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

[Spyhunter2k]

Well guys I've thought about and discussed the ST about all I'd like, so I'm out. I will revisit the ST when Rinzler releases his definitive book "The Making of the Dumpster Fire that Was Disney Wars" (in 20 years when Disney finally lets him). 'Til then, I'll probably only get pulled back in if/when JJ feels he is able to open up about the bts happenings at Disney after TLJ, and his real thoughts on TLJ and the effect it had on the final film. I suspect that will be a good read.

 

[Joek3rr]

The irony in all of this is the more risk averse Lucasfilm (or any studio for that matter) tries to be the more often they ruin the tent poles that made them successful in the first place.

They had a clean slate when they bought the company and considering that they threw out most of George's concepts for the scripts, save for a few elements, they could have started from scratch. It's not like it was mandatory for them to use the old cast or to have it directly tied to previous movies when you consider that they weren't obligated to use any of Lucas's ideas even though it was part of the agreement with the sale. Look at Star Trek. Each series of the TV show had its own cast, its own story lines, its own time period in which it took place, and very little in the way of crossover other than existing in the same shared universe.

What this tells us is that Lucasfilm willingly limited themselves creatively because it was easier to piggyback off the brand recognition of known characters than to venture out into the unknown with more talented writers and directors. Then they got themselves into the position you're describing where they were bound by the restrictions of balancing the old with the new.

All of this discussion is as Red Letter Media said in their prequel reviews is like a post mordem where we discuss it after the body has been discovered, only to try and figure out where things went wrong rather than the ENT crew trying to save it. At least that's my position on it.

Much of my frustration stems from the risk averse attitudes of Hollywood regarding these tent poles. I've often said that the best content recently has mostly come from streaming services who are willing to experiment by trusting capable new writers who are delivering new perspectives on old themes.

I mean George had met with Harrison, Carrie and Mark, and got them all to agree to reprise their roles, long before he even sold Lucasfilm. He even made sure to tell Harrison they were going to kill off Han. It's not like they were going to let that go.

 

[Psab keel]

That's true. I still think it would have been a smarter move to just move on with other characters instead.

 

[The Brahma Bull]

That's true. I still think it would have been a smarter move to just move on with other characters instead.

Or another enemy/threat and not the same thing again, which destroys the OT.

The ST is written and done poorly. Maybe a better studio with better writers, directors etc. could've done something good. It says a lot when even your lead cast is distancing themselves from the ST.

 

[Joek3rr]

Or another enemy/threat and not the same thing again, which destroys the OT.

The ST is written and done poorly. Maybe a better studio with better writers, directors etc. could've done something good. It says a lot when even your lead cast is distancing themselves from the ST.

WARNING SARCASM INBOUND


Because bringing back an old enemy in fantasy is a bad idea....

 

[Psab keel]

Palpatine's return was very poorly executed. You keep bringing up Sauron as a comparison but the reason why it works in LOTR is because Tolkien uses the plot device of the One ring containing all Sauron's power to explain why he is able to return and since the ring survived, so did he, even if it was in a limited capacity. Once the ring is destroyed Sauron is defeated for good. Palpatine had no such plot device.

The only reason Palpatine was brought back was to make up for Snoke getting killed in TLJ. I'm not sure why this comparison keeps getting repeated even though it's been shot down again and again.

 

[Paul Andrew]

The in universe logic for Palp's return is just as valid, the problem is the presentation. We're not given any of the build up, any hints, any clues that it's coming within the movies. In fact, from what I understand most of the justification comes from supplemental material that audiences may or may not see. Weirdly, in the old EU canon Palps survived several rebirths in books and comics. The idea is sound, but in a movie so full of it's own maguffin chasing they just don't devote any time to explaining his return and thus the execution fails. A one minute sequence showing his spirit surviving the DS2 could have given plenty of context and build up to sell it.

 

[sztriki]

I think the main point is that Sauron is a very clear threat from the beginning of LOTR and the backstory is...well a backstory. It's not like a set of books were written with Isildur defeating him and ending on a happy note then 20 years later enter the LOTR trilogy to say oh actually Isildur failed 5 mins after his triumph cuz he couldn't destroy the ring and by the way the ring has Sauron's spirit!
And yea dragging Darth Maul back was reeeeeally stupid. Especially considering that his character was summed up as "he looks like the devil and has a lightsaber staff". Intriguing and multilayered one...

 

[cboath]

Palpatine's return was very poorly executed. You keep bringing up Sauron as a comparison but the reason why it works in LOTR is because Tolkien uses the plot device of the One ring containing all Sauron's power to explain why he is able to return and since the ring survived, so did he, even if it was in a limited capacity. Once the ring is destroyed Sauron is defeated for good. Palpatine had no such plot device.

The only reason Palpatine was brought back was to make up for Snoke getting killed in TLJ. I'm not sure why this comparison keeps getting repeated even though it's been shot down again and again.

Not to mention that there weren't 3 books detailing Sauron's defeat before he wrong LOTR.

 

[Joek3rr]

Palpatine's return was very poorly executed. You keep bringing up Sauron as a comparison but the reason why it works in LOTR is because Tolkien uses the plot device of the One ring containing all Sauron's power to explain why he is able to return and since the ring survived, so did he, even if it was in a limited capacity. Once the ring is destroyed Sauron is defeated for good. Palpatine had no such plot device.

The only reason Palpatine was brought back was to make up for Snoke getting killed in TLJ. I'm not sure why this comparison keeps getting repeated even though it's been shot down again and again.

But Star Wars is similar. The very first movie(s) set up the fact the Force users continue to exist beyond death. 3 of the 4 Force users that die make an appearance before the trilogy is over. The only one that doesn't appear is Palpatine.

There's a precedent in both Star Wars and fantasy in general.

 

[Psab keel]

Again that's a false equivalency. Palpatine doesn't appear as an apparition but as a corporeal being.

 

[sztriki]

There's a precedent in both Star Wars and fantasy in general.

Sure is. I don't think it's the concept most people object to it's that in the course of the trilogy it wasn't even remotely in the cards and it's presented as a last minute hamfisted move. Although I personally would still think it'd have been better to have a new and original villain character instead of an Emperor copy. I disliked the concept in Dark Empire too (also that comic was butt ugly).
I'm literally scanning the recesses of my brain to come up with a suitable parallel to how Palp's return was handled and failing...XD

UPDATE: I got it, it feels like an Agatha Christe novel. There's a murder, then a whodunit storyline where every character is a suspect and on the last 3 pages there's a new character introduced and turns out they killed the guy.

 

[Psab keel]

In the LOTR example it was handled in a believable manner, which is part of what makes it so damn good. An object so infused with evil that it even corrupts the person who owns it, as well as the means to resurrect the dead Lord to whom it belongs? Freaking awesome! What an incredible plot device to drive a story.

Palpy was killed off in ROTJ in a way where there was no reason to question whether he survived. He was dead. Plain and simple. It's been like 20 years since I even thought about Dark Empire but to my vague recollection it was a younger clone of Palpy that came to fight Luke and company. Like I've said though, I was never very big on that series either. Mostly because it undercut the victory at the end of Jedi.

This movie though? There was no clear explanation in the movie for how he survived so to have him shoe horned into the last movie just to have a big bad to fight off is ridiculous when if you were to watch the films chronologically Palpy would just show up out of left field. And using a novel, comic, video game, cartoon, toy, trading card, cereal box, etc to fill in vital information because it's missing in your script is direct evidence that there is a FLAW in said script.

Purposefully omitting key information to create mystery is not the sign of a talented director, but the fingerprints of a master manipulator who tricks audiences by giving them the impression that what they witnessed was somehow better than it actually was. JJ, as Solo4114 has so eloquently stated through the years, is a master of this technique. If you loved it that's perfectly fine, but a more honest response would be to acknowledge that you could see the issues with the story, even if you ultimately liked it. Being a writer I can't overlook glaring issues that take me right out of the story. Especially when it's one I'm so attached to. Other people are willing to overlook things like that. I'm not. At least not with these characters.

 

[ghostryder]

Purposefully omitting key information to create mystery is not the sign of a talented director, but the fingerprints of a master manipulator who tricks audiences by giving them the impression that what they witnessed was somehow better than it actually was. JJ, as Solo4114 has so eloquently stated through the years, is a master of this technique. If you loved it that's perfectly fine, but a more honest response would be to acknowledge that you could see the issues with the story, even if you ultimately liked it. Being a writer I can't overlook glaring issues that take me right out of the story. Especially when it's one I'm so attached to. Other people are willing to overlook things like that. I'm not. At least not with these characters.

 

[BTTUK]

Pedantic hat on*
Sauron wouldn't be resurrected by the ring, as he had already physically returned by that time. It would've restored him to his peak strength.

Pedantic hat off*

 

[Psab keel]

Sauron also wouldn't have survived in any capacity had the ring been destroyed by Isildur. Which is why it works in context to that story because his existence is tied to the ring. The second the ring is gone Sauron is toast. That's where the story ends. It would be a different matter entirely, and therefore an equal comparison, if Sauron showed up again 30 years later and Aragon's protégé had to fight him off and kill him for good. But that didn't happen because Tolkien is actually a talented writer and Chris Terrio and JJ Abrams are simply not.

This is why I'm always referring to a stories internal logic. Violate the logic set forth in that story and you risk your audience being able to suspend their disbelief enough to buy into the premise of said story.

Palpatine had no such talisman ( or other plot device) to explain his survival. Having a villain return from the dead in a sci-fi or fantasy story does have precedence, even in Star Wars, but in this case it simply doesn't work. Just because on the surface it might feel right to have Palpatine be the one pulling the strings because it happened in the previous six films, doesn't automatically mean it makes any sense whatsoever in the chronological events unless there is a good reason for it to happen, and as we know no such answer was provided in the film.

No one is wrong for liking the creative choice, but it's not an honest response to say that it makes sense within the context of the film. Even most of the people here who enjoyed the movie have admitted to that. It's proof that there are objectifiable standards by which we critique art, otherwise every movie would be good and we all know that's simply not true. There are some real duds out there and concocting elaborate explanations to justify your love of a story choice is not the same thing as it actually being good, based on simple premises of logic that had been established in previous chapters of the story.

Otherwise we are debating feelings and the conversation devolves into saying asinine statements like,

"All art is subjective." It may be a true statement but it basically shuts down discussion because it's merely stating the obvious.

 

[Paul Andrew]

Sauron also wouldn't have survived in any capacity had the ring been destroyed by Isildur. Which is why it works in context to that story because his existence is tied to the ring. The second the ring is gone Sauron is toast. That's where the story ends. It would be a different matter entirely, and therefore an equal comparison, if Sauron showed up again 30 years later and Aragon's protégé had to fight him off and kill him for good.

As I recall (it's been a couple decades), the destruction of the ring did not equal the instant destruction of Sauron, but caused his spirit to wither and dwindle to the point of being incapable of further harm.
Ironically, there was a proposed sequel to LotR, in which a new darkness rose. Tolkien abandoned the project.

 

[sztriki]

 

[Psab keel]

As I recall (it's been a couple decades), the destruction of the ring did not equal the instant destruction of Sauron, but caused his spirit to wither and dwindle to the point of being incapable of further harm.
Ironically, there was a proposed sequel to LotR, in which a new darkness rose. Tolkien abandoned the project.

Though even in that case it still rendered Sauron as a non viable threat. So the point still stands. Even Tolkien thought better of the concept of bringing in another villain to continue the story, likely because it would undermine the struggles of his characters, so it only further proves my point.

At the least Snoke had the potential to be something different.

 

[CT1138]

ROS is a lesson taught: it's what happens when the backlash against something interesting and risky (TLJ) is so great that the studio has no choice but to return to the safe and familiar in an attempt to win back favor. Snoke will always be a missed opportunity, but I think keeping Kylo Ren as the apprentice and not the new ultimate Big Bad was an even worse decision on Lucasfilm's part. They tried something new and unexpected in TLJ, and it failed, so they returned to the safety of the familiar.