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

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


  • Total voters
    415
She's just wearing a more flattering costume. But this brings up a good point.

These movies were completely devoid of sexual tension and love. Can you think of a favorite movie of yours that doesn't include those concepts? Probably not. And why? Because love is among the most basic and understood human emotions, making it universally relatable.

Instead, we got a trilogy of movies where every character was dry (in every way) and unrelatable.

Even in his less-inspired years, Lucas understood the need for it.

download.jpg
 
Clearly someone has forgotten the Han Swolo memes...

I mean, there was sort of tension between Ben and Rey. I think it wasn't effectively developed, but that's a different discussion. It wasn't wholly absent. And to be fair the "romance" between Padme and Anakin was a central point in the plot: Anakin forms more emotional attachments with which he cannot effectively contend when they're threatened. Plus, it's another point of conflict between Anakin and the Jedi. But the actual portrayal of their romance? Pretty passionless. I mean, the actors do the best they can, but I don't think they had great on-screen chemistry, and I don't think Lucas knows how to write romance.

All that said, putting Kelly in a tighter-fitting shirt and sticking her on posters dressed like that seems more like a marketing move than anything else. Kinda like emphasizing Black Widow's sexiness on the original Avengers posters, even though romance plays almost no part in those films.
 
I agree with most of what you said, except:
Kinda like emphasizing Black Widow's sexiness on the original Avengers posters, even though romance plays almost no part in those films.
That's kinda been her thing since the beginning. It's even in her nom du voyage. She's the femme fatale -- the Pussy Galore or Honey Rider or Xenia Onnatop -- who is also the super-spy. She and the other Red Room initiates were picked because they were female, and men have historically demonstrated they get kinda stupid where women are concerned. Her sexiness is weaponized as one of her tools.
 
I agree with most of what you said, except:

That's kinda been her thing since the beginning. It's even in her nom du voyage. She's the femme fatale -- the Pussy Galore or Honey Rider or Xenia Onnatop -- who is also the super-spy. She and the other Red Room initiates were picked because they were female, and men have historically demonstrated they get kinda stupid where women are concerned. Her sexiness is weaponized as one of her tools.

Right....except that I'm talking not so much about the character overall, but rather the poster itself. The poster emphasized her sexiness while standing next to a bunch of guys where their combat prowess is on display.

Here's the original poster:

avengerspromoart1.jpg


This may seem pretty innocuous, given how most posters are designed. But consider the following gender-swapped poster by way of comparison:

avengers_booty_ass_emble_by_kevinbolk-d4hb4xl.jpg


And while sexiness may be part of her weaponry, it's not really relevant when you're battling hordes of aliens in the middle of New York, ya know? Plus, aside from the occasional scene where she used her "feminine wiles" to influence someone (which I think only happens in, like, 2-3 scenes for real?), romance plays no role in the films, really. Or at least, hardly any role. The only stupid men she's influencing here are the ones buying tickets because of Scarlett Johanssen's toned posterior and ample bosom on the poster. ;)


Basically, they picked key art that would emphasize certain features to draw in a certain crowd. As with Scarlett, so with Kelly Marie.
 
Right....except that I'm talking not so much about the character overall, but rather the poster itself. The poster emphasized her sexiness while standing next to a bunch of guys where their combat prowess is on display.

Here's the original poster:

View attachment 1311181

This may seem pretty innocuous, given how most posters are designed. But consider the following gender-swapped poster by way of comparison:

View attachment 1311182

And while sexiness may be part of her weaponry, it's not really relevant when you're battling hordes of aliens in the middle of New York, ya know? Plus, aside from the occasional scene where she used her "feminine wiles" to influence someone (which I think only happens in, like, 2-3 scenes for real?), romance plays no role in the films, really. Or at least, hardly any role. The only stupid men she's influencing here are the ones buying tickets because of Scarlett Johanssen's toned posterior and ample bosom on the poster. ;)


Basically, they picked key art that would emphasize certain features to draw in a certain crowd. As with Scarlett, so with Kelly Marie.
I love that gender swap, almost spit my coffee out! :lol:
 
Oh, good lord. I'd forgotten the movie poster. I've lost track of how many times someone's gotten honked off for being heavily airbrushed on the poster for their movie. And with reason. Forgot Avengers was one of the offenders.

And you're right that her weaponized sexiness is irrelevant against invading aliens. I love that she was out there with Steve and Bruce and Tony and Thor and nowhere near their power/toughness level, but still refusing to back down, even as she was running ragged and low on ammo. Her skills are deadly on more subtle battlefields and closer in. Even Clint had range and his arsenal of multifunction arrows. Natasha was utterly out of her depth but knew they needed to fight.
 
Yet all they gave her were two lousy pistols. You'd think she'd have a full on machine gun for most battles. Especially the one in Avengers.
You're wrong, Psab. They also gave her those wrist darts. Very powerful against monster aliens.
 
Oh right. I forgot about those. You know because small pistols with limited range ammo and power are a great alternative to superpowers or some sort of heavy artillery or vehicle in a fight.
 
I don’t know what you guys are talking about. It’s obvious that the sex symbol of the avengers is Hawkeye. Why else do they need an archer in the 21st century.


But in all seriousness, RJ definately gets hate for TLJ for 3 reasons.

1) not making a good middle movie.
yes TLJ can be a decent movie, lore issues aside. However, I think it’s very easy to admit that it is a terrible middle movie. TLJ was honestly more of a conclusion movie. closing all story threads and not making new ones really hurt hype.

2) Luke’s injustice.
Going from wide-eyed positive believe in my dad has good in him even though he is Darth Vader to my nephew has darkness he must die is a big leap. Luke needed to be written differently or have a compelling backstory that would make his previous undying faith in family turn to trying to kill Ben make sense.

3) attacking the fans/audience.
this is not RJ exclusive but there are so many directors/producers now that seem entitled to success. If you don’t like the product I put out, something is wrong with you and you are an ‘ist. RJ is surprisingly more tame than modern producers who released worse products but no one likes being called a racist or sexist for not universally loving a certain product. This is what soured me to RJ personally.
 
I don’t know what you guys are talking about. It’s obvious that the sex symbol of the avengers is Hawkeye. Why else do they need an archer in the 21st century.


But in all seriousness, RJ definately gets hate for TLJ for 3 reasons.

1) not making a good middle movie.
yes TLJ can be a decent movie, lore issues aside. However, I think it’s very easy to admit that it is a terrible middle movie. TLJ was honestly more of a conclusion movie. closing all story threads and not making new ones really hurt hype.

We've talked about this some before, but I think it's a....hmm....middling middle film. The problem with a middle chapter is that it depends entirely on what comes before and what comes after. I think that had RJ done the entire series, TLJ would've been indisputably amazing. But following on the heels of JJ's TFA and then being follwed by ROS, the entire thing ends up diminished because the parts just don't work together. I mean, they work....enough....but tonally they're so wildly different that it ends up being really jarring.

2) Luke’s injustice.
Going from wide-eyed positive believe in my dad has good in him even though he is Darth Vader to my nephew has darkness he must die is a big leap. Luke needed to be written differently or have a compelling backstory that would make his previous undying faith in family turn to trying to kill Ben make sense.

I mean, that happens to plenty of people who are naive and wildly idealistic in their youth to cynical and embittered in middle age and later life. That's....kinda just life, ya know? I'd also argue that JJ set up a lot of this, albeit perhaps inadvertently.

Like, ask yourself for a second "Why was Luke all alone on that planet for so many years, in spite of all the stuff going on in the galaxy?" What would the reasons be? Why would Luke abandon the Republic and his friends and the Jedi?

Simply putting Luke on the planet alone already introduces the whole "Luke is tarnished" aspect of the films. The Luke hero of the OT wouldn't have gone in the first place. The guy that many people were expecting to see would have stuck around, would have fought to save Ben, would have tried to redeem him earlier, etc., etc., etc. Instead, TFA opens with "LUKE SKYWALKER IS MISSING!!"

Now, my guess is that JJ didn't really have a clear idea why Luke was missing, or at least his ideas were sort of hazy and not all that defined. I suspect JJ removed Luke from the picture for mechanical reasons, namely "There's no way to include this incredibly powerful Jedi master in the entire story, and also have the new generation be effective heroes. So, we have to sideline him. Ok, send him off to a random planet for the first film, and have Rey find him at the end and...uh....we'll.....figure it out later. Now, say the lines faster! More intense!"

But when you start unpacking what possible things would have made Luke leave AND stay gone at this time of need, the list of reasons starts getting pretty short. Having such an utter personal failure as his moment of contemplating killing Ben? AND the associated devastation that follows in the wake of it? (Snoke gets a new dark side recruit, Han and Leia split up, the Jedi are destroyed again, all because Luke had this moment of weakness.) All of that would make good sense as to why he'd hide away: he's deeply ashamed and believes that he himself is more of a problem than a hero. All of that makes perfect sense internally. All of it explains why Luke is gone in TFA.

It would arguably make even less sense to have Luke be off meditating while the galaxy is on fire, and refusing to come back, only to have Rey show up and for him to say "Ah. Once again, I must return to the fray. Come with me, my young Padawan, and I shall teach you to kick Sith ass all the way back to Korriban." That might be satisfying for fans of Luke, simply because it's fun to watch him kick ass and teach an apprentice, but it wouldn't jive narratively. It's EXACTLY the kind of thing that JJ would have done if he'd been in charge of the 2nd film, though, because it's all about what feels nice in the moment if you don't really interrogate it any further, but -- again, just like JJ's films -- if you stop and think about it for, like, 3 seconds you start saying "Heeeeeeyyyyy.....what the hell?!"

So, long story short, blame JJ for the setup of removing Luke from the film, without bothering to think of why Luke would be gone in the first place.

3) attacking the fans/audience.
this is not RJ exclusive but there are so many directors/producers now that seem entitled to success. If you don’t like the product I put out, something is wrong with you and you are an ‘ist. RJ is surprisingly more tame than modern producers who released worse products but no one likes being called a racist or sexist for not universally loving a certain product. This is what soured me to RJ personally.

I think a lot of this got overblown, and in many cases by the people who really did like the film. You can not like his film and not be sexist, but a LOT of the dudes who were really vocal online were absolutely sexist, and many said some seriously sexist and racist things towards Kelly Marie Tran. So, those people get a harsh response, and then fans of the film jump on and shout them down, and THEN someone else comes along and says "I didn't like it because it didn't jive with my idea of who Luke is" and the fans jump on THEM as well. But that's just internet fandom and the dumpster fire that is Twitter. :)

But there absolutely was sexism and racism involved in a bunch of the criticism of TLJ. That wasn't the entirety of it, but it was there.
 
We've talked about this some before, but I think it's a....hmm....middling middle film. The problem with a middle chapter is that it depends entirely on what comes before and what comes after. I think that had RJ done the entire series, TLJ would've been indisputably amazing. But following on the heels of JJ's TFA and then being follwed by ROS, the entire thing ends up diminished because the parts just don't work together. I mean, they work....enough....but tonally they're so wildly different that it ends up being really jarring.



I mean, that happens to plenty of people who are naive and wildly idealistic in their youth to cynical and embittered in middle age and later life. That's....kinda just life, ya know? I'd also argue that JJ set up a lot of this, albeit perhaps inadvertently.

Like, ask yourself for a second "Why was Luke all alone on that planet for so many years, in spite of all the stuff going on in the galaxy?" What would the reasons be? Why would Luke abandon the Republic and his friends and the Jedi?

Simply putting Luke on the planet alone already introduces the whole "Luke is tarnished" aspect of the films. The Luke hero of the OT wouldn't have gone in the first place. The guy that many people were expecting to see would have stuck around, would have fought to save Ben, would have tried to redeem him earlier, etc., etc., etc. Instead, TFA opens with "LUKE SKYWALKER IS MISSING!!"

Now, my guess is that JJ didn't really have a clear idea why Luke was missing, or at least his ideas were sort of hazy and not all that defined. I suspect JJ removed Luke from the picture for mechanical reasons, namely "There's no way to include this incredibly powerful Jedi master in the entire story, and also have the new generation be effective heroes. So, we have to sideline him. Ok, send him off to a random planet for the first film, and have Rey find him at the end and...uh....we'll.....figure it out later. Now, say the lines faster! More intense!"

But when you start unpacking what possible things would have made Luke leave AND stay gone at this time of need, the list of reasons starts getting pretty short. Having such an utter personal failure as his moment of contemplating killing Ben? AND the associated devastation that follows in the wake of it? (Snoke gets a new dark side recruit, Han and Leia split up, the Jedi are destroyed again, all because Luke had this moment of weakness.) All of that would make good sense as to why he'd hide away: he's deeply ashamed and believes that he himself is more of a problem than a hero. All of that makes perfect sense internally. All of it explains why Luke is gone in TFA.

It would arguably make even less sense to have Luke be off meditating while the galaxy is on fire, and refusing to come back, only to have Rey show up and for him to say "Ah. Once again, I must return to the fray. Come with me, my young Padawan, and I shall teach you to kick Sith ass all the way back to Korriban." That might be satisfying for fans of Luke, simply because it's fun to watch him kick ass and teach an apprentice, but it wouldn't jive narratively. It's EXACTLY the kind of thing that JJ would have done if he'd been in charge of the 2nd film, though, because it's all about what feels nice in the moment if you don't really interrogate it any further, but -- again, just like JJ's films -- if you stop and think about it for, like, 3 seconds you start saying "Heeeeeeyyyyy.....what the hell?!"

So, long story short, blame JJ for the setup of removing Luke from the film, without bothering to think of why Luke would be gone in the first place.



I think a lot of this got overblown, and in many cases by the people who really did like the film. You can not like his film and not be sexist, but a LOT of the dudes who were really vocal online were absolutely sexist, and many said some seriously sexist and racist things towards Kelly Marie Tran. So, those people get a harsh response, and then fans of the film jump on and shout them down, and THEN someone else comes along and says "I didn't like it because it didn't jive with my idea of who Luke is" and the fans jump on THEM as well. But that's just internet fandom and the dumpster fire that is Twitter. :)

But there absolutely was sexism and racism involved in a bunch of the criticism of TLJ. That wasn't the entirety of it, but it was there.

yeah these points have been discussed to death so don’t want to reiterate treaded ground.

I agree that tone and overall narrative sucked in the ST. If JJ did the entire trilogy or RJ did the entire trilogy, it would have gone over better because the tone would be consistent. I don’t blame RJ for this though, this is on Kennedy who didn’t reign in the director as supervisor. That’s why she gets paid the big bucks.

Regarding Luke leaving 2 points.

1) Luke leaving doesn’t necessarily mean failure. He could have been searching for secret Jedi secrets and saw the ongoing war as handled or not a big deal. He maybe sensed a greater threat and chose to snuff it out since it would be even greater than the First Order (like the return of Palpatine).

2) I do agree beaten and depressed Luke would have worked and age does take away naivety. I don’t disagree with RJ’s vision that Luke could end up like he did. However, in the movie it felt unexplained. Luke, who saw the light in Vader, fails to see the light in nephew Ben and preemptively strikes him is a big leap. There should have been some event in between those that would make Luke more jaded and wary. Those scenes were missing.

honestly the Luke/Rey scenes were pretty great overall in TLJ and just focusing on those 2 would have been preferable to the movie we got with Holdo being a bad commander and inventing a maneuver that ruins space battle imo (droids and autonomous planes are a thing. An armada of droid ships with missiles and warp drives would be unstoppable).

I personally don’t twitter because I know it’s the butthole of the internet but I did hear about the hate on Tran which does suck. I didn’t like her character but attacking the actress was wrong.

I did see RJ try to “prove the critics wrong” by showing a book on Star Wars lore regarding Luke’s force doppelgänger technique (which was confusing personally since I thought Disney de canonized that). As mentioned, compared to directors like Elizabeth Banks who basically called all men sexist because they didn’t go watch her version of Charlie’s Angels, RJ is a treat. But his and Disney’s response wasn’t great and it did leave a negative impression.

personally I learned more about RJ after watching TLJ and hating it so RJ’s response didn’t influence my opinion on the movie but it didn’t exactly cast him in a favorable light for me.
 
Like, ask yourself for a second "Why was Luke all alone on that planet for so many years, in spite of all the stuff going on in the galaxy?" What would the reasons be? Why would Luke abandon the Republic and his friends and the Jedi?
Just to keep flogging this particular deceased equine, Luke had been on that planet for less than five years, maybe only as little as a year or two. Only five years prior to TFA, Ben was still Ben, Leia was still a senator, she and Han were still together, the First Order was still preparing itself for the big reveal.

My big grump is we needed to see that shift from "everything's cool" to being in the middle of the ****.
 
Just poked my head in to see how things are going, still have seen Rise of Skywalker yet, maybe I will when it comes to TBS or TNT! LOL Not bashing on the movie either, I can't do that since I have not seen it yet but I never could muster up the enthusiasm to go out and see it :)
 
Episode 7 should really have been episode 23 as all of the implied past really could have fleshed everything out and have had it make sense.

would have also solved the issue of having to get rid of Luke, Leia, and Han. Had the ST been set a 100 years later with Luke, Leia, and Han dead from old age, it would have preserved their legacy while allowing the new cast of Rey and Finn to grow. Disney was probably scared that fans would not go watch if there were no OT characters though.
 
Back
Top