Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (Post-release)

What did you think of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker?


  • Total voters
    415
I don’t mean to come across as aggressive or hurtful, so I hope that is clear. But I also don’t think George Lucas really even understands why the OT is good, so I also don’t give Filoni points for being pals with George.

No worries, man! I appreciate the varying perspectives on what people enjoy (and don't enjoy) in Star Wars.

Your point on Lucas may be accurate - clearly he captured lightning in a bottle with the OT. The lukewarm (pun intended) reaction to the PT could be an indicator that Lucas didn't really understand what made the OT so special.

Sean
 
Spoilers for The Mandalorian season finale below. Skip if you haven't seen yet.
Nah, they’ll ruin that too. They’ve already announced how they’ll bring in a bunch of the “popular” cartoon characters into the next two seasons, so they’ve completely lost me.
The big problem is nobody's confirmed anything. Rosario Dawson has heavily hinted, but "can't confirm" that she's playing Ahsoka. From her other comments it seems likely. I'm not shocked, though. Dave likes to bring characters from previous series back to continue/conclude their arcs in later ones. And Gideon having the Darksaber in the season finale is sort of a gimme that last characters we saw involved with it would likely come into play. Katee Sackhoff also hasn't confirmed who she's playing. Slashfilm "broke" both stories, by which I mean they found out actors had been cast and then jumped to conclusions. How likely those conclusions are is irrelevant. Jon Favreau didn't voice Pre Viszla in The Mandalorian, but someone else. And The Hollywood Reporter found out Tem was cast, and as whom, by "a source". On this everyplace else has quoted them as "fact" that he's back and playing Boba. Until there's an official press release from Lucasfilm, or we see it in the finished episodes, don't bank on anything.

That said, I'd have no problem with Ahsoka, Bo, or Rex showing up in The Mandalorian, depending on context and execution. My biggest gripe with the show so far has been the brevity of the episodes and the... inconsistent... tone. I've had reason to question one or another's directorial choices, so I won't fingerpoint any one "weak link". I'd be happier if they took a page from Sherlock's playbook, cor instance. Which many of us grew up with American TV seasons being 26-ish weekly episode with a break for Christmas, the BBC tends to concentrate their efforts more. I picked that show as one of the most notable examples of this, that many on here have likely seen. A season of three hour-and-a-half "episodes. For something Star Wars, I feel something that cinematic is the bar to shoot for, rather than jolty sit-com pacing. In particular because three episodes a season is -- wait for it -- a trilogy. ;) They could be filmed back-to-back/simultaneously, and then post-production done on each in turn, and their release based on that. Say, a couple months apart. We could have some real anticipation and feeling of event. Like we used to with the OT and PT, or the Olympics, back when they were still every four years.

The other part of what I said above -- how they're used... HMSwolfe, you object to these characters from the aminated series showing up, but the show is called The Mandalorian and it's about Mandalorians (with one focal Mando, sure). His growth and evolution as a character is likely to involve some significant glimpses into Mandalorian society and recent history. No way around it -- in canon, that's Clone Wars and Rebels. Din was recued by Death Watch during the Clone Wars. Paz Vizla is very likely related to the Vizsla family in a not-too-distant way. The Darksaber was in both series -- most relevantly, being put in the hands of Mandalore's new leader right when they decided they were going to push the Imperial occupation out. That's the last thing we saw, from about a decade prior, before what we have here. The last person to hold the Darksaber before Gideon would be relevant to any story of how he got it. The characters who helped put it in her hands would be relevant to getting it back out of Imperial hands.

People complain about the fishbowl effect, but this isn't that. Din is finding himself caught up in high-level stuff. Involving, not insignificantly, his own adoptive people. The people who have been involved with high-level Empire vs. Mandalore stuff before... Well, I'd be surprised if they didn't make an appearance. Only way to avoid that is don't give Gideon the Darksaber. And it's too early yet to know whether that's a fan-service maguffin or actually relevant to the larger story that is to come in further seasons.
I would like to point out that TROS finished filming in February. Endgame released in April. So unless it was a reshoot, which as far as we have been told nothing of Rey and Palpatine was reshot. I don't see how they could have copied Endgame. (Funny thing, "I am Iron Man" was a reshoot)
And Disney owns both production companies.
 
The other part of what I said above -- how they're used... @HMSwolfe, you object to these characters from the aminated series showing up, but the show is called The Mandalorian and it's about Mandalorians (with one focal Mando, sure).
My point is, it in no way is required to reintroduce these other characters in the Mandalorian. It’s essentially the exact same thing that Filoni did with Rebels. Oh, Asohka and Rex are popular? Bring ‘em back! It was not “demanded” by the story. And I will say, execution is part of the battle, for sure. If I see a trailer for season 2 and it seems like the characters are acting like people and not cartoon characters, and that their presence will not upstage the characters I care about, and that their inclusion is well thought out, I’ll walk back my words. But if the trailer has some cringey version of the “Chewie, we’re home” moment from the TFA trailers, but with Asohka instead, I will not be interested. I don’t care about the character. Her continued existence and popularity boggle my mind.
 
Last edited:
I quite liked the Mandalorian. Not infatuated with it but thought it was a good adventure and enjoyed it a lot despite having next to zero interest in it. I think it succeeded because of the aforementioned "does XYZ get what Star Wars is about".
Whether it was assured and well built up or just happened to touch a pulse and will squander it is to be seen. The ST was written (?) as Star Wars sequels whereas the Mandalorian was doing what the original SW did: get situations and archetypes from westerns, samurai stories and adventures and just put those in the blender of the SW world.
I saw a good musing on youtube the other day about POC that I think parallels this well:
So in the original POC movie Jack Sparrow was written as a cool pirate who's a step ahead of everyone. Enter Johnny Depp to give that character his own quirky and odd twist and you have something that works really well. For the sequels however the mentality was "oh, we have to write it Jack Sparrowish then, he needs to say rum, and needs to make the silly faces and needs to do wacky stunts to confuse everyone, and needs to switch sides often, etc". And they didn't realize that this is exactly what becomes restrictive and constraining and pigeonholing. I really dislike every Nightmare on Elm Street sequel precisely for that. Freddy was scary as hell with a dark sick sense of sadistic humour in the first one. The 3rd one amped that up a few notches and then it just became compulsory that Freddy needs one liners and quips and puns for his kills.
 
At least with the Mandalorian there is an interesting story I feel like I can immerse myself in. I find it more interesting that the ST 2nd and 3rd act. As far as bringing in characters established in other media, I am sure there is a large segment of the fandom that are really looking forward to seeing some of these in live action. After waiting so long for a live action SW show, I for one am really liking the Mandalorian As for the other characters, we will have to wait and see, how are the introduced and what role do they play in the story. There was a lot of discontent and very emotional opinion about the ST, I don't think we are seeing a similar reaction to the Madalorian, some may not like it, but not getting the type of divide the movies caused.
 
I quite liked the Mandalorian. Not infatuated with it but thought it was a good adventure and enjoyed it a lot despite having next to zero interest in it. I think it succeeded because of the aforementioned "does XYZ get what Star Wars is about".
Whether it was assured and well built up or just happened to touch a pulse and will squander it is to be seen. The ST was written (?) as Star Wars sequels whereas the Mandalorian was doing what the original SW did: get situations and archetypes from westerns, samurai stories and adventures and just put those in the blender of the SW world.
I saw a good musing on youtube the other day about POC that I think parallels this well:
So in the original POC movie Jack Sparrow was written as a cool pirate who's a step ahead of everyone. Enter Johnny Depp to give that character his own quirky and odd twist and you have something that works really well. For the sequels however the mentality was "oh, we have to write it Jack Sparrowish then, he needs to say rum, and needs to make the silly faces and needs to do wacky stunts to confuse everyone, and needs to switch sides often, etc". And they didn't realize that this is exactly what becomes restrictive and constraining and pigeonholing. I really dislike every Nightmare on Elm Street sequel precisely for that. Freddy was scary as hell with a dark sick sense of sadistic humour in the first one. The 3rd one amped that up a few notches and then it just became compulsory that Freddy needs one liners and quips and puns for his kills.

is this Filmento by any chance? He is a big fan of PotC and writes some great analysis of movies and also touched upon Star Wars.



I do agree that JJ likes to manufacture feels but as a result, they don’t feel earned. I think the Rey’s I am the Jedi counts, especially comparing to Endgame. Iron man’s declaration is against the tyrannical Thanos who spent the previous movie wrecking the heroes and has a god complex, depicting himself again as an unstoppable force. Tony retorts with his hero name and makes the ultimate sacrifice, really showing how much he has changed from the first Ironman film that kicked off the franchise. Also well I feel the hype is over since the Marvelverse was always centered around Ironman and him gone feels like the main Character is gone.
 
I don’t mean to come across as aggressive or hurtful, so I hope that is clear. But I also don’t think George Lucas really even understands why the OT is good, so I also don’t give Filoni points for being pals with George.

I'd have to say arbitrarily righting off something as bad without seeing it, is just wrong.

There's nothing 'wrong' with the characters they seem to be adding at this time. That execution could be great, middling, or bad. We won't for a few months. But to dislike it without seeing it is poor form.
 
I'd have to say arbitrarily righting off something as bad without seeing it, is just wrong.

There's nothing 'wrong' with the characters they seem to be adding at this time. That execution could be great, middling, or bad. We won't for a few months. But to dislike it without seeing it is poor form.
The concept of relying on established characters, whether to draw in potential fans, stoke the flames of nostalgia, or to avoid having to write new material, is generally not great. Like I said, if they manage to execute it stupendously, I’ll take back what I’ve said. But they didn’t even do the stuff I like in season 1 stupendously, and it’s likely that the level of quality and execution will not noticeably improve, because the show was popular and they won’t change something that works. Furthermore, what I have seen is Clone Wars and Rebels. And I do think that there is a lot wrong with the characters they want to shoehorn in. Ultimately, though, what they are telling me is that once again, this show isn’t for me. It’s for the same demographic that they’ve been catering to. Rather than allowing Mandalorian to be separate and distinct, and allow it to draw in its own fans, they want it to be the same as Clone Wars and Rebels.
 
Solo4114

I'm not copying that thing in here :) I'll say on the aspect of 'big bad' that you can't kill off the percieved big bad without having another for the audience to focus on. If you wanna dump him and go on to EP again, fine, but once Kylo kills him and they take out the guards, EP needs to pop in via holo or something to let us know it ain't over yet.

As you put it, you gotta leave a hook for the next part. If they ended the Sequels at 2 after TLJ, i don't think you'd have heard many complaints. There wasn't anything to finish off. Both 2 and 5 left plenty of things to make you want to see the next. 8? Nothing.

And I don't think either respected what came before.
JJ blew off the OT with his choices for 7, even if he did retell ANH.
RJ blew off TFA
JJ in turn blew off TLJ

Once you get into an established part of ignoring what came before, what's the point? I mean, lets go to episode X and have it turn out that what we saw in the ST wasn't luke. It was a dark side spirit @#)(ing with Rey to get her off track and now Luke reappears to set her straight. Oh, and he'll arrive on a Falcon piloted by Han because the new guy doesn't like the hand he was dealt.
 
is this Filmento by any chance? He is a big fan of PotC and writes some great analysis of movies and also touched upon Star Wars.
No, it was Jenny Nicholson, been watching a lot of her vids lately.

I do agree that JJ likes to manufacture feels but as a result, they don’t feel earned. I think the Rey’s I am the Jedi counts, especially comparing to Endgame. Iron man’s declaration is against the tyrannical Thanos who spent the previous movie wrecking the heroes and has a god complex, depicting himself again as an unstoppable force. Tony retorts with his hero name and makes the ultimate sacrifice, really showing how much he has changed from the first Ironman film that kicked off the franchise. Also well I feel the hype is over since the Marvelverse was always centered around Ironman and him gone feels like the main Character is gone.
As you say it's unearned to the point that it's almost nonsensica. I have absolutely zero idea why Palps was suddenly AAAALLL THE SITH other than have something that Rey can respond to. I'm pretty sure the I'm all the Jedi line came first then it was written backwards.
 
No, it was Jenny Nicholson, been watching a lot of her vids lately.


As you say it's unearned to the point that it's almost nonsensica. I have absolutely zero idea why Palps was suddenly AAAALLL THE SITH other than have something that Rey can respond to. I'm pretty sure the I'm all the Jedi line came first then it was written backwards.

Ill check out this Jenny Nicholson. It’s always nice to hear a variety of perspectives when it comes to film. I do recommend filmento if you like film analysis although he seems to focus on film structure to analyze what makes a film good as oppose to the themes of that particular film which may not be your cup of tea.

I don’t know about you guys but I can totally see an episode X, XI, and XII down the line. Disney paid $4B for Star Wars (and Indiana Jones) and they are going to get their money’s worth.
 
Ill check out this Jenny Nicholson. It’s always nice to hear a variety of perspectives when it comes to film. I do recommend filmento if you like film analysis although he seems to focus on film structure to analyze what makes a film good as oppose to the themes of that particular film which may not be your cup of tea.

I don’t know about you guys but I can totally see an episode X, XI, and XII down the line. Disney paid $4B for Star Wars (and Indiana Jones) and they are going to get their money’s worth.

They've already turned a profit. They've got at least 2 trilogies and 2 TV shows in the works (not counting S2 of the Mandalorian). I think they're good in regards to that purchase price argument by a huge margin.

We've gone from 6 movies capturing the rise of the greatest threat ever to ending it. To 2 movies of new threat to 1 movie of 'gotach! the greatest threat lives!'. With the spot they've put themselves in there's not really anywhere to go for a another trilogy - which can't be 10-12 because that'd be a continuation of the existing saga which they said is done. Move away from the existing. Keep Feige's flicks the old old republic, Put RJ far away for the saga timeline.

Now if they want to do TV with Rey building the new order, or the adventures of Finn or Poe or whatever - that could work there. I don't there's remotely enough interest in the ST at this point to warrant funding 3 more.
 
Not that I want them to do 10, 11, and 12 but it's not unreasonable to assume they won't do them at some point down the line. In another decade we will likely see it happen. Or a remake of 4, 5, 6.
 
Or a remake of 4, 5, 6.

NO.gif

THAT'S where I draw the line.
 
Solo4114

I'm not copying that thing in here :) I'll say on the aspect of 'big bad' that you can't kill off the percieved big bad without having another for the audience to focus on. If you wanna dump him and go on to EP again, fine, but once Kylo kills him and they take out the guards, EP needs to pop in via holo or something to let us know it ain't over yet.

As you put it, you gotta leave a hook for the next part. If they ended the Sequels at 2 after TLJ, i don't think you'd have heard many complaints. There wasn't anything to finish off. Both 2 and 5 left plenty of things to make you want to see the next. 8? Nothing.

And I don't think either respected what came before.
JJ blew off the OT with his choices for 7, even if he did retell ANH.
RJ blew off TFA
JJ in turn blew off TLJ

Once you get into an established part of ignoring what came before, what's the point? I mean, lets go to episode X and have it turn out that what we saw in the ST wasn't luke. It was a dark side spirit @#)(ing with Rey to get her off track and now Luke reappears to set her straight. Oh, and he'll arrive on a Falcon piloted by Han because the new guy doesn't like the hand he was dealt.

Yeah, again, I think a lot of this goes back to them not really having any central plan for where they'd be going, and not having a single person in charge who, even if they didn't have a plan, at least agreed....with themselves.

I think Johnson was setting up Ben as the next "big bad" sort of, but also having there being internal divisions within the First Order. Palpatine was never part of that vision.

But this also explains why I thought forcing this into the trilogy format was likely a mistake. At the end of TLJ, all of which LucasFilm approved I should note, the Rebellion is barely an ember. The First Order reigns supreme, but Kylo Ren has been revealed to be...maaaybe not up to the task. That, to me, set the stage for at least two more films. One where the First Order weakens due to internal conflicts leading to Kylo Ren's overthrow while the Rebellion and Rey gather strength, and another where the First Order is finally defeated, Kylo Ren/Ben undergoes some kind of redemption, and Rey and the Rebellion triumph. You could stretch that out into more films, but the bottom line is that there wouldn't necessarily be a single "big bad" emperor-style leader, but rather a group (the First Order) is the big bad and it's led by more than one person. With their "big bad" leader bisected, you'd naturally see a scrum for the top spot, or at least see some group of bad actors emerge to run the show.

In that sense, I don't think you need a single "big bad." That's just more hewing to what came before. Like...why does the First Order need an "emperor-like" figure, a Supreme Leader? Or couldn't the Supreme Leader be only marginally more supreme than the Lords of the Order or the Grand Council or...the Knights of Ren? I think it would've been way more interesting to flesh out the Knights of Ren, have them depose Ben, take over the First Order as a group, and maybe then you have one of them emerge as their new leader or something.
 
Yeah, again, I think a lot of this goes back to them not really having any central plan for where they'd be going, and not having a single person in charge who, even if they didn't have a plan, at least agreed....with themselves.

I think Johnson was setting up Ben as the next "big bad" sort of, but also having there being internal divisions within the First Order. Palpatine was never part of that vision.

But this also explains why I thought forcing this into the trilogy format was likely a mistake. At the end of TLJ, all of which LucasFilm approved I should note, the Rebellion is barely an ember. The First Order reigns supreme, but Kylo Ren has been revealed to be...maaaybe not up to the task. That, to me, set the stage for at least two more films. One where the First Order weakens due to internal conflicts leading to Kylo Ren's overthrow while the Rebellion and Rey gather strength, and another where the First Order is finally defeated, Kylo Ren/Ben undergoes some kind of redemption, and Rey and the Rebellion triumph. You could stretch that out into more films, but the bottom line is that there wouldn't necessarily be a single "big bad" emperor-style leader, but rather a group (the First Order) is the big bad and it's led by more than one person. With their "big bad" leader bisected, you'd naturally see a scrum for the top spot, or at least see some group of bad actors emerge to run the show.

In that sense, I don't think you need a single "big bad." That's just more hewing to what came before. Like...why does the First Order need an "emperor-like" figure, a Supreme Leader? Or couldn't the Supreme Leader be only marginally more supreme than the Lords of the Order or the Grand Council or...the Knights of Ren? I think it would've been way more interesting to flesh out the Knights of Ren, have them depose Ben, take over the First Order as a group, and maybe then you have one of them emerge as their new leader or something.

By big bad i didn't mean it as a single person, but an entity. It needed identified, and it really wasn't.

By limiting themselves to a single trilogy and saying 'this is it', it mean the third ends with the good guys winning otherwise you destroy everything. There's no point to any of the previous movies, especially the OT (which some people believe anyhow), if the whole thing ends on a downer.

The way things were setting up in TLJ, it can work with a slightly different end and having IX end like RoTS - with the bad guys winning. That only works if there's an impending X-XII to resolve that.

I get ending VIII with the bad guys winning ala ESB. But you have to have an ongoing story to tie it up and there was none. That is the problem. You can't have part 2 of 3 tie everything up. It's a fail. There's absolutely nothing in IX that 'had' to be there. Nothing. The story for IX can be compared with what GL said about sequels, "The empire was defeated, it'd just be What do I have Luke do now?". Nothing in 9 had to take place to complete the story. The only thing that had to be done, was LFL fulfilling their dumb pre-ST tag line of 'the end of the skywalker saga'. that's it.

And, arguable, it's not even the end of the skywalker saga. Rey adopted the name Skywalker, so it lives on. She didn't take the name for fun. When doing that, you're saying you're part of the family and you believe they'd agree with you. Everything Anakin and Luke did would live on regardless, but having a tangible 'Skywalker' out there continues that story to some degree. Not mention, Ben rejected the Jedi way - who says he didn't knock someone up? Luke has a missing 30 years. Who says he never had a kid. The doors have not slammed shut completely. I don't think there's a compelling 'saga' out there to use them, but it's not impossible.
 
Back
Top