Missed Opportunity with Kylo's character arc - Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) Discussion

[–] JoWilli (16107) 4 years ago

You make some good points, this is the problem when you treat the trilogy as 3 separate movies and you also don't have a plan set in place. Kylo also mentioned a couple of times that the past must die, yet Palpatine lives and Lando made a surprise appearance out of nowhere.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yes, it was very clear from TFA that they had no plan and were banking on nostalgia alone to propel them forward. Also JJ is not good at actually coming up with new ideas; in fact he is not even that great at using other's ideas; he is only good at recreating the visuals. Why they thought it was a good idea that he be the primary writer for the first and then not have any plan for the trilogy is just crazily poor managing.

But my suspicion on it is that Kathleen Kennedy only cared about her agenda (force is female, and etc) and wanted to hire a bunch of 'yes men' directors to get what she wanted in the films and then didn't care about the details of how it all came together. Hence why there was so many fired directors and the story of the trilogy ended up being a disjointed mess.

reply

[–] thenewnexus (1906) 4 years ago

EMO Man Child was a garbage character with horsegirl

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"EMo MAn Child"

Lol;

While I agree that the characters and performances were terrible; I am not sure is blanketed insults of them will help serve a critical analysis and discussion of these films and what went so wrong with them.

reply

[–] thenewnexus (1906) 4 years ago

It does help the emo man child and horsegirl are what went wrong with these movies

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I do think Rey (horsegirl) was the #1 contributing factor that ruined the sequel trilogy; but Kylo (emo man child) was a significant contribution. But in all honesty there were so many other things that went wrong right from the start; no explanation or exploration of the rise of the first order (such as implausible resources and Death Star 3.0). Han being a deadbeat dad that returned to smuggling (thus negating his entire character arc in the OT), Finn a child soldier that behaves like a frat boy buffoon, plot that was almost a beat for beat redo of the original, over utilization of mystery boxes to hide an underdeveloped story and plot, the list goes on and on.

reply

[–] Martoto (4403) 4 years ago

Really? Never explored after TFA?

Rey's journey in TLJ is dictated by her deciding that she can see Kylo's conflict and how he'll turn back. And then the confrontation between the two looks as if it's actually heading that way when Kylo apparently joins with Rey to destroy Snoke. That isn't exploring the idea of Kylo being conflicted and possibly being turned back to the light?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"Rey's journey in TLJ is dictated by her deciding that she can see Kylo's conflict and how he'll turn back."

There is literally not one indication in the character that there is conflict; he says he wants to be bad, the top bad guy and he does horrible things to everyone around him. That is a classic case of failing the 'show don't tell' test. The way they ended showing it was more like Amon Gothe talking about feeling the call of Jesus while shooting Jews in the head (schindler's list) it does not work on screen. And they never did anything to show an actual 'pull' to the light side for the character.

"And then the confrontation between the two looks as if it's actually heading that way when Kylo apparently joins with Rey to destroy Snoke. That isn't exploring the idea of Kylo being conflicted and possibly being turned back to the light?"

No, sith always kill each other; the apprentice always tries to kill the master to rise above him. This is classic dark side embracing. It is almost the exact opposite of him turning back to the ligth.

Edit: one more point on this topic about Kylo and Rey teaming up for a moment, they way it looked on screen was that the only character that identified a 'light side pull' in Kylo was Rey. From the audience perspective it looks more like Rey was seeing something that was not there; especially since naivete might be the character's only flaw, it would make sense that Rey had hope for 'good' in people that was founded in nothing.

P.S. Naivete in the character Rey does not make her less of a Mary Sue character, Naivete is a character flaw to make a character enduring and sympathetic. This particular character flaw actually adds to the status of a Mary Sue character.

reply

[–] Martoto (4403) 4 years ago

"There is literally not one indication in the character that there is conflict"

There's no less indication than there was in TFA (which the OP suggests is full of Kyko's conflict) . In fact there's more. He killed Han in TFA, but couldn't go through with it when his mother was in his sights in TLJ.

Did it require more talking to himself or to Vader's helmet more in TLJ for you to continue to entertain the idea that he's conflicted?

You're just wrong. You don't have to like it. You don't have to be satisfied that it continued the idea into TLJ in a manner that appealed to you. But you cannot say it was an idea that was abandoned.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

You bring up my very point; they aren't showing he is conflicted they are telling you; but every time they give him an opportunity of a choice between the 2 he always chooses evil. Is it because he hesitates before he does something evil that convinces you of the conflict? I think that is a pretty weak way to show he is conflict. 'Do I stump on this puppy's head or not? Well I don't know I really like puppies and this one is cute. What do I do?' (immediately then stumps on the puppy) See what I mean? it does not really work if they are just saying he is conflicted but then he always immediately chooses evil after a slight hesitation. They needed to either show that he has a 'light side' objective or he has to choose not to be evil at least occasionally. but he doesn't; in TLJ it is not clear if he was going to kill his mother or not and someone else just beat him to it because he hesitates.

Him begging Vader's helmet for darkside guidance made no sense in the first place, Vader turned back to the light. That was a stupid seen that was just there for nostalgia rubbing.

I do not mean that I only disliked the idea in TLJ; I mean that it was never properly explored in the first place. TFA set the improper tone for the concept, TLJ continued doing same. There is never a reason for him to want to be evil (responding to Luke trying kill him makes him want to be evil?) and there is never a real indication that he is being pulled back to the light. For example the first indication we have of Vader being conflicted is the end of ESB when Luke gets away. Had it been Kylo, vader would have just killed Admiral Piatt for failing him; that is why even Vader (who was not said to be getting pulled to the light) is shown as a more conflicted villain that Kylo is ever shown even though the film tries to tell us how conflicted he is. The idea was not abandoned, it was never properly set up in the first place.

reply

[–] Martoto (4403) 4 years ago

I thought the point was it wasn’t there at all after TFA. Goalposts mustn’t be adequately tied down for this kind of weather.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I did not move the goal posts, I said in the OP that it was a problematic concept from the start of TFA; but then it is never developed further, which I stand by because as I said there was never any clear reason or objective he had for going to the dark and wanting to embrace it, nor was there ever an indication that he was struggling with embracing the dark or being 'seduced' by the light. Not killing his mother without hesitation does not qualify as being 'seduced' by the light. Any opportunity he had to be evil he took it. to properly demonstrate he struggled with being conflicted would require him not being murderous or rage filled (destructive) at some point or another. this demonstration never happens. That is my point.

I never moved the goal posts, do you even understand what that fallacy means, because you used it improperly.

reply

[–] ramcha (62) 4 years ago

"they aren't showing he is conflicted they are telling you". yet in TFA he does exactly that. he tells to the audience himself. in TLJ they show you by not killing his mom and by not wanting to become a sith. his conversations with rey were sincere.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yes he tells you just how conflicted he is, but then has no problem destroying entire planets, murdering people, lashing out in bouts of rage, and generally completely embracing the dark side. This is a perfect example of failing the show don't tell test.

We did not see him NOT KILLING HIS MOM; we saw him hesitate and then someone else 'did it'. He may not want to become sith in TLJ but he is not conflicted about using the dark side to remove all rivals to his power and become a ruthless dictator (which is his goal). Which means he is embracing the sith in all but name.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

I think it's probably one of those Star Wars language tropes that the writers allowed themselves to slip into. "Seduced by the Dark Side of the Force" is the usual parlance, so they use "seduced" to indicate Kylo feeling the pull of the Light Side as well. Of course, this could be a commentary on how Kylo feels about this calling, but...probably not.

A prime example is "Young Rey" and "Young Solo" being used by Snoke in The Last Jedi. Get it? Because Palpatine called Luke "Young Skywalker", so...I guess dark Sith masters must just call people "Young Whatever".

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

That is an interesting point; like the writer got hung up on certain words from the OT and felt they could build new ideas of those same words and not have to worry about context. The whole point of the dark side was that it was seductive; the light side is the one that is not seductive. You don't feel a pull to the light side, you feel the pull to the dark side (baser instincts, passions, desires etc). You have to think and reason your way to the light side through conscious effort.

Now if they had given a reason for Kylo to be embracing the dark for an actual non-selfish objective; such as using the first order to prepare for a more evil threat; then you can say there would be conflict because he would be a good character doing bad things for an 'ends justifying the means' type of scenario. But that just was not there. Kylo was always just selfishly ambitious trying to use the dark side for the actual goal of consciously being evil. they never even try to explore an idea that he felt Luke and the Jedi way were evil and that is why he is fighting them. It is just all about him being as evil as possible.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

Well, I think it would have been nice to have a clearer journey for Kylo, especially because - as of the Rise of Skywalker - I kinda think he's the main character of the new trilogy.

He has the strongest character arc. (MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW)

He starts out angry and resenting his parents, his teachers, and his past. He's trying to undo everything his parents stood for, and he succeeds...but he doesn't feel good about it. He regrets killing his father.

In part two, that regret pulls him back from annihilating his mother (despite his claim that he wants to kill the past). This leads him to seeking a deeper relationship with Rey because she's "goodness", and he's feeling that call back to the Light. His weakening resolve also causes Snoke to accelerate his plans, trying to coerce Rey over to stop up the dam, as it were. It backfires. It ends with Kylo realising the true power of Luke Skywalker - what the Light Side is capable of without killing people (it is wise and merciful and that is stronger than anger).

His finished arc happens in The Rise of Skywalker, of course, where he fulfills his parents' legacy, completes his uncle's work, and puts himself so far beyond the Dark Side that he accesses the ability to heal (very strong Light mojo) and does so at the expense of his own life. What a mensch!

After that, it's my opinion that Kylo is actually the tragic hero of the sequels.

What's Rey's arc? She's always a paragon of virtue. She has a clear path from the start, and only waivers once or twice when other people jerk her around with her identity. So...probably not Rey.

Finn? He's got a good arc (from enemy to coward to hero), but it's done by the end of The Last Jedi when he's prepared to martyr himself to save everybody. His arc is finished so fully that he basically does nothing throughout the third film.

Poe has a good arc: a flyboy who becomes a leader. But he isn't thematically as connected as Kylo.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

He kind of is, but then he is constantly overshadowed by Rey in almost every way; Rey kind of usurps the Skywalker saga in this trilogy really turning it into a Palpatine Saga.

He probably does have the 'strongest' arc, but comparatively that is not saying much.

Well I think the "angry" thing is basically all he has; he is angry at Luke, his father, his mother, then Snoke, than Paplatine, then himself then Rey, then not Rey. He never really shows regret for anything he does until the 3rd film; by then it is a little too late.

He does not realize the power of the light at the of TLJ, in the beginning of TROS he is still dedicated to killing the resistance and any rivals. he is still fully bad.

He is not really a tragic hero; a tragic hero intends on doing good and fails causing either internal or external suffering. Kylo never really intends to do good; he is just 'in love' with Rey and that is why he helps turn against the Emperor. And he falls in love with Rey because. well of course he does, she's Rey after all. There is nothing in his character that ever showed a desire to do any good for anyone but himself. Hence my complaint that the 'idea' of him being compelled by the light is just not there.

Yeah, she is the character that is on the hero's journey but they mess it all up and have her as the paragon right from the start. You can't have it both ways.

While Finn's character didn't fit the child soldier (more like frat boy buffoon) I will agree with your interpretation of his ARc, the only problem is, that arc was done already in TFA when he stood up against Kylo; TLJ basically just repeats it again.

Poe does not really have a character; more like 3 characters. Poe could have easily been a different named character in each film and it wouldn't have made much of a difference. This is what happens when you kill a character off in early in the first film but then bring him back without actually changing the context.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

I'm not super-concerned with it being the "Skywalker" or "Palpatine" saga, since my headcanon stops this sucker with the original three. To me, Star Wars is Luke's story and that's it.

But, for what it's worth, with zero presence in Episode IV, minimal presence in V, and only a few scenes in VI - none of that with a character arc, really - I don't think all nine films would qualify as the Palpatine Saga, anyway.

I think Kylo Ren does feel some twinge in The Last Jedi. I think that's why he pulls back from frying Leia.

You're right, he's not a tragic hero in the classical definition. I should have phrased that differently. Doomed hero?

Props on your analysis of Finn's double-arcing. Still, he finds some cajones in The Force Awakens, but self-sacrifice is a whole other level, so he moves a bit in the second film.

I thought Poe didn't really have an arc in the first film, so his actions in the second film are congruous with the first and advance him from ace hotshot to team player. I will note that this was handled really poorly, but that's ostensibly what they were going for. Then, once he's a team player, they make him the Big Leader in number three. Also handled poorly, of course, so it just kinda "happens" - it's not a big goal of his at the outset of Rise of Skywalker.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

To be fair, within the original trilogy they did put an awful lot of focus on the Skywalker. With 3 of the 4 main characters (Luke, Han, Leia and Vader) all being related. By the 2nd film it was already shaping into a 'family' drama.

Yes but if you do take all 9 films into consideration the prequels are about him rising to power, the OT about his reign and the ST about his granddaughter and him trying to regain power. I don't like it but that is sort of what it does; unless you only take the first 6 into account then it is really Anakin's story; or only the OT and then it is really Luke and Vader's story.

I don't know, he hesitated with killing his father too; we don't know if he would have followed through with killing his mother because someone else got the shot. besides not killing your own mother does not really qualify as a 'pull back to the light'.

Actually the better way to say it is doomed villain. He tries very hard to be the bad guy and fails miserably and then dies when 'returning' to the light, which I don't really count as a return to the light; romantic love is not something that can bring you back from embracing desire as far as I can tell. Actually doomed villain might be too much credit too; more like pathetic failure is the only phrase that really fits.

While true, Finn's self sacrifice kind of comes out of nowhere. They should have continued his arc into TLJ with him embracing more and more of his "cajones" instead of regressing back to coward status.

To be fair he did die in the first quarter of the film; they decided after that they wanted him to be a main character and just randomly bring him back in the last quarter. the 2nd film they show him as a hothead kind of out of nowhere; but that is because he was so underdeveloped in the first; hence why he felt like different characters. I think another big problem with Poe is he is sort of disconnected from the 'main' story of Rey and Finn.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

As I said, I'm an OT person. The first film is a unique, original, blazing sun of a masterpiece, Empire Strikes Back is a worthy sequel, and Return of the Jedi is flawed, but has a great ending to a wonderful story. It starts going downhill once they strayed outside of Luke's story. The prequels were so poorly executed, and the sequels are a real mixed bag whose "dizzying" heights are "vapid fun".

Taking the nine into account I'd still say that it's the Skywalker story. First three are Anakin, second three are Luke, and my take on the new films is that they are more Kylo's story than Rey's. Maybe it's Driver's performance, but Kylo Ren was the most compelling and interesting of the new characters.

I think there's an evolution between actually stabbing his father and pulling up - not pulling the trigger - on his mother.

He plays the part of the villain, but comes back around at the end, and struggles with it throughout. I disagree with the assessment on romantic love's inability to save or redeem, and I'm not sure I'd characterise the Dark Side as "desire" nor the Light Side as a rejection of desire.

Yes, Finn's arc was poorly handled. The Last Jedi was my least favourite of the new films, I think partially because it had the best *ideas* (Luke losing hope, Kylo and Rey going haywire with each other, Snoke's early demise, Finn's potential sacrifice, being a hero is more than flashy flight moves) which it executed so poorly as to undermine itself and never set itself up properly (Luke's losing hope never makes sense, it flip-flops on whether or not heroic sacrifice is good, etc.)

I forgot to comment on Poe's reincarnation in my last post! Yes, you were bang-on here. He was clearly supposed to die and then it's like the Star Wars universe doesn't know what to do with him. So...Poe is Donnie Darko...?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I think we might be approaching an impasse and might have to agree to disagree; I agree fully that the OT is the 'real' story and that it is Luke's story; my point is that by bringing back Palpatine and making Rey related undermines the fact that it was Luke's and a Skywalker story. Driver's performance was fine my complaint is that he did not have very much material to work with; any emoting he does is really the only sense of conflict that shows up on screen.

On his struggle "throughout" the trilogy, we might have to agree to disagree on that as well; my big complaint is they never give a clear reason or objective he has for going to the dark side, and outside NOT killing his mother never really shows any conflict in the evil choices he makes. Also the point I am making about romantic love is that his 'reasoning' for going 'back to the light' is inspired by his romantic interest in Rey; that is not the same as an internal conflict with 'the light'.

I have a hard time actually saying which is my least favorite. TFA ruined the series so much for me that by the time I got around to actually seeing TLJ almost a year after it came out I had no emotional investment and didn't really care that much. If i cared more maybe TLJ would be my least favorite but hard to tell. TROS is a contender too though because bringing back the emperor undermines a lot of the OT, especially Vader's redemptive moment when he 'kills' the emperor. That is one of the most powerful scenes in Cinema and it is undermined totally by bringing the character back. IDK, the whole ST sucked something fierce.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

Yeah, we're at that point.

We're agreeing on the most important part, though: OT is the real deal.

I definitely see eye-to-eye with you on Driver not having much to work with. Abrams is a fluffy filmmaker. It's entertaining stuff, but it ain't deep.

I see more of what you mean on romantic love and the call to the light now, too.

TFA didn't drive in any coffin nails for me because I was already let-down by the prequels. People asked me "Are you worried that Disney owns Star Wars now?" and I'd reply, "What are they gonna do? Ruin it?" It was what I thought it would be: fun, but unable to recapture the magic. It was super-predictable. Rise of Skywalker was that same feeling squared. Last Jedi ran the thing into the ground so hard that with Rise of Skywalker I was in a place that was like, "Screw it."

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

In regards to the prequels; as much as I disliked them (ROTS being a guilty pleasure exception) they in now way negatively impacted my view of the OT. Hard to explain but I feel like the Prequels did not undermine anything of real significance (some annoying continuity choices and the ill conceived medichlorin concept) nor did it do any damage to any of the OT lore or characters. TFA I felt did both of these things; it turned the force from a mystical energy to a harry potter like magic system. Plus with Luke being in Hiding and Han being a dead beat regressed smuggler I felt actual did negatively impact my enjoyment of the OT in a way the prequels did not. I don't know if I am explaining that well, do you get my meaning?

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

I get your meaning; ironically, I felt this way about several aspects of the prequels.

The midichlorians turned the mystic power of the Force into DNA and some crude gesture at science.

Yoda turned into a general, a warlord, and a swordfighter. Some of the first and wisest things he had to say to Luke were about how war and violence were foolish and beneath him.

Anakin and Obi-Wan were close friends and comrades in arms in the OT, but in the PT it turns out that Anakin was a whiny, spoiled student.

Mercifully, Luke, Han, and Leia's characters were unaltered. But Yoda and Vader took big hits.

You're dead-on with the new films' butchering of characters, though. One of the worst things in the new films is Han. He lost the Falcon? He abandoned his wife and child? No.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I agree that midichlorians were an annoying addition. I think that Lucas was trying to give a way to 'measure' force potential and that there was this idea of the "wills of the force". The midichlorians were still a mystical element but the explanation came across all wrong and ended sounding like what you said 'a crude gesture at scientifically quantifying a magic system'.

Yoda flipping around with a lightsaber was stupid, I agree. The whole point of his character was he was not a physically capable fighter and that his power came from his ability to interact with the force around him, I do not 'like' the concept that the force can like 'fuel' the users body allowing them to channel 'super physical ability'. Same thing for the emperor, neither of them should have touched a lightsaber, they should have been beyond it. They needed yoda to do more things like when he knocks out the 2 praetorian guards in ROTS.

I don't mind Anakin being a little whiny/spoiled. That is actually the type that would end up on the dark side; my bigger problems with Anakin were the chosen one nonsense that almost turned him into space Jesus. Anakin should have just been a powerful jedi that became disillusioned with the Jedi and became more and more interested in the teachings Palpatine had to offer. No Chosen one B.S. and no 'prophecies' of his wife dying.

I guess Vader and Yoda did take hits; but I didn't feel the OT lost anything.

Yes, lots of people talk about the treatment of Luke in TLJ; seems most didn't really notice they already did that to Han at least as bad if not worse.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

The midichlorians felt like a video game thing. You ever watch the critique/sandblasting of Episode II that Red Letter Media did? The Plinkett video? The section where he talks about Obi-Wan and Anakin fighting Dooku is the exact vibe I get thinking about midichlorians. It would have been faster, easier, and better to just have Qui-Gonn say something like, "I have never felt the Force with anyone as strongly as with the boy." And Obi-Wan could say, "Of course, Master Yoda exce-" and Qui-Gonn, "I'm not sure. Perhaps not even with Master Yoda..." So much better...

I've always felt like Yoda should have just been beyond war at all. Never attacking. He shouldn't have been involved in politics, living on Coruscant or anything. He should have been living in Dagobah. Other, less advanced Jedi maybe coming around to beg him to fight and have him basically go, "That's not what the Force is about! Someday you'll see that!"

Ironically, that was a huge complaint I had with Luke in The Last Jedi, too. Rey should have found him and said, "Come help us save the galaxy by wiping out the First Order," only to have Luke sigh and go, "Do you think killing an army of people will save the galaxy? You think this will help new stars to be born and to aid the clockwork of the universe orbiting around the heavens?"

I didn't mind the scene where he smacked her hand with the reed and explained that she is thinking about the Force entirely wrong. I thought they were going somewhere really existential and deep...

Then they didn't...

Spoiled is one origin point for Anakin, I guess I just feel his descent to darkness was so sharp, fast, and obvious, and what it needed to be was subtle, fluid, and almost relatable or understandable. Maybe that's too much to ask of a Flash Gordon-type space opera.

Space Jesus was awful. "The boy had no father." Oh, come on.

(cont.)

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I saw the plinkett reviews many ago. They were pretty entertaining but after the TFA review he did, Red letter media lost a lot of credibility in my books; with how much they nitpicked the prequels and then turn around and give such a light take on TFA was B.S. in my book. Yeah, they tried to explain too much in TPM. I get what they were going for but it was clunky and didn't work.

Yoda and the emperor should have been beyond 'getting their hands dirty'. Not everyone had swing a lightsaber around. I am okay with Yoda being the 'leader' of the Jedi Order but it should have been a bit beyond just the highest memeber of a council; he should have been beyond being on a political council

Yeah rather than making him a pathetic coward, making him a sage that was seeing things beyond practical reality would've worked a lot better. Like he was so wise it became useless and he needed to get involved in a actual practical matter.

When they actually had Luke start to 'train' her I thought they might be going somewhere as well; but they weren't.

Yes, Anakin in ATOC is what Anakin should have been in TPM and Anakin in ATOC should have been moving closer to vader; by ROTS he should have been nearly vader the entire time. Because you are right, it all came too fast all at once in ROTS.

Yes, the chosen one business is probably the weakest element of the prequels. Anakin did not need to be space Jesus.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

Ultimately, though, you are right: the OT didn't seem to suffer much. I think it's because when you watched the OT, the inconsistencies were the prequels' faults. The OT made sense. Most importantly: the self-contained story here was amazing and fulfilling and had a beautiful beginning, middle, and end.

But the new movies said, "Remember that ending you loved? It doesn't count; we take it back."

Watching some of your favourite heroes of all time bring peace to the universe only to have somebody else, thirty years later, say, "Oh, it didn't work," feels cheap and unfair. Especially because it wasn't a new threat, it was the old one. The victory in Return of the Jedi was meaningless.

If you ask me (not that anybody did, but it's the internet, so here comes unsolicited Monday morning quarterbacking from a fan), the new trilogy should have been about the infighting in the power vacuum. Leia and Mon Mothma form up the New Republic, which is the core of people living under Palpatine's thumb. There's the remnant of the Imperials, now running and hiding from the retribution of those angry by Palpatine's tyranny. And then you get a new villain, the main villain, which is an opportunistic bureaucratic politician who was just waiting for his chance...now he's siphoning off allies and systems, sewing discord, and causing mayhem.

Luke just wants to study the Jedi arts and form a school, frustrating Leia. Han is getting twitchy with all the politics - he's comfier with a blaster.

Plus! Our heroes would have to talk overly-angry and vindictive allies from butchering former stormtroopers and other Imperials who weren't really evil, just going with the flow. You can introduce Finn this way.

Ironically, this plot would still allow for the moral grey, the heroes failing, the unexpected twists, Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren - all of it. But it would feel more "earned".

Just my two - or maybe three - cents.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yes, the self contained story of the OT was not impacted by the prequels. The inconsistency only made the prequels bad. The sequels almost immediately from TFA start to undermine the actual story and characters of the originals.

Exactly. It was like they said, 'screw the ending you love, you have to take our ending now'.

I like the idea of the first film of the ST being the failing and fall out of Luke, Leia, Han and the new republic and the rise of fragments of the empire. That is kind of what happened in between VI and VII but they do not really explore it, leaving the audience to fill in the gaps; the problem with that is the story of TFA does not allow the gaps to be filled in with anything sensical.

Also it would be difficult to recreate the story by going in such a new direction with it.

In the end it will go down as one of the greatest missed opportunities in Cinema.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

100%.

There is no simpler nor better way to say it than that: greatest missed opportunity.

Have you seen the clip of Mark Hamill when he says it's too late to "get the band back together", referencing that Luke, Han, and Leia would not get one last adventure. Oh, it's heartbreaking when you realise that that's the truth. For one brief film we had the chance to hear Han say "I have a bad feeling about this," and Leia responds with "I know," and they punch the lightspeed throttle and away they go.

But we didn't get that. We never will.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yes, if they wanted to pass the torch to a new generation; they needed the iconic versions of the characters to pass the torch; they needed the 3 of them together (maybe even unsuccessful in their efforts but still heroic) for at least one scene in TFA. The passing of the torch needed to mostly happen in the first film and you needed all 3 of the original trio to do it together.

What you can't do is have one totally absence (without reason mind you) another one a dead beat dad that regresses all character development from the OT, and the last being a failed 'resistance' leader. Then in the first of the ST you can't have the one scene (and only one scene) in which 2 of 3 of the icons are together in a scene that is about as exciting as watching your divorced parents bump into each other at the super market after not speaking for 10 year. Who the f**k thought this stuff was a good idea?

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

All this is so very true.

Do you think this is the biggest source of nerd rage? Like, the knowledge of the potential that got wasted is so frustrating, that's why people got REALLY mad?

It gets blamed on racism/sexism, but I always think those are a little more "loud minority" than the bulk of the reasons people hated these films.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I think the nerd rage comes from the clear message that the ST had a lot of scorn for them and the established Star Wars IP. It is laid out pretty planely in the 'feel' of the films but also the PR and pressers Kennedy, Abrams, and Johnson did basically said a big old 'f you' to the fans of the OT. Combine that with the treatment of the iconic characters (especially Han and Luke) and the result is bound to be angry fans. On top of that, Star Wars has a religious like following, so the people that feel burned respond at an almost religious level.

I think very (and I mean very) few of the angry fans were sexist or racist; no one cared that the lead was a female and no one cared that Finn was black. it was a non-issue and anyone that said it was the reason for the criticism was a lying piece of s**T. Only people that could not defend the film from the criticism would deflect to these ad hominem false character attacks. It was pathetic.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12699) 4 years ago

Oh please, the entire F-ing TRILOGY was a missed opportunity!

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Well yes that is true. But it is fun to point out the individual things that went wrong as well as the over arching cause of the trilogy’s failures.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

Nitpicking and overanalysing. All hail message boards!

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

lol, it is kind of what they are hear for.

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4177) 4 years ago

Rey was the Revan of the ST she juggled with Light and Dark They are Her films Ben Solo is overrated dead accept it also Rey being a palpatine explains her power levels I have spoken

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Rey being Palpatine's daughter does not explain her 'power level'. It would explain why she had force potential, but does not explain how she spontaneously could learn force powers without having to learn. Even Palpatine (and Revan) had a master(s)and had to train for years to be powerful force users; why does Rey get such an exception?

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

JJ Abrams doesn't like story, character, or exposition, he just likes action and mystery boxes.

Don't get me wrong, he makes some *entertaining* movies, but he can't rope together a story to save his life.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

True; he is a horribly incompetent story teller and his obsession with the poorly conceived mystery box gimmick creates a frustrating result in his 'stories' (if you can call them that).

He is good at recreating the visuals of old and putting a modern spin on them and there is some cheap entertainment quality to that; but yes, I agree 100%; he cannot put a story together at all.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

I think that's why Star Trek '09 and The Force Awakens share a lot of similar strengths and weaknesses. They're both fast-past, action-heavy, super-fun, and entertaining films, but there's no substance there, the plot doesn't really make sense, and the characters are a little thin. Star Trek avoided the last one slightly because the characters already existed. And The Force Awakens was at a disadvantage because it wasn't a reboot. Because it had to link up to exiting mythology in a more precise way, that exaggerates those Abrams flaws.

I don't want to knock the man too much; he makes movies you can eat popcorn to. He's entertaining and fun and gets them bums in the seats, so, y'know...he's not the worst guy behind the camera. It just stings a little more when it's the next official entry in the Saga you love. Star Trek was easier to take because it was like, "Oh, it's an alternate timeline; don't worry about it." And I didn't.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Wow, I think you analysis of J.J. Abrams might be the best I have ever seen. You have phrased so perfectly the things I have been saying in such an efficient manner. The point about J.J. not being able to fully reboot Star Wars but had to link the mythology exposed the flaws of his film making talent is a brilliant point.

I do think his framing and visual design is usually well done (he does recreate the visuals efficiently) and he can competently put together an action sequence; no doubt he can make mindless action films. My big problem is that it is a joke to ask him to write anything; the guy has no creativity and has no idea how to tell a story (he can't even recreate a story efficiently) and also Star Wars was not just an action popcorn flick; there was deeper story elements and mythology behind it, in addition to great character. I think the Abrams Star Trek are terrible but because they were reboots I don't feel like they insult the originals; maybe they should have just let J.J. do a full on reboot of the OT; I'd be less insulted.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

Thank you; I appreciate the compliment.

He knows how to work a camera, how to pace a scene, how to make things exciting and fun, but depth isn't his bag.

Pair JJ up with a bulletproof screenwriter and I'd let him have a go at basically any action/thriller film.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

You are welcome, it is rare that I find a post that I can admit is far superior to mine; so I try to recognize it when it happens. :)

He knows how to frame a scene and pace the individual shots; he does not pace scenes together well though; everything is just too fast and excitable (like a first time sexual encounter for a virgin who watched a lot of porn). Sure he can go through the motions and try to replicate what he knows; but without the actual experience much of it goes wrong.

He needs a great screenwriter and an even better editor; and keep him away from established IP's (or allow him to completely reboot one) then yes, I think he would be able to produce a good film.

reply