Mine is here)
1) Empire Strikes Back
2) A New Hope
3) The Last Jedi
4) Revenge of the Sith
5) Rogue One
6) Return of the Jedi
7) The Force Awakens
8) Rise of Skywalker
9) Solo
10) Attack of the Clones
11) Phantom Menace
I saw the SE Original Trilogy in 1997 so here is my ranking based on that.
1. A New Hope
2. Return of the Jedi
3. Empire Strikes Back
4. Revenge of the Sith
5. Attack of the Clones
6. Phantom Menace
7. Solo
8. Rogue One
9. Force Awakens
10. Rise of Skywalker
11. The Last Jedi
1) The Empire Strikes Back (original 1980 cut)
2) Star Wars (original 1977 cut)
3) Return of the Jedi (original 1983 cut)
4) Attack of the Clones
5) Phantom Menace
6) Rogue One
7) The Force Awakens
8) The Last Jedi
9) Solo
10) Revenge of the Sith
Haven't seen:
?) Rise of Skywalker
I don't remember much of Rogue One and Solo (seen them only once), so I'm not very sure of their ranking.
Out of curiosity; why the hate for Revenge of the Sith? I mean don't get me wrong I acknowledge it is a bad film (but IMO it is a guilty pleasure that has great pacing and solid action scenes making it the most watchable of the prequels and far better than the ST).
What is it about Revenge that in you opinion makes it the 'worse' compared to say even Attack of the Clones which is much higher on your list?
I have lots of reasons, but translating them all to english is too much work (english isn't my native language).
ROTS failed many expectations. It could have been great, but Lucas dropped the ball badly, especially after promising Attack of the clones. For instance the very ending of the film, Lucas cemented the history so that nothing seems to happen between PT and OT (how much time takes between them anyway, I've heard maybe 20 years or so?). ROTS seemed to end where Star Wars/A New Hope begins, except that the death star was still under construction. I like Attack of the clones much better, because it did much better job at showing the confusion when the imperial forces started rising and stormtroopers were initially seen as good guys. Sure, there are many flaws in AOTC as well, its partly Lucas' toy and game commercial after all. I understand that Lucas had some help in writing AOTC, at least he shared writing credit with Jonathan Hales, maybe that's why it seemed to have more edge than the other prequels. I don't know who this Hales guy is and how much he wrote of the screenplay, though...
That is a good point; REvenge of the sith does 'tie off' the connection to the OT way too cleanly. There should have been a little more distance put between them. I get what you are saying. It was NOT a subtle film ATOC is definitely more subtle but the bad pacing and cheesy uncomfortable romance sub-plot made it a hard to enjoy film.
The faster pacing and 'no moments wasted' feel of Revenge IMO make it a little more watchable. There are certain aspect that are pretty cool; such as Ian McDiarmid's portrayal of Palpatine (so awesome to watch a character that just loves being bad). The music was great; the special effects hold up even after 15 years. The lightsaber duels were 'beautiful' (not really intense because they felt more like dancing than fighting) to watch; though the Obi-Anakin did carry on way too long.
I don't I acknowledge it was a very flawed film but I 'enjoyed' it more than ATOC.
We mostly agree, with the main exception being Revenge of the Sith. That's my least favorite, while you rate it far better.
1) Star Wars
2A) The Empire Strikes Back
2B) The Force Awakens
4) The Last Jedi
5A) Return of the Jedi
5B) Solo
Bit of a gap in quality
7A) Rise of Skywalker
7B) Rogue One
Massive Plummet in quality
9) The Phantom Menace
10) Attack of the Clones
11) Revenge of the Sith
You rank Force Awakens equal with Empire and Last Jedi above Return? How do people still justify liking Force Awakens knowing that all the open ended mystery boxes that were used in place of plot and world building were indeed just open ended and never going to be filled. Obviously Return is the Weakest of the OT but it is clearly a much better star wars film than anything Disney has done.
I am not trying to be rude; but TFA IMO is one of the worst big budget films in cinema history (the lazy efforts to write in a way to rehash the plot of ANH basically alone are enough to disqualify it from top 3 consideration by itself). There is no way for me to describe all the issues I took with it but if you have time (like many hours) the Youtuber MauLer does a great job. Now i had most of these opinions of the film as I watched it (so this is not like a MauLer tells me what to think type of thing) I found MauLer because in 2016 I was shocked by all the love TFA was getting and only a few people out there saw what I saw.
here is the link to MauLer's shorter review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAOuSMsnsV4
here is part 1 to his longer analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95mL3us0HSQ
David V Stewart was another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1_jl6vI2Rs
For starters, I'm judging each film on its own merit, and not how it fits into a trilogy or an 11-film arc, but beyond that, I don't think there is any lack of plot in The Force Awakens. While the audience can wonder if Rey's parents were anyone we know from a previous film, learning who her father was isn't necessary to appreciate the film. In Star Wars, we were introduced to Darth Vader, a formidable villain, certainly one of the greatest villains in cinematic history. Would it matter if we never learn his backstory? Or, perhaps more in line with your critique of The Force Awakens, does it matter that the story given in Star Wars was later retconned in the sequel when Lucas decided to make Darth Vader Luke's father? Is Star Wars any worse because he later retconned Luke and Leia as siblings, when they were romantic interests in the first film? I think not.
What I enjoyed most about The Force Awakens:
Kylo Ren is a great villain. He looks scary, he has great power-- the sense of shock when he stopped the blaster bolt mid air was palpable in the theater on opening night-- and he is extraordinarily fleshed out. Far more than Darth Vader was in the original trilogy. He's deeply flawed, and deeply human.
Rey is a remarkable hero. She's likable and relatable. And, like Kylo Ren vs. Vader, we get so much more insight into her inner workings than we ever did Luke or Han Solo. Granted, that's a byproduct of modern movie-making, and in 1977 it was acceptable to throw an archetype onscreen and audiences would know "ah, the whiny pipsqueak who will make good," or, "oh, the irredeemable rascal who will turn hero in the final reel." Even still, her character development was powerfully done, and by the time the light saber flew into her hand at the end, you cared deeply about her. I did, anyway, and I believe most others did, too.
The supporting cast was also well-developed. Poe less so than he could have been, but the film would be overlong if he'd had a longer arc.
Bottom line, the movie was perfectly paced, introduced great characters, and returned to the fun and awe of the original film. I was 7 when Star Wars came out, and The Force Awakens is one of very few movies I’ve seen as full-grown, i.e. 35+ adult, that really gave me the same sense of wonder as did the great films of my youth. I watched it 3 times in the theater, and as an adult I *rarely* see a film more than once, and enjoyed it more each time. There isn’t a moment that drags.
Okay you are being fair and reasonable but I disagree with almost all of this. I will try to explain without sounding like a douche; I want good faith discussion despite the extremity of our disagreement. Bu tin short I think a lot of your opinion is based in your emotional subjective response to the manipulative effort of TFA and not based in objective merrit.
"I'm judging each film on its own merit, and not how it fits into a trilogy "
part of a story telling merit is continuity. You can't judge a film that is part of a series completely independently because how it relates and keeps the setting, plot and characters consistent matters; in fact it is the thing that matters most when telling more than one self contained story.
"While the audience can wonder if Rey's parents"
Rey's parents never matters; it was a mystery box to try to make her seem interesting and 'hopefully' explain her extreme force prowess. It does neither, and it wouldn't matter who her parents were because as we saw in all 6 previous films training was required for a force potential to use the force powers actively.
"we know from a previous film"
But I thought you judge films on their own merit and not how it fits into an "11-film arc"
"learning who her father was isn't necessary to appreciate the film."
But it was set up in a way for the audience to know it to be able to accept the character's place in the story and their abilities. This is why for 2 years there was endless speculation about it; because it demanded an answer.
"Would it matter if we never learn his backstory?"
But we do learn his backstory; "A young jedi named darth vader, who was a pupil of mine before he turned to evil..." No more backstory is required for making the character acceptable; everything that came after was just additional information.
out of space to be continued
"does it matter that the story given in Star Wars was later retconned in the sequel when Lucas decided to make Darth Vader Luke's father"
No because in execution it worked. It did not retconn the information from ANH it was a revelation of information that was hidden from us. A retconn is setting up a mystery and then saying it is nothing and doesn't (and never) mattered.
"Is Star Wars any worse because he later retconned Luke and Leia as siblings"
Yes, it significantly shrunk the feel of the size of the universe. This is one of the biggest flaws of the OT.
" He looks scary, he has great power-"
But he is clearly a darth vader knock off, and a non-intimidating one at that. But also combine that with his emo boy freak out and complete incompetence at completing even his own objectives (such as trying to look cool by killing Tekka) when Tekka was the only one that knew where the mcguffin map was at. Compare that to Darth Vader cold and commanding "Commander tear this ship apart until you found those plans and bring me the passenger I want them alive". One is a pathetic attempt to look bad ass; the other is actually bad ass. Kylo might be flawed but his 'human' struggle makes no sense. This idea of being 'seduced by the light' so he over compensates by 'pretending' and acting out extra super duper evil?
"Rey is a remarkable hero."
She is not a hero; she never goes into situations voluntarily to do good; the plot drags her along outside her will. She's no a hero she is just an extremely capable and annoyingly good at everything victim of the circumstance.
"She's likable"
why because she is cute and posh? Even though her traits of nobility and naivety are qualities that are inconsistent with her lone scavenger background?
"and relatable"
Because people all over the world are just naturally gifted and good at everything that the world throws at them and the world bends around their needs and efforts. She is too good at everything to be relatable
"we get so much more insight into her inner workings than we ever did Luke or Han Solo"
How do you figure that? Luke we are shown his life before the adventure began at least equal to Rey's (it is just different). We know his desires and ambitions through dialogue; same with Han. How do you figure we got more insite into Rey's than those 2 characters?
"her character development was powerfully done"
What development? she doesn't grow or change; she doesn't' struggle to overcome an obstacle; she never has any ambition or goal. Her only objective is to get back to Jakuu and continue waiting for her parents. But then that is inexplicable dropped when she ends up going to Luke instead of back home; we are actually never shown or told what changed; was it the death of Han that caused her to change? was it her ability to fight and defeat kylo that changed her goals? We are not told and have no idea it could be both, either or neither. This is not character development; this is lazy manipulative writing. They pulled out all the manipulative tricks to get you to empathize with the character emotionally; and when you get emotionally invested your brain stops working.
" by the time the light saber flew into her hand at the end, you cared deeply about her."
I didn't; I actually despised her by that time. And the fact that she can mind trick and out force pull kylo is an insult to the lore of star wars. And it made no sense, Kylo was already pulling it towards him why did he move away from catching it? it was coming at him too fast? that makes no sense. Rey did not earn that moment and did not earn that victory. It was handed to her by the plot and it makes it very difficult to root for her when she is handed spotlight moments and victories.
"The supporting cast was also well-developed. Poe less so than he could have been, but the film would be overlong if he'd had a longer arc."
No, this is just incorrect. There is almost no supporting cast that is developed in the slightest. You have focus on Finn and Rey and then the OT cast. what supporting cast is well developed? Phasma? Unkar? Tekka? Hux? TR-8R? Poe died and then was magically brought back? how did he get off Jakuu and get back to the resistance faster than Rey and Finn got to Maz's Bar? Did he just give up on looking for BB-8? I mean this was mind numbing it was so poorly done? Who do you just ignore stuff like this?
"he movie was perfectly paced"
Umm, I actually think the pacing is the biggest flaw of the film; it is a neck break speed pace that neglects any sense of world building or character development (or character interactions). It is a constant desperate feeling of rushing from action scene to action scene as quickly as possible so the audience doesn't have time to process all the nonsense of the failures of the writing.
"introduced great characters,"
Who? Rey the annoyingly good at everything scavenger that is inexplicably noble and naive despite those traits contradicting her background? Poe? The now you see me now you don't character that was literally dead and brought back to the film at a later time? Finn? The rebel storm trooper that acts like a bumbling mumbling idiot and displays absolutely no traits of being an indoctrinated soldier and who's backstory ends up playing almost no significance? (And Finn was the least egregious poorly done character, but still not even good). Hux, Snoke, Kylo? Tarkin 2.0, Emperor 2.0, Vader 2.0; who are all far less interesting then the characters they are poorly imitating? Phasma? I mean you can say you liked them, but they are pretty damn far away from being great characters; they are about as interesting and compelling as Fast and Furious characters.
"Umm, I actually think the pacing is the biggest flaw of the film; it is a neck break speed pace that neglects any sense of world building or character development (or character interactions). It is a constant desperate feeling of rushing from action scene to action scene as quickly as possible so the audience doesn't have time to process all the nonsense of the failures of the writing. "
Big dramatic moments, like death of Han Solo, needed time and space to breath. For some reason this film left me totally cold (and that's why I didn't see more Disney Star Wars movies in theater). I think it was primarily because of pacing. And lack of interesting characters and story.
Exactly; there were moments that needed to properly linger and build tension and not feel so rushed. Han's death was a huge moment in the story; it needed proper build up and contextual space for the audience to absorb it and not just rush through it to go right back to fast paced action.
The pacing is so messy specifically with Han's death too because of the messy way it was set up. The set up began with Snoke laying on some of the worst written exposition dialogue I have ever heard. "the droid is on the millennium falcon, in the hands of your father. HAAANNN SOOOLLOOO!" just in case you didn't get it. I mean the analogy of premature ejaculation comes to mind on this one; they had potential but blow the load way too early
Imagine how much more effective Han's death would have been if you didn't know Kylo was Han's son and Kylo does not take his mask off until that very moment. That scene would have actually been quite powerful; but instead we already knew Kylo was Han's son, and we were pretty sure Han was going to die ever since that was revealed to us by Snoke (I mean I would have been surprised if Kylo DIDN'T kill Han at that point). And we also already saw Kylo's face for multiple scenes; so there was no in the moment reveal either.
That whole sequence was just wasted potential.
I think a scene like you describe would have felt a bit over-the-top and forced, like they were doing it just for the shock value. I also think people would complain "oh, they tried to copy the Darth Vader being Luke's father surprise ending with a Han Solo is Kylo Ren's father surprise. Rehash!" Instead, we got to see Han and Leia talk about their son, we saw Kylo's growing confusion, his connection to Vader, etc.
Also, there's a nice subtlety to the way they built it up. We saw Kylo Ren's face at a totally unexpected moment, and in a casual way. I recall the shock of the audience when bam! There he was! I think there was shock because that isn't how blockbusters typically operate. They tend to go the way you described and try to score some unearned emotional points by revealing a new, powerful fact in the moment. I think the only thing I like less than that in modern films is the trend to throw in a quick flashback sequence after a plot twist is revealed, where we see all the places they dropped clues for their big twist, just in case anyone in the audience is too dumb to get it. I like that they kept things smaller and more real, and we learned details in an organic fashion rather than having them thrown at us strictly for shock value.
Other than that, I really don't have the time or energy to address the eight long posts you've written to respond to me, and I don't know if I even would if I did. We have a different opinion of the film, and it comes down to a matter of taste. The things you wrote about the characters, the plot, the pacing are quite opposite of how I feel about them. Maybe when I have less work on my plate I'll revisit this thread and offer a bit more, but for now I'm happy to agree to disagree.
IDK man, they were okay with copying just about everything from ANH, it seems pretty ridiculous to claim they drew the line at trying to copy the Vader reveal. Also the scene would have almost been the inverse of the Vader reveal scene with the reveal coming at the beginning of them meeting and not the end of them fighting. It would have been much more effective; and they could still have Han and Leia talk about it but made the discussion more subtle; the way it was in the film was clunky on the nose dialogue. They weren't talking to each other, they were talking to the audience.
No it was not an unexpected moment; it was with Rey. Once again the plot bends so that it is Rey that is the first reason Kylo takes his mask off. Build up is how you earn the emotional points; subverting the build up and just doing something unexpected is the definition of unearned. So I get your point they were not trying to build up a twist but it had to be revealed somehow; and the way they revealed it was through clunky meta (for the audience benefit) type of exposition dialogue. Some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. "You cannot deny the truth that is your family" from Tekka and then "Your Father, Han Solo" from Snoke (did you get it audience, Han is Kylo's dad, did you get it SNoke made sure to say both the title father and the name so no one is confused). I mean you can't deny this was some really bad dialogue, right? I mean you complain about clues being dropped to make sure the any dumb audience members can still understand it; I mean what is this dialogue doing if not treating the entire audience as if they are dumb?
Fair enough; I respect the difference in our opinion and that you have discussed in good faith. I understand having a busy schedule and respect you can't address all of my point. One thing I will say though; these things I discussed are not my opinions; they are the facts and reasons that lead to my opinion.
" returned to the fun and awe of the original film."
Just because the prequels were bad does not mean we should over look the flaws of Force Awakens. "the return to what made star wars great" was a manipulative marketing campaign that tried to bank off the hate of the prequels. It was not a return to the fun; it was a lazy rehash that copy and pasted the aesthetics to try to manipulate your love of the OT while retelling the same story with updated graphics and worse plot and characters. Force awakens might have been good if it was just a straight up remake re-imagining; but it billed itself as a sequel and brought back the OT cast and was supposed to follow up the plot after Return of the jedi; it didn't instead it undid the plot of the OT just so it could retell it again. I mean it was egregiously lazy.
" was 7 when Star Wars came out, and The Force Awakens is one of very few movies I’ve seen as full-grown, i.e. 35+ adult, that really gave me the same sense of wonder as did the great films of my youth. I watched it 3 times in the theater, and as an adult I *rarely* see a film more than once, and enjoyed it more each time. "
Just because you really like it doesn't mean it is good; I like bad films sometimes but that should completely over ride my ability to be objective.
"There isn’t a moment that drags."
That is a problem; considering it was the first of a new trilogy and was filling in the gap of the last 30 years of the universe it needed to take some time and do the leg work to establish the plot; but instead it just rushed from action scene to action scene with no build up and extremely little development.
Dude , he likes TFA and gave good reasoning, why write a 4 page essay , accept his views and stop jumping on people that like films you dont like.
I agree with Filmbuffs review, i share the same views , its a good fun movie.
It was not good reasoning; that is why I discussed it with him; did you even read my "4 page essay" or you just immediately try to shut down my conversation. Look at what I wrote, I am trying to be respectful about the disagreement. If the person wishes to discuss our different views of this it is on them. you don't like it? there is the door, don't let it hit you on the way out.
" accept his views"
I don't have to accept anything if I disagree with the reasoning. Who are you to tell me I have to accept someone's opinion when You are basically attacking my opinion and views? the hypocrisy is just astounding.
"I agree with Filmbuffs review, i share the same views '
At least filmbuff is able to explain why he likes it so I can discuss how I disagree, at least they are making an attempt at good faith discussion and not being a douche; unlike you
" its a good fun movie."
You can say it was fun; but it was not good. Objectivity is a real thing.
This is ridiculous, its as if we must all agree with your views , that's what frustrats me, you have to accept TFA was a huge success, crtically acclaimed , and huge approval from millions of fans
shareI don't expect people HAVE to agree with me;That is not it at all. I am simply pointing out what I view as flaws in the film's execution and writing; if others disagree with it they are free to provide reasons for why they disagree; if they won't or can't that is on them. This is simply a discussion and as long as people argue in good faith I will respect their opinion even if I disagree with it. We are allowed to discuss this disagreement without condescension and name calling or other non-arguments. You don't seem to be capable of defending this film through logic and reason; your only defenses are fallacies and that is why you are frustrated. You like the film but you can't provide good reason for why ("it was fun and I enjoyed it" are not good reasons; they are shallow reasons that have nothing to do with quality)
People don't have to share my view but I provide reasons (very clear and detailed reasons) for why I have my view; in the act of good faith discourse people can discuss their reasons and why they disagree. That is how conversation works, buddy.
"you have to accept TFA was a huge success, critically acclaimed , and huge approval from millions of fans"
These are all fallacies (huge success = appeal to accomplishment, Critically acclaimed = ad verecundiam (appeal to authority), and huge approval from millions of fans = appeal to popularity). None of these actually discuss the quality or criticisms of the film. I am not arguing against its success or acclaim I am making an argument on its quality and merit. A given thing can get more praise and success then it deserves based on its actual quality, can it not?
Lol Rey remarkable etc?
I've only seen simping this powerful once before.
"I've only seen simping this powerful once before."
I don't think I have ever seen such an exaggeratedly and inexplicably powerful (without acceptable reasons), spotlight stealing, and annoyingly good at everything character ever before in any mainstream production. Combine that with her never struggling to overcome obstacles never having any significant loses or defeats and (most annoyingly) the creators framed it is such a way that they pulled out every manipulative trick in the books to try to get you to like and empathize with the character. For me, the more I felt like I was being manipulated, the more it seemed the creators were insulting my intelligence and the combination of all of this made me just despise the character.
What is the other example you are referring to?
(I was referring to furiousstyles post, simping on Rey)
Rey is a joke of a character, to suggest otherwise is to be disingenuous.
Oh, I thought there was an actual example of it.
Yes; Rey is arguably the worse character ever written for a big budget film; she is basically as comically over the top as you'd see in an Arnold satire film like Commando (only in Commando he at least has a justification for his skills, unlike Rey). I mean think about that; she is more over the top than even satire characters.
I'm not stopping you with enjoying TFA; I was OK with it when I saw it for the first time. I naively expected that, like the trilogies before it, the second movie would be more focused on character building. Apologies in advance if I start ranting over TLJ which I openly detest.
>Would it matter if we never learn his backstory?
Of course it would. You've dismissed the prequels in a single sentence. Also Kenobi teaching Vadar's back story is all part of world building.
>does it matter that the story given in Star Wars was later retconned in the sequel when Lucas decided to make Darth Vader Luke's father?
No. Vadar being Luke's father is one of the greatest plot twists in movie history. Also it's probably not a good idea for Kenobi telling Luke that the guy who ordered his family being killed is in fact Luke's own father. second only to the Emperor in being the galaxy"s #1 bad guy. Take any of this out and you're taking away character development, and nobody gives a toss about undeveloped characters because nobody knows who they are.
>Kylo Ren is a great villain.
He starts off that way but constantly dithers. Compare him to his icon, Darth Vader, who doesn't think twice in killing his own kind in order to get the results he wants. Kylo just doesn't have the same aura of fear that Vadar did. Similarly all the new characters could have been interesting. Finn was set up to have a conflict with Phasma, for example. Hux vs Kylo over who is commander. Never happened tho.
>Rey is a remarkable hero. She's likable and relatable.
Her powers are certainly remarkable. She achieves everything without error or loss and that makes her unrelatable. One of the heaviest criticisms of these movies is her 'Mary Sue'-ness, you must have seen that expression used in these forums.
>The supporting cast was also well-developed.
Ugh.
>I was 7 when Star Wars came out,
Well if we have one thing in common then I'm in the same age-bracket as you.
What I was talking about was in response to the other fellow's post. I'm saying that the events of the future films don't factor into my opinion of a given film.
I'm not going to lower my opinion of Star Wars because in a future film it was decided that Darth Vader is his father, or Leia is his sister. After all, it's kind of ridiculous to imagine that Obi Wan Kenobi kept Anakin Skywalker from finding out he had a son by leaving a kid named Luke Skywalker to live in Anakin's old crib, with Anakin's stepbrother. It's equally ridiculous that Obi Wan Kenobi hid from the Empire all those years by hiding down the road from Skywalker Ranch going by the name Ben Kenobi, and being someone all the locals seemed to know about. It's pretty gross that Luke's love interest in the first film is his twin sister. I could go on, but the point is-- I judge Star Wars based entirely on Star Wars, and not on other films. By the same token, I don't suddenly like The Force Awakens less because the sequels didn't properly build upon the framework it laid.
The same goes for Kylon Ren/Hux, Finn/Phasma, Rey's parentage, and a host of other things that were, in my opinion, expertly laid out and developed in The Force Awakens, and not properly developed in the next two films.
As for Rey and the "Mary Sue" concept: that's something that exists only in the minds of the film's detractors. If you only judge her based on what's in the film, and the mythology laid out for the Star Wars universe, she's in no way a Mary Sue. I should clarify-- while I don't judge a film based on how its story is carried out in future films, I do judge a film on how accurately it adheres to rules laid out in prior films. (If Die Hard 6 shows John McClane flying because he's now a superhero, I won't think Die Hard is any less of a classic than it is.) Rey starts as a conflicted, confused character. She overcomes a number of challenges, but never easily, and experiences defeats as well. Her mastery of the force parallels that of Luke Skywalker, who also did amazing things through the force without any training whatsoever.
We also have to keep in mind that in two moments— when she persuades the stormtrooper to free her, and when she pushes Kylo Ren back when he’s trying to win her to his side— there was the suggestion that someone— probably Obi Wan Kenobi— was guiding her. We may never know what Abrams had in mind for future films, only that Rian Johnson changed things drastically, but I don’t think less of The Force Awakens for setting the stage for a future film just because the future film didn’t deliver on the moment as well as it could have. Just like Luke kissed his sister, but really he didn't, because she wasn't his sister then...
Lucas Star Wars:
1. A New Hope
2. Attack of the Clones
3. Empire Strikes Back
4. Revenge of the Sith
5. Phantom Menace
6. Return of the Jedi
Disney Star Wars*:
7. Solo
8. Rise of Skywalker
9. Rogue One
10. The Force Awakens
11. The Last Jedi
*not real Star Wars
1) Empire Strikes Back 9.5/10
2) ANH - 9.10
(obvious dip in quality)
3) Return - 7/10
4) Revenge - 6.5/10
5) Rogue one - 6/10
(huge dip in quality)
6) Attack of the Clones - 4/10
7) Phantom - 3.5/10
8) Last Jedi - 3/10
9) Force Awakens - 2/10 (I would give it 0 but it did have high production value)
Un-ranked (Have not seen these so can't rank them:
Solo
Rise of Skywalker
new hope
empire
return
clones
menace
sith
solo
rogue one
ewoks2
ewoks1
rise of skywanker
Lucas Star Wars:
1. A New Hope
2. Empire Strikes Back
3. Return of The Jedi
4. Revenge of the Sith
5. Attack of the Clones
6. Phantom Menace
Disney Star Wars*:
7. Rogue One
8. The Force Awakens
I’ve not seen the others, lost interest.
*Not real Star Wars