Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Bryancd
- Start date
Interesting to look back and see how much the build-up and reception has changed since the OT.
It includes what appears to be the appearance of the original “Dark Helmet”:
It includes what appears to be the appearance of the original “Dark Helmet”:
Last edited by a moderator:
The Brahma Bull
Sr Member
I would like to see everybody, except Chewie, die and the Wookie takes over the lead of the rebellion. General Ackbar supermanned himself back to safety from the open space, because every general can do this and he and Chewie beat up the first order. Rose somehow survived till the end, but she has no lines in the script. By the end Chewie and Ackbar realise they need a weapon of pure BS to defeat the first order. So Rose get's bound to a rocket.
Egon Spengler
Master Member
The new trilogy is garbage for one big reason. Each film as I understand it is written as it's made. Am I wrong? There doesn't seem to be one solid story they are following over the 3 films, and they are just making it up as they go. I have very little interest, if any still at all for the next one. I'll admit after seeing TLJ I thought it was pretty good after a second viewing, but over time it has come to leave a bad taste. I just don't feel the next film can do anything to save the mess we've been given, short of bringing Luke back somehow. I enjoyed SOLO far more than TFA and TLJ.
Well I think that one would be awfully hard to explain because when Luke decided to "turn on" the force again you think he would know this through the connection of his feelings to be true. He didn't show one iota of suspicion that he was her Father. And why then would she have been kept from him if that's the case? He wasn't in exile for THAT long.
sztriki
Sr Member
That in itself would not that massive a problem (although I agree it would have been preferable to draw an outline for all 3 movies ahead), the OT was written as it was made. The two main differences are 1. back then it was a new thing, not an established franchise and world, so it was easier to add new elements without those feeling out of place. It's much more solidified now 40 years later. 2. Lucas was still the main man in charge of the story of all three films. I'm not going to put him on a massive pedestal, but at least it was one man's vision that many others helped to keep in check and realize.
As one of the vids on YT explained (hell if I know which one it was) the problem is that the ST feels like the game we used to play in school when there was a basic situation and we had to create a story together by everyone adding a sentence to the previous one on a sheet of paper. And there always were a couple of people who deliberately took everything in their own direction just to have their way instead of helping forwarding and building a coherent story based on the previous sentences.
Greenie
Sr Member
It seems to me that Disney have failed to recognise the difference between a TRILOGY and a three picture deal.
In the MCU, Ironman, Captain America, Thor, GOTG all get three movies and although they are continuous and connected, none are required viewing to understand another.
Disney have taken the same approach for Star Wars and have allowed LFL to create individual movies within a saga. Everything about TLJ plays out like a self contained movie, even down to the awful broom boy, tacked on like a neat little bow. Where was the cliffhanger? Oh yeah, that was in Ep 7. And now I think about it, why not cancel Ep 9 and make Episode 6 1/2 and show us how we got to the inexplicable situation of Ep7. Rey’s origin, Snoke’s origin, Luke’s failure and Kylo’s rise to the dark. That’s where the intrigue lies, not in what happens next but what lead to this point.
In the MCU, Ironman, Captain America, Thor, GOTG all get three movies and although they are continuous and connected, none are required viewing to understand another.
Disney have taken the same approach for Star Wars and have allowed LFL to create individual movies within a saga. Everything about TLJ plays out like a self contained movie, even down to the awful broom boy, tacked on like a neat little bow. Where was the cliffhanger? Oh yeah, that was in Ep 7. And now I think about it, why not cancel Ep 9 and make Episode 6 1/2 and show us how we got to the inexplicable situation of Ep7. Rey’s origin, Snoke’s origin, Luke’s failure and Kylo’s rise to the dark. That’s where the intrigue lies, not in what happens next but what lead to this point.
Mr Webber
Master Member
Was that the original plan LFL had and they changed it? Sounds like they changed it again.
Egon Spengler
Master Member
They're going to need two movies to clean up the mess.
Last edited:
The Brahma Bull
Sr Member
The (needed) remake of Episode 8 included?
OK this is a perspective that is worth considering:
Last edited by a moderator:
sztriki
Sr Member
With all due respect this is the perspective that was brought in defence of TLJ since it came out, "it's not the movie, it's your perception that's flawed, you need to manage your expectations and accept whatever is served and enjoy that there's material". Hardly anything new.
These people IMO don't consider the fact that many who are unhappy with TLJ would be perfectly fine with changes and fresh ideas if those were pulled off and executed properly. Whether or not they were done properly is the main difference of opinion.
Last edited:
Jagjaguwar
Sr Member
Really good video, with a ton of good points. As it happens, I attempted to bring up something along these lines regarding the power of nostalgia, but for the most part people wanted to pretend it didn’t apply to them.
Nowhere in the video did the guy suggest that anyone’s perception was “flawed.” The title of “The Poison of Nostalgia” is a bit silly, but he’s not suggesting that nostalgia is a bad thing. It’s true, it’s not a new idea, but the video lays out the points in a sensible manner. And it’s worth thinking about, especially when people say things like....
The video addresses exactly what you’re saying here, starting at 4:20, ending at 5:18.
In general, since we’re all here in this particular thread, it’s reasonable to assume that as fans, the ideas from the video apply to all of us - in greater or lesser degrees. Whether we admit it or not.
sztriki
Sr Member
He did state though that the negative reactions in general (he brings his prequels-example) come from people not being able to put up with change or feel authorship over what changes are permitted. "The inability to accept change with things we loved for so long creates several problems, not the least of which that it's harmfully exclusionary. There's a perception that there's not only a certain way that things should be done but there is a right way to do something."
The big ugly thing is that brands only have big leeway when they are in the R&D phase. Once they found their footing and established themselves they need to stick to what they are about WHILE evolving. Yes, the two can coexist. Look at Porsche, they created their flagship car in 1963 and been developing that since. Sure they have other models that have been developed and are for other purposes but they do have a foot in the past.
Agreed, that can be restraining. Gibson was one of the pioneers in guitar making. Not only they came up with one of the first and most popular electric guitar models, the Les Paul but they had massive leaps and radical designs in technology, like the Flying V or Explorer or new pickup configurations. However, once the technological advancements were either exhausted or developed by other companies Gibson was stuck with the stuff they developed in the 50s and 60s, because when they tried something new or marry other companies' tech with theirs they weren't successful. The mindset was and still is that if I want a straight out rock/blues guitar I'll get a Gibson. If I want a sporty shredder guitar with all the nice gadgets like active pickups and floating trem and whatnot I'll go and get a Jackson.
So yes, change and constant evolution is paramount, agreed. But to quote the guy again "not every idea is going to be a success". So here's my question, who is to decide if certain ideas are successes? Box office? Or history? If Star Wars suddenly gone David Lynch would that be a welcome change that we would just suspend out expectations and accept, because that's how the series had to change? If the next line of Ford Mustang turns out to be an SUV would that be in the name of evolution of a brand?
And my last and probably most important question: what kind of change did the Last Jedi bring to the Star Wars saga that helped it evolve?
I think we're talking about two different things. Let me give an example:
I think the video means "people need to accept that Luke is not a superhero but a bitter old man who made a terrible mistake and is disillusioned"
What I mean is "I'm okay with the idea of Luke wanting to reject the hero persona and is a bitter old man. I consider it a failure thought that the tone of his character was totally imbalanced and veered from dark and moody to goofy and trolling in a few seconds and ultimately hardly had any interaction or effect on the new characters".
cboath
Master Member
I think you maybe confuse nostalgia with what came before.
You don't just alter the fundamental nature of a character 'just cause'. Not even with a 30 second explanation. Just from a pure literary standpoint, it's something drives me nuts when i see in other shows or movies as well. You don't have a character screw up something they've conquered previously as a contrived plot point.
I can buy luke ostracizing himself.
I can buy luke rejecting the force
Things that can be argued that were necessary for TLJ.
I flatly reject that luke was going to literally stab his nephew in the back while he slept. It's not letting the dark side win, it's #$%ing cowardly beyond belief.
It's an established character. Those are things that are totally against the character and there's no real explanation of why he's resorting to something so drastic. They could maybe have pulled it off if they were doing an Arrow style flashback showing the training, etc throw all 3 flicks, but it doesn't work without a massive build up.
Luke was not ever really above being pouty. In the aftermath of ROTJ the new republic could have rejected jedi and wanted nothing to do with him so he could have packed up shop and gone off. I'm not saying it's gold, but better than what they went with..
I mean, i can put it in a personal setting. A number of us have kids and/or nieces and nephews. There's not a situation I can conceive of where i'd stab my nephew in the back. Period. Let alone over a 'maybe'. I can think of a number of things that would make me have serious conversations about him with my sister, but that's about it. I CAN concieve of a situation where i'd do what i could to kill someone in the vain of the emperor or vader..
If you can't conceive of killing a family member over it, how could anyone else?
Again, the flaw is in the writing/execution. If you want to correlate this situation to his facing vader/emperor, fine. They both killed billions of people. Literally. In the end, luke rejected the idea of killing them. Yet, we're supposed to believe he's willing to kill a close family member who's done nothing wrong to this point. He's just had a vision that he might. As we've been told, visions are not reliable. Nostalgia and feeling aside, it doesn't add up. You didn't do something in the past when there were many more reasons to do so, but you are willing to do it 20 years later on a maybe??
You don't just alter the fundamental nature of a character 'just cause'. Not even with a 30 second explanation. Just from a pure literary standpoint, it's something drives me nuts when i see in other shows or movies as well. You don't have a character screw up something they've conquered previously as a contrived plot point.
I can buy luke ostracizing himself.
I can buy luke rejecting the force
Things that can be argued that were necessary for TLJ.
I flatly reject that luke was going to literally stab his nephew in the back while he slept. It's not letting the dark side win, it's #$%ing cowardly beyond belief.
It's an established character. Those are things that are totally against the character and there's no real explanation of why he's resorting to something so drastic. They could maybe have pulled it off if they were doing an Arrow style flashback showing the training, etc throw all 3 flicks, but it doesn't work without a massive build up.
Luke was not ever really above being pouty. In the aftermath of ROTJ the new republic could have rejected jedi and wanted nothing to do with him so he could have packed up shop and gone off. I'm not saying it's gold, but better than what they went with..
I mean, i can put it in a personal setting. A number of us have kids and/or nieces and nephews. There's not a situation I can conceive of where i'd stab my nephew in the back. Period. Let alone over a 'maybe'. I can think of a number of things that would make me have serious conversations about him with my sister, but that's about it. I CAN concieve of a situation where i'd do what i could to kill someone in the vain of the emperor or vader..
If you can't conceive of killing a family member over it, how could anyone else?
Again, the flaw is in the writing/execution. If you want to correlate this situation to his facing vader/emperor, fine. They both killed billions of people. Literally. In the end, luke rejected the idea of killing them. Yet, we're supposed to believe he's willing to kill a close family member who's done nothing wrong to this point. He's just had a vision that he might. As we've been told, visions are not reliable. Nostalgia and feeling aside, it doesn't add up. You didn't do something in the past when there were many more reasons to do so, but you are willing to do it 20 years later on a maybe??
Similar threads
