Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker **Spoilers from post 2076**

Goodshape wrote: »

The MCU has a huge and highly diverse 50+ years of stories and a multitude of characters to draw upon.

Star Wars had 3 films.

...6 films, tons of novels, a ****load of comics and games.

Plus, Star Wars has an entire universe to play with that's not constraint to a simple superhero vs supervillain.

There's potentially more to Star Wars than there is in any Marvel/DC superhero story, which is essentially the same story over and over again, until they reset.

It's unfortunate that Disney haven't been able to figure that out and instead rebooted the one film in cinema history that absolutely didn't need a reboot.

Liamario wrote: »

I think Disney started off well enough with TFA, but then things took a turn in TLJ. They had at least created a few new characters that you felt something for. The prequels were worse than these movies to be fair. Hiatus is needed and some time to properly develop the stories. Stop doing stupid spin-offs whose only aim is to explain things that don't need explaining.

I don't agree. I think the seeds of the failure of this series in terms of its ability to tell a compelling 3-episode story were sown in the first film.

They needed someone with some kind of vision that could establish a new series and instead they brought in the most befuddled and scatterbrained of directors in JJ Abrams.

So you've had a couple of decent films in terms of the quality of production and how their dialogue was written, quality of acting and CGI, but they fail to make much of a lasting impression and don't really hold together as a trilogy, or even really as part of the broader Star Wars family.

They feel tacked on, and glued together.

I'm interested to see what Rian Johnson and Benihoff and Weiss's trilogies are, because at least then we should see some kind of unified thought underpinning them, although I'm not terribly impressed by the latter duo's ability to write when left to their own devices.

Goodshape wrote: »

I meant 3 films that anybody likes or cares about.

Plus 3 awful films and a ton of fan fiction.


Only the most literal sense. As in, yeah – it's set in space which is, I guess, the "universe". But the story itself was pretty small and very simple. Looked great. Very exciting. But not exactly deep.

The point still remains. The possibilities and potential for Star Wars is far greater than anything the MCU has to offer, which is the same story over and over again.

If the makers have made the universe small, that's their own doing.

A lot of folk were happy when Disney threw everything out and went back to year zero. But, they didn't replace it with anything worthwhile.

Gbear wrote: »

There's only so much they can release at a time.

I hope that they just give this particular period they've stuck to since the beginning a wide berth for about 50 years now.

If by "this particular period", you mean nu-Star Wars, with Rey, Finn and whatever then yes. Because it's been crap. Plus, I don't see any of those actors returning. So, more than likely, it's the last we'll see of them on the big screen anyway.

However, if you mean the Imperial period that was set up in the original movies, then no. I'd like more of that, because it was the most fleshed out period that Star Wars have engaged in. They can keep that setting. They just need to expand the story.

Gbear wrote: »

An Old Republic Film series, which Benihoff and Weiss are supposedly doing, along with the all the other media that they'll build around it, whether it's retelling old, but good stories, like Darth Bane, or the story from KotOR about Revan, or they just start afresh, will be a welcome departure from this increasingly claustrophobic period they've stuck to thus far.

Never cared too much to the Old Republic stuff really. But, if the films are actually good, then bring it on. If the 'Game of Thrones' lads can write something as compelling as that show, then I'm all in.

Gbear wrote: »

Too much prequelling and back-filling, and trying to tie up old stories that nobody reallllly needed tied up. Not enough fresh exploration of the galaxy.

Agreed. Too many answers to questions nobody asked.

Looks like they're about to show trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnhiLZOprZE

If by "this particular period", you mean nu-Star Wars, with Rey, Finn and whatever then yes. Because it's been crap. Plus, I don't see any of those actors returning. So, more than likely, it's the last we'll see of them on the big screen anyway.

However, if you mean the Imperial period that was set up in the original movies, then no. I'd like more of that, because it was the most fleshed out period that Star Wars have engaged in. They can keep that setting. They just need to expand the story.

I think they've a problem in how short a period the Empire was around for and who they've established as the main movers and shakers.

There's room for individual stories, but for the big tent pole space opera series that string 3 or more films together, I think they need to look at the universe from a fresh perspective.
It doesn't have to be in a different time period, but it has to be looking at different entities than the Empire and the Rebellion, about whom we know too much to keep following.

How can you have a massive epic story within the series, but ignore the upper hierarchies of both belligerents in the war?
You can do smaller ones, and I might well enjoy a story about Bounty Hunters, Darth Maul, the Black Sun, and so on, that they seem to have laid the groundwork for. But it can't change the fundamentals of what happens in the war between the Empire and the Rebellion. We know the main beats of that war already, so it leaves very little room to have any stories of consequence.

Dades wrote: »

As a stand alone movie, Rouge One was really good.

Solo risked trying to tell the origin of Han Solo of all characters, and was released only about a month after TLJ appeared on DVD. Unwanted and badly timed. A definite misstep - despite being quite a fun movie.

But you can't say that bringing back Luke, Han and Leia for the new trilogy didn't send the hype into the stratosphere. That's what made TFA box office. Getting the same buy-in from both old and new generations after so many years would have been impossible without some callbacks to the OT. A complete break would never have been as box office.

I understand the business decision, and it's inarguable that the new trilogy is a financial success. However, they could've done all that, and built a new compelling story, and a new state for the galaxy to be in. Instead it's as shallow as a puddle.

I liked R1 as well. I suppose it's a question of what you want from these films though.

I enjoy the Marvel films well enough, but I'd be lying if I said any more than about 4 of them have particularly stayed in my memory.

So they can sort of shovel out solid but forgettable blockbusters, and I guess that's fine, but it'd be nice to move the standards back towards being iconic bastions of Sci-Fi.

There was quite a lot of Lucas' fingeprints on the Prequels, for better or worse. The new trilogy lack that. They get most of the technical stuff right, which means I can go to the film and enjoy it.
But it's a bit flat and two-dimensional. I don't want to dive into the universe and keep exploring it. And that's what you need to build a cinematic universe.

There was nothing stopping them from having that, and keeping most of the rest the same. They just needed a better handle on who was going to spearhead the new world they were creating. It's a different skillset, that the likes of Tolkien, or George Martin, or even George Lucas have than what we've seen from the custodians of this iteration of Star Wars.

I would've loved to see a Kylo Ren, played by Adam driver, in a First Order, that actually is something I understand and can fit into the galaxy, rather than it being just space-nazis 2.0. I would've loved to see Carry Fisher back as a member of a faltering senate you see disintegrate in the opening of a new war.
I'd love to have some sort of emotional response to her and Han separating over the loss of their son, because they properly address something so pivotal in the film.

You often hear storytellers talk about worldbuilding being like an iceberg. Basically, you need to have a tip sticking out of the water, which is the worldbuilding you see, and it is suggestive of what's lurking beneath the waves, but what we get is a lump of styrofoam floating on the surface and the producers not understanding why we don't think it's an iceberg.

Well it's a Star Wars film with lots of star wars stuff, self-references and nostalgia, so that's par for the course then.

I dunno does that title just mean that they've changed their minds again about Rey and she's actually Kylo's secret sister, or cousin or whatever. Not sure what else it might refer to.

lapua20grain wrote: »

Palpatine, interesting

Use [noparse] [/noparse] tags!

Was that the remains of the Death Star at the end? Looks like this episode will again be leaning heavily on nostalgia, but appears intriguing enough from the trailer

dominatinMC wrote: »

Was that the remains of the Death Star at the end?

Looks like it. The second Death Star that seems to harbour the ghost of Palpatine, maybe.

Sad Professor wrote: »

I was just going to ask this. Is it definitely the Death Star? Really annoying if so.

It's a new Death Star. An even bigger one.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Ugh, please no, but it wouldn't surprise me.

It could also be the remains of the first on Yavin IV, we never really saw any coastlines on either Endor or Yavin. But judging by the Palpatine laugh at the end, and since Palps dies on that Death Star, it's most likely Endor.

Relikk wrote: »

Looks like it. The second Death Star that seems to harbour the ghost of Palpatine, maybe.

Given the laugh, I'm thinking the same. Some sort of closing the loop by going back to where it all began with Palpatine maybe.

Jesus woman, turn on your lightsaber when you're in the air, not just before you start sprinting. You'll cut your own head off!