New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

[Patroklos]

Disney's actual problem is they built a park attraction around it. It would not take much to reconfigure it to OT, but they really don't like park modifications of existing attractions.

[ray245]

Disney's actual problem is they built a park attraction around it. It would not take much to reconfigure it to OT, but they really don't like park modifications of existing attractions.

I'm not sure whether sticking it to the ST era is going to work well in the long run. I am willing to bet there will be more interest in the park if they simply stick to the OT era and gave fans their Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker.

[The Romulan Republic]

What do we learn about the Rebellion from the OT filmes except for their disdain for the Empire?

That the rebellion had the support of senators? And it is primarily an issue of giving power back to the senate? As seen in ANH.

So we just need an explanation of why the galaxy folded. Palpatine is back from the dead with fleet of planet killers, so that's going to lead to a lot of governments deciding to give in now instead of risking whatever he will do to those that resist.

Yes, but the duration between Palpatine announcing he has returned and his second fall took place in a matter of days, if not weeks at best.

I disagree, if only because the ST does so little that you can tell almost the same story after it as you could have before it. And while you may disagree, trust me when I say that there are a lot of people who do like the new characters and actors- they just wish they'd been in a better story.

And Disney is going to have to fix it, because the alternative is decanonizing it, which a) isn't going to happen, and b) would be a massive insult to all the talented people who worked on those films and had no hand in the writing decisions.

However, I don't think there's much point trying any fix, or a reboot, or anything, until Disney learns not to listen to the OT "purist" crowd. As long as they're calling the shots, and bullying Disney into adhering to their line, they're just going to repeat the same mistakes.

Liking the characters as played by the actors is one thing. Staying invested in the characters themselves is another thing altogether.

As someone who spends a lot of time in ST/TLJ fan groups, I can tell you that Rey and Kylo have a devoted following (I've also observed that even people who hate the ST almost never have a bad word to say about Adam Driver-his performance is quite possibly the one universally-liked aspect of the new films). Unfortunately, a lot of those fans are also Reylo fans, which... ugg.

With Rose, the sense I often get is more "We like the concept, we like Kelly Marie Tran, we just wish more had been done with the character."

Finn... maybe its just the people I associate with, but Finn doesn't seem to inspire a lot of strong feelings one way or the other these days (although John Boyega has been gaining attention, and a new reputation, for his vocal support for and participation in the protests).

But if you get out of the "Older OT fan" bubble, there are a lot of people who like these characters- even if they're disatisfied with how their story ended up.

[FaxModem1]

Thinking on it, the big issue, aside from lack of worldbuilding and thinking through the story, is that even the themes brought up are pushed down.

The OT heroes have drifted apart, maybe we should reunite them? NOOO, they should die one by one because Harrison Ford doesn't want to be here.

Stormtroopers are people too, and you should feel bad when they die, especially as a bunch of them are abducted kids? NOOO, it's good vs evil, you shouldn't care that Finn just lost a friend on the battlefield.

Political battles for the elites really don't matter, because things don't change for the underclass, and the rich are unbothered by all the dying going on in the galaxy? NOOO, here's a cute scene of animals stampeding through a casino, and the slave boy is still enslaved, so just forget about how little you mean to Disney stockholders, er I mean, Canto Bight's tourist population.

Should you question authority, especially when it appears such authority is getting people killed through spite and/or incompetence? NOOO, you should follow orders, even if everyone is dying around you, because it's all secretly okay. Unless the person giving those orders happens to me a creepy old dude in a robe, then you really should question them, and not because you find fault in their leadership and apparent lack of planning. JUST DO AS YOUR TOLD, YOU DAMN DIRTY FLYBOY!

Things don't change, even when the plucky heroes are trying, unless the normal people get off their butts and do something? NOOO, we'll cut all possible interpretations of a populist uprising except for the money shot of a fleet appearing out of nowhere and footage of planets from previous movies having destroyed First Order ships in them, Independence Day style.

And that's the issue, theme are constantly brought up, and then squashed, because they don't want to face the implications of what they're bringing up.

[The Romulan Republic]

What you characterize as a contradiction is in fact subversion or deconstruction. The point was not "we're supposed to believe that the struggle is pointless and nothing changes". DJ's and to a lesser extent Finn's and Luke's cynicism were there to be refuted, not to be taken at face value. DJ is portrayed as a self-serving turncoat, Finn's arc ends with him embracing the Rebel cause, and restoring hope is the whole point of Luke's death scene, and the final shot implying that he will inspire other young Force users to rise up and seek freedom.

But if that's not satisfactory... you know, RoS could have had a subplot about the Rebels freeing the slaves and helping them to revolt. A lot of people wanted a story about Finn helping ex-stormtroopers to defect as well. But we didn't get any of that, because RoS was too busy shitting all over TLJ rather than trying to build on it and strengthen it.

Its like if after Empire Strikes Back, RotJ had revealed that Vader wasn't actually Luke's father, they'd reduced Lando's role to a single scene, and they'd had Luke and Leia get together while Han is just sort of... there. Oh, and Tarkin is suddenly back for no reason. If it had been systematically undercut by its sequel like that, I'm willing to bet ESB wouldn't be so well-received today. So I don't think its fair to judge TLJ when it is the middle act of a three act story which was systematically undermined by the conclusion.

Likewise, the point of the Poe and Holdo plot was not "authority figures are always wrong" followed by a contradictory "authority figures are always right". It was to show that Poe's reckless attitude was in error (which was set up from the very start of the film with no less a figure than Leia reprimanding and demoting him for getting a bunch of people foolishly killed), and frankly I welcome the rare subversion of the "lone vigilante action hero going rogue to save the day" trope that is the basis of virtually ever Hollywood action film ever (and also has massive libertarian subtext).

Part of TLJ's problem is that it did the misdirects so well that people refuse to accept the subsequent reveal.

And let's be honest: if there had been a scene of Finn angsting over his dead storm trooper friend, the Fan Bros would have just gone off about what a "pussy" he was.

[FaxModem1]

What you characterize as a contradiction is in fact subversion or deconstruction. The point was not "we're supposed to believe that the struggle is pointless and nothing changes". DJ's and to a lesser extent Finn's and Luke's cynicism were there to be refuted, not to be taken at face value. DJ is portrayed as a self-serving turncoat, Finn's arc ends with him embracing the Rebel cause, and restoring hope is the whole point of Luke's death scene, and the final shot implying that he will inspire other young Force users to rise up and seek freedom.

But if that's not satisfactory... you know, RoS could have had a subplot about the Rebels freeing the slaves and helping them to revolt. A lot of people wanted a story about Finn helping ex-stormtroopers to defect as well. But we didn't get any of that, because RoS was too busy shitting all over TLJ rather than trying to build on it and strengthen it.

Its like if after Empire Strikes Back, RotJ had revealed that Vader wasn't actually Luke's father, they'd reduced Lando's role to a single scene, and they'd had Luke and Leia get together while Han is just sort of... there. Oh, and Tarkin is suddenly back for no reason. If it had been systematically undercut by its sequel like that, I'm willing to bet ESB wouldn't be so well-received today. So I don't think its fair to judge TLJ when it is the middle act of a three act story which was systematically undermined by the conclusion.

Likewise, the point of the Poe and Holdo plot was not "authority figures are always wrong" followed by a contradictory "authority figures are always right". It was to show that Poe's reckless attitude was in error (which was set up from the very start of the film with no less a figure than Leia reprimanding and demoting him for getting a bunch of people foolishly killed), and frankly I welcome the rare subversion of the "lone vigilante action hero going rogue to save the day" trope that is the basis of virtually ever Hollywood action film ever (and also has massive libertarian subtext).

Part of TLJ's problem is that it did the misdirects so well that people refuse to accept the subsequent reveal.

And let's be honest: if there had been a scene of Finn angsting over his dead storm trooper friend, the Fan Bros would have just gone off about what a "pussy" he was.

This is the issue. One director(Abrams) is going for the Bang and Whiz scenes, not caring about the implications of what he's putting on screen, to the point of our hero is burying weapons at an abandoned crime scene and giving an alibi when asked for her name, making the main character seem like a criminal on the lam rather than an old war hero, has old friends like Chewie and Leia ignore each other because he doesn't consider character motivation. While the other(Johnson) wanted to be clever, forgetting that what he established made his authority figure callous about lives and uncaring about crew morale in the name of secrecy to the point of mutiny, while making his viewpoint character, who was brash and half-cocked, seem reasonable in comparison given that the character had no way to learn that their lives were not in literal danger.

This, plus the original plans for ROS, things like Finn and Rose's populist revolution on Coruscant being wiped away, brings about implications for the trilogy as a whole. The galaxy doesn't care or seem to be affected by the conflict(Canto Bight and dancing festival on desert planet), until it does at the last minute(random ship fleet), that the conflict is clearly not benefiting those in literal slavery(we never see them again), those conscripted as children are for the most part going to die or live in service of an evil regime, and that democracy can be brought down by a stiff wind because one sucker punch is all it takes to bring them down to three ships.

It isn't a subversion if what you're subverting is not the issue that you initially presented(the rich and maybe everyone else are unaffected by the war, while the poor are enslaved or dying fighting said war, being concerned about your people dying, even if they don't care), and a mystery box is only a box unless you fill it with something good(Rey's backstory, Snoke's backstory, the First Order in general).

Yes, ROS sucked. That's the point. TLJ also raised questions it didn't want to answer, or missed what they were bringing up(protip, when showing children in slavery, don't have the focus of the heroes action be on the cute animals). That's also the point.

[The Romulan Republic]

What you characterize as a contradiction is in fact subversion or deconstruction. The point was not "we're supposed to believe that the struggle is pointless and nothing changes". DJ's and to a lesser extent Finn's and Luke's cynicism were there to be refuted, not to be taken at face value. DJ is portrayed as a self-serving turncoat, Finn's arc ends with him embracing the Rebel cause, and restoring hope is the whole point of Luke's death scene, and the final shot implying that he will inspire other young Force users to rise up and seek freedom.

But if that's not satisfactory... you know, RoS could have had a subplot about the Rebels freeing the slaves and helping them to revolt. A lot of people wanted a story about Finn helping ex-stormtroopers to defect as well. But we didn't get any of that, because RoS was too busy shitting all over TLJ rather than trying to build on it and strengthen it.

Its like if after Empire Strikes Back, RotJ had revealed that Vader wasn't actually Luke's father, they'd reduced Lando's role to a single scene, and they'd had Luke and Leia get together while Han is just sort of... there. Oh, and Tarkin is suddenly back for no reason. If it had been systematically undercut by its sequel like that, I'm willing to bet ESB wouldn't be so well-received today. So I don't think its fair to judge TLJ when it is the middle act of a three act story which was systematically undermined by the conclusion.

Likewise, the point of the Poe and Holdo plot was not "authority figures are always wrong" followed by a contradictory "authority figures are always right". It was to show that Poe's reckless attitude was in error (which was set up from the very start of the film with no less a figure than Leia reprimanding and demoting him for getting a bunch of people foolishly killed), and frankly I welcome the rare subversion of the "lone vigilante action hero going rogue to save the day" trope that is the basis of virtually ever Hollywood action film ever (and also has massive libertarian subtext).

Part of TLJ's problem is that it did the misdirects so well that people refuse to accept the subsequent reveal.

And let's be honest: if there had been a scene of Finn angsting over his dead storm trooper friend, the Fan Bros would have just gone off about what a "pussy" he was.

This is the issue. One director(Abrams) is going for the Bang and Whiz scenes, not caring about the implications of what he's putting on screen, to the point of our hero is burying weapons at an abandoned crime scene and giving an alibi when asked for her name, making the main character seem like a criminal on the lam rather than an old war hero, has old friends like Chewie and Leia ignore each other because he doesn't consider character motivation. While the other(Johnson) wanted to be clever, forgetting that what he established made his authority figure callous about lives and uncaring about crew morale in the name of secrecy to the point of mutiny, while making his viewpoint character, who was brash and half-cocked, seem reasonable in comparison given that the character had no way to learn that their lives were not in literal danger.

At no point did the film make Holdo "callous about lives"- her whole plan hinged on sacrificing the ships to try to maximize the survival of her crew. If anything, she was too reluctant to sacrifice lives, even if preserving them meant sacrificing resources that were vital to the cause. And we've been over this before, so I know that you know better.

Also, remember that most of Holdo's plan was really just a continuation of Leia's plan- Leia demoted Poe, Leia picked the base on Crait, and given that they'd already developed the tech for the stealth shuttles, she may have planned that too. A point that Holdo bashers always seem to conveniently miss is that she was mostly just carrying out the plan laid out by Beloved OT Hero Leia. Now, fair enough if you missed that on first viewing- the film goes out of its way to trick the audience in order to set up the subsequent reveal, by playing on audience expectations and biases and showing things more from Poe's perspective. But that's no excuse for refusing to acknowledge it with the benefit of hindsight, and insisting that the misdirect was what was really happening all along.

It is also not fair to say that Holdo drove Poe to mutiny, given that he critiqued her and undermined her from the moment she appeared, and when she did try to explain the plan, he threw a fit and accused her of treason in the middle of the bridge. Nothing about his actions were "reasonable".

Other than that, I actually largely agree, at least insofar as Abrams was concerned with fan service and flash, Johnson was trying to do something smarter, and the two did not align. Which is indicative of lack of competent management and editorial oversight. But I blame pretty much everyone involved more than Johnson, because they gave Johnson the go-ahead to make his film. They presumably green-lit everything he did. They presumably indicated to him that he had their approval to make those choices, and he presumably made them understanding that they would be followed up on. And then the Fan Bros didn't like it and pitched a fit online, and Disney and Abrams promptly threw Johnson (and Kelly Marie Tran) under the bus. It is not Johnson's fault if he was mislead as to the direction of the trilogy and then made the scapegoat when Disney's lack of clear planning or vision predictably blew up in their faces.

This, plus the original plans for ROS, things like Finn and Rose's populist revolution on Coruscant being wiped away, brings about implications for the trilogy as a whole. The galaxy doesn't care or seem to be affected by the conflict(Canto Bight and dancing festival on desert planet), until it does at the last minute(random ship fleet), that the conflict is clearly not benefiting those in literal slavery(we never see them again), those conscripted as children are for the most part going to die or live in service of an evil regime, and that democracy can be brought down by a stiff wind because one sucker punch is all it takes to bring them down to three ships.

It isn't a subversion if what you're subverting is not the issue that you initially presented(the rich and maybe everyone else are unaffected by the war, while the poor are enslaved or dying fighting said war, being concerned about your people dying, even if they don't care), and a mystery box is only a box unless you fill it with something good(Rey's backstory, Snoke's backstory, the First Order in general).

Yes, ROS sucked. That's the point. TLJ also raised questions it didn't want to answer, or missed what they were bringing up(protip, when showing children in slavery, don't have the focus of the heroes action be on the cute animals). That's also the point.

Liberating the entire planet wasn't an option for Rose and Finn. Freeing the animals facilitated their escape. And the literal last shot of TLJ suggests that Luke's sacrifice will inspire those slaves to revolt. Its not Johnson's fault that Abrams didn't follow up on it.

Again, you're condemning the middle act of a three act story for being incomplete, when its successor dropped the ball on completing it.

[FaxModem1]

At no point did the film make Holdo "callous about lives"- her whole plan hinged on sacrificing the ships to try to maximize the survival of her crew. If anything, she was too reluctant to sacrifice lives, even if preserving them meant sacrificing resources that were vital to the cause. And we've been over this before, so I know that you know better.

Also, remember that most of Holdo's plan was really just a continuation of Leia's plan- Leia demoted Poe, Leia picked the base on Crait, and given that they'd already developed the tech for the stealth shuttles, she may have planned that too. A point that Holdo bashers always seem to conveniently miss is that she was mostly just carrying out the plan laid out by Beloved OT Hero Leia. Now, fair enough if you missed that on first viewing- the film goes out of its way to trick the audience in order to set up the subsequent reveal, by playing on audience expectations and biases and showing things more from Poe's perspective. But that's no excuse for refusing to acknowledge it with the benefit of hindsight, and insisting that the misdirect was what was really happening all along.

It is also not fair to say that Holdo drove Poe to mutiny, given that he critiqued her and undermined her from the moment she appeared, and when she did try to explain the plan, he threw a fit and accused her of treason in the middle of the bridge. Nothing about his actions were "reasonable".

God, we're doing this BS again?

No, you're wrong.


Here's the issue with Holdo and Poe's reactions. He was in no way 'criticizing or belittling'. You are misremembering the scene. Authority insults first. That is leadership/authority picking a fight with a subordinate because said subordinate was asking a question and bringing up what seemed to be a valid problem for their immediate future. Same way that a staffer in the White House working for Trump could bring up why their plan of action could get a lot of people killed, and being insulted in response.

Poe doesn't know what's going on, even though he is able to get members of the bridge crew on his side, even though he asks leadership(Holdo) what's going on. For whatever reason, he, Rose, and Finn don't know that they're on track towards Crait, and thinks 'shaking the enemy from their tail' is more important. There's no reason for the crew to be kept in the dark as established. Nor for why members of the bridge crew (Connix), join in the mutiny if they know what's going on, and Poe is being an idiot. The film shows Poe asking what's going on, and is rebuffed and insulted by leadership for doing so. And when Poe asks repeatedly about it, due to ships being destroyed and lives lost, finally loses his temper and plots mutiny because the current course is getting them all killed.

That is not undermining, especially, for whatever reason, Poe doesn't know that Holdo doesn't have a plan, because no one will tell him. Either A. the entire Resistance is keeping a secret from Poe so much that he freaks out and mutinies because he thinks they're all going to die, B. Poe is so clueless that he's like a small child, and will forget things, in which case this should have been established in the film trilogy earlier, or C. secrets of fleet survival are being kept from the crew, causing the very mutiny that we saw because they thought it brought about a better chance of survival. Considering that no one in the movie seems to tell Poe, and he seems to have his mental faculties, C seems to be the most logical option.

If you're not supposed to be enraged when people are dying around you due to your leadership's inaction, when are you supposed to be enraged? Potential comparison to current day politics and leadership not trying to work with people seems valid here. Especially since the film doesn't hold up in regards to why Resistance leadership is keeping things a secret from their rank and file, as no reason is ever established. This is why the film runs into the accidental theme of, "Questioning leadership is bad unless it's someone in a dark robe"

Because Poe had every reason with what was established to mutiny, because he wasn't getting leadership from the Resistance leadership.

[The Romulan Republic]

God, we're doing this BS again?

Apparently.

And just to be clear: because we've had this argument so many times, I know that you already know my arguments, I know that you are making claims that I have pointed out are misleading or outright false on multiple occassions, and I know that you know it.

No, you're wrong.


Here's the issue with Holdo and Poe's reactions. He was in no way 'criticizing or belittling'. You are misremembering the scene. Authority insults first. That is leadership/authority picking a fight with a subordinate because said subordinate was asking a question and bringing up what seemed to be a valid problem for their immediate future. Same way that a staffer in the White House working for Trump could bring up why their plan of action could get a lot of people killed, and being insulted in response.

And this is the part where you conveniently ignore that Poe had just been demoted for insubordination and getting a bunch of people killed, and that he introduces himself to Holdo by misrepresenting his rank, and that he made a dismissive comment about her before he even spoke to her.

I'm not even going to dignify "Holdo=Trump" with a response.

Poe doesn't know what's going on, even though he is able to get members of the bridge crew on his side, even though he asks leadership(Holdo) what's going on. For whatever reason, he, Rose, and Finn don't know that they're on track towards Crait, and thinks 'shaking the enemy from their tail' is more important. There's no reason for the crew to be kept in the dark as established. Nor for why members of the bridge crew (Connix), join in the mutiny if they know what's going on, and Poe is being an idiot. The film shows Poe asking what's going on, and is rebuffed and insulted by leadership for doing so. And when Poe asks repeatedly about it, due to ships being destroyed and lives lost, finally loses his temper and plots mutiny because the current course is getting them all killed.

And here's the part where you claim that Poe and others justifiably mutinied in response to not being told highly sensitive information they didn't need to know, ignoring that he starting going behind Holdo's back almost immediately after their first meeting, and ignoring the fact that when she did try to explain the plan, he flipped out in the middle of the bridge and accused her of treason.

Also that, so far as we know from on-screen evidence, exactly one person died in between Holdo taking command and Poe's mutiny (the CO of one of the frigates, who couldn't be evacuated in time). The vast majority of the casualties occurred under Leia's leadership. And most of "Holdo"'s plan was actually Leia's. Yet Holdo gets all the blame.

That is not undermining, especially, for whatever reason, Poe doesn't know that Holdo doesn't have a plan, because no one will tell him. Either A. the entire Resistance is keeping a secret from Poe so much that he freaks out and mutinies because he thinks they're all going to die, B. Poe is so clueless that he's like a small child, and will forget things, in which case this should have been established in the film trilogy earlier, or C. secrets of fleet survival are being kept from the crew, causing the very mutiny that we saw because they thought it brought about a better chance of survival. Considering that no one in the movie seems to tell Poe, and he seems to have his mental faculties, C seems to be the most logical option.

Or D. Military forces routinely classify sensitive information, and a plan on which the survival of the fleet depends, and that relies on secrecy to succeed, is pretty much the definition of "need to know".

Would the film have been a little stronger if this had been explicitly spelled out- maybe (so much for "show don't tell", I guess).

Oh, and I guess this is the point where you pretend that the mutiny was a popular revolt by a desperate crew, as opposed to like five guys with Poe.

If you're not supposed to be enraged when people are dying around you due to your leadership's inaction, when are you supposed to be enraged?

Inaction like evacuating the escorts? Inaction like fueling the transports for their escape?

Potential comparison to current day politics and leadership not trying to work with people seems valid here. Especially since the film doesn't hold up in regards to why Resistance leadership is keeping things a secret from their rank and file, as no reason is ever established. This is why the film runs into the accidental theme of, "Questioning leadership is bad unless it's someone in a dark robe"

Because Poe had every reason with what was established to mutiny, because he wasn't getting leadership from the Resistance leadership.

You're really going to go with "Holdo=Trump" as your one original argument here? Seriously?

Yes, you got me. TLJ is a terrible, pro-authoritarian film because it fails to justify why a fleet would keep a plan on which the survival of the fleet depends, and which depends on secrecy to succeed, a secret. And that totally justified Poe's mutiny, even though the plan would have worked if he hadn't blown it over an unsecured com.

Like, you don't have to like the movie. You don't have to like the character. But this shit just isn't what happened on-screen.

[The Romulan Republic]

FYI, I would say there were three main problems with the Holdo/Poe plot:

1. The film did not explain why Holdo (and Leia) did not broadcast their signal from the Raadus, instead of waiting until they got to Crait. This is the one major plot hole of TLJ.

2. Because so little is shown of Holdo to set up the misdirection and subversion, we don't get to see much of who she actually is as a character.

3. The film trusted the audience not to need everything spelled out for them, and to actually be prepared to reevaluate their prejudices when they were subverted.

From an in-universe perspective, the main problem with Holdo's leadership is that she didn't throw Poe in the brig after he threw his tantrum on the bridge.

[ray245]

2. Because so little is shown of Holdo to set up the misdirection and subversion, we don't get to see much of who she actually is as a character.

Except it didn't work because the set-up for the misdirection and subversion is not well executed to begin with. You can't make a character have legitimate concerns and at the same time show those legitimate concerns is wrong.

[Gandalf]

What do we learn about the Rebellion from the OT filmes except for their disdain for the Empire?

That the rebellion had the support of senators? And it is primarily an issue of giving power back to the senate? As seen in ANH.

Where in ANH is that second part?

[Gandalf]

If you're not supposed to be enraged when people are dying around you due to your leadership's inaction, when are you supposed to be enraged? Potential comparison to current day politics and leadership not trying to work with people seems valid here. Especially since the film doesn't hold up in regards to why Resistance leadership is keeping things a secret from their rank and file, as no reason is ever established. This is why the film runs into the accidental theme of, "Questioning leadership is bad unless it's someone in a dark robe"

A lot of Star Wars is authoritarian, from the master race of Jedi down.

Because Poe had every reason with what was established to mutiny, because he wasn't getting leadership from the Resistance leadership.

Obligatory Invasion of Iraq in 2003 mention.

[ray245]

Where in ANH is that second part?

You can easily infer from the scene that the root cause of the conflict is between imperialism and Republicanism.

[Civil War Man]

And here's the part where you claim that Poe and others justifiably mutinied in response to not being told highly sensitive information they didn't need to know, ignoring that he starting going behind Holdo's back almost immediately after their first meeting, and ignoring the fact that when she did try to explain the plan, he flipped out in the middle of the bridge and accused her of treason.

Also that, so far as we know from on-screen evidence, exactly one person died in between Holdo taking command and Poe's mutiny (the CO of one of the frigates, who couldn't be evacuated in time). The vast majority of the casualties occurred under Leia's leadership. And most of "Holdo"'s plan was actually Leia's. Yet Holdo gets all the blame.

Holdo seemed to go out of her way to make Poe think that a plan didn't even exist until the very end. When he asked her, point blank, just for confirmation that there was a plan, she evaded the question and started soliloquizing about hope, which is what someone usually does when they don't have a plan, but also don't want to admit that they don't have a plan. He wasn't even asking for details at that point. He just wanted to know that a plan existed.

Subordinates need to be given enough information about a plan to be able to carry out their roles when it's time to execute it. That is such a basic concept that calling it Military Leadership 101 is giving it too much credit. Poe didn't necessarily need to be given all of the details, but it's a major failure of leadership that he wasn't even given a cursory, "There is a plan, you will be briefed on your role when the time is right." Even if he were the lowest-ranked member in the entire fleet, he would at least be given that courtesy in an equivalent real-life situation. Even if he had been dishonorably discharged instead of demoted, the fact that he was confined to the Raddus meant even then he probably would have gotten that much if they weren't able to further confine him to the brig or his quarters, if only to keep him from interfering.

Of course, since Poe was able to frequently approach Holdo and speak to her directly, it means that either a) Holdo was his direct report at that point, and so it's her responsibility to make sure he has all the information he needs in order to do his job, either by briefing him herself or having one of her aides do it for her, or b) the situation is so chaotic that the chain of command has basically ceased to exist.

And how much information Poe needs can change over time. Perhaps, before Leia was incapacitated, Poe was a low enough rank or the plan was in an early enough stage that there were not yet any details to give him. However, based on what we are shown on-screen, even with his demotion he was still an officer, and his role became increasingly senior as attrition killed off any higher-ranked officers. Assuming situation A above, where Poe being able to frequently directly ask Holdo for information meant that she was his immediate superior, that meant that he was in a position where he might need to take over for Holdo if something happened to her. In that position, he absolutely needed to know not just that a plan existed, but most if not all of the details of it, and where to go to get any remaining details of the plan. Keeping him in the dark meant that, if another accident or attack resulted in Holdo getting killed or incapacitated, there would be a period of chaos as Poe tried to implement his own plan, only for him to go at cross-purposes with all of the people implementing the original plan, resulting in mistakes or lost time that could result in everyone getting killed.

It might have also been a failing on Leia's part to not inform him of the plan, depending on what was going on off-camera, but Poe being continually kept in the dark even as the plan got closer and closer to execution reflects incredibly poorly on Holdo. If TLJ happened in the real world, we'd probably see it in a documentary about major military blunders, about on par with the Battle of the Crater during the Siege of Petersburg, where a workable plan turns into a massacre because of screw-ups on multiple levels (Poe included, since Holdo's screw-up made him desperate enough to come up with a long-shot plan that eventually resulted in the leak that directly resulted in the massacre).

The problem with just waving it all away as subversion is that the subversion was so sloppily constructed that doesn't make sense in context. Poe is kept in the dark because he's a POV character and the audience needs to be kept in the dark in order for the subversion to work. We're supposed to think Holdo's a bad officer, so information is kept from us to make us think she's a bad officer, which means the information is also kept from Poe, which just makes her look like a worse officer when the subversion in revealed, because there was no reason given for why she would refuse to even admit that a plan even existed even though there was one.

Hollywood has been having a lot of problems with this recently. The "Rey is a nobody" subversion doesn't land with a lot of people because in TFA Rey never showed any investment in believing she had famous parents. If Daenerys was revealed to actually be a Blackfyre near the end of Game of Thrones, that would have been a curve-ball, since her identity was wrapped up in being a Targaryan, plus it would have served as a better foundation for her heel turn than just deciding to murder everyone on a whim. Rey didn't have that, though. Same with the Khan and Blofeld reveals in Into Darkness and Spectre. Kirk and Khan had never met before in that timeline, same with Bond and Blofeld. Those names are completely meaningless to the characters, but they are treated as these big reveals because the audience recognizes them. And, less specifically about subversion but more about basing themes on audience expectations, the idea that TLJ "democratized" the Force doesn't make sense, since the Skywalkers were the only Force bloodline in the movies under Lucas, and before the sequels came out that epic bloodline consisted of a kid who grew up as a slave in the middle of nowhere and his two kids.

[FaxModem1]

*SNIP*

No, the issue is that you think Poe acted in the wrong for even daring to ask Holdo a question, that it was 'critquing and belittling'. It wasn't, it was a subordinate asking their leader a question, and being insulted in response. That the movie comes out in support of Holdo, even though the movie kept Poe in the dark about it, shows that he had valid reason for being worried that there was no plan. As Civil war Man points out, a simple, "We have a plan, and I will tell you your part when the time is right" would have put Poe's mind at ease.

In fact, Poe, when he hears the plan on the transport, goes, "That could work." and is immediately a supporter of it. He then violates Commsec and briefs Finn and Rose, but he does merrily change his tune once he knows his leadership 'has a plan'. That Holdo can't do that much IS a problem. That she insults a subordinate for asking a question makes another problem, in that subordinates have to take such attitudes from leaders, painting a bad image of the Resistance leadership in their attitudes towards subordinates/those who are officers because they're pilots and not bluebloods/the working class. That the film goes out of it's way to subvert everything leaves the lesson that questioning your leaders is bad.

If the film wants to establish the 'maverick hero isn't always right' plot, it shouldn't have Poe calmly asking what the plan is like a good subordinate should, and having the leader never briefing their subordinate for what's going on. This isn't the Chief of the local police station telling the action hero cop that he's too much of a loose cannon, this is a soldier asking for orders, and being insulted for doing so.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just in case it wasn't clear, my position is not "Subordinates asking questions is wrong." You can tell by how I'm not a fascist. My position is that Poe was clearly skeptical of and disrespectful of Holdo from the outset (I am referring to his dismissive comment he makes about her during the briefing, before he's even spoken to her one on one), and that Holdo had three very good reasons not to take questions or feedback from Poe (not all subordinates) seriously, those being that he was just demoted for insubordination and getting a bunch of people killed, that he introduced himself to her by misrepresenting his rank (I offer no opinion on whether he did so deliberately or by mistake, as the film leaves this unclear and to my knowledge no one involved has given an answer) and that the plan (which was really more Leia's than hers') relied on secrecy, and Poe wasn't "need to know".

There's also the fact that it was Holdo's close friend Leia who demoted him, and that it was potentially some of her people he got killed, but those are less good reasons to ignore him pragmatically, and more understandable human biases.

Now, I usually focus on defending Holdo, because nobody else around here will, and I find many of the criticisms that are frequently made unfair. But if I were going to criticize her leadership, I would offer the following critiques:

As noted above, she should have put Poe in the brig sooner. She didn't take him seriously as someone who could help, which under the circumstances is understandable, but she also didn't take him seriously as a threat, which was a fatal miscalculation on her part.

Outside of her interactions with Poe, I would say her biggest failings amount to being too inflexibly wedded to the existing plan (remember, most of "her" plan is actually Leia's). This is understandable, given that she was thrust into a very bad situation on short notice, and had very little time and very few resources to come up with alternatives, and that her experience appears to lie primarily in espionage, politics, and logistics, not in fleet command. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that she was overly-slow to adapt to changing circumstances (at least as far as we see on-screen), as shown in her failure to attempt other methods of evacuation or calling for reinforcements, and how long it took her to decide to ram the Supremacy once it started firing on the transports.

While there is relatively scant information on which to draw such conclusions, my guess would be that she is someone who is good in the planning stage, courageous and capable one on one, but not very experienced as a starship commander and in consequence somewhat rigid in her approach, tending to just stick to the plan rather than improvise. In all likelihood, she's a good staff officer who should never have received a fleet command, but simply had the misfortune to find herself in that position due to a shortage of experienced commanders and the destruction of the Raadus's bridge. In which circumstance, she did as well as could reasonably be expected under the circumstances.

[ray245]

Just in case it wasn't clear, my position is not "Subordinates asking questions is wrong." You can tell by how I'm not a fascist. My position is that Poe was clearly skeptical of and disrespectful of Holdo from the outset (I am referring to his dismissive comment he makes about her during the briefing, before he's even spoken to her one on one), and that Holdo had three very good reasons not to take questions or feedback from Poe (not all subordinates) seriously, those being that he was just demoted for insubordination and getting a bunch of people killed, that he introduced himself to her by misrepresenting his rank (I offer no opinion on whether he did so deliberately or by mistake, as the film leaves this unclear and to my knowledge no one involved has given an answer) and that the plan (which was really more Leia's than hers') relied on secrecy, and Poe wasn't "need to know".

If I was someone in the resistance, having the leader saying such stuff would have scare me as well. Here's the problem with that scene. You are not only suppose to see it from Poe's point of view, but you are suppose to agree with Poe's position as well.

In times of crisis, having a leader saying let's rely on hopes and prayer is a frightening idea. We see it in our real life as well, with many of those people in leadership position of some countries essentially saying we should just rely on hopes and prayers to stop the pandemic.

It's why the subversion doesn't work, because it is still fundamentally a leadership failure regardless of whose perspective you take.

[Gandalf]

You can easily infer from the scene that the root cause of the conflict is between imperialism and Republicanism.

You can infer a bunch of wacky and different things from that scene. Try harder.

Even then, what is Republicanism in the SW galaxy? Considering we see a ship with a princess on a diplomatic mission to apparently some other part of the republic, we don't know enough about what's going on there at all.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just in case it wasn't clear, my position is not "Subordinates asking questions is wrong." You can tell by how I'm not a fascist. My position is that Poe was clearly skeptical of and disrespectful of Holdo from the outset (I am referring to his dismissive comment he makes about her during the briefing, before he's even spoken to her one on one), and that Holdo had three very good reasons not to take questions or feedback from Poe (not all subordinates) seriously, those being that he was just demoted for insubordination and getting a bunch of people killed, that he introduced himself to her by misrepresenting his rank (I offer no opinion on whether he did so deliberately or by mistake, as the film leaves this unclear and to my knowledge no one involved has given an answer) and that the plan (which was really more Leia's than hers') relied on secrecy, and Poe wasn't "need to know".

If I was someone in the resistance, having the leader saying such stuff would have scare me as well. Here's the problem with that scene. You are not only suppose to see it from Poe's point of view, but you are suppose to agree with Poe's position as well.

In times of crisis, having a leader saying let's rely on hopes and prayer is a frightening idea. We see it in our real life as well, with many of those people in leadership position of some countries essentially saying we should just rely on hopes and prayers to stop the pandemic.

It's why the subversion doesn't work, because it is still fundamentally a leadership failure regardless of whose perspective you take.

I agree that the film intends us to see things from Poe's point of view- the subsequent diversion depends on that misdirect working.

The problem is that people keep treating the misdirect as the true story even after the reveal, despite the fact that we have more information. Despite the fact that we've by this time seen that:

a) Poe's lack of security ruins everything.

b) Holdo heroically sacrifices her life to save the fleet, thus disproving the "cowardice" and "treason" allegations.

c) With hindsight, we can see that most of "her" plan was actually Leia's.

d) Poe's flaws are set up in the very first scene- the film simply plays on familiar tropes and biases to make us (hopefully temporarily) forget that.

To your argument that the subversion depends on a failure of leadership that parallels the pandemic response (I see we're really going with "Holdo=Trump" as the new Holdo Basher Talking Point- God this timeline sucks):

The problem is, Holdo did have a plan. It was mostly Leia's plan that she was carrying out, but she had one. She did not communicate it to the entire crew (including Poe)- but remember that said plan relied on secrecy to work, and also that her entire command lasts, what, 12 hours? This is in no way analagous to having no plan, and refusing to develop one, over a period of months.

The film's subversion relies on a misdirection. That this misdirection was convincing, because it plays on established cliches and expectations, does not mean that it is in fact the truth. Could the film have benefited from spelling out that Holdo was keeping the plan secret out of fear of a leak? Maybe. But it really shouldn't have to- its an obvious concern, and show don't tell, remember?

Could Holdo's character benefit from seeing more of her from viewpoints other than Poe's? Yes, certainly. Which is why I hope she guest stars in some episodes in a future show.

[ray245]

You can infer a bunch of wacky and different things from that scene. Try harder.

Even then, what is Republicanism in the SW galaxy? Considering we see a ship with a princess on a diplomatic mission to apparently some other part of the republic, we don't know enough about what's going on there at all.

Sure, but it certainly seems fairly reasonable inference to make. We know there is a senate, we know the empire was formed out of the old Republic, and members of the senate are the major resistance to direct imperial rule.

All those information can be added up to give us some idea what the primarily goals of the rebellion is about, especially with the princess of Alderaan as a leading member.

[Gandalf]

I agree that the film intends us to see things from Poe's point of view- the subsequent diversion depends on that misdirect working.

Weirdly, I have a lot of trouble feeling any sympathy for Poe after that opening bit. From what I could see, he was a good pilot and would up with a bunch of privileges from Leia being fond of him. Maybe if Leia had been a better leader, Poe wouldn't have got so many of his own people killed. But people don't like the idea of the OT heroes being so imperfect.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Sure, but it certainly seems fairly reasonable inference to make. We know there is a senate, we know the empire was formed out of the old Republic, and members of the senate are the major resistance to direct imperial rule.

All those information can be added up to give us some idea what the primarily goals of the rebellion is about, especially with the princess of Alderaan as a leading member.

You can make those inferences because you know the rest of Star Wars. I just watched that scene again - there is precisely one mention of "the old Republic" - Tarkin's "the last remnants of the old Republic have been swept away. One officer (Tagge I think) says "the Rebellion is too well equipped...the Rebellion will continue to gain the support of the Imperial Senate."

Imperial Senate. IIRC, the Roman Empire had a Senate as well. We don't know that members of the Senate are "the major resistance to Imperial rule" as you put it - it's said that some of them are sympathetic to the Rebellion - nothing more. I don't see how you can "easily" infer from that that it's a republicanism v imperialism situation. Hell, from that scene, we could just as easily infer that the Rebellion, and it's sympathetic senators, is the early stages of a coup d'etat because some of those Senators think they should be on the Imperial Throne and not Palpatine.

Even Luke describes it as "the Rebellion against the Empire." One impression I always got from the OT (which makes sense given the ages of the main characters) is that they had a very good idea of what they were rebelling against but not such a good idea of what they were rebelling for.

[ray245]

I agree that the film intends us to see things from Poe's point of view- the subsequent diversion depends on that misdirect working.

The problem is that people keep treating the misdirect as the true story even after the reveal, despite the fact that we have more information.

The problem is the misdirect does not distract from the leadership failure that still exist. It was a failure in leadership communication.

Despite the fact that we've by this time seen that:

a) Poe's lack of security ruins everything.

That's not the issue with why Holdo is a failure as a leader. It's not security. It's keeping up the morale of the troops by giving them a clear idea you have a clear workable plan.

b) Holdo heroically sacrifices her life to save the fleet, thus disproving the "cowardice" and "treason" allegations.

Except the film failed to show that's not the issue with Holdo. People main issue with Holdo is her communication skills.

c) With hindsight, we can see that most of "her" plan was actually Leia's.

See above.

d) Poe's flaws are set up in the very first scene- the film simply plays on familiar tropes and biases to make us (hopefully temporarily) forget that.

What we are trying to say again and again is Poe's flaws does not distract from the failure of Holdo as a leader. Even if it Poe is locked up in the brig, you will still feel nervous about trusting Holdo as a leader if you are a member of the resistance under her command.

To your argument that the subversion depends on a failure of leadership that parallels the pandemic response (I see we're really going with "Holdo=Trump" as the new Holdo Basher Talking Point- God this timeline sucks):

The problem is, Holdo did have a plan. It was mostly Leia's plan that she was carrying out, but she had one. She did not communicate it to the entire crew (including Poe)- but remember that said plan relied on secrecy to work, and also that her entire command lasts, what, 12 hours? This is in no way analagous to having no plan, and refusing to develop one, over a period of months.

She had a plan, but she failed to convince people that she actually did have a plan. What we experience in real life about crisis management is that it's not even about having a solid plan in place. It's about reassuring nervous people that you actually have a plan.

The film's subversion relies on a misdirection. That this misdirection was convincing, because it plays on established cliches and expectations, does not mean that it is in fact the truth. Could the film have benefited from spelling out that Holdo was keeping the plan secret out of fear of a leak? Maybe. But it really shouldn't have to- its an obvious concern, and show don't tell, remember?

Except it clearly didn't work with so many confused audience about the aim of those scenes. RJ misunderstood his own misdirection. He wanted the misdirection to be based on the notion that Poe is wrong about Holdo's bravery, and she redeems herself by showing that she is brave.

But that's not what the actual scene come across as to the people. People were not frustrated with Holdo because they think she is a coward, but because she fails as communication.

Could Holdo's character benefit from seeing more of her from viewpoints other than Poe's? Yes, certainly. Which is why I hope she guest stars in some episodes in a future show.

You're mixing up Holdo's flaws. Her flaws is her weak communication skills as a leader,and not due to her bravery. So no matter what other viewpoints you take, you are still going to see those flaws.

Her "redemption" in the eyes of the audience does not work well at all because RJ confuses people's issue with Holdo. He might intend people to initially think of her as a coward, but that was not communicated well. I think that is why the scenes are so confusing, because Rian Johnson himself does not seem to be good to communications.

His own failure to understand how to communicate viewpoints effectively resulted in Holdo being a poor communicator as a leader.

[Adam Reynolds]

The problem with the Holdo vs Poe plot is that they were both acting like they couldn't communicate openly despite the fact that there was no clear reason why this was the case. It almost feels like there was a previous version of the script in which there was a plot involving a spy within the Resistance that prevented them from talking openly, before that was deemed to be too complicated.