Jump to content

Rise of Skywalker Spoilers Discussion Thread


Mr. Hoopah!
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm glad they didn't beat around the bush about Palpatine, but literally no explanation as to how he was alive, being kept alive, found an ancient Sith world, amassed an army, and built a fleet of star destroyers with death star guns on every ship. Just, hey, here's Palpatine and his massive army.

I caught them feels when Han appeared. Surprisingly did not get emotional seeing Leia.

Ben coming back to the light/jedi happened so quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts: when you consider how much ground this movie had to accomplish after the events of the last one, I think that explains the lightning fast pace it went on. They were never going to be able to explain every aspect of the movie. 

But man.. I went in with low expectations but came out very happy. It wasn't perfect, but it was a very fun ride. I liked it much better than the last one and I will be making a point to see it again.

Would have loved to have seen what would have happened if JJ Abrams had this entire trilogy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

I'm glad they didn't beat around the bush about Palpatine, but literally no explanation as to how he was alive, being kept alive, found an ancient Sith world, amassed an army, and built a fleet of star destroyers with death star guns on every ship. Just, hey, here's Palpatine and his massive army.

I caught them feels when Han appeared. Surprisingly did not get emotional seeing Leia.

Ben coming back to the light/jedi happened so quickly.

I kind of took it to be that the whole star destroyers thing had kind of always been in the works even during the original trilogy. It was kind of a Palpatine/Sith contingency plan with Sith loyalists. Just how I took it, but I figured that Palpatine still "died", but he kind of lived on in spirit and found his way to Exogol where his contingency plan was.

The whole Ben going back thing did happen very quickly, but all factors considered, I was happy with it.

They tried to cram about 4/5 hours of material and explanation into 1 movie so we naturally got a very fast paced movie.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unhinged as a sequel but far far better than The Last Jedi. Not a very good movie but it was fun to watch and definitely the best of the new trilogy. It’s pretty disappointing to look back and see how much they failed in episode 7 and 8 to lay the ground work for the big moments to feel as important as they should have in this one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seent it. It was enjoyable enough. There was way too much story for one movie (leading to frenetic and at times exhausting editing and unnecessary plot contrivances), and plenty of logically dumb choices (not too surprising with an Abrams film), but I still felt good watching it and walked out energized.

The debate over these movies, and particularly the decisions made by Rian Johnson, is frustrating though. First and foremost, the key failure in this trilogy (if there is one) lies with the studio, who never ensured a consistent vision for the entire trilogy. That's not on the directors, who were asked to use their creative powers to give us good storytelling. Unfortunately, those two directors had different ideas about what constitute good storytelling, and each ended up undercutting the other. And, to echo something I read elsewhere, it's not like RJ operated in a vacuum. Kathleen Kennedy and the studio clearly had to approve what he was doing, and it's probable that they really liked the direction he was taking it, right up until the backlash from a very vocal minority of fans.

The sad part is that RJ's film attempted to answer the boatload of questions left by TFA in a creative way. One that cut against some of the major plot points from the earlier films, but that shared a spirit with the message of those movies. One that allowed anyone to become important on a galaxy-wide scale. One that allowed for more grey space. Abrams walked that all the way back, giving us a vision where basically only two human families, in the entire galaxy, matter - the Skywalkers and the Palpatines. It's a move that is satisfying on some levels of fan service, but entirely frustrating on levels of storytelling and messaging. 

And, the decisions made by Abrams show just how different he and RJ are. RJ sought to create new, more interesting questions by answering the existing questions with something unconventional and unexpected, deepening the story. Abrams took a diametric approach, answering the questions of TLJ by reverting to easy, comfortable tropes and plot devices that narrow and simplify the story. It goes down easier, but generally I like things that challenge me a bit more than "here's this one ultimate evil guy who has always been behind everything because evil and also he can create the largest fleet ever seen all equipped with planet destroyers on some hidden and desolate planet that no one can even find."

Again, I enjoyed the movie and the arc given to Ben Solo, but I think I might have enjoyed it more if Ben Solo stayed irredeemable, not because he's inherently "evil," but because he's done evil things that have boxed him in to the point of no return, and because his ambition has outstripped his humanity. Likewise, I enjoyed Poe's arc somewhat, but don't like that he mostly became unfailing again. I'm not saying he needed to always be the guy whose gut leads to disastrous choices, but neither do I want to see him as just intuitively correct about almost everything.

Given a choice, I would have preferred if RJ had done the entire trilogy over Abrams doing the entire trilogy. But we got what we got, and there are parts of all the stories that were satisfying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to that: everything Abrams does is a call back, whether it's calling back to earlier films or calling back to something he set up just minutes before. Consequently, it rarely feels like a cohesive narrative thread, because everything that happens has to mirror or contrast something that previously happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Sancho said:

I seent it. It was enjoyable enough. There was way too much story for one movie (leading to frenetic and at times exhausting editing and unnecessary plot contrivances), and plenty of logically dumb choices (not too surprising with an Abrams film), but I still felt good watching it and walked out energized.

The debate over these movies, and particularly the decisions made by Rian Johnson, is frustrating though. First and foremost, the key failure in this trilogy (if there is one) lies with the studio, who never ensured a consistent vision for the entire trilogy. That's not on the directors, who were asked to use their creative powers to give us good storytelling. Unfortunately, those two directors had different ideas about what constitute good storytelling, and each ended up undercutting the other. And, to echo something I read elsewhere, it's not like RJ operated in a vacuum. Kathleen Kennedy and the studio clearly had to approve what he was doing, and it's probable that they really liked the direction he was taking it, right up until the backlash from a very vocal minority of fans.

The sad part is that RJ's film attempted to answer the boatload of questions left by TFA in a creative way. One that cut against some of the major plot points from the earlier films, but that shared a spirit with the message of those movies. One that allowed anyone to become important on a galaxy-wide scale. One that allowed for more grey space. Abrams walked that all the way back, giving us a vision where basically only two human families, in the entire galaxy, matter - the Skywalkers and the Palpatines. It's a move that is satisfying on some levels of fan service, but entirely frustrating on levels of storytelling and messaging. 

And, the decisions made by Abrams show just how different he and RJ are. RJ sought to create new, more interesting questions by answering the existing questions with something unconventional and unexpected, deepening the story. Abrams took a diametric approach, answering the questions of TLJ by reverting to easy, comfortable tropes and plot devices that narrow and simplify the story. It goes down easier, but generally I like things that challenge me a bit more than "here's this one ultimate evil guy who has always been behind everything because evil and also he can create the largest fleet ever seen all equipped with planet destroyers on some hidden and desolate planet that no one can even find."

Again, I enjoyed the movie and the arc given to Ben Solo, but I think I might have enjoyed it more if Ben Solo stayed irredeemable, not because he's inherently "evil," but because he's done evil things that have boxed him in to the point of no return, and because his ambition has outstripped his humanity. Likewise, I enjoyed Poe's arc somewhat, but don't like that he mostly became unfailing again. I'm not saying he needed to always be the guy whose gut leads to disastrous choices, but neither do I want to see him as just intuitively correct about almost everything.

Given a choice, I would have preferred if RJ had done the entire trilogy over Abrams doing the entire trilogy. But we got what we got, and there are parts of all the stories that were satisfying. 

:golfclap:

TLJ is a good movie.  I understand that some folks do not think it is a good Star Wars movie, and I get that, but I personally think it's both a good movie and good Star Wars movie. 

They absolutely should have just picked one director, even with Kennedy and Disney approving/controlling everything they did, and lived or died with that, and I agree I would have preferred RJ's take on it. 

"Mark Hamill didn't like it."  That's his right.  I liked it. Mark Hamill is 68, they couldn't make him some bad  *** Jedi ninja in TLJ.  If Lucas made a sequel trilogy in the 90's or 00's, that could have worked, but not in this trilogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sancho said:

To add to that: everything Abrams does is a call back, whether it's calling back to earlier films or calling back to something he set up just minutes before. Consequently, it rarely feels like a cohesive narrative thread, because everything that happens has to mirror or contrast something that previously happened.

Two hours+ of exposition was too for me. If you need the characters to tell you what's going on in detail, you don't have a very good script. "You are my grand-daughter and I tricked you into coming here just like I tricked your friends into attacking this fully operational star base (whoops, forgot we were using the exact same plot device that we used 37 years ago) and now you must strike me down and take your place by my side (dang, I did it again, didn't I?) and I will take over you with every other Sith Lord in history and destroy free will, diversity, healthcare, political correctness and all hope for a living wage forever!!" was just too much after 43 years' investment for me to appreciate.

Don't get me started on the fact that the whole thing supposedly took place in less than a day. Did they have time to eat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sancho said:

I seent it. It was enjoyable enough. There was way too much story for one movie (leading to frenetic and at times exhausting editing and unnecessary plot contrivances), and plenty of logically dumb choices (not too surprising with an Abrams film), but I still felt good watching it and walked out energized.

The debate over these movies, and particularly the decisions made by Rian Johnson, is frustrating though. First and foremost, the key failure in this trilogy (if there is one) lies with the studio, who never ensured a consistent vision for the entire trilogy. That's not on the directors, who were asked to use their creative powers to give us good storytelling. Unfortunately, those two directors had different ideas about what constitute good storytelling, and each ended up undercutting the other. And, to echo something I read elsewhere, it's not like RJ operated in a vacuum. Kathleen Kennedy and the studio clearly had to approve what he was doing, and it's probable that they really liked the direction he was taking it, right up until the backlash from a very vocal minority of fans.

The sad part is that RJ's film attempted to answer the boatload of questions left by TFA in a creative way. One that cut against some of the major plot points from the earlier films, but that shared a spirit with the message of those movies. One that allowed anyone to become important on a galaxy-wide scale. One that allowed for more grey space. Abrams walked that all the way back, giving us a vision where basically only two human families, in the entire galaxy, matter - the Skywalkers and the Palpatines. It's a move that is satisfying on some levels of fan service, but entirely frustrating on levels of storytelling and messaging. 

And, the decisions made by Abrams show just how different he and RJ are. RJ sought to create new, more interesting questions by answering the existing questions with something unconventional and unexpected, deepening the story. Abrams took a diametric approach, answering the questions of TLJ by reverting to easy, comfortable tropes and plot devices that narrow and simplify the story. It goes down easier, but generally I like things that challenge me a bit more than "here's this one ultimate evil guy who has always been behind everything because evil and also he can create the largest fleet ever seen all equipped with planet destroyers on some hidden and desolate planet that no one can even find."

Again, I enjoyed the movie and the arc given to Ben Solo, but I think I might have enjoyed it more if Ben Solo stayed irredeemable, not because he's inherently "evil," but because he's done evil things that have boxed him in to the point of no return, and because his ambition has outstripped his humanity. Likewise, I enjoyed Poe's arc somewhat, but don't like that he mostly became unfailing again. I'm not saying he needed to always be the guy whose gut leads to disastrous choices, but neither do I want to see him as just intuitively correct about almost everything.

Given a choice, I would have preferred if RJ had done the entire trilogy over Abrams doing the entire trilogy. But we got what we got, and there are parts of all the stories that were satisfying. 

The people disappointed by TLJ are far more than a "very vocal minority," though included in that group is a "very vocal minority." And, included in that group are some Trump supporters, who I don't particularly align with. So... you are getting it wrong about TLJ. It was far more than just a "very vocal minority." TLJ had very bad legs for a blockbuster, look it up. There was relatively poor word of mouth, and now the ROS box office is going to look even worse because TLJ "sucked" (as a middle Star Wars movie).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

The people disappointed by TLJ are far more than a "very vocal minority," though included in that group is a "very vocal minority." And, included in that group are some Trump supporters, who I don't particularly align with. So... you are getting it wrong about TLJ. It was far more than just a "very vocal minority." TLJ had very bad legs for a blockbuster, look it up. There was relatively poor word of mouth, and now the ROS box office is going to look even worse because TLJ "sucked" (as a middle Star Wars movie).

lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mdrake34 said:

:golfclap:

TLJ is a good movie.  I understand that some folks do not think it is a good Star Wars movie, and I get that, but I personally think it's both a good movie and good Star Wars movie. 

They absolutely should have just picked one director, even with Kennedy and Disney approving/controlling everything they did, and lived or died with that, and I agree I would have preferred RJ's take on it. 

"Mark Hamill didn't like it."  That's his right.  I liked it. Mark Hamill is 68, they couldn't make him some bad  *** Jedi ninja in TLJ.  If Lucas made a sequel trilogy in the 90's or 00's, that could have worked, but not in this trilogy.

This is great, no offense, coming from a casual Star Wars enthusiast. But it's also ********. People didn't dislike Jake Skywalker because "Mark didn't like it." They disliked Jake because he was not Luke. He was an imposter that exemplified Rian Johnson taking a beloved, heroic character's name and likeness and gutting him into a parody of himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognize that the casual Star Wars enthusiasts here are still grappling with the issue of thinking they liked a movie that ends up being controversial and widely panned, so there are some real existential questions they have to ask themselves. But I would appreciate that if, in finding their truths, these casual Star Wars enthusiasts don't misrepresent their knowledge of Star Wars story, lore and place in pop culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...