Spoilers Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker - Grading & Discussion

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

There’s a big fucking difference between discovering you may have stopped your parents from meeting and learning they got incinerated.

I generally like your comments.. usually they have a lot of thought behind them. But this is pretty stupid.
Back to the Future was intedned to be a witty teenage adventure with a dash of uncomfortable romance, a dash of sci fi, some memorable characters, and something that will p[lease young audiences in particular and most other audiences as well.

Star Wars (1977) is a flash gordon type space adventure, with a bit of a western feel that turns into zippy action film with rescues and escapes and spaceship action, presented in a way that seems new and fresh yet familiar, where the hints of backstories and histories give it a bit of depth,, but the film has punch to it that will please most audiences.

Whether on purpose or on accident, these films knew what types of films they wanted to be. They knew their audiences.. targeting young people, but still alluring to other kinds of audiences. As a stand alone film or even a trilogy, people would rarely complain that Luke's action or reactions were realistic .. because they were realistic in the context of the type of story they were telling.. maybe he paused for one or two beats in the story, but these movies were ones that always pushed forward. But today so much emphasis is placed on heavy continuity, making everything work out, and having every action properly justified by a completely realistic look at character.. As a result, people would even complain about the original film not being "deep enough"

 

[Qonundrum]

Except the original film wasn't very deep (and people knew that since 1977, it's a very simple tale of good vs evil) and its main selling point was the new style of visual effects, which everyone loved. Also, I wasn't the only one heckling moments of it in the theater when the 1997 special edition came out so those retrospectives aren't due to the sequel trilogy (or prequel trilogy for that matter).

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I'm just not seeing it. Princess Leia was a very strong female character in the original trilogy as was Padme in the PT. The only difference with Rey is she is the one performing the main Jedi role. As for the buffoons....I'm really drawing a blank. Which male characters were acting like buffoons? .

As noted before, it was Finn. Some (not meaning you) cannot see it; others avoid it altogether as they are focused on what they champion as "important" in a "progressive" sense for these films. This stems from some bearing a conscious inability to see the character from it from a place of historical knowledge/experience and the effects of terrible racial stereotypes in the media. Finn was exactly that: Nearly every Old Hollywood stereotype stuffed into one character, from his lack of a unique identity that informed what should have been an equally unique view of the galaxy and his place in it (he had no true, well structured destiny of his own, nor was he meant to), to his being a tripping, bumbling, frightened mess with very few exceptions (which felt tacked on compared to his strongest, most frequently presented traits/behavior. ..and like one of the most common jobs for an Old Hollywood stereotype, he was a sanitation worker (no possible reason for that job; it did not serve his character or the story) stuffed in a Stormtrooper costume.

Kennedy, et al. have no excuses.

He was the 21st century legacy of the Black Buffoon stereotype, leading so many black audience members to find the Finn character utterly shameful. What's especially galling was the fact the SW PTB made numerous public statements about how "socially progressive" they were about everyone else under the sun, yet their creation/handling of Finn goes back to cinema's earliest days of demeaning portrayals of black male characters. We are nearing the end of the second decade of the 21st century and a walking stereotype in the form of Finn is the kind of black character added to a Star Wars film.

Again, no excuses.

 

[fireproof78]

As a result, people would even complain about the original film not being "deep enough"

Because it's not. The characters are archetypes that the audience can readily identify and identify with. This is deliberate, since the world of SW was so new.

The story is similarly simple. "Good vs. evil" and just accept that the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. And the simplicity of the story is its great strength.So, no, it's not that deep. It became that way through ESB, ROTJ, TPM and on and on.

 

[Spot261]

As noted before, it was Finn. Some (not meaning you) cannot see it; others avoid it altogether as they are focused on what they champion as "important" in a "progressive" sense for these films. This stems from some bearing a conscious inability to see the character from it from a place of historical knowledge/experience and the effects of terrible racial stereotypes in the media. Finn was exactly that: Nearly every Old Hollywood stereotype stuffed into one character, from his lack of a unique identity that informed what should have been an equally unique view of the galaxy and his place in it (he had no true, well structured destiny of his own, nor was he meant to), to his being a tripping, bumbling, frightened mess with very few exceptions (which felt tacked on compared to his strongest, most frequently presented traits/behavior. ..and like one of the most common jobs for an Old Hollywood stereotype, he was a sanitation worker (no possible reason for that job; it did not serve his character or the story) stuffed in a Stormtrooper costume.

Kennedy, et al. have no excuses.

He was the 21st century legacy of the Black Buffoon stereotype, leading so many black audience members to find the Finn character utterly shameful. What's especially galling was the fact the SW PTB made numerous public statements about how "socially progressive" they were about everyone else under the sun, yet their creation/handling of Finn goes back to cinema's earliest days of demeaning portrayals of black male characters. We are nearing the end of the second decade of the 21st century and a walking stereotype in the form of Finn is the kind of black character added to a Star Wars film.

Again, no excuses.

There's sense in this. Finn's character is not strong or as well thought out as he might be, in many ways tending to become the comedy relief which in the past has been the role of droids or Jar Jar Binks.

I'm not sure there was a conscious decision "hey, let's make the black guy bumbling and inept", but it does indeed stand out that much of his screen time, if not outright slapstick, veers close enough to undermine what could have been a much more interesting character. Being a storm trooper turning against the Empire/FO should have opened up a lot of possibilities for exploring the experience of a conscientious objector, someone with conflicting loyalties and a lifetime of training to be a ruthless professional killer. He could even have become a figure of controversy within the FO, his departure inspiring dissent or internal conflict.

Instead we just forgot all of that and got a generic sidekick who stops short of mumbling "yes ma'am" but has very superficial development at best.

 

[fireproof78]

I like Finn. I think he is a reflection of Kylo, in a way. Eager to prove himself, needing to present a tough exterior, while inside is a desire to run.

I think there could have been more done with the character, but I think that with all of the ST. As it stands, Finn is an interesting character to me, and enjoyable because there is more going on than just his actions.

 

[Qonundrum]

JJ should have stayed with it if he had really created this trilogy with specific plot goals in mind, beyond generic "mystery boxes" (and generic character archetypes) that didn't have much of a payoff despite potential, instead of allowing the remaining episodes to be made with his intended plans being "optional", which sorta ruined the remaining episodes long before anyone else* wrote the first syllable into Final Draft, Celtx, Selectric Typewriter, quill and parchment made from pulped up plant parts, processed sheep parts (aka "Vellum"), or whatever. Especially if issues like how the First Order came to rise weren't going to be discussed in his first episode - but it wasn't so it just felt like a retread of The Empire(tm). And the seemingly last-minute inclusion of Palpatine is an even worse mistake since the nine chapter saga now feels like "The Wacky Misadventures of Sheev Sidious Palpatine Fred" as a result. I'd reckon fans entrenched into this franchise's saga and lore are allowed some angst. To the point we'd all wish those predicting time travel would have been used would have been used.

* (doesn't matter who, even if it were you (the reader) hired to script the sequel because you're going to put in your vision carte blache given the opportunity)

 

[WarpFactorZ]

His mask is a symbol for Kylo. Anakin does not appear in any of these films. That’s the point.

But Vader is mentioned in TFA, and we know he (not his mask) is central in Kylo's struggle to reject his light side family (Solo) and embrace his Dark Side one (Skywalker). The Emperor is long forgotten until the TROS crawl.

Anakin himself didn't have to appear to make his inclusion in this film important and meaningful.

 

[Campe]

Because it's not. The characters are archetypes that the audience can readily identify and identify with. This is deliberate, since the world of SW was so new.

The story is similarly simple. "Good vs. evil" and just accept that the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. And the simplicity of the story is its great strength.So, no, it's not that deep. It became that way through ESB, ROTJ, TPM and on and on.

The moment it became a franchise, it had to become deeper. But, the issue with this is that there have been volumes and volumes written analyzing these movies, including ANH. Scholarly work has been done looking at the themes and messages. The films have been picked apart and analyzed. My issue with Luke in the first film, admittedly, is neither new nor original. And it is certainly a discussion point. One can choose to look at it at a purely superficial level, or one can question the events, either of which is the choice of the viewer. It does not change the fact that the simple unassuming nature of ANH was changed dramatically in May 1980.

 

[BillJ]

It does not change the fact that the simple unassuming nature of ANH was changed dramatically in May 1980.

And it was done all for $$$.

 

[Campe]

And it was done all for $$$.

Absolutely! People keep thinking the OT was done in order to be some kind of a work of art. Lucas wanted to do Flash Gordon and made ANH instead. He was positively miserable on set and put himself into the hospital. Then despite the fact that the film won seven Oscars, George more or less hated the end result, so much so he refuses to let the audience see the original version. He made certain he had the merchandising rights to fund his next film. He made the special editions and the prequels in order to further fund Lucasfilm. And he sold his franchise for $4.7 trillion earlier this decade. Every decision had dollars and cents behind it. Pretending it didn’t is being blind to the facts.

 

[Mach5]

 

[Campe]

To add to that, TRoS has crossed $725 million globally. Tracking a little behind TLJ but it does appear it will pass $1 billion by the end of its box office run. If that holds true, this will then be four out of five Disney Star Wars movies to cross the $1 billion threshold.

 

[BillJ]

I take it that is the US total?

 

[BillJ]

To add to that, TRoS has crossed $725 million globally. Tracking a little behind TLJ but it does appear it will pass $1 billion by the end of its box office run. If that holds true, this will then be four out of five Disney Star Wars movies to cross the $1 billion threshold.

That Kathleen Kennedy is a total failure when it comes to running Lucasfilm!

 

[Campe]

That Kathleen Kennedy is a total failure when it comes to running Lucasfilm!

Frikkin secretary.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

What about the Holiday Special, which aired in 1978? This effort, initially approved by Lucas, was an attempt to cash in on the success of his film.

With the success of the latest film and the streaming show, it will be hard to say Kathleen Kennedy is a "total failure". A "partial failure", maybe?

 

[BillJ]

With the success of the latest film and the streaming show, it will be hard to say Kathleen Kennedy is a "total failure". A "partial failure", maybe?

If they are determined to hang every failure on her, then it is only fair to give her credit for every success. Right now, I only see one project that qualifies as a failure, and that is Solo.

 

[Mach5]

To add to that, TRoS has crossed $725 million globally. Tracking a little behind TLJ but it does appear it will pass $1 billion by the end of its box office run. If that holds true, this will then be four out of five Disney Star Wars movies to cross the $1 billion threshold.

A threshold that seven other movies already crossed this year, six of which were Disney's, plus Joker.

Finishing outside the top five highest grossing releases of the year would certainly not look good for Star Wars, and missing the 1 Billion mark would most likely be seen as failure, seeing how (until very recently) something like that was considered unthinkable (it's still unlikely).

Solo was a huge paradigm changer, it showed that the franchise wasn't bullet proof.

Is Kennedy's job in danger if the film misses the billion, though? Depends. She scored a homerun with The Mandalorian, and entire Disney+ platform rides on its success right now, so probably not.

 

[Campe]

I think despite the overly angry fanboys, Kennedy will be just fine.

Besides, getting to the top 5 will not be hard for TRoS. $1.13 billion isn’t too far from $1 bil