffin plans to locate the weak point and it is a race against time with Tarkin giving the order to fire almost as Luke fires his shot. ROTJ adds the parley between Luke and Palpatine, then his duel with Vader, then his torture by Palpatine. The real drama of this version is in the throne room. Then in TFA it they don’t have secret plans, but they have a sabotage mission where Han faces his son, creating yet a different slant to the same type of battle. The X-wings don’t get their chance until Chewy blows the charges. Then in TROS, it isn’t the Death Star weapon that endangers the fleet, it is Palpatine himself. This time Rey directly stops him by taking his attention and letting the fleet finish their work. Each of these is a race against time and I found each pretty tense. Outside of ANH, the space battle is secondary to the other drama going on, but each finds its own way to build tension in the battle and tension in the parallel story. If Starkiller doesn’t destroy the Hosnian system, then how does anyone know it works? The urgency is minimized because the weapon may or may not work. But we do see the weapon work and we know the resistance base (where Leia is) will be destroyed if the raid is not successful. The part of the film that just yanks me right out is everyone on Takodana seeing the destruction of the Hosnian system. Unless they are orbiting the same star, that is so impossible that I consider it one of the two worst scenes in Star Wars (the other being C-3PO’s entire role on Geonosis). I think TFA has some serious issues but I think they can be easily fixed without altering the structure. But the battle sequence is one of the best parts of the film (along with the opening).

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

Broom Kid said:

It’s a good point that in both TFA and TROS Abrams doesn’t seem to understand the basic tension principles at play that made the climax of Star Wars and Jedi work. It wasn’t just that the weapon was destructive, and could cause destruction. It’s that the destructive weapon was pointed at people we cared about, and the heroes had to disarm and destroy the weapon before it went off in the worst way.

It’s why fan-edits that combine Starkiller firing on Hosnian Prime with the climax of the movie tend to make that film work better. The battle at the end of TFA and ESPECIALLY the battle here at the end of TROS are dramatically inert because THAT’S the difference between knocking a gun off a table and KILLING THE PERSON POINTING A GUN AT YOU.

ROTJ’s climax was a re-tread (a lot of ROTJ was a re-tread, Lucas admitted as much a couple times - it’s his ANH makeup with more money) but at least the idea of the gun being aimed (and even fired) at our heroes directly was still intact and it added stakes and tension to the proceedings. In TROS you had an entire fleet of Star Destroyers, some of which had planet-destroying guns, but there was never any goal but “Don’t let them get out.”

They should have already gotten out and the race was to stop them from being able to fire.

Now, hold on a sec. ANH and TFA share the exact same pacing of the use of the weapon (the one area I do see a clear parallel). In ANH it is test on Alderaan and then is menacing the base on Yavin IV. In TFA it is tested on the Hosnian system and then turns to D’Qar in the Ileenium system to destroy the Resistance base. So how can the battle of the First Death Star and the Battle of Starkiller Base have less dramatic tension? We see them preparing to fire in both (something added to ANH late in development). And ROTJ and TROS do the same thing. We see the weapon in action and then there is a race to destroy it. And in the case of TROS, there are many weapons ready to go out and force the surrender of all the major worlds of the Republic. The stakes are even higher and I got that. Each one of these films and every time I see it that tension is clear. If anything, ROTJ is the weakest because the Death Star is not mobile yet and any threat to other systems is more distant while the threat to the fleet is what is imminent. Each battle handles the situation in a different way. ANH requires the McGuffin plans to locate the weak point and it is a race against time with Tarkin giving the order to fire almost as Luke fires his shot. ROTJ adds the parley between Luke and Palpatine, then his duel with Vader, then his torture by Palpatine. The real drama of this version is in the throne room. Then in TFA it they don’t have secret plans, but they have a sabotage mission where Han faces his son, creating yet a different slant to the same type of battle. The X-wings don’t get their chance until Chewy blows the charges. Then in TROS, it isn’t the Death Star weapon that endangers the fleet, it is Palpatine himself. This time Rey directly stops him by taking his attention and letting the fleet finish their work. Each of these is a race against time and I found each pretty tense. Outside of ANH, the space battle is secondary to the other drama going on, but each finds its own way to build tension in the battle and tension in the parallel story. If Starkiller doesn’t destroy the Hosnian system, then how does anyone know it works? The urgency is minimized because the weapon may or may not work. But we do see the weapon work and we know the resistance base (where Leia is) will be destroyed if the raid is not successful. The part of the film that just yanks me right out is everyone on Takodana seeing the destruction of the Hosnian system. Unless they are orbiting the same star, that is so impossible that I consider it one of the two worst scenes in Star Wars (the other being C-3PO’s entire role on Geonosis). I think TFA has some serious issues but I think they can be easily fixed without altering the structure. But the battle sequence is one of the best parts of the film (along with the opening).

There is another factor that I always harp on about (it seems I’m somewhat alone in this) and that is the fact that Luke’s showdown with Vader/Palpatine was irrelevant to the battle. In fact, somewhat ironically, fans have postulated TROS-like scenarios to explain this fact away ie “oh, Palpatine was guiding the Imperial fleet through the Force”. The truth is Lucas suddenly decided that the point of the series was Anakin’s redemption rather than Luke’s being the only hope for saving the galaxy. But I seem to be one of five people on earth actually bothered by this…

In TROS the stakes were higher because Rey’s interaction with Palpatine was crucial to the outcome of the battle. Her failure would have been the Resistance’ failure as well. Better yet, her being drawn to the Dark Side made sense - she literally had no apparent recourse but to sell her soul to save her loved ones. This is what Luke should have been offered in ROTJ rather than “ha ha you got angry so you don’t get a Jedi merit badge…”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shopping Maul said:

I absolutely see your point, but for me the spectacular (and as you say iconic) aspects of DS II were drowned out by the silliness of it. When I saw ROTJ in '83 I was disappointed by the story but absolutely wowed by the SPFX.

I may have missed earlier hints but for some reason I imagined that you were in your 20s this whole time, Maul!

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

I absolutely see your point, but for me the spectacular (and as you say iconic) aspects of DS II were drowned out by the silliness of it. When I saw ROTJ in '83 I was disappointed by the story but absolutely wowed by the SPFX.

I may have missed earlier hints but for some reason I imagined that you were in your 20s this whole time, Maul!

No, I’m just incredibly immature! When 900 years old you reach, look as good…

I’m 51 in 2020.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

A fun item to note, TROS has been nominated for 3 BAFTA awards. Original Score, Sound, and Visual Effects.

And now 3 Oscars. Hope Williams wins.