Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More (Page 3 of 6)

The third act, with all the action, was well done.  And it did establish that the Death Star had hyperspace capability.

I still maintain that the last 3 minutes is the most entertaining scene/scenes in Star Wars history.  I think it's what I've always wanted Star Wars to be, especially in terms of Vader.  And I liked it better than I liked Force Awakens because I think both are flawed and I wasn't caught up in all the "original trilogy" nostalgia because I'm not the world's biggest Star Wars fan (and I didn't love Force Awakens).

My biggest complaint wasn't with the script - I think Felicity Jones was way too wooden.  I don't know if she can act or not, but it was a prequel-quality performance.

Rogue One was a terrific film for Star Wars fans, but with a Mission Impossible or James Bond feel for most of the film.  I think it's finally on Netflix so I may give it another watch tonight!

PS: Most of those CG people were in fact not CG!  ha ha.

SPOILERS

I see a lot of the issues you raise, but I also think THE LAST JEDI is addressing them. THE LAST JEDI is effectively a repudiation of the prequels and THE FORCE AWAKENS. The prequels declared that the Old Republic was a time of peace and prosperity -- but what we saw onscreen (in addition to some unbelievably boring films and the lamest love story ever lensed) was a theocratic government (run by Jedi) that was so clumsy, inept and incompetent that an idiot like Jar Jar Binks could hand it over to a Sith Lord whom the Jedi never even noticed rising within their own regime.

Add that to the fact that despite the supposed peace of the Old Republic, it was a time in which this peaceful government raised its own clone army with one hand being ignorant of the other, where a peaceful world like Naboo could be invaded with no action from the Republic and where slave labour unfolded on Tatooine without a flicker of concern from the supposed Jedi peacekeepers. And yet, Obi-Wan Kenobi described this era as "before the dark times; before the Empire" except the Republic was at best less malicious and genocidal while not being able to actually prevent any coups that led to Death Stars blowing up planets.

And then we have THE FORCE AWAKENS which, in reverting to the STAR WARS (1977) playbook of gleeful adventure with rebels against the establishment, reversed the ending of RETURN OF THE JEDI by establishing that the Rebels ultimately didn't win the war. As a result, THE LAST JEDI presents Luke Skywalker declaring that the Jedi have been a complete and total failure across the board; they failed to stop the Sith; they failed to stop the Empire; they'll fail to stop the Order. By the end of THE LAST JEDI, the Rebels/Resistance are reduced to whoever can fit aboard the Millennium Falcon.

THE LAST JEDI is effectively declaring the Republic/Rebels/Resistance vs. the Sith/Empire/Order war to be a dead-end for STAR WARS as a continuing franchise, with Luke observing that STAR WARS' central conceit, the Force, is about the light and energy between all living things and the idea that the Jedi's absence would mean the absence of light is absurd and arrogant -- meaning that there have to be new ways to tell STAR WARS stories that aren't just remaking the 1977 film (like THE FORCE AWAKENS) or trying to lead into the 1977 film (like the prequels). There's quite a bit of this with Kylo Ren too, urging Rey to "let the past die, kill it if you have to."

And Yoda urges Luke to stop thinking in terms of who won or lost which war when, but instead look to need: who needs him and for what and what can he offer and give to those who are suffering?

And when Luke dies, the narrative onscreen indicates that Luke has cut himself off from the Force, but now he gives himself over to the Force which is why he looked reborn to youth in his projection. He is giving up his physical body to become one with the elemental nature of reality and STAR WARS stories themselves, allowing himself and the STAR WARS franchise to potentially be reborn into something new.

However, I concede that all this content about renewing the STAR WARS formula and casting off the old tropes is presented in a movie that is entirely about presenting the STAR WARS formula of heists and space battles and lightsaber duels, so it could be somewhat muted and hypocritical and EPISODE IX will be from staunch traditionalist JJ Abrams who made the very sort of film THE LAST JEDI is trying to leave behind.

STILL SPOILERS

*
*
*
*

I do worry about what JJ will do with the series where it is now.  I've read a lot of people criticizing The Last Jedi because it "wasted" a lot of the potential of The Force Awakens.  That it doesn't answer/address several critical questions that JJ set up. 

But, as someone who thinks TV-style questions in movies (even episodic movies) is insulting to the audience and ridiculous in today's Reddit culture, I think Rian Johnson took all the parts of the Force Awakens that he thought were interesting and moved forward with it.  I don't know how much freedom he had to answer anything he wanted, but some of it would've required some backbending.

For example, I've seen people upset that they don't answer how Maz got the lightsaber.  I don't think that was supposed to be some big mystery - she's a "person" who knows everyone and who deals with scavengers and smugglers on a daily basis.  Someone on Cloud City found it.  JJ Abrams didn't answer the question in his movie because a) he/the writers couldn't think of an answer or b) the answer doesn't matter.

Or there have been complaints that Rey's parents were a letdown.  Why did they use Ewan McGregor's voice if they weren't going to reveal that she's a Kenobi?  Why was it made to be such a big mystery if the answer was going to be so dumb?  But I think the answer is perfect - as someone on the Internet said, it completely fits the narrative.  Rey and Kylo are opposites.  Light and dark.  Male and female.  But, most importantly, Kylo is this princely character born of these insanely significant figures, and Rey is.....no one.  People wanted her to be significant, but her insignificance is crucial to her character.  The last shot of the slave (?) boy on the Casino World is exactly the point - anyone can be a hero in the galaxy.  You don't have to be a Skywalker or a Kenobi or a Solo.  Just embrace the Force and embrace the light and even you can blow up the Death Star.

And now that JJ is back for IX, I think he's going to take things in a more traditional direction.  But Rian Johnson didn't really set up anything for him.  The plot has been left in an interesting place, but there aren't mysteries for JJ to solve.  Which is the way I think it's supposed to be.

I really like that.  And I think it makes sense....I wish that was conveyed by the movies themselves, though.

A lot of my problems are simply a lack of context that the movie needs to provide.  You know my disdain for "here's the product....if you want to understand it, here's your extended universe homework" stuff.  And I think a lot of this stuff doesn't have to have grand, Episode-I like political discussions.  I think small snippets of dialogue can help.  The problem is that The Force Awakens didn't even give us much of any background.

The Republic was small and weak -

CHARACTER 1 - "They're going to attack the Republic's home system!"
CHARACTER 2 - "The Republic?  They're still around?"
CHARACTER 3 - "I thought they collapsed years ago."

Was it corruption?  A lack of resources?  How do you go from a galaxy *starving* for freedom (as the end of Return of the Jedi shows) to a Republic that is only really active in one star system?  I was expecting a failing government (think the League of Nations or the United States under the Articles of Confederation).  What we got was....the state of Petoria?

http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Petoria

Was the First Order a new thing or a rebranding of the Empire?  How was that sold to people? 

CHARACTER 1 - "They sold the First Order as the New Republic.  Using the enemy's old weapons to bring peace and freedom to the galaxy."
CHARACTER 2 - "People needed to feel safe.  They chose to believe Snoke's lies."

What's the difference between the Resistance and the Rebellion?

CHARACTER 1 - "This is it?  This is the Rebellion that took down the Empire?"
LEIA - "The Resistance.  When the Empire fell and was replaced by the First Order, the Republic was too weak and too scared to start another Galactic War.  So they signed peace treaties.  We're the only ones fighting them, and we have to stay strictly off the books, or the First Order will crush what's left."
CHARACTER - "The Resistance?"
LEIA - "The Empire rebranded.  So did we."

I like the disillusionment of the galaxy.  They won something big and then realized that the enemy was still as strong as ever.  So why keep fighting?  *Cue Sonic Youth song*  It isn't worth it.  I'm done fighting.  Done trying.  Who cares?

It would just be nice if the characters in the movie would fill in the gaps for me

Wouldn't it be more likely that the galactic government would collapse and local/planetary governments would take over? 

That's what's sorta weird about the Star Wars universe.  There's clearly a Republic at one point, but what role do they serve?  Naboo gets literally invaded in Episode 1, and there's no "Republic Army" to defend a Republic planet.  They send in two Jedi to act as peacekeepers and nothing else.  It was basically up to the people of Naboo to save themselves.

The Empire, after the Senate was dissolved, probably had Palpatine-picked regional or planetary governors that were in charge of....collecting taxes?  And standard leadership stuff?

I'd assume when the Empire fell that those governors would be given the boot, and each planet would then elect their own leadership.  Planets that already had trade (?) relations, would probably form small versions of the Republic.  Maybe, this time, with actual forces to defend themselves.  Maybe a captain of a Star Destroyer from Tatooine (which, we know, has an Imperial academy) would decide that, with the Emperor dead, he has more loyalty to the new Tatooinian government and enlist his ship to his new government's defense.

So instead of a Republic, you'd have a collection of different "states" that would operate independently until a more centralized government was established.  It'd take a long time to rebuild to the Republic, but it'd move in that direction.

My guess is that the Empire would move to the next in the chain of command, but the Empire lost so much of their chain of command (losing both Death Stars, Tarkin, Krennic, and their top two leaders).  So I'm guessing imperial leadership would be a street war of different captains of commanders at an identical rank (plus political leaders - like the different governors I'm talking about) fighting each other. 

Imperial soldiers, from grunt stormtroopers to commanders of smaller ships, would have to fight between loyalty to the now-scattered empire, their own home-planet governments, and people vying for control.  We're talking a civil war between several factions with giant weapons.  I don't think that gets sorted out very quickly.  And even when it does, it'd wipe out a ton of the Empire's weapons.  Even if someone (Snoke) rose to take command very quickly, I still think the Empire would be too weak to have complete control over the galaxy.

What seems to have happened, however, is.....nothing.  Snoke, who almost-certainly had to have been a key member of the Empire who already had power and respect, took command of the Empire's forces and renamed it the First Order for his own reasons.  Even though the war was over and their leader was dead, the millions/billions of stormtroopers remained loyal and nothing across the galaxy changed.  One star system declared themselves "the new republic" but didn't have connections (politically or militarily) to any part of the rest of the galaxy.  The remainder of the Rebellion simply renamed their forces to be the Resistance and kept doing what they were doing until they were whittled away to nothing.

In a universe as simplistic as Star Wars' seems to be, I guess it makes sense.  What might've been more interesting would've been for Snoke to have led some sort of "Outer Rim" military to take over while the Empire was in chaos and the Republic was fledgling.  It'd give the filmmakers the ability to redesign scary-looking new ships that could terrorize both the Republic and the remnants of the Empire.  Maybe the Resistance would be a combination of imperial forces and the rebels - working together to try and defend themselves.  Imagine the Resistance having a Star Destroyer that's easily destroyed by one of Snoke's new ships.

But what's clear to me is that Abrams just wanted to remake a New Hope and didn't care about drawing a line between the Force Awakens and Return of the Jedi.  Like ireactions said, he wanted the Empire and the Rebels.  And he got it....except he renamed it the First Order and the Resistance.  For some reason.

It’s crazy the spectrum on this thing.

I have a friend who went with 7 other people and they all hated it. 

I thought it was okay.  Not the movie I would have made.

One of my other friends liked it, but said it ranks above the prequels and that’s as high as he would put it.

Another friend loved it.  He has an answer for every complaint anyone has with it.  Will quote what’s cannon from the books as explanations for things.

He also doesn’t believe that anyone actually hates the movie and that the rotten tomatoes score is the work of a small group of disgruntled fans.

The one friend who hated it told me it made him wish George Lucas was still in control.

—Chaser9

I don't think Luke would have killed Kylo Ren. He sensed the dark side and instinctively triggered his lightsaber. But then he held back -- except the boy woke up before Luke could switch off the blade. I don't think Luke was really admitting that he would have killed Kylo Ren, just that it was his instinct to do so and not one he would have followed through on. And I think Mark Hamill is just flat out wrong to say it's out of character because Luke has been a killer from his first appearance to now. I think Mark Hamill doesn't quite understand the Luke Skywalker character.

In the original STAR WARS, Luke sees his uncle and aunt incinerated. He watches Obi-Wan slice off a man's arm. He's aboard the Falcon when it comes out into Alderaan's orbit and they find scattered rubble where there were once several billion people. Luke shoots at least 50 stormtroopers. There is no reaction that you'd expect for a boy making his first kill. Later, Luke sees all his comrades in Rogue Squadron aside from Wedge killed by TIE Fighters; Luke then blows up the Death Star, presumably killing about 800,000 to 1 million people.

And there is no trauma, no survivor's guilt, no discomfort with taking life. On one level, Luke was very thinly written. He wasn't a character in STAR WARS; he was an audience surrogate and that audience, as envisioned by Lucas writing STAR WARS as a FLASH GORDON knockoff, was adolescent boys who wanted to imagine themselves having all these adventures and engaging in all these battles. But looking at Luke more seriously, the simplest explanation is: Luke is a killer.

More specifically: Luke grew up in a desert wasteland with little law enforcement, predatory wildlife and people looking to rob, steal and kill their victims. So, at an early age, Luke probably had to learn to defend himself. He had to learn how to hunt, how to fight, how to carry a weapon and how to survive -- and, living in the desert, Luke also became acclimatized to violence and death and accepted it as the cycle and circle of life. Luke probably had to kill people who attacked the farm for its equipment. He must have seen friends and neighbours die. Luke specifically says he used to "bullseye womprats," which could have been for sport -- but I think it's more likely that Luke was hunting for food. Luke must have killed people long before he shot his first stormtrooper.

However, because none of that is in the scripts and George Lucas does not direct actors, Mark Hamill couldn't and doesn't see any of that. Luke Skywalker was a blank slate in the scripts, so Hamill's attitude was to project his own personality into the role. Mark Hamill is a gentle, thoughtful, sweet-natured Californian, so he played Luke as himself. And the result is a fascinatingly multi-faceted character because through Mark's performance, Luke becomes this young survivalist who has developed combat and piloting skills simply to stay alive, but his innate personality is the warmth and tenderness of the actor playing the character. The warrior is who he had to become, but the vegetarian charity worker is who he is inside.

We have an interesting conflict in EMPIRE STRIKES BACK where Luke severs the arm of the wampa with his lightsaber. Mark Hamill was furious when he saw the movie; he'd been told on set that the lightsaber would merely scare the animal away. But the slashed-off-arm was added in editing to liven up the scene. "Luke would never do this!" Hamill protested, worrying that the poor wampa would be maimed, die of an infection or worse, be unable to hunt for food or defend itself against other predators. But Hamill's wrong; Mark Hamill would never hurt a wild animal. Luke would. Luke has had to kill to survive and STAR WARS would indicate he killed people long before he brought the droids to Obi-Wan.

And Hamill not really being in tune with the Luke Skywalker character is precisely why he's the best actor to play him. He's a very nice man in conflict with a very violent role and that, onscreen, produces a fascinating personality conflict between the farmer and the soldier inside Luke and it's what made him so iconic and memorable.

Really great analysis, but that seems to also apply to Star Wars fans as a whole.

What's funny to me is my idea of Luke as a fringe fan of Star Wars.  I've seen every movie, and I appreciate them all.  But they're not movies I've seen a ton of.  I've seen A New Hope a couple dozen times, but I'm not sure I've seen Empire or Jedi more than a couple times each all the way through (I've seen pieces of them a lot since they're always on TV).  In a recent discussion about the quality of the prequels, I realized that I think I've only seen episodes II and III once each (again, aside from scenes here and there on TV).

But, for some reason, Luke holds a place in my heart.  And as Episode VIII approached, I started to worry that Luke could die.  Or, possibly even worse, go to the dark side.  I felt that, in some way, my heart would break a little for him to not be alive.  After all, he'd been alive and young my whole life.

The movie actually handles Luke, for the most part, in a way where I was okay with him going.  After all, we know Luke will live on in the Force so he's not really gone.  And even as someone who's a fan of Luke, I wasn't really bothered by the Luke stuff in the moment.  I was surprised, but I wasn't offended.

I agree with everything you said.  Luke is, on paper, a cold-blooded killer.  I watched "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang" the other night, and Robert Downey Jr. gives a great performance when his character shoots and kills a bad guy in the middle of the movie.  He breaks down at the idea of shooting someone....even as a career criminal who killed a truly bad guy in self defense.  As you said, Luke killed millions of innocent people but doesn't really seem bothered by it.

And yet....killing a child in his sleep?  At least Anakin did it to the younglings when they were awake and could, at least theoretically, defend themselves.

The only thing I can really think is that they wanted Kylo to have this tragic backstory.  And it really does make him a truly interesting character.  Kylo is this kid who romanticizes his grandfather (who had his own tragic backstory) and feels this pull to the Dark Side.  He has this mother who cares so much about her Rebellion and a father who's not really built for fatherhood.  Then his parents sent him away to live with his cooky uncle, while this other dude is pouring propaganda in his ear from across the galaxy.

Then, one night as he's as conflicted as ever, his uncle tries to kill him.  Whether or not Luke meant to do it or not, that's Kylo's backstory.  He truly believes his uncle tried to kill him.  And then he starts to wonder....wait, did my parents send me to die?  Is all the love I had as a child a lie?  Is the only one who has truly cared about me....Snoke?

It happens all the time.  Kid gets betrayed by his/her family and falls into the arms of an abusive relationship.

The problem with the Last Jedi is that it doesn't really excuse any of it.  Even with all the talking from Kylo and Luke, there's still not enough context to understand what really happened.  What did Kylo really do that scared Luke so much?  What did he do where Luke would even consider that Kylo couldn't be saved?

You say that Luke was working off instinct, but that's not really what Luke says.  If he'd explained it that way, I think there's a chance they could've sold it.  When I watched it, it seemed like Luke was saying that he *did* want to kill him, but it was just for a moment.  Because he definitely walks in, thinks about it, and then ignites the saber.  It didn't seem, at least to me, that he got caught up in the moment.

So to me, and to a lot of people in the audience....they turned Luke into a guy who'd consider murdering kids.  And, yes, I agree that he's probably killed kids in the past (you'd gotta think that some families were on the Death Star).  But this was so much different that that that, I think, it really bothers people.  Thus the hate.

And so I wondered, was there a way to give Kylo this cool backstory without harming Luke's legacy?  Some ideas:

1. I like the idea that he's working off instinct.  I also love the idea that Luke, flat out disagrees with the teachings of the Jedi.  So what if you combined those two things?  Luke goes to the Jedi Temple and learns an old Jedi technique for defeating evil - Force Meditation (name can be workshopped).  As a Jedi Master, Luke can meditate and enter a sort of trance where he becomes one with the light side of the Force and can seek out true evil.

Luke enters one of these trances in an attempt to find Snoke.  And in a sleepwalking state, he finds a strong Dark Side presence, and the Force Meditation draws him to it.  And draws him to destroy it.  Maybe it's Ben himself or maybe it's Snoke's Force projection.....but either way, Luke (still "sleepwalking") ignites his lightsaber.  Ben wakes up....and so does Luke.

So Luke isn't doing it...this flawed Jedi artifact did it.  The Jedi aren't interested in saving people - they're interested in killing bad people.  If the Jedi had been around to fight Vader and Palpatine in A New Hope, they'd have killed Vader and then lost to Palpatine.  It took seeing the good in Vader to save the galaxy, and that's why the Jedi are flawed.

2. Do the twin brothers.  I know in the (abandoned) expanded universe, the Solos had twins.  So maybe you bring that back.  Ben and Lando Solo are twins that are sent to train with Luke.  Ben is a quiet boy with a strong love for his family.  Lando is a wild and rebellious son with an obsession with his grandfather Anakin.  At the Jedi Temple, Lando keeps asking about the Dark Side.  He starts experimenting.  He builds a....red lightsaber.  Ben tries to talk to him, but he loves his brother.  He wants to save him from these dark thoughts.  Lando is drawn away from Ben to a new father figure - Snoke.  And through Lando, Snoke starts telling Ben that their family abandoned them.  Han and Leia don't love them.   And, one day, Luke will try and kill them.

At training, there's a tragic accident.  Lando is sparring with another student and accidentally maims/kills him.  Ben is horrified - Lando doesn't seem bothered by it.  Luke keeps an eye on him....and, yet, it happens again.  So Luke, in the middle of the night, goes to take Lando away from the Academy.  Lando defends himself with his lightsaber.  Ben wakes up, Luke loses his concentration, and Luke slices through Lando.

Luke has no time to explain.  Ben simply sees Luke kill his brother, and Snoke's prophecy is coming true.

Luke does kill a Solo twin - but it was one who was definitely a Dark Side user.  But it still drives him to exile, and it still drives Ben to become Kylo.

3. Just make it the Dark Side.  What if Snoke was influencing them both?  What if Luke starts seeing all the students turning evil....not just Ben?  Meanwhile, Ben is getting the same sort of influence?  Luke doesn't sense it, but Snoke starts feeding the lies to Luke.  "Your nephew is evil."  "Your uncle will try and kill you."

And Luke falls for it.  He lets his hate and his fear and his jealousy turn him to the Dark Side....and he tries to kill his nephew.

Mark Hamill wanted this as far back as Episode VI.  He thought it was where the saga was going and pitched it to George Lucas - so it would've been interesting to see that come true on the screen.  It wouldn't be a full Dark Luke - just enough Dark Luke to try and kill Ben.

Luke snaps out of it, but it's too late.  So he does go into isolation and close himself off from the Force - he can't trust it again, and it keeps him safe from Snoke's influence.

I think if you do something like that, you protect Hamill's vision of Luke.  Which, it seems, is a lot of Star Wars' fans visions of Luke.

Ha, well having just admitted to only seeing the OT movies a handful of times (and the prequels less) and admitting to not being a big fan, I'm not surprised that I don't understand how the Force works.

The problem with that scene is a lack of clarity and context.  I definitely don't remember exact details, but my memory tells me that Kylo was asleep.  Maybe they could've shown Kylo to be awake and having a discussion with Snoke (like he does when he catches Rey and Kylo talking).  Or maybe they could've shown flashbacks to show more of what other dark side stuff Kylo was dealing with.  I think I remember Luke saying that he had darkness inside him, but I don't remember him saying anything specific.  Maybe there's more flashbacks in the deleted scenes - it sounds like there were plenty.  And since the movie was already too long, I think it's probably a bad idea to recommend adding more.

Whether or not he intended on killing Kylo, it does seem that Luke thinks he did.  And I think people are feeding off that in their complaints.

What's funny, to me, is that Luke raising a new school is actually a very interesting premise.  And since the movie's plot amounts to "the Resistance goes a little distance and ends up escaping on the Falcon", I might've enjoyed an entire movie focusing on Luke/Rey and flashbacks of Luke/Kylo.  It would've been an even more unusual Star Wars movie, but I think it could've been great.

In the commentary for REVENGE OF THE SITH, Lucas says that droids did most of the work that in our world would be assigned to servants, janitors, chefs, etc.. I guess, even though he sold the franchise and presented Yoda in the prequels as a humourless bureaucrat and incompetent and had all the Jedi wearing Tatooine costumes and had Leia's mother die at childbirth and declared that a broken heart is a reasonable cause of death... we still have to take his word for it?

Regrettably, the prequels remain canonical as Ewan McGregor had a voiceover in THE FORCE AWAKENS and Luke in THE LAST JEDI refers to Darth Sidious (a name only used in the prequels) and also describes the prequels' events as why he considers the Jedi to be the most useless band of incompetents in history who are best allowed to go extinct.

**

Luke specifically says he felt Snoke in Kylo Ren's mind and the dark side and saw all the people Kylo Ren would kill, hence his igniting the blade. If you didn't understand that Force users are Professor Xavier-level telepathic, you may have misunderstood the scene and the dialogue.

It's very interesting to watch THE FORCE AWAKENS now because it's very obvious -- at least to me? -- that Rey is meant to be Luke's daughter.

Kylo Ren goes ballistic when he hears that there was a girl who made off with the map to Luke. The implication of the scene as performed: he knows who she is and he's afraid of her. The lightsaber imbued with Anakin Skywalker's Force presence calls to Rey twice, once in the underground chamber and once in the forest when Kylo Ren tries to claim it for himself. Rey also has flashbacks of the night Kylo Ren burned down the temple. And the final scene of Rey reaching out to Luke is meant to mirror Han reaching out to Ben earlier -- the child at a distance from the parent, one reaching out to the other.

However, what was implied was not stated outright and left THE LAST JEDI with a lot of room to dismiss the implications as misdirection without contradicting any outright declarations of fact. Why did Kylo Ren go nuts hearing about "a girl"? He sensed the involvement of a Force user. Why does the lightsaber call to Rey? Because it's really calling to Luke thorugh Rey. The flashbacks aren't flashbacks; they're Force visions of events for which Rey wasn't present. Why is Rey approaching Luke meant to mirror Han reaching out to Ben? THE LAST JEDI actually cuts that, having Rey approach an unmoving Luke with the lightsaber and putting it in his hands -- only for him to throw it over his shoulder.

**

I liked THE LAST JEDI well enough, but there was stuff I didn't. I didn't like Rose's musical theme; it seemed awkwardly out of place with the militaristic and somber tone of the film.

In addition, the First Order being able to track the Resistance ship through lightspeed is declared as an impossibility; then immediately understood as a technological concept by those who moments ago called it impossible. It's arbitrary and forced.

A lot of people hate the movie for a very simple reason: the heroes didn't really accomplish much of anything. Rey going to see Luke didn't lead to the Resistance winning; Finn and Rose's mission didn't lead to saving the fleet; Poe's big revelation is that they have been defeated and need to flee; Luke's return saved a small number of Resistance fighters, a complement so small they can all fit aboard the Falcon.

This isn't what modern blockbusters have taught audiences to expect; a film where history has put our heroes on the losing side and all they can do is get by without affecting events significantly is confusing when you have Captain America and Ant Man outgunned, underpowered and saving the day. THE LAST JEDI was an attempt to do something different and to also point out that THE FORCE AWAKENS, in returning to the Rebels vs. Empire dynamic, basically declared that the good guys lost and THE LAST JEDI showed what THE FORCE AWAKENS didn't: defeat and what happens next.

The Canto Bright sequence was very awkward and I totally understood why they wanted some comic relief in the middle of the film, but when the Resistance ships are being picked off one by one, this wandering through a different setting felt clumsily mismatched to the rest of the film. In fact, the idea that one vessel could flee without notice even as as the First Order's fleet pounds away at the remaining Resistance ships was confusing to me: if one can get away, why not more? Admittedly, this sets up how Vice Admiral Holdo is planning to do exactly that with the escape pods, but it's distracting.

Another problem with Canto Bright: it is ridiculous to have Rose and Finn coincidentally imprisoned with a codebreaker, DJ, who is exactly the person they need to do exactly what their mission entails. The level of happenstance is absurd. The only way such a scene could have worked: DJ needed to be a character we'd met before, a character whose familiarity would make his appearance so pleasing the viewer would ignore the implausibility of his presence. Basically, DJ shouldn't have been DJ; DJ should have been Lando Calrissian.

Johnson had meant for Lando to be the codebreaker. But then he realized he didn't want a beloved original trilogy character to sell out Rose and Finn and the Resistance, especially when Lando was the only significant person of colour to be found in the original films. He put in another character. A new character. But he seems to have kept the same introduction and it's a problem.

I don't know what pre-existing character could have replaced Lando. I might have suggested Lobot, Lando's silent aide from EMPIRE, but the actor is dead. Perhaps it should have been Wedge Antilles (Denis Lawson), but you wouldn't recognize him as Wedge at this point (in fact, can you recognize Wedge if he's not in his X-Wing pilot suit and helmet?).

The only other character I can think of whose actor might be available and who might have been recongizable is General Crix Madine (Dermot Crowley) who delivered a mission briefing in RETURN OF THE JEDI and I don't know if anyone outside of obsessive fans would remember him. And I don't know how you rewrite DJ's introduction because the Canto Bright sequence is already too long despite being made as short as possible.

Maybe it should have just been Lando, but he'd also do something to help Holdo target the Star Destroyer and hit it in precisely the right spot and leave Rose and Finn a way to escape? I dunno. It's a flaw and I don't know how to fix it because Johnson's reasons for replacing Lando were very understandable.

Seeing this again today.  Gonna focus on the Luke stuff and see how it comes across.

Something I've been thinking about since I saw the movie a second time?  Does Rian Johnson hate the Force Awakens?  I feel like he took a lot of stuff from that movie and either openly made fun of it or snuffed it out.  Is it pretty consistent that people that liked TFA didn't like TLJ and vice versa?

Things I've noticed:

The Rey/Luke scene:
TFA - Treated like a huge deal/cliffhanger.
TLJ - Treated like a joke.  Luke throws the lightsaber away and walks off.

Anakin's Lightsaber
TFA -This is the key.  Why is it back after so long?  How did it get here?  Now that Luke has it, what will happen?!?
TLJ - Luke doesn't care about it.  Ends up destroyed.

Kylo Ren's Costume:
TFA - "Here's your new Vader!"
TLJ - Treated like a joke.  Snoke specifically says that the helmet and the costume is dumb, and it seems like Kylo did it on his own because he thought it looked cool.  Kylo destroys the helmet and never wears it again.

Rey's Parents:
TFA - A huge mystery.  Maybe *the* mystery of the entire new trilogy.
TLJ - They were no one.  Doesn't matter.

Maz:
TFA - This character knows everything.  Knows everyone.  She holds all the secrets if you know how to ask.
TLJ - She doesn't have time for this movie.  Get your deus ex machina somewhere else.

Hux:
TFA - Here's your new Tarkin.
TLJ - Except he's a total idiot.

Phasma:
TFA - She's a badass.  You'll see.
TLJ - Not really.  Maybe dead?

Snoke:
TFA - This dude is the ultimate evil.  Very mysterious.  Fear him.
TLJ - Wears a dumb-looking gold robe.  Cut in half.  He doesn't matter.

Rey:
TFA - Everyone loves Rey, and she's great at everything.  Always rescues herself.
TLJ - Luke wants nothing to do with her.  Suspects she might be evil.  She struggles with her training.  Has to be rescued by Kylo in the Throne Room.

Finn and Poe:
TFA - Finn is an insider with so much knowledge of the First Order.  Can use that to take them down, and Poe is the only guy daring enough to help him do it.
TLJ - Finn's plan is ridiculous and doesn't work at all.  Nearly gets everyone killed.  Poe's plans are reckless and gets tons of people killed.

Nostalgia:
TFA - Star Wars is the best!  Here's a reference!  And another!  Look, a bigger Death Star!  The Millennium Falcon!  Anakin's Lightsaber!
TLJ - "Let the past die.  Kill it if you have to."

Star Wars has never been about mysteries, and I think the bigger sin is setting up the mysteries at all.  I think Rian Johnson agreed with that, and he's stated as much.  He said if Star Wars is going to survive, it has to become something more than what it was.

The Last Jedi is divisive because it's a hard reset to what JJ Abrams did.  Which is why it's going to be such a problem when JJ comes back.

I think it's terrible. I think your film would be the equivalent of those crazy Men's Rights Activists who created a fan edit of the movie where they cut any women and people of colour. Incoherent and baffling.

I don't think you're a terrible writer, I just think that you're better telling YOUR stories rather than trying to tweak someone else's material to suit your sensibilities and interests.

Honestly, the only thing I'd change about THE LAST JEDI is swapping DJ for Lando... And even then, I'm not sure I would. THE LAST JEDI is so intricate and detailed that it'd be better to make a different movie than to mess around with this one.

But I'm just one person.

I watched Solo: A Star Wars movie.

That sure was a movie that I watched.

(that's my entire review)

I have a complicated relationship with the sequels, but I'm pretty happy with the revelation that Rey is no one.  I hope that doesn't get retconned because I think it creates a great symmetry.  Kylo believes he's royalty.  That his control of the universe is deserved because of his bloodline.  For the Force to choose a random person to rise up to meet him is a great narrative work.  Kylo and Rey are true opposites.  If they end up as cousins...I don't know.

I think you're right - it's a designation of some sort.

I was more intrigued by the Emperor's cackle.  Is he back?  Cloned?  Was he Snoke?

I'm waiting until the Marvel shows hit Disney+ to subscribe. But I've read that the STAR WARS (1977) film on Disney+ has yet another George Lucas revision in addition to all the other dumbass alterations he's made over the years: he's added a new shot to Greedo's death scene where Greedo now yells "Maclunkey!" before he and Han fire on each other and Greedo inexplicably fails to shoot a target sitting across a table from him while Han's head nonsensically inclines to the left while Han's blaster kills Greedo.

... it's bizarre. The insert shot of Greedo with his new line breaks the flow of the blaster fire immediately following the, "I've been waiting a long time for this, Solo" / "Yeah, I'll bet you have" exchange. It's a discordant note because "Maclunkey" is not subtitled, so the audience can't even understand what Greedo is saying unless they remember watching THE PHANTOM MENACE and recalling that at one point, the Sebulba pod racer tells Anakin, "Maclunkey," subtitled as "This will be the end of you." https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/star- … unkey.html

Dear God, WHY?! It looks like Lucas made this revision for the 4K release before he sold the franchise to Disney (and, to be fair, gave most of the money to wildlife preservations, inner city youth programs, museums and educational initiatives).

Anyway, I'm never going to watch it. I have the Despecialized Versions. Okay, that's not entirely true -- I watch the blu-ray version of EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.

Part of Lucas' deal with Disney during the sale was that they would not go back and undo the various special editions and release a 1977 theatrical edition.

I enjoyed it; but I wish we could have had more of *that* Adam Driver in the rest of the series.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I saw a little Han Solo coming out in him at the end there.  It was a good fit.

I enjoyed RISE OF SKYWALKER and am happy with it, but a lot of people aren't and I have a lot of room in my heart and head for different views.

Style: RISE OF SKYWALKER is so tautly, quickly, forcefully paced that it goes by fast. JJ Abrams is an entertainer whereas Rian Johnson is a philosopher. Rian Johnson was making pointed remarks about dynastic bloodlines, military strategy, theocratic governance and the hollowness of legacies. Abrams is making the point that it is COOL to have the Millennium Falcon flash-jump to different planets and to have Rey take down a TIE Interceptor with a lightsaber.

Space: STAR WARS has the space to welcome both, but it does leave RISE OF SKYWALKER open to valid criticisms: that it is shallow where THE LAST JEDI was deep. Also, THE LAST JEDI let the Empire/First Order win, had the Rebels/Resistance reduced from an army of hundreds of thousands to maybe 40 - 50 people aboard the Falcon, the Jedi represented only by Leia (whose actor died shortly after filming) and Rey (who is physically capable but emotionally troubled).

This is a massive shift from the capable if underpowered Rebels of A NEW HOPE and EMPIRE and a total reversal of their apparent victory in RETURN OF THE JEDI.

Repetition: In contrast, RISE OF SKYWALKER ends with the Rebels/Resistance having triumphed by killing Emperor Palpatine which seems significantly important except they'd accomplished the same thing in RETURN OF THE JEDI which means RISE OF SKYWALKER is in the unfortunate position of resurrecting Palpatine just to kill him again.

In a few decades time, we may find Rey leading a losing resistance once again while the Empire dominates the galaxy with, I dunno, a resurrected Phasma in charge.

Mastermind: However. RISE OF SKYWALKER establishes that the destruction of the Death Star 2.0 in RETURN OF THE JEDI was merely a decisive battle and that the Emperor survived but in so damaged a body that he can't leave his life support system. Which means that the Resistance being on the losing side of THE FORCE AWAKENS and THE LAST JEDI was all due to the Emperor running the First Order through the Emperor speaking through the Snoke clones (earlier versions of which are glimpsed in Palpatine's lair).

Details: Furthermore, RISE establishes that the planet of Exogol houses the Emperor's fleet; destroy the fleet, kill the Emperor, and the First Order loses all coordination and leadership as well as their most powerful weapons, so even though RETURN declared that destroying the Death Star 2.0 would be the final and decisive battle, RISE does some work to say that this showdown on Exogol will truly be the final and decisive battle and they meant it before but this time they mean it for realzies, but this is a yet another rerun.

RISE splits various hairs to claim this finale really counts, but if RETURN didn't count, why should this?

Reversal: Fans are also offended by Luke saying that he was wrong to have the attitude he did in THE LAST JEDI and Rey being revealed as not being nobody from nowhere but the Empress of the Sith and Palatine's granddaughter.

Enjoyable: I personally am not blind to these problems, but I feel that RISE OF SKYWALKER gets past all of these issues by being so quickly paced. Each scene flies by so fast with a minimum of exposition. Chris Terrio's script is expressive and sparingly dialogued. Where THE LAST JEDI was deliberate and controlled, RISE OF SKYWALKER is a relentless adrenaline burst and skillfully hurried and therefore a lot of fun.

Entertainer: There's also a certain desperation that reflects the pressure Abrams was under. Abrams has talked about how, when directing STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS, he lost track of the core themes of the story and just tried to make each scene as exciting as possible and hoped it would be coherent.

It looks like he has attempted the same with RISE OF SKYWALKER where he was parachuted into the film with two years to write, pre-produce, film and edit the movie; the previous script had been thrown out due to Carrie Fisher's death.

Continuation: Rian Johnson shuttered the Resistance, killed off Luke, left the First Order victorious, and suggested that the First Order would be defeated not by the Jedi and not by the Resistance but by a new generation of heroes. Abrams had to create a script that would follow up on all that but also feature Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Oscar Isaacs front and center, address Carrie Fisher's absence, resolve the Resistance/First Order conflict, conclude Kylo Ren's situation and serve as a finale.

Necessities: As a result, some of Abrams' obligations conflict with Rian Johnson's vision in THE LAST JEDI; THE LAST JEDI proposes that the STAR WARS universe continue with new characters in a First Order dominated galaxy with an open-ended approach; Abrams is required to cobble together a conclusion by undoing RETURN OF THE JEDI to restage its victory.

THE LAST JEDI suggests moving onto new characters represented by the boy with the broom and Rose Tico; Abrams is contractually obligated to have his core cast feature front and center and build their relationships with each other and conclude them in the same movie as they had only one scene together in the previous film.

Acknowledgement Without Focus: Due to this need, Rose Tico becomes anonymous base personnel. RISE OF SKYWALKER also fails to focus on the idea that there may be heroes outside the Resistance and the Jedi Order and the Skywalker families, but it does nod to it with Finn and Jannah both being former stormtroopers who have Force sensitivity.

And due to the need to reintroduce the Emperor to defeat him again and offer a sense of closure, Abrams is required to link him to a core cast member and chooses to reveal him as Rey's grandfather.

Blood: This last one rankles severely with fans. Fans who are adopted children were hurt by RISE OF SKYWALKER suggesting that people need to have defined bloodlines to have identities; critics have noted that the idea of children of legacies being above others is undemocratic and has no place in a world where people should be evaluated by ability and attitude over birth; viewers are irked that RISE OF SKYWALKER suggests that only people from important families can make a difference.

Harmony: Personally, I see all of that, but what I also see is another note to THE LAST JEDI, a film that declared that heroes can come from anywhere. When Rey confessed in THE LAST JEDI that her parents "were nobody," it was a moment of grief and loss.

When Rey discovers that her grandfather is Palpatine, she is consumed with self-loathing, isolating herself to Ahch To as Luke did, burning her spacecraft, throwing away the lightsaber -- only for Luke to catch it and inform her that Luke and Leia have known all along about Rey's parentage and still chose to teach her, Luke in his indirect and cynical fashion and Leia with wholehearted love and devotion.

And while THE LAST JEDI has Luke declaring that it is time for the Jedi to end, his final scenes in that film had him changing his mind, saying that he wouldn't be the last after all, so Luke in RISE OF SKYWALKER declaring that he was wrong in THE LAST JEDI to isolate himself is continuing Luke from where Rian Johnson left him.

Legacy: THE LAST JEDI also had Luke calling the Jedi Order a legacy of failure noting that the prequels showed them to be incompetent (they allow slave labour to prosper), blind (they allowed the Sith to rise in their own government) and not worth preserving. RISE OF SKYWALKER has Luke telling Rey that she must face Palpatine or the Jedi will die, but Luke is noticeably not calling for the Jedi to be restored as a governing body; he merely wants there to be at least one Jedi in the galaxy and for that Jedi to be Rey.

Identity: There is affirmation and beauty in Luke revealing that he and his sister chose to see Rey in terms of who she was and could be instead of where she came from because, as THE LAST JEDI declared, heroes can indeed come from anywhere and I think that's summed up beautifully in the final scene. "I'm Rey." "'Rey' who?" "Rey Skywalker."

In taking on the Skywalker name with Luke and Leia watching approvingly, Rey is committing not to bloodlines -- but to the legend of Luke Skywalker as a person who will (in the end) help people find light and hope whether they're Darth Vader or the last 40 - 50 fighters in a failed Resistance or the Empress of the Sith.

Action: And it was nice to see all this in a fast-paced, driven, exciting action movie with so many cool scenes from Rey and Kylo fighting in the wreckage of the Death Star 2.0, the light-speed skipping sequences, Rey's obstacle course, Rey aided to victory by previous the voices of Jedi.

There's also some nice loophole logic where the Emperor declares that Rey killing him in rage and hatred will allow him to possess her body; Rey instead reflects the Emperor's lightning back at him and he kills himself.

I liked THE LAST JEDI as a thoughtful, contemplative film of defeat and I like RISE OF SKYWALKER as a widescreen action extravaganza of victory that harmonizes with THE LAST JEDI but is more of a crowdpleaser. I find that THE LAST JEDI and RISE OF SKYWALKER aren't at odds; they're saying similar things but with very different words spoken by very different people and I'm happy to have both.

Disclaimer: I may be in the minority on this. I liked JUSTICE LEAGUE, after all.

Well, I think ireactions did a fantastic job of summarizing a lot of things about the movie.  So I'll just make a list of my thoughts since it will be hard to be a lot more eloquent and detailed than him.

- Overall, I had fun with it.  I think what they decided to go with worked, I thought the movie was fun, and I think the character pieces worked.  Leia was a bit distracting, but I thought their use of her was nice and effective.  I feel pretty good in thinking that they were almost able to do exactly what they wanted with her.

- I think it's a fine wrap-up.  I don't necessarily agree with Grizzlor that it's definitely a wrap-up of the Skywalker story.  Especially because of what I'm about to get into.

- Palpatine.  I was very uneasy with this plot direction for a lot of reasons, which I'll hopefully get to.  I'd be curious to know why this path was chosen.  Was this JJ's plan all along?  Or did he have to pivot when Rian Johnson killed Snoke?  Was this a matter of sticking to the plan, or did they have to frantically throw together a new plan when Rian Johnson left his movie the way he did?  I don't know.  I liked The Last Jedi, but I do think it's a movie that feels either complete or ends on such a low note that it's hard to imagine the good guys winning.

The problem with using Palpatine are two-fold.  The first is the bigger concern, and that it just comes so far out of left field.  Nick Mason on the Weekly Planet podcast had a good point - The Rise of Skywalker doesn't feel like a sequel to either Last Jedi or even the Force Awakens.  It feels like a sequel to an unproduced Episode VIII that exists only in JJ Abrams' head.  I'm sure they'll retcon stuff to make pieces fit, but it feels like so much is missing since there weren't really any indications that Palpatine was alive or pulling any strings.  There were no hints, no clues, and no mystery boxes even implying that.

And I get where they're coming from.  If this series has an overarching villain, it's Palpatine.  He's there in Episode I and he's there in Episode VI.  The second that the sequel trilogy's Darth Vader was revealed to be Han and Leia's son, we knew he wasn't going to be the overall bad guy.  So when Snoke died...who else was there?  Hux?  Laughable.  They could've brought back Snoke in the same nebulous way they brought back Palpatine....but why?  Snoke is barely a character.  Even if you reveal him as Plageous - that's essentially a brand-new character.  So outside of just doing a brand-new character, why not bring in someone who was the villain for at least six of the movies.  Bringing him in at the last minute worked in Episode VI.  Why not here?

Well....we've been there.  We've seen that.  Not only does it undercut Episode VI's ending, I think it sorta undercuts this movie's ending.  Is the Emperor dead this time?  Was he actually dead the first time?  Does the movie even tell us what happened?  Is he a clone?  Or did he survive falling down that shaft?  The comics famously had a situation where Sidious simply transfers into a new clone whenever he dies.  So is that possible again?  Is there any reason to believe that Rey wouldn't end up fighting the Emperor again?  And if so, can this really count as a definitive ending?

- Dismissing Rian Johnson so hard.  I get it.  People didn't like the Last Jedi.  But it's one of the 9 episodes of this saga.  People don't like Episode I, but Darth Maul has been resurrected into canon because people like him.  There's a whole TV show about the events between Episodes II and III.  The prequels are hated, but there hasn't been any effort to erase them from existence. 

As ireactions showed, JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson essentially played tennis with this trilogy.  JJ Abrams did some stuff.  Rian Johnson turned that stuff on its ear and overrode some of it.  JJ Abrams did the same.

And that's fine.  Rian Johnson essentially tried to make Kylo Ren the main bad guy, but JJ (obviously) wanted him to be a character that can be redeemed.  Rian Johnson wanted to make a statement that the Force doesn't care what your last name is - it can pick anyone to stand up and face the darkness - that even an orphan scavenger girl can stand up against the Crown Prince from the most powerful family in the galaxy, but JJ wanted her to be someone important.  Rian Johnson thought the mask was stupid, but JJ knew they could sell toys and that they needed the mask for Galaxy's Edge.

But therein lies the problem.  You have created a trilogy that became a tug of war against itself.  I don't think TROS is disrespectful to the Last Jedi, but it obviously wants to do its own thing.  So it almost makes TLJ seem like an unrelated adventure, and like Nick Mason said, it makes TROS feel like a sequel to a movie we never got.  It feels disjointed because it's a three-episode TV show with no second episode.

In retrospect, they either needed to stick with the plan of 3 different directors or have JJ direct all three.  Because having Rian Johnson subvert JJ Abrams' ideas obviously hurt the flow of the movies.  And I think if Colin Trevorrow or anyone else had directed this, I think it would've one it it's own direction instead of (at times) awkwardly pivoting in a direction that it was no longer traveling.

Because I think Rian Johnson left breadcrumbs on how he wanted his version of the story to end.  The little boy with the mop at the end showed that anyone can have the force.  So maybe Trevorrow or Deborah Chow's version ends with a bunch of Reys stepping up to fight the evil of the galaxy.  Nobodies standing up against the Skywalker legacy that had so much good and bad.  I don't know - JJ didn't seem to care about that much.

- The Batman v Superman / Justice League connection.  Chris Terrio co-wrote this film.  He also co-wrote BvS and Justice League.  I bring this about because I think those movies are tied to these movies.  Batman v Superman was the Last Jedi for DC.  Zack Snyder, love him or hate him, did some things with characters that were unexpected.  Batman kills.  Superman's relationship with humanity is...complicated.  These characterizations were hated, and when Justice League came around, they were mostly ignored.  Batman doesn't kill.  And Superman is remembered as a guy who was revered by everyone.  They're the characters we love and remember.

Kinda feels like the Last Jedi.  People hated how the Last Jedi treated Luke Skywalker.  So the Rise of Skywalker goes out of his way to say that Luke was wrong to do and say the things he said.  He's the Luke we all loved and remembered.

I'm not comparing the movies any more than that because I don't think there's much more to it than that.  I just think it's kinda funny that BvS and TLJ are two of the most controversial genre movies we've ever seen, and Chris Terrio essentially Jedi Mind Tricked us both times into ignoring the things we didn't like about the previous movies.

- Wrap Up.  All in all, I liked it for what it chose to be.  I just don't really understand why it chose to be that.

I think I agree with that.  I think the primary issue is that I don't feel like either of them ever even worked together.  And I don't even necessarily mean they got in a room for days to plan things out.  I don't even feel like there was an email with a list of possible directions to go in that either of them used or referenced.  If I were JJ Abrams and I've just completed the Force Awakens, I would've made a list of directions that I was hoping to go. 

- Rey is a Palpatine
- Palpatine is still alive / is the embodiment of all Sith evil on a distant planet
- Leia is going to sacrifice herself to redeem Kylo who also sacrifices himself to save Rey

Even if its just a photo of rambling notes, I'd write something down so that the next person has a general idea of where things were meant to go.  Either Abrams did this and Johnson threw it in the trash, or Johnson made the theme of his movie about the idea that mystery boxes don't matter.  Either way, there's not really any connective tissue between Episodes VII and VIII.  And if episode IX was directed by someone else entirely, then maybe that would work.  It'd be an anthology of Star Wars movies that have a different visual or tonal style telling one mostly-coherent story.

But even if Abrams and Johnson weren't working against each other, they're not working with each other enough for the story to make the ride feel smooth.  Abrams decided he wanted to take the left path through the exciting forest, and he started down that path.  And Johnson decided he didn't like the forest and wanted to take the windier path that goes alongside the ocean so he could contemplate the vastness of the ocean without all the noises and distractions from the forest.  Neither seemed to notice or care that there was a middle path where you could still see the ocean and still hear the forest that was both safer and faster.

And again I don't think this is all that strange, even in Star Wars.  Star Wars is notorious for its wide and expansive Legends universe full of tons of stories from hundreds of different creative minds.  But if Lucas wanted the Clone Wars not to be touched upon, they weren't.  When the comics wanted to bring in a clone of Vader, Lucas insisted they make it a clone of Palpatine.

I don't think it would've been a stretch for Disney to have the same philosophy.  "Rian, you're the mastermind of Episode VIII, but JJ has some plot points that we would like you to either build on or at least don't directly contradict."  So it's still collaboration even if they're still working 100% independently.

I think that's fair.  Stuff like this is fascinating to me, though.  Star Wars is (and has been) a license to print money.  TROS is going to be a financial failure compared to the two previous Disney sequels, but it's still going to be an amazing financial success.  So I wonder how much, if any, the decision makers really care what movie comes out.  The movie could be arthouse, dumb popcorn flick, coherent, or nonsensical, and it's still going to make money.  Different groups of people seemed to hate each of these movies, and they still made ridiculous amounts of money.  So it might not actually matter whether JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson made a cohesive trilogy.

When I look at Marvel, it seems so simple.  Kevin Feige (and I assume a group of others) watches over a series of a couple dozen movies, doing (IMO) a great job of both building and interconnecting a universe while also making that universe feel diverse and unique.  Black Panther and Guardians of the Galaxy shouldn't work together, but while they have very different themes and visuals, they both "feel" Marvel.

TFA, TLJ, and TROS all have the same characters and two feature the same director, and they don't really feel like the same group of movies.  I'd think someone like Kathleen Kennedy would line these scripts and directors up and figure out a way to make everything make sense.  If there isn't a plan for all three movies, are there are at least mile markers we want to hit?  Places for these characters to go?  If Abrams truly threw out everything Trevorrow did, it implies there was never a plan.  On one hand, it means that these movies aren't written by robots like Marvel seems to be.  But on the other hand, I just can't imagine HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE.

But since Marvel seems to be the only one doing it their way and everyone else seems to be doing things their way....I guess maybe Kevin Feige is the crazy one.

Jurassic World is a ton of fun.  As someone who has more nostalgia for Jurassic Park than I've ever had for Star Wars, I can safely say that Jurassic World was a love letter to me as a fan.  I think it's a lot like the Force Awakens - it's a retelling of the original story with higher stakes (since the park is open and there are more potential casualties).  I think he might've made a similar movie to The Force Awakens, honestly.  So I assume his Episode IX wouldn't be much different than TFA.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with the Rise of Skywalker in a vacuum.  I think it's perfectly enjoyable on it's own.  I think where this series fails is simply as a cohesive unit.  Episodes VII and IX feel like two ends of the same story since they were made by the same person.  Episode VIII feels like a sidequel or a supplementary comic book adventure because what happens in it adds to the characters but not necessarily the story.

The sequel trilogy, to me, is a delicious gourmet hamburger meal.  Abrams films are two wonderfully toasted buttered buns, and Johnson's films are perfectly fried french fries coated in parmesan and truffle oil.

We're missing the meat.  The connective tissue between Abrams' movies so that the jump into IX isn't so abrupt.  We have a villain in TROS that we don't understand, even though he's a familiar face.  Is Palpatine the original guy we were introduced to in Episode I that survived the destruction of the Death Star?  Or is he, as he puts it, some sort of timeless embodiment of the Sith?  I've heard theories on all of it.  That TROS Palpatine is a clone of the original who was imperfect (or torn apart by the Dark Side energy) so he needs to jump into a new body.  Or that TROS Palpatine is the *true* Palpatine and that the Darth Sidious that was killed in Return of the Jedi was the clone/projection.

Honestly, I don't know, and the movie doesn't really care to answer.  I think maybe they just needed another edit.  Maybe merge the Pasaana and Kijimi scenes so that they can get to Exegol faster.  I don't know.  Even as someone who liked TLJ more than most (and it's my favorite of the sequel trilogy), I wonder if Rian Johnson just didn't do enough to set up Episode IX and Abrams had to cram in Episode VIII and IX into one.  And that's why it was both really long and really rushed.

When Game of Thrones finished, there were a number of videos that came out that showed that the cast sorta didn't like the ending.  They'd be asked a question about how things ended, and they'd either hesitate to come up with a diplomatic answer or they'd give some sort of sarcastic one.  The idea was that they knew the ending was bad and couldn't contain how they felt about it.  The internet did the same thing with questions Mark answered about Luke's portrayal in the Last Jedi, something he's somewhat-openly had issues with.

I've seen in multiple interviews with the younger Star Wars cast (Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, and Oscar Isaac) where they all seem sorta done with Star Wars.  I've seen in multiple interviews that Daisy seemed sorta wooden and checked-out in her performance.  Boyega and Isaac both specifically said they had no interest in any sort of Disney+ supplementary material.

I wonder what to make of that.  I know Harrison Ford was done with Star Wars during the original trilogy.  The fans have all but ruined the experience for someone like Jake Lloyd.  I'm sure it's exhausting to do a Star Wars because you're asked about it all the time, and I'm sure the press junkets made them never want to suffer through something like that ever again.  All three of them have "made it" and I'm sure they don't need Star Wars like they probably did when the Force Awakens was casting.  Daniel Craig essentially said during the press tour for Spectre he'd rather die than do Bond again, and he came back and did another Bond.  So maybe it's nothing.

But with all the chaos at Star Wars, I wonder if there's just something off about the brand at the moment.  Trilogies are announced and cancelled.  Directors are brought on and then fired.  I'm not blaming anyone in particular, but I wonder if the Disney and Star Wars marriage isn't as functional as we all think.  And I wonder if the actors sorta see that.  I think an Oscar Issac-led Poe series would be really cool, and I think there's tons to do with him or Finn.  Especially in light of the success of the Mandalorian and how much Marvel is branching out with TV shows.  And for either actor to outright (and vehemently) dismiss it just came off as really odd to me.

Yeah.  I know they're doing Mandalorian season 2 and an Obi-Wan TV show.  I'd forgotten they're also doing a Cassian Andor show for Disney+ starring Diego Luna.

But Rian Johnson is still working on something for Star Wars.  So is, apparently, Kevin Feige.  So there will still be Star Wars movie, but Star Wars fatigue is definitely a thing.