I was wrong, it was an entire system.
Spoilers All Things STAR WARS - News, Speculation & Spoilers Thread
- Thread starter Reverend
- Start date
I had to look that one up, since as I said I've only seen the movie once, but you're right of course. My apologies.
IGN's Ryan Dinsdale has pointed out that Lucasfilm have announced 14 different Star Wars movies since The Rise of Skywalker came out, and not a single one has actually made it to theaters yet. Out of all of those the only one that's even close to coming out any time soon is The Mandalorian and Grogu. I had been a big defender of Lucasfilm up to this point, but that really does seem a bit excessive.
https://www.ign.com/articles/star-w...er-trilogy-bringing-unreleased-films-up-to-14
https://www.ign.com/articles/star-w...er-trilogy-bringing-unreleased-films-up-to-14
I think the PT did the Jedi a disservice in terms of showing them as peacekeepers. Now, that's largely the narrative set up with Palpatine already manipulating everything, but it shows them in a much more negative light. They either come across as incompetent, or stupid. So, it's rough to feel sympathy for them some times.You do realize the OT and Sequel Trilogy occur after the PT, right?
With the fall of the Empire, that at least could be seen as a victory for the Jedi, and the follow up from the New Republic being as much a failure as the Jedi.
The Clone Wars? That was on the Jedi.
The Jedi coming across as flawed and ultimately wrong was the whole point of the PT. They allowed themselves to get too involved in the inner workings of the Republic, too complacent with their manufactured reality that the Sith were gone forever, and didn't see the truth until it was too late.
Yes, but how it is conveyed makes the whole Order look completely incompetent. That Obi-Wan was longing for glory days over doing good.
It's not a great look.
Uncommon an opinion as it may be, TLJ was the only one of the sequels I actually liked.
It was certainly the only one of the trilogy that tried to bring anything new to the franchise. It marked Mark Hamill's best performance as Luke Skywalker in the entire saga. In fact, I loved pretty much all of the stuff with Luke and Rey, a few jokes that fell flat not withstanding. The scene where Luke called out the old Jedi Order for being responsible for their own destruction was a stand-up and applaud moment for me.
Last edited:
And yet, the math remains: the Jedi had hundreds of peaceful generations for every crappy one. The Skywalkers had two awful generations, and one very mixed one. In terms of "looks" for names, it's no contest.
Shmi Skywalker seemed pretty good to me.
And what's this very mixed one? Luke on balance was quite good, and Leia has so far never been shown as anything but completely good; Luke's and Leia's generation was on balance very good, not "very mixed."
That's at worst 2 vs 2, without taking into consideration Shmi's ancestors.
Joeseph Crikey. I'm talking about an in-universe, galactic perspective. Consider your average galactic citizen, and assume that, post-TRoS, they have a decent handle on history. Which name represents more good for the galaxy, "Jedi" or "Skywalker?"
Shmi would a non-factor to them, someone who had basically no effect on others' lives, so her generation is a neutral wash. Anakin and Ben Solo were mass murderers, and Luke and Leia took down a pair of mass murderers, yes (one of which was their own), but they also raised and trained Ben, a mass murderer.
Luke and Leia didn't have any inherent responsibility to take down Palpatine; they did it because they were noble. They did, however, have an inherent responsibility - if either ever had children, and especially if they then trained said children in the Force - to not to raise them to be mass murderers. At this, by far their most important inherent task in their lives, they completely failed.
If you think that's an "on balance very good" generation... I honestly don't know what to say.
Neither Luke nor Leia trained Ben to be a mass-murderer. They failed to prevent Ben from being corrupted by a proxy of Palpatine, just as they failed to perceive the danger in time. Luke and Leia also anguished over their failures and shortcomings, atoned, and sacrificed to reverse their errors. Being too weak to counter a more powerful evil is not itself evil; sacrificing to give your all to face down evil that you have failed to stop before, that's good. I stand by what I said.Shmi would a non-factor to them, someone who had basically no effect on others' lives, so her generation is a neutral wash. Anakin and Ben Solo were mass murderers, and Luke and Leia took down a pair of mass murderers, yes (one of which was their own), but they also raised and trained Ben, a mass murderer.
Luke and Leia didn't have any inherent responsibility to take down Palpatine; they did it because they were noble. They did, however, have an inherent responsibility - if either ever had children, and especially if they then trained said children in the Force - to not to raise them to be mass murderers. At this, by far their most important inherent task in their lives, they completely failed.
If you think that's an "on balance very good" generation... I honestly don't know what to say.
Just like Anakin. Obi-Wan didn't train him to be a mass murder, it was his unhealthy attachment to Padme and influence of Palpatine that lead him to go dark.
That would be great, it was the best movie of the three, and the second best Star Wars movie after ESB.
Is that supposed to be a comfort to the families of those Ben Solo murdered?
Say you have a kid or sibling in an elementary school, and some 16-year-old creep from across town shoots up the place with his father's assault rifle, killing him/her. "Yeah, I trained my son to use an assault rifle, and I left mine unlocked," the shooter's father tells the news, "but I didn't say he could use it without my permission, and I didn't train him to kill kids."Well, no harm, no foul, then?
That's absurd. They knew full well the danger they were inviting if either of them ever had a biological child. If they weren't 99.9% sure they could manage to not raise a Sith, and if they weren't prepared to regularly and rigorously check on their child's mental health to prevent exactly such a disaster, neither of them should ever have had (at least biological) children in the first place.
If your father was an atomic bomb that became unstable and exploded, and you know for a fact your kid will almost certainly be an atomic bomb, with the potential to explode, maybe seriously consider not having a kid as a matter of basic morality.
This is Main Character Supremacy. If your whole family had been wiped out on Hosnian Prime, would you be greatly comforted to know the culprit's mother and uncle felt lousy about it?
Three 8/10 movies would probably average out to be the best Star wars trilogy ever made
The Last Jedi is a great movie with a bit of a bloated middle and a (even for Star Wars) too loose grasp on physics. It also pisses off all the people you'd want to see pissed off, and it made a ton of money which people ignore for some reason. I'd be all up for more of that.
Isn't it more like 25000 years of Galactic Republic?