Jay

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

I have no desire to convince you that I’m right. I just like arguing about this stuff. Some of us accept that the debate will never end and continue arguing anyway because that’s what angsty nerds do.

Which is fine…except it’s arguing for fun on one side, and shitposting on the other.

The responses to Collipso’s post contained no arguments. But the “fun” certainly was one-sided.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

dahmage said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Everyone’s favorite scene in TLJ was when Leia gave Rey a medal that said “Best Jedi Ever.” Truly amazing moment.

yeah because that’s exactly what i meant

Well then I guess I have no idea what you meant, like usual.

Are you kidding? Sometimes it’s like you people don’t want to even acknowledge the other side of something despite Collipso being pretty darn clear.

It becomes less and less fun coming to this part of the forum when it feels like an echo chamber of shutting down criticism of the ST.

Equally frustrating for us on the other side who see people repeatedly saying the same tiring stuff that has little actual connection to the film I know we’ve all seen. I would write out a well reasoned refutation to Collipso’s post, but I’ve already done that many many times, and at this point it’s starting to feel like I’m just talking to a brick wall with some people on here refusing to criticize the movie on its own terms and instead parroting the same old no matter what I say. The echo chamber comment has no basis in reality.

No, what you’re encountering is people who have a different take on the film and an opinion that’s different from yours. Your mistake is in thinking that your interpretation is the “correct” one and that it only takes a bit of logic to get others to agree with your perspective.

I have no desire to convince you that I’m right. I just like arguing about this stuff. Some of us accept that the debate will never end and continue arguing anyway because that’s what angsty nerds do.

If you want to state your opinion (because that’s all any of this is—opinion) without rebuttal, write a blog post and turn the comments off.

It’s not about convincing people I’m “right.” It’s about actually debating the film on its own terms and not making up stuff/imaging things and misplacing focus on irrelevant factors.

I don’t think TLJ is a perfect film by any means. But I’ve yet to see much of anyone on this site actually address the film in a critical manner that makes any sense.

To you. Again, your opinion.

Sure.

I guess my mistake is going to discuss a SW film on a SW forum and expecting something resembling critiquing the film from its perspective as a film and not just fans getting bent out of shape solely about its place in the canon.

TLJ doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it’s part of the Star Wars universe. It doesn’t get to exist and be critiqued solely on its own terms. I think this is partly why it’s so divisive. Johnson made something that not everyone thinks fits properly into the universe and some of us aren’t as forgiving of that.

Well I don’t have anything to “forgive” in that regard anyway, what I think is the issue is a) people being too concerned as to whether the film fits their preconceived notions that they fail to accept the possibility of anything new, and b) people trying to fit squares into round holes when it comes to analyzing new elements in comparison to old ones.

Sure, there are some people arguing against new things we haven’t seen before, like Leia’s Force powers. I think there are points to be made on either side of that debate, but hating it just because it’s something we haven’t seen before is silly. However, the bulk of the criticism toward TLJ centers around what some fans perceive as shabby treatment of beloved characters and failure to develop new characters properly (which admittedly started in TFA).

I’ve repeatedly expressed admiration for Johnson’s willingness to take risks. I just can’t get past the basic stuff I think he got wrong. For Luke to achieve so much and then end up just another Jedi hermit seems wasteful, and I won’t rehash my issues with Rey, who started as a promising character but is basically a plot device at this point.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

dahmage said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Everyone’s favorite scene in TLJ was when Leia gave Rey a medal that said “Best Jedi Ever.” Truly amazing moment.

yeah because that’s exactly what i meant

Well then I guess I have no idea what you meant, like usual.

Are you kidding? Sometimes it’s like you people don’t want to even acknowledge the other side of something despite Collipso being pretty darn clear.

It becomes less and less fun coming to this part of the forum when it feels like an echo chamber of shutting down criticism of the ST.

Equally frustrating for us on the other side who see people repeatedly saying the same tiring stuff that has little actual connection to the film I know we’ve all seen. I would write out a well reasoned refutation to Collipso’s post, but I’ve already done that many many times, and at this point it’s starting to feel like I’m just talking to a brick wall with some people on here refusing to criticize the movie on its own terms and instead parroting the same old no matter what I say. The echo chamber comment has no basis in reality.

No, what you’re encountering is people who have a different take on the film and an opinion that’s different from yours. Your mistake is in thinking that your interpretation is the “correct” one and that it only takes a bit of logic to get others to agree with your perspective.

I have no desire to convince you that I’m right. I just like arguing about this stuff. Some of us accept that the debate will never end and continue arguing anyway because that’s what angsty nerds do.

If you want to state your opinion (because that’s all any of this is—opinion) without rebuttal, write a blog post and turn the comments off.

It’s not about convincing people I’m “right.” It’s about actually debating the film on its own terms and not making up stuff/imaging things and misplacing focus on irrelevant factors.

I don’t think TLJ is a perfect film by any means. But I’ve yet to see much of anyone on this site actually address the film in a critical manner that makes any sense.

To you. Again, your opinion.

I guess my mistake is going to discuss a SW film on a SW forum and expecting something resembling critiquing the film from its perspective as a film and not just fans getting bent out of shape solely about its place in the canon.

TLJ doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it’s part of the Star Wars universe. It doesn’t get to exist and be critiqued solely on its own terms. I think this is partly why it’s so divisive. Johnson made something that not everyone thinks fits properly into the universe and some of us aren’t as forgiving of that.

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

dahmage said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Everyone’s favorite scene in TLJ was when Leia gave Rey a medal that said “Best Jedi Ever.” Truly amazing moment.

yeah because that’s exactly what i meant

Well then I guess I have no idea what you meant, like usual.

Are you kidding? Sometimes it’s like you people don’t want to even acknowledge the other side of something despite Collipso being pretty darn clear.

It becomes less and less fun coming to this part of the forum when it feels like an echo chamber of shutting down criticism of the ST.

Equally frustrating for us on the other side who see people repeatedly saying the same tiring stuff that has little actual connection to the film I know we’ve all seen. I would write out a well reasoned refutation to Collipso’s post, but I’ve already done that many many times, and at this point it’s starting to feel like I’m just talking to a brick wall with some people on here refusing to criticize the movie on its own terms and instead parroting the same old no matter what I say. The echo chamber comment has no basis in reality.

No, what you’re encountering is people who have a different take on the film and an opinion that’s different from yours. Your mistake is in thinking that your interpretation is the “correct” one and that it only takes a bit of logic to get others to agree with your perspective.

I have no desire to convince you that I’m right. I just like arguing about this stuff. Some of us accept that the debate will never end and continue arguing anyway because that’s what angsty nerds do.

If you want to state your opinion (because that’s all any of this is—opinion) without rebuttal, write a blog post and turn the comments off.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

It’s deliberate and it’s annoying. Just shitposting, really.

So is this a warning for dahmage?

Did I say it was a warning?

And it wasn’t directed solely at dahmage.

yotsuya said:

Jay said:

yotsuya said:

Jay said:

Shopping Maul said:

I liked Luke’s vibe in TLJ in theory, but the execution bugged me somewhat. Luke in exile was great. Luke reconsidering past events and pondering (as I have as a fan) the idea of Jedi hubris was great. Luke suggesting that the old Jedi orthodoxy had to die was great. All the stuff about the Force and ‘balance’ and how no-one has a particular claim to it was absolutely great.

What I didn’t like so much was the idea of Luke being on the back foot with all this. Having Yoda come back to give Luke a lecture on ‘failure’ annoyed me. Luke transcended his masters in RoTJ. Yoda and Obi Wan wanted Luke to simply kill the bad guys. Luke chose a more personal, Zen route. I’d prefer he’d been doing the grumpy hobo routine in TLJ as an act - similar to Yoda’s initial test in TESB. This could have been his way of forcing Rey to take her destiny into her own hands, a new and different path away from the usual formalised Jedi training routine. Once Rey had flown off to confront Kylo, Luke could have revealed his cunning duplicity to Yoda and they could’ve burned down the Jedi tree together. Then, after Luke’s great skype-battle with Kylo, Rey could’ve realised what he’d done and be like “you sly devil”.

This way he could’ve played the hobo but still been the Luke we all love and respect without being diminished.

Shopping Maul said:

yotsuya said:

Shopping Maul said:

I liked Luke’s vibe in TLJ in theory, but the execution bugged me somewhat. Luke in exile was great. Luke reconsidering past events and pondering (as I have as a fan) the idea of Jedi hubris was great. Luke suggesting that the old Jedi orthodoxy had to die was great. All the stuff about the Force and ‘balance’ and how no-one has a particular claim to it was absolutely great.

What I didn’t like so much was the idea of Luke being on the back foot with all this. Having Yoda come back to give Luke a lecture on ‘failure’ annoyed me. Luke transcended his masters in RoTJ. Yoda and Obi Wan wanted Luke to simply kill the bad guys. Luke chose a more personal, Zen route. I’d prefer he’d been doing the grumpy hobo routine in TLJ as an act - similar to Yoda’s initial test in TESB. This could have been his way of forcing Rey to take her destiny into her own hands, a new and different path away from the usual formalised Jedi training routine. Once Rey had flown off to confront Kylo, Luke could have revealed his cunning duplicity to Yoda and they could’ve burned down the Jedi tree together. Then, after Luke’s great skype-battle with Kylo, Rey could’ve realised what he’d done and be like “you sly devil”.

This way he could’ve played the hobo but still been the Luke we all love and respect without being diminished.

If you didn’t notice, the scene with Yoda doesn’t alter the more Zen route he took in ROTJ. Yoda isn’t advising him on the force, he is advising him how to teach. Advising him as a fellow master. I think because Luke was so pivotal, Rian didn’t just have him fill the master/mentor role immediately. He brought back some of that negativity that characterized Luke in ANH and TESB. It created a nice character journey for Luke to take him where he needed to be to help Rey.

Yes, but that’s my point - that Luke was brought back to ANH/TESB levels to reboot his arc. Yoda says (in TLJ) “young Skywalker, always looking to the horizon” when it was actually this attitude that saved the day in RoTJ, namely that Luke ‘looked to the horizon’ and took an emotional, idealistic path with regard to the bad guys (as opposed to just killing them).

I just think returning the OT characters to pre-RoTJ status, while not so bad in theory, could’ve been handled better. Leia as rebel leader, rather than Jedi kindergarten teacher, was a no-brainer since her Skywalker heritage was a story convenience that added zero to her character. Han going back to smuggling was kind of dumb - he should have been recruiting pilots from the outer rim or something which would have kept him on his post-RoTJ path while still serving the divorce narrative.

But returning Luke to pre-RoTJ status diminishes RoTJ (and this is coming from someone who doesn’t even like RoTJ!). I think the ‘broken recluse’ idea could have been served in a cleverer way without sending Luke backwards. And he didn’t help Rey. She helped him.

Great interpretations, agree fully. Luke accomplished what his masters couldn’t when he saved his father, and he did it in his own way. Reducing him to a bitter old man who made the same mistakes with his own pupil (except worse, seeing as he considered murder a solution to his failings as a teacher) is to ignore what he accomplished in RotJ. It’s sold as a subversive take on Luke’s character, but it’s really just another reboot and ripoff of a story we’ve already been told.

I didn’t mind the idea of the Jedi Order and its orthodoxy dying out because my interpretation of the prequels has always been that the Jedi became too powerful, influential, and frankly cocky (Yoda speaks to this in AotC I believe), inviting the blindness and corruption that was ultimately the downfall of the Order and the Republic.

Luke experienced an awakening in RotJ and TLJ sets him back for the sake of making Rey look good.

I quite disagree. Luke had faith that his father could be saved and he was right. But seeing the way Luke ended ROTJ as something fundamental had changed with him and he could never fall back to his old defeatist attitude is a false interpretation of the character arc of Luke in the OT. Luke found something to believe in and he believed that the correct course was to rebuild the Jedi. But that failed in a miserable way. It was not just the actions of Luke on that night in Kylo’s hut, but that Kylo had been corrupted to start with and it was too late for Luke to reach him. How did evil penetrate his trailing of his nephew? How could that happen again? Was it in the Skywalker blood? Was it a failing of the Jedi teachings? Why had Kylo fallen? Luke went to the source looking for answers and the only thing he found was that the Jedi were flawed and that flaw had left a hole for Kylo’s fall and while Luke had not caused or been able to prevent it, he had hastened it by listening to his instincts (Ben’s first lesson if you recall - to act on instinct). He had failed his nephew. A tradgedy like that would naturally bring out your defeatist side if that was in your nature (as we saw it was indeed in two movies and still hints of it in ROTJ). It is a very realistic portrayal of a hero and a classic archetype of the former hero as mentor, who has to be convinced to teach. Nothing about the Luke shown in TLJ is contrary to the OT Luke. Quite the reverse. In fact you could say that Luke’s journey in TLJ is very much tied to how his character appeared in ROTJ. Luke is a Jedi of strong emotions. Strong faith and strong doubt.

False interpretation? There’s no such thing. I have my take, you have yours.

As I’ve said multiple times now, I don’t have a problem with Hermit Luke, just the poorly told history that led him to such a place and Rey’s lack of need for any real training to exhibit Force powers that rival Yoda’s. As Shopping Maul said, I have a problem with its execution. I’m just not sold on this version of Luke based on what we’ve been given to work with and I’m not going to perform the mental gymnastics required to get there.

You pose lots of interesting questions, by the way—none of which were answered in TFA or TLJ. I doubt they’ll be answered in IX either.

It is a false interpretation because that is not how human beings are. At their core, all heroes are human beings, just with something special to make them a hero. Hercules had his failings. Luke has his failings. Rian used those to round out Luke’s actions as told in TFA. Luke had a very good day at the end of ROTJ, but on the day Kylo turned against him it was a very bad day. Luke has a bad history with very bad days and there is no reason why having a great day means he will never act the same again on a bad day. That is just ridiculous. Your interpretation builds Luke up to something he is not. That is part of what the story of TLJ is about. Leia and Rey wanted that heroic Luke who took on the Empire, so did a lot of fans. That Luke would be unrealistic. What we got was an epic illusion. He appeared to be the Luke desired, but he was never that Luke. His human side was showing through and he saw no way to help the galaxy except by staying away. Right or wrong, that was his take. In the end he realized the galaxy needed the legend and they got it, just not as they expected it. Better in some ways. But the Luke from the end of ROTJ was still just a Tatooine farm boy at heart. People don’t change in such a fundamental way. That was why Anakin could be saved. He was fundamentally a lost slaveboy who wanted to save his family. Where is that fundamental difference in Kylo. I think his redemption will take a different direction.

Sorry, still not there with you on this, and never will be.

darthrush said:

dahmage said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Everyone’s favorite scene in TLJ was when Leia gave Rey a medal that said “Best Jedi Ever.” Truly amazing moment.

yeah because that’s exactly what i meant

Well then I guess I have no idea what you meant, like usual.

Are you kidding? Sometimes it’s like you people don’t want to even acknowledge the other side of something despite Collipso being pretty darn clear.

It’s deliberate and it’s annoying. Just shitposting, really.

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Everyone’s favorite scene in TLJ was when Leia gave Rey a medal that said “Best Jedi Ever.” Truly amazing moment.

yeah because that’s exactly what i meant

I knew what you meant and I agree with you.

DrDre said:

Jay said:

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.

Which is exactly why I think we should put a policy in place to help maintain the boundaries between participating and moderating. We often do consult one another before taking any action, and oojason has been particularly careful to ask for our opinions on things before moving forward.

Handman said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.

By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.

Correct.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

Not when they do this:

oojason said:

I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.

When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.

Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.

I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.

As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.

LordZerome1080 said:

This whole conversation is so awkward to watch. Thanks Ojason for ending it. In terms of the topic at hand I suggest appointing some sort of representative of this site to do a you tube video detailing the more positive aspects of our cause.

Seeing as opinions vary among the moderators themselves on what qualifies as “toxic”, our official position is that we have no official position. I don’t even know if everyone here could agree on what would constitute an adequate official release of the original trilogy, let alone anything remotely political.

I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.

As OP, oojason has the right to drive the discussion in the direction he sees fit, just as any of you do within your own topics. If you think “toxic fandom” is overblown and you want to discuss that, create a new topic and go to town.

Edit: I was mistaken about oojason being the OP. It’s up to screams in the void to decide what’s on topic or not.

yotsuya said:

Jay said:

Shopping Maul said:

I liked Luke’s vibe in TLJ in theory, but the execution bugged me somewhat. Luke in exile was great. Luke reconsidering past events and pondering (as I have as a fan) the idea of Jedi hubris was great. Luke suggesting that the old Jedi orthodoxy had to die was great. All the stuff about the Force and ‘balance’ and how no-one has a particular claim to it was absolutely great.

What I didn’t like so much was the idea of Luke being on the back foot with all this. Having Yoda come back to give Luke a lecture on ‘failure’ annoyed me. Luke transcended his masters in RoTJ. Yoda and Obi Wan wanted Luke to simply kill the bad guys. Luke chose a more personal, Zen route. I’d prefer he’d been doing the grumpy hobo routine in TLJ as an act - similar to Yoda’s initial test in TESB. This could have been his way of forcing Rey to take her destiny into her own hands, a new and different path away from the usual formalised Jedi training routine. Once Rey had flown off to confront Kylo, Luke could have revealed his cunning duplicity to Yoda and they could’ve burned down the Jedi tree together. Then, after Luke’s great skype-battle with Kylo, Rey could’ve realised what he’d done and be like “you sly devil”.

This way he could’ve played the hobo but still been the Luke we all love and respect without being diminished.

Shopping Maul said:

yotsuya said:

Shopping Maul said:

I liked Luke’s vibe in TLJ in theory, but the execution bugged me somewhat. Luke in exile was great. Luke reconsidering past events and pondering (as I have as a fan) the idea of Jedi hubris was great. Luke suggesting that the old Jedi orthodoxy had to die was great. All the stuff about the Force and ‘balance’ and how no-one has a particular claim to it was absolutely great.

What I didn’t like so much was the idea of Luke being on the back foot with all this. Having Yoda come back to give Luke a lecture on ‘failure’ annoyed me. Luke transcended his masters in RoTJ. Yoda and Obi Wan wanted Luke to simply kill the bad guys. Luke chose a more personal, Zen route. I’d prefer he’d been doing the grumpy hobo routine in TLJ as an act - similar to Yoda’s initial test in TESB. This could have been his way of forcing Rey to take her destiny into her own hands, a new and different path away from the usual formalised Jedi training routine. Once Rey had flown off to confront Kylo, Luke could have revealed his cunning duplicity to Yoda and they could’ve burned down the Jedi tree together. Then, after Luke’s great skype-battle with Kylo, Rey could’ve realised what he’d done and be like “you sly devil”.

This way he could’ve played the hobo but still been the Luke we all love and respect without being diminished.

If you didn’t notice, the scene with Yoda doesn’t alter the more Zen route he took in ROTJ. Yoda isn’t advising him on the force, he is advising him how to teach. Advising him as a fellow master. I think because Luke was so pivotal, Rian didn’t just have him fill the master/mentor role immediately. He brought back some of that negativity that characterized Luke in ANH and TESB. It created a nice character journey for Luke to take him where he needed to be to help Rey.

Yes, but that’s my point - that Luke was brought back to ANH/TESB levels to reboot his arc. Yoda says (in TLJ) “young Skywalker, always looking to the horizon” when it was actually this attitude that saved the day in RoTJ, namely that Luke ‘looked to the horizon’ and took an emotional, idealistic path with regard to the bad guys (as opposed to just killing them).

I just think returning the OT characters to pre-RoTJ status, while not so bad in theory, could’ve been handled better. Leia as rebel leader, rather than Jedi kindergarten teacher, was a no-brainer since her Skywalker heritage was a story convenience that added zero to her character. Han going back to smuggling was kind of dumb - he should have been recruiting pilots from the outer rim or something which would have kept him on his post-RoTJ path while still serving the divorce narrative.

But returning Luke to pre-RoTJ status diminishes RoTJ (and this is coming from someone who doesn’t even like RoTJ!). I think the ‘broken recluse’ idea could have been served in a cleverer way without sending Luke backwards. And he didn’t help Rey. She helped him.

Great interpretations, agree fully. Luke accomplished what his masters couldn’t when he saved his father, and he did it in his own way. Reducing him to a bitter old man who made the same mistakes with his own pupil (except worse, seeing as he considered murder a solution to his failings as a teacher) is to ignore what he accomplished in RotJ. It’s sold as a subversive take on Luke’s character, but it’s really just another reboot and ripoff of a story we’ve already been told.

I didn’t mind the idea of the Jedi Order and its orthodoxy dying out because my interpretation of the prequels has always been that the Jedi became too powerful, influential, and frankly cocky (Yoda speaks to this in AotC I believe), inviting the blindness and corruption that was ultimately the downfall of the Order and the Republic.

Luke experienced an awakening in RotJ and TLJ sets him back for the sake of making Rey look good.

I quite disagree. Luke had faith that his father could be saved and he was right. But seeing the way Luke ended ROTJ as something fundamental had changed with him and he could never fall back to his old defeatist attitude is a false interpretation of the character arc of Luke in the OT. Luke found something to believe in and he believed that the correct course was to rebuild the Jedi. But that failed in a miserable way. It was not just the actions of Luke on that night in Kylo’s hut, but that Kylo had been corrupted to start with and it was too late for Luke to reach him. How did evil penetrate his trailing of his nephew? How could that happen again? Was it in the Skywalker blood? Was it a failing of the Jedi teachings? Why had Kylo fallen? Luke went to the source looking for answers and the only thing he found was that the Jedi were flawed and that flaw had left a hole for Kylo’s fall and while Luke had not caused or been able to prevent it, he had hastened it by listening to his instincts (Ben’s first lesson if you recall - to act on instinct). He had failed his nephew. A tradgedy like that would naturally bring out your defeatist side if that was in your nature (as we saw it was indeed in two movies and still hints of it in ROTJ). It is a very realistic portrayal of a hero and a classic archetype of the former hero as mentor, who has to be convinced to teach. Nothing about the Luke shown in TLJ is contrary to the OT Luke. Quite the reverse. In fact you could say that Luke’s journey in TLJ is very much tied to how his character appeared in ROTJ. Luke is a Jedi of strong emotions. Strong faith and strong doubt.

False interpretation? There’s no such thing. I have my take, you have yours.

As I’ve said multiple times now, I don’t have a problem with Hermit Luke, just the poorly told history that led him to such a place and Rey’s lack of need for any real training to exhibit Force powers that rival Yoda’s. As Shopping Maul said, I have a problem with its execution. I’m just not sold on this version of Luke based on what we’ve been given to work with and I’m not going to perform the mental gymnastics required to get there.

You pose lots of interesting questions, by the way—none of which were answered in TFA or TLJ. I doubt they’ll be answered in IX either.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

Shopping Maul said:

I liked Luke’s vibe in TLJ in theory, but the execution bugged me somewhat. Luke in exile was great. Luke reconsidering past events and pondering (as I have as a fan) the idea of Jedi hubris was great. Luke suggesting that the old Jedi orthodoxy had to die was great. All the stuff about the Force and ‘balance’ and how no-one has a particular claim to it was absolutely great.

What I didn’t like so much was the idea of Luke being on the back foot with all this. Having Yoda come back to give Luke a lecture on ‘failure’ annoyed me. Luke transcended his masters in RoTJ. Yoda and Obi Wan wanted Luke to simply kill the bad guys. Luke chose a more personal, Zen route. I’d prefer he’d been doing the grumpy hobo routine in TLJ as an act - similar to Yoda’s initial test in TESB. This could have been his way of forcing Rey to take her destiny into her own hands, a new and different path away from the usual formalised Jedi training routine. Once Rey had flown off to confront Kylo, Luke could have revealed his cunning duplicity to Yoda and they could’ve burned down the Jedi tree together. Then, after Luke’s great skype-battle with Kylo, Rey could’ve realised what he’d done and be like “you sly devil”.

This way he could’ve played the hobo but still been the Luke we all love and respect without being diminished.

If you didn’t notice, the scene with Yoda doesn’t alter the more Zen route he took in ROTJ. Yoda isn’t advising him on the force, he is advising him how to teach. Advising him as a fellow master. I think because Luke was so pivotal, Rian didn’t just have him fill the master/mentor role immediately. He brought back some of that negativity that characterized Luke in ANH and TESB. It created a nice character journey for Luke to take him where he needed to be to help Rey.

The problem of course is, that he didn’t really help Rey, and that she still succeeded despite this. She helped herself to some books, when she was fed up with him, after which Luke sort of rediscovered himself, and was able to create a diversion for the rebels. Ultimately though he wasn’t much of a mentor in this film, except to be an example of how not to be. Yoda told Luke how to be a better teacher, he got to stage an illusion, and then he died before he could pass on what he had learned.

This is Star Wars. Since when is dying a barrier to being a teacher and mentor?

I look forward to the gripping “Luke on a log” scene in Episode IX.

Shopping Maul said:

I liked Luke’s vibe in TLJ in theory, but the execution bugged me somewhat. Luke in exile was great. Luke reconsidering past events and pondering (as I have as a fan) the idea of Jedi hubris was great. Luke suggesting that the old Jedi orthodoxy had to die was great. All the stuff about the Force and ‘balance’ and how no-one has a particular claim to it was absolutely great.

What I didn’t like so much was the idea of Luke being on the back foot with all this. Having Yoda come back to give Luke a lecture on ‘failure’ annoyed me. Luke transcended his masters in RoTJ. Yoda and Obi Wan wanted Luke to simply kill the bad guys. Luke chose a more personal, Zen route. I’d prefer he’d been doing the grumpy hobo routine in TLJ as an act - similar to Yoda’s initial test in TESB. This could have been his way of forcing Rey to take her destiny into her own hands, a new and different path away from the usual formalised Jedi training routine. Once Rey had flown off to confront Kylo, Luke could have revealed his cunning duplicity to Yoda and they could’ve burned down the Jedi tree together. Then, after Luke’s great skype-battle with Kylo, Rey could’ve realised what he’d done and be like “you sly devil”.

This way he could’ve played the hobo but still been the Luke we all love and respect without being diminished.

Shopping Maul said:

yotsuya said:

Shopping Maul said:

I liked Luke’s vibe in TLJ in theory, but the execution bugged me somewhat. Luke in exile was great. Luke reconsidering past events and pondering (as I have as a fan) the idea of Jedi hubris was great. Luke suggesting that the old Jedi orthodoxy had to die was great. All the stuff about the Force and ‘balance’ and how no-one has a particular claim to it was absolutely great.

What I didn’t like so much was the idea of Luke being on the back foot with all this. Having Yoda come back to give Luke a lecture on ‘failure’ annoyed me. Luke transcended his masters in RoTJ. Yoda and Obi Wan wanted Luke to simply kill the bad guys. Luke chose a more personal, Zen route. I’d prefer he’d been doing the grumpy hobo routine in TLJ as an act - similar to Yoda’s initial test in TESB. This could have been his way of forcing Rey to take her destiny into her own hands, a new and different path away from the usual formalised Jedi training routine. Once Rey had flown off to confront Kylo, Luke could have revealed his cunning duplicity to Yoda and they could’ve burned down the Jedi tree together. Then, after Luke’s great skype-battle with Kylo, Rey could’ve realised what he’d done and be like “you sly devil”.

This way he could’ve played the hobo but still been the Luke we all love and respect without being diminished.

If you didn’t notice, the scene with Yoda doesn’t alter the more Zen route he took in ROTJ. Yoda isn’t advising him on the force, he is advising him how to teach. Advising him as a fellow master. I think because Luke was so pivotal, Rian didn’t just have him fill the master/mentor role immediately. He brought back some of that negativity that characterized Luke in ANH and TESB. It created a nice character journey for Luke to take him where he needed to be to help Rey.

Yes, but that’s my point - that Luke was brought back to ANH/TESB levels to reboot his arc. Yoda says (in TLJ) “young Skywalker, always looking to the horizon” when it was actually this attitude that saved the day in RoTJ, namely that Luke ‘looked to the horizon’ and took an emotional, idealistic path with regard to the bad guys (as opposed to just killing them).

I just think returning the OT characters to pre-RoTJ status, while not so bad in theory, could’ve been handled better. Leia as rebel leader, rather than Jedi kindergarten teacher, was a no-brainer since her Skywalker heritage was a story convenience that added zero to her character. Han going back to smuggling was kind of dumb - he should have been recruiting pilots from the outer rim or something which would have kept him on his post-RoTJ path while still serving the divorce narrative.

But returning Luke to pre-RoTJ status diminishes RoTJ (and this is coming from someone who doesn’t even like RoTJ!). I think the ‘broken recluse’ idea could have been served in a cleverer way without sending Luke backwards. And he didn’t help Rey. She helped him.

Great interpretations, agree fully. Luke accomplished what his masters couldn’t when he saved his father, and he did it in his own way. Reducing him to a bitter old man who made the same mistakes with his own pupil (except worse, seeing as he considered murder a solution to his failings as a teacher) is to ignore what he accomplished in RotJ. It’s sold as a subversive take on Luke’s character, but it’s really just another reboot and ripoff of a story we’ve already been told.

I didn’t mind the idea of the Jedi Order and its orthodoxy dying out because my interpretation of the prequels has always been that the Jedi became too powerful, influential, and frankly cocky (Yoda speaks to this in AotC I believe), inviting the blindness and corruption that was ultimately the downfall of the Order and the Republic.

Luke experienced an awakening in RotJ and TLJ sets him back for the sake of making Rey look good.

rodneyfaile said:

I’d much rather have TLJ as it is than see Luke do a boring Obi-Wan impression.

You must unlearn what you have learned. Just let go of your preconceptions and ideas and just allow yourself to be entertained. I’m having a blast. Bring on IX!

As I said, I was fine with Luke’s sendoff. I can’t shut off my brain enough to be entertained by Luke and Rey as written, though.

yotsuya said:

I have constantly had the feeling that most wanted to see the hero Luke at it again rather than a mentor Luke. But the mentor has to move out of the way for the new hero, in this case Rey.

I see this claim made frequently, but haven’t actually witnessed any sequel critics mention that they expected—or even wanted—Luke to be swashbuckling. Obi-Wan didn’t when he was the aging mentor; he had one final confrontation with his former protégé in order to buy his companions time to escape…which is exactly what Luke did in TLJ.

I’ve seen some griping about that confrontation not being in person, and therefore not a real physical fight, though. I’ll admit I would’ve been more satisfied with a closer parallel to the Vader-Kenobi duel that incorporated some lightsaber action, but I don’t dislike what Johnson came up with.

The real criticism I see again and again is that Rey never needed a mentor to begin with due to her emergent Force powers and Luke completely disregarded his responsibilities as a Jedi until Rey kindly reminded him what they were.

Tobar said:

As thread OP I’d kindly ask you to take this discussion to the appropriate thread. Thank you!

Sorry! I think we’re done.

Jay said:

Anyway, I got burned out on all the comic book movies right around Iron Man 2 (or was it 3?) and I have a lot of catching up to do. Do I need to watch everything in order to understand Avengers or are there any movies I can safely skip?

I would recommend starting from Winter Soldier and continuing on from there. Just about everything after that ties into Infinity War and it’s a solid run (save for Ultron).

I’ve seen Winter Soldier. I think I need to review the complete list and figure out where I left off.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:
I don’t really care either way. They both said dumb shit and got fired. I don’t think either should have been, but that’s the world we live in at the moment.

I guess my only question is, do you think there’s ever a case where someone should be fired for dumb shit they said?

Sure. If Roseanne had a desk job and she compared a black coworker to an ape, she should be fired. If Gunn made pedo jokes at the water cooler on Monday morning before the weekly staff meeting, he should be fired.

Comedians should have more leeway since our entertainment would get pretty dull if everyone got nervous about saying edgy stuff because they might have their sitcom canceled or lose their HBO special. I think Disney’s ownership of a huge percentage of our entertainment combined with the current outrage culture puts us on the road toward homogenized, “family-friendly” entertainment delivered by milquetoast entertainers.

Anyway, I got burned out on all the comic book movies right around Iron Man 2 (or was it 3?) and I have a lot of catching up to do. Do I need to watch everything in order to understand Avengers or are there any movies I can safely skip?

You could probably safely skip all but the Avengers films and Captain America: Civil War with only a few minor confusing things. Though then you’d be skipping the best ones.

I’ve seen everything up to the first Avengers I think. Haven’t seen Civil War, Thor 2 or 3, Dr. Strange, and some others I’m sure.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Also, I think attitudes around jokes of certain kinds have changed dramatically in very recent years, and if Gunn isn’t an asshole (which I don’t know) then he’s actually listened and changed his ways. Which I actually believe is possible for an adult man of any age, but then I’m an optimist.

Pedo jokes have never been cool and his tweets were edgelord junk I’d expect to hear during Xbox Live chat.

If his tweets were racist, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Nobody would believe that he’s a better person now.

Well I think pedo jokes have gotten considerably less cool in recent years (though honestly you can still find lots of professional comedic content that still has jokes like that now, not just on Xbox live).

Also, the comparison to racist jokes is more complicated, because not all “racist” jokes are necessarily racist or rooted in racism (with some the target of the joke being racism itself). If they were jokes that displayed that he was racist, then obviously we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But making pedo jokes doesn’t make you a pedo.

So if someone unearths 10,000 race-based jokes on some other entertainer’s social media account tomorrow, you’ll be reviewing those jokes on their own merit and potentially defending them because the jokes weren’t actually “rooted in racism”?

As I’ve stated before, I don’t actually work for Disney.

Nobody said you did. I presented a hypothetical situation and wanted to know how you’d respond in order to see if you’d be logically consistent with the argument you’re making.

Anyway, my point was that racist jokes are on a spectrum that includes “this person is racist” on one end (and no shit making a large number of them probably indicates that). No amount of pedo jokes makes you a pedo though.

(I’m also skeptical of the 10,000 number, not that it matters of course, it’s gross either way).

The 10,000 number is how many tweets he deleted. I’m sure there was some spray-and-pray involved given how quickly he wiped them out.

Did Barr’s joke prove her to be a racist? If you believe her story about not knowing the target of her joke was black (and why wouldn’t you…you’re an optimist), then her joke wouldn’t be inherently racist, her apology would have been sincere, and her firing wouldn’t have been justified. Correct?

If that was an isolated incident for Barr, I’d be on a different side of that particular debate.

Was it an isolated incident for Gunn? He tweeted that garbage for years. How is it that he can post trash well into his 40s and it’s not a pattern of behavior?

As for my “optimism” statement, I would think it obvious what I meant, but I guess I need to explain it to you. As an optimist I believe in general that people can grow and mature. I ultimately don’t really know if Gunn has, but his apology at the very least would seem to indicate so. Barr’s, on the other hand… saying “I thought the bitch was white” months later doesn’t exactly seem remorseful to me.

I wasn’t aware that optimists tended to compartmentalize their optimism into specific areas; you sound more like a realist since you apply your optimism selectively.

Regardless, you’re enough of an optimist to believe Gunn, who posted pedo jokes well into his 40s, can finally grow up, but not enough to believe Barr when she says she didn’t know the target of her joke was black. She made that claim immediately after she got in trouble, not months later, and then issued a more formal and (presumably) heartfelt apology soon after. I haven’t watched the new video.

I don’t really care either way. They both said dumb shit and got fired. I don’t think either should have been, but that’s the world we live in at the moment.

Anyway, I got burned out on all the comic book movies right around Iron Man 2 (or was it 3?) and I have a lot of catching up to do. Do I need to watch everything in order to understand Avengers or are there any movies I can safely skip?

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Also, I think attitudes around jokes of certain kinds have changed dramatically in very recent years, and if Gunn isn’t an asshole (which I don’t know) then he’s actually listened and changed his ways. Which I actually believe is possible for an adult man of any age, but then I’m an optimist.

Pedo jokes have never been cool and his tweets were edgelord junk I’d expect to hear during Xbox Live chat.

If his tweets were racist, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Nobody would believe that he’s a better person now.

Well I think pedo jokes have gotten considerably less cool in recent years (though honestly you can still find lots of professional comedic content that still has jokes like that now, not just on Xbox live).

Also, the comparison to racist jokes is more complicated, because not all “racist” jokes are necessarily racist or rooted in racism (with some the target of the joke being racism itself). If they were jokes that displayed that he was racist, then obviously we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But making pedo jokes doesn’t make you a pedo.

So if someone unearths 10,000 race-based jokes on some other entertainer’s social media account tomorrow, you’ll be reviewing those jokes on their own merit and potentially defending them because the jokes weren’t actually “rooted in racism”?

Did Barr’s joke prove her to be a racist? If you believe her story about not knowing the target of her joke was black (and why wouldn’t you…you’re an optimist), then her joke wouldn’t be inherently racist, her apology would have been sincere, and her firing wouldn’t have been justified. Correct?

DominicCobb said:

Also, I think attitudes around jokes of certain kinds have changed dramatically in very recent years, and if Gunn isn’t an asshole (which I don’t know) then he’s actually listened and changed his ways. Which I actually believe is possible for an adult man of any age, but then I’m an optimist.

Pedo jokes have never been cool and his tweets were edgelord junk I’d expect to hear during Xbox Live chat.

If his tweets were racist, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Nobody would believe that he’s a better person now.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

Politics and outrage culture will ruin entertainment.

There’s a way to conduct matters without either completely ignoring things or going overboard.

Where exactly is that line and who defines it?

No two cases are the same and so the idea that everything must be a firable offense or nothing is is stupid. It’s not a matter of there being a definite line with a definite definition, because the definition won’t necessarily apply in every case. This isn’t a math problem.

And just because some people get fired with insufficient reason doesn’t mean we should throw our hands up and saw no one should be fired for anything ever. It just means people in charge have to actually show some care, rather than just pretending they do (and instead being reckless about it).

Who says Disney didn’t exercise care in this case?

Seems to me it’s “justified” when someone agrees with the decision and “reckless” when they don’t. It’s sort of like speeding: everyone driving slower than you is an idiot and everyone driving faster is crazy.

Despite the differences between Roseanne’s circumstances and Gunn’s, their firings are both tied to politically-driven outrage and social media mobs. There are just different politics driving the mobs.

First of all, whether or not I personally agree with this is besides the point I was making, which was in general terms.

Now, as for whether or not I do agree with this firing, my whole point was that each case is different and should be treated differently. So I don’t get the logic of trying to prove my point wrong by saying “you’re only mad when you don’t agree with it!” What I’m saying is it shouldn’t be a binary everyone should be fired or no one should be. So of course I’ll disagree if it just seems like they’re blindly “firing everyone.”

Gunn’s tweets have been in the world for a while, what’s “reckless” is that only now they are firing him. Despite the fact that he’s apologized already, and supposedly has had a fine working relationship with the company. If we are to take Gunn at his word, that his poor taste in jokes are something that are many years behind him now, than this is something Disney should have considered.

You can’t just ignore the differences between this and Barr. Again, my whole point is that everything can’t be treated the same way. The differences are the most important part. If Gunn tweeted a child rape joke yesterday, this would be a completely different story. Part of the reason Roseanne was canceled were that crew members were jumping ship and didn’t want to work with her anymore.

If there are additional factors at play here, it would be nice to know them. As I said before, Disney is sending a confusing message, because on the surface of it they’re essentially suggesting that people aren’t allowed to mature, change, or put any past mistakes behind them (which isn’t to say that every kind of past mistake is forgivable, but again this is where considering each case individually is important).

Where in my first response to you did I suggest it was binary? That it was all or nothing? I didn’t. I suggested, via the question I posed, that if there’s a decision to be made, then there must be a line, and if there’s a line, then it’s up to someone to draw that line.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to believe that there’s a line that Barr crossed and Gunn didn’t, and that line relates to who that person is today versus who they were in the past. Barr tweeted something offensive recently, whereas Gunn last tweeted something offensive about 6 years ago. That’s a perfectly okay line to draw, and it’s perfectly okay to believe Barr deserved to be fired and Gunn didn’t.

I don’t feel either should have been fired. My line is farther out than your line. I also think that’s okay.

Disney fired both. Apparently, they drew their line more conservatively than you or I would have. It’s their money to make or lose and both Barr’s and Gunn’s employment are at Disney’s discretion. Firing Gunn is only “reckless” if his continued employment wouldn’t have been harmful to their brand. In their judgment, it would have been.

Sure, maybe the guy has changed. He was in his 40s when he made all these tweets, though. He’s a grown-ass man. I think it’s far more likely that he learned to shut his mouth on social media than his sense of humor changed.

I’m not ignoring the differences between Barr and Gunn. However, what they have in common is that their employer decided it would be easier to disassociate themselves from their problematic (there’s that word again) employee and make them go away than it would be to deal with any fallout. That’s the trend that concerns me, and it’s not a politically left or right thing. I don’t want creative people to feel like they have to act as an official representative of their employer at all times.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

Politics and outrage culture will ruin entertainment.

There’s a way to conduct matters without either completely ignoring things or going overboard.

Where exactly is that line and who defines it?

No two cases are the same and so the idea that everything must be a firable offense or nothing is is stupid. It’s not a matter of there being a definite line with a definite definition, because the definition won’t necessarily apply in every case. This isn’t a math problem.

And just because some people get fired with insufficient reason doesn’t mean we should throw our hands up and saw no one should be fired for anything ever. It just means people in charge have to actually show some care, rather than just pretending they do (and instead being reckless about it).

Who says Disney didn’t exercise care in this case?

Seems to me it’s “justified” when someone agrees with the decision and “reckless” when they don’t. It’s sort of like speeding: everyone driving slower than you is an idiot and everyone driving faster is crazy.

Despite the differences between Roseanne’s circumstances and Gunn’s, their firings are both tied to politically-driven outrage and social media mobs. There are just different politics driving the mobs.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

Politics and outrage culture will ruin entertainment.

There’s a way to conduct matters without either completely ignoring things or going overboard.

Where exactly is that line and who defines it?

Politics and outrage culture will ruin entertainment.

DominicCobb said:

The idea that Star Wars is “failing” simply because the ST doesn’t have an overarching vision is silly for a million reasons, least of which that 90% of trilogies in existence don’t have that, and most of which that the trilogy isn’t even completed yet.

I didn’t say that’s why it was failing, just that the lack of an overarching vision for the franchise has made a bit of a mess (as evidenced by the vastly different takes on Star Wars provided by the sequel trilogy, in my opinion) and that they might be better served by emulating the Marvel model. And it wasn’t something I suggested they do with the sequel trilogy; obviously they can’t since it’s already two films in.

As for the suggestion that Kennedy is solely going for a random and scattershot approach, that’s not even remotely true. Literally the only new films currently on the roster are two series of movies, both with the exact thing you mention - an overarching creative director.

After two offshoot films by different writers/directors, one of which flopped, and two saga films by different writers/directors, one of which split the fanbase. And the director who split the fanbase was handed this new trilogy.

Sounds like a winning strategy.

DominicCobb said:

Creox said:

DominicCobb said:

Creox said:

Jay said:

Creox said:

I think it’s interesting there is a thread on SW jumping the shark or/and over-saturation in the same reality that has Marvel just releasing its what?..umpteenth flick about superheroes.

IMO it seems SW fans want their films to be rare events and in reality their wish for more comes with a lot of caveats.

Consumers eat up multiple comic book movies and 10-hour+ series every year. Marvel’s success suggests frequency and over-saturation aren’t the problem.

Not a problem with the MCU for sure but I think that is starting to erode a bit. How SW is different with respects to how fans respond to more content is a bit of a confusing topic for me. I love that there is more content and movies but many do not. I think it’s due to what I already posted. There is a very vocal percentage of SW super fans who look at the OT as sacred texts that should not be messed with in any way. The release of more and more movies (which appears to me to be the only medium that effects these fans) seems to anger them as it dilutes the religion so to speak? Not sure.

That sounds about right. It’s probably no surprise that a certain segment of fans find RO to be the best film they’ve done - a film that does little to expand the narrative beyond unnecessarily plugging a perceived “plot hole” in the original, and fulfilling the ultimate fan service of seeing Darth Vader commit a massacre (something that had simply been implied before). It’s very much a supplement to the OT.

Marvel’s success seems to be the exception rather than the rule. No one else has replicated it. Honestly the reason is painfully obvious - Marvel is a collection of franchises plural, rather than just one singular franchise. If there was a Guardians of the Galaxy movie out every year, it’s no guarantee whatsoever that they would all be a success.

Your last paragraph is spot on I think. I was rattling similar ideas around my noggin while I was posting before. The post Lucas SW is just getting started and with a new trilogy coming out by Rian it appears they will take a more MCU direction with the franchise.

The thing is, while that approach sounds like it could hypothetically work on paper, there isn’t any evidence yet as to whether or not it’s possible. Marvel took multiple franchises and combined them into a mega franchise. Star Wars is a massive franchise, yes, but the question remains if a massive franchise can be split into parts that are each expected to be equal to the whole. There’s really no precedent for that. The closest I can think of is the X-Men films’ Wolverine spin-offs, but even then there are some obvious key differences. Mostly returning actor vs. new actor, but also release date timing. I think the idea that Star Wars could put out a billion dollar movie every single year if they are all universally loved is an incredibly faulty one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that it is probably beyond impossible for anyone to ever to make a new Star Wars movie that is universally loved.

The Marvel movies aren’t universally loved. They’re generally liked enough to keep casual fans buying tickets while catering enough to the nerds to keep them on board. They’re well-written and entertaining with interesting characters. That’s all the viewing public expects from Star Wars and given the depth of the lore, it’s not impossible to deliver.

RO is just an example; success needn’t be measured in billions. Not every Marvel film makes a billion dollars.

The MCU took a lot of planning to pull off, so they’d have to sit down and map out some grand story arcs to do the same with Star Wars. I think that’s the primary reason it’s unlikely to happen. The material is there, but the creative vision to drive it all might not be. Kennedy’s approach of letting random writers/directors take the helm without some overarching story to keep it on the rails is making a mess of things.