Star Wars is not science fiction.

And that last bit is just a ridiculously absurd statement.

J. K. Rowling, J. R. R. Tolkien, and George R. R. Martin (and all of their periods) disagree with this.

Exactly. It is the foundation of fantasy and sci-fi/fantasy like Star Wars. Darth Vaders back story shaped the entire OT.

I haven’t been keeping up with this thread, but I wanted to pop in and link to Film Crit Hilk’s latest Article on Star Wars, which is thought provoking even if you don’t agree with it. It’s a lengthy read (which is why I’m not copy and pasting it here) but I think Film Crit Hulk hits on a lot of great points about exactly why The Last Jedi was so divisive, and challenges some of the basic assumptions we make when watching movies: http://observer.com/2018/07/film-cri...-of-star-wars/

Jesus fucking christ... that guy rambles more than Harry Knowles. Skimmed over it, and I see nothing but the same weak arguments in favor of the movie that people have making since it came out. And a lot sucking on Rian Johnson's dick.

I've never seen people go to such lengths to justify a shitty movie.

At the end of the say, The Last Jedi is pretty much the LAUREL/YANNY debate. People obviously get different things out of the movie, and see things in that others can't.

(It's "yanny" and The Last Jedi is crap. )

And the same thing with Captain Phasma, Admiral Akbar, the Knights of Ren, and the other characters who got short-changed in TLJ?

Episode IX--The torrid intersecting love triangles between Rey, Kylo Ren, Rose Tico, Finn, Poe Dameron, and BB-8.

It’s a shame you didn’t read it, because then we could have actually discussed it, but I guess you’d rather just bitch and moan about the same things you’ve been bitching and moaning about for months.

And I wholeheartedly disagree that TLJ is a shitty movie. You may not have liked it, some baby-men might be trying to remake it and other pieces of shit are harassing people involved with it, but that doesn’t make TLJ a bad movie. In terms of its construction, its setups and payoffs, the consistent character arcs that are both informed by and shape the events of the film, its clear elucidation of its themes, it’s one of the best blockbuster films since I don’t even know when. Even the best Marvel movies can’t hold a candle, in that ultimately the best Marvel movies are still just wish fulfillment and the characters aren’t allowed to grow past a certain point because of the shared serialistic nature of the Marvel universe.

But again, that’s something we could have discussed in more depth had you read the article, instead of saying the author was just sucking Johnson’s dick and that people are trying to justify a shitty movie. It’s clear you don’t want to actually discuss anything so I won’t engage with you about TLJ again.

I tried to and the writer was going on and on about how he's not biased, and how anecdotally it's only 20% of people who dislike The Last Jedi, and implying that the people who say it's a bad movie are wrong.

It seems to be an incredibly long article.
Why not quote the important parts and post them here?

The whole article is the important part. If you guys would prefer to argue whether Snoke’s backstory is important, then be my guest. I hope some people will read the article and think more about the film than what JJ Abrams leftover mystery box they wanted it to fill.

That's well and good, but that doesn't make it a good Star Wars movie.

I look at this thing, and I just find the story completely wrong-headed. It's hard for me to get into these arguments about things like whether or not Holdo should have told Poe what her brilliant plan was because I don't think that should have even been in the movie. I didn't find the mutiny storyline compelling, and it just felt incredibly small and wasted the penultimate chapter of the saga. And, ultimately, I see it as cheap forced conflict, which is what dragged Lost down. Characters arbitrarily withholding information from each other (almost every episode of Lost) or doing incredibly stupid things (again, Lost, or the scientist getting the cobra-looking thing in Prometheus to attack him) annoys the hell out of me.

Another problem with the movie is that it replays the conflict from the previous six movies out again.

I can sort of forgive TFA for recycling the plot of ANH since the prequel trilogy kicked off the same way with TPM. But then TLJ doubled down on this again. Here's another grouchy old Jedi master reluctant to teach his eager new student. Another Rebel base is being evacuated. Here's salty Hoth and AT-ATs and avrebel,base under siege. Here's a side trip to find help from a shady character who's going to betray us. And Yoda, can't forget Yoda. And then throw in the three-way showdown in the Emperor's throne room from ROTJ for good measure. The only original plot point that was introduced was the ability of the First Order to track ships through hyperspace, and that was cribbed out of a Battlestar Galactica episode.

Ultimately, the sequel trilogy fails because it's just rehashing things from the first six movies. There's a new Empire. A new Emperor. A new black clad Sith apprentice who turned on the Jedi order. Another destroyed Republic. A new rebellion. Another "new hope" emerging from a desert planet. (Third one now.) Another Jedi order that's been decimated and needs to be rebuilt. A third Death Star.

TFA had its problems, and I could have forgiven it for retelling ANH, but instead of using it as a springboard to tell its own story, Johnson just doubled down on the ragtag Rebellion vs ruthless Empire that already played out in the OT.

The Star Wars outline is pretty simple.

The Prequel Trilogy centers on Jedi knight Anakin Skywalker's fall to the dark side, set against the crumbling of a Republic and an Empire rising from its ashes.

The Original Trilogy centers on Luke Skywalker's journey to becoming a Jedi Knight, set against the defeat of the Empire.

The logical premise of the Sequel Trilogy would follow the third generation of Skywalkers rebuilding the Jedi Order, set against the backdrop of the New Republic being established.

But instead we were told that everything that happened in the first six movies didn't matter. Everything that everyone fought for was for nothing because we're right back to yet another rebellion fighting another empire.

I could get into other things I dislike about the ST like the Force becoming something that grants people super powers without any training (Rey, Leia, broom kid), but it's almost four in the morning and I think I'm getting a callus on my finger.

Sorry about being reductive. It takes five seconds to tap out "shitty movie" on my iPad with my index finger, whereas the giant wall of text I tossed up above took about twenty or so minutes (without much proof-reading, so kindly ignore any typos). And even after after all of that typing, I'll probably just be called a manbaby who is threatened by women, so there we are.

Regardless of what some might hear, it's been definitively proven that the recording is of someone saying laurel:
https://www.wired.com/story/yanny-an...-true-history/

I'm going to posit a theory here. A couple of years ago, there was some kind of scienctific experiment, possibly at the Hadron Collider, that did something weird on the quantum level, and that's why TLJ is so divisive and the Laurel/Yanny thing and the Mandela Effect and Donald Trump.

Our reality is fracturing on the quantum level.

I doubt it's the "penultimate chapter," as I don't think Disney is going to permanently stop at IX. Even then, it's far more the 2nd act in a trilogy, of a series of trilogies, than the penultimate chapter of a "saga." It has to work as a 2nd act.

They key word is "arbitrarily." If people are withholding information for good reason, it's not arbitrary. LOST got into the problem where initially there were some good reasons for people to withhold certain info, but near the end stuff was just being withheld without a clear motivation. Take Kate, who initially withholds being a fugitive in custody on the plane. There's good motivation for that, from the basic drive of not wanting to be locked up/confined on the island, to the overall motivation of wanting a fresh start. However, near the end of the series, certain things seemed to be withheld simply because the characters didn't think to tell anyone else. "What, you mean I didn't tell anyone about that batshit crazy thing that happened already? Huh."

For Holdo, she was practicing good opsec. It was a mission revealed on a need-to-know basis, and at that point Poe didn't need to know. And Holdo actually seems justified when Poe finds out part of the plan, he immediately blabs to Rose & Finn, and DJ overhears and eventually betrays them.

A lot of your complaints with TLJ are things set up in TFA. Rey going to Luke to be trained is set up by TFA. At least RJ tried to do something different with that, with Luke not just being reluctant to train but changing his mind, to him being completely disillusioned with The Force.

Also, there had been 7 movies in the series when this was written. It's probably going to be hard to come up with something that doesn't have some parallel with something from the other films, especially while staying withing the strict constraints of "scrappy underdogs against oppressive enemies" set up in TFA again.

The Battlestar Galactica reboot never had an episode where they should track ships through hyperspace. They used a tracking beacon, same as on the Millennium Falcon in the first movie.

These are all complaints about TFA. I don't know why you're giving that film a pass when the bulk of your complaints are of things established in that film.

Ah, I see, you're upset because this trilogy isn't about what you want it to be about. You're not judging it based on its own merits, but on your expectations.

Just like how every WWII movie is telling us that WWI didn't matter, because we had another one.

Who says Leia didn't have any training? Also, who says the broom kid can do anything other than tip a broom over a bit? Luke was dodging laser blasts blindfolded within like 5 minutes of learning of The Force in the original Film, and blew up the Death Star using the force without any additional training. Anakin was using The Force to help him pod race without any training. I'm not sure this "you need extensive training to use The Force at all" is actually something ever established by the previous films.

These arguments in this thread (which I have been a part of) kind of reinforce that Disney should stick with the Standalones because they have more storytelling freedom and the fans don't get bent out of shape on every little detail jiving with the previous movies.

I really enjoyed Solo and Rogue One (they are not perfect movies, but they are entertaining for what they are), mostly for that reason. With the Saga movies (including the PT) we all get caught too much in this and that, and the movies are ultimately divisive. I actually don't really care about Episode 9 at this point, but I'm looking forward to more standalones.

My biggest question is WTF is Lucas Films letting these "unknown" directors write these movies? Stand alone ones might not be too bad, but the Saga films need a tight creative control and letting some guy that has directed a few mediocre movies is not someone to hand over the reigns of the world's #1 sci-fi franchise. Hell look at Solo, hired guys that movies are horrible bro comedies, at least they fixed that.

I still would have preferred the Lord/Miller Solo. Clone High/Lego/Cloudy Meatballs humor mixes well with that universe, never thought of them as Bro Comedies.

I've never cared for Rian Johnson though. Tried multiple times to understand the love for Brick but never could get into it, Brothers Bloom was failed potential, and Looper was entertaining but I never understand why it was so highly acclaimed at the time, was also on the "Hate It" side of his divisive Breaking Bad episode as well but there's more to that situation than was under his control.

I forgot they did Lego/Meatball. But their humor is too slap stick for Star Wars. The new movies have had the right mixture of comedy in them. I can see letting these guys possibly direct, but to let them write, especially THE SAGE story is just ridiculous. LFL needs to get their own Kevin Feige type leader with a true vision of where the universe needs to go - and not Kennedy!

I don't think anyone considered JJ Abrams a "nobody" for TFA, and he was teamed with Lawrance Kasdan, who has 22 writing credits, including ESB. In fact, ESB was Kasdan's first writing gig. WTF was Lucas thinking letting an unknown write that film?

RJ wrote and directed 3 feature films before TLJ, more than George Lucas when Lucas started Star Wars.

Gareth Edwards didn't write the screenplay for Rogue One. The two credited screenwriters are Chris Weitz (Ant, About a Boy, The Golden Compass) and Tony Gilroy (4 of the Bourne movies, Michael Clayton, etc.). They weren't unknown, with both working in Hollywood for decades.

Likewise, Solo was written by Lawrance Kasdan with his son Jonathan Kasdan, not the two initial directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. In fact, one of the reasons they were canned was because Lawrance Kasdan didn't like the way they were playing loose with the story.

I would take from this comment that you're only familiar with the 21 Jump Street films from Lord and Miller's oeuvre. Because I don't see how Clone High, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, and The Lego Movie could be thought of as "bro comedies."

I would've really liked to have seen their take on Solo. I feel like if that film had been more of an upfront comedy it would've been a refreshing change of pace in the Star Wars universe.

Brick is a solid noir. I think both Brothers Bloom and Looper have issues that hold them back from being great. RJ actually directed 3 episodes of Breaking Bad, but I think it's the first one, "Fly," that is the contentious one, although I personally liked it.

I feel like this is a problem, especially if Disney wants to venture out into more standalones. I don't understand why we can't have a Star Wars that is slapstick or silly. I mean, Marvel has serious films, but then they also have Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant Man, Thor 3, etc. If all the Star Wars films hew too close to the same tone, this could fuel the "exhaustion" more than the pace of releases.

If Disney had only done standalones instead of a new trilogy, there'd be fans up in arms about how they're dicking around in the universe without properly following up the saga. Everyone would have the image of their "perfect" sequel trilogy in their head, and while everyone's idea of what that is is different, the fanbase would've been unified in being upset Disney wasn't trying to make it.

I'm so glad Kathy Kennedy ditched them (or she shouldn't have hired them in the first place). Maybe it's just generational thing but their movies just don't appeal to me, as I knew Ron Howard would atleast make a good movie (it ended up being better then I thought).

The old school directors like Ron Howard know how to do character development, so you actually care for the characters, and that was a big part of what worked for me in Solo. I really liked Rogue One, but my one negative of the movie is the characters were bland, and Gareth Edwards is from the newer generaton of directors who aren't as good at developing the characters. Guys like Ron Howard came before the era of CGI so they had to make movies with a good story and good characters back then, where the new generation of directors have all the tools of CGI, and the story/characters aren't front and center of a lot of blockbusters anymore. The WOW factor is more important. Again, it's a generational thing as I probably sound like an old 'get off my lawn' moviegoer, but I grew up with the 70's/80's blockbusters.

Exquisite trolling.

Because some people are annoyed, Disney shouldn’t have made more saga movies at all? Come on mcnabb, you can’t let the terrorists win!