Box Office: ‘Rise Of Skywalker’ Turned ‘Star Wars’ Into A $6 Billion Wash

[Galvatron]

More things to consider:

In ANH, Leia told Vader that "the Senate will hear of this!"

In ESB, Lando expected Vader to keep his word regarding the deal they had.

This meant that to a lot of people, the Senate still had the illusion of power right up to Alderaan; and also that someone was careful to cultivate a "public" image for Vader.

That's why Jedha City was called a "mining accident," although Scarif may have been covered up entirely since it wasn't a civilian population center.

I don't think the Senate's power was an illusion though. After all, even Vader took steps to avoid their wrath by fabricating a cover story about the Tantive IV's destruction.

Then there was Tagge's fretful statement regarding the Senate's worsening trend of sympathizing with the rebellion.

Not sure what you mean about Vader's public image though. I never got the impression that the Empire publicized much of anything about him, although I'm sure he was known of among the upper echelons.

[Elfdart]

I agree completely that Anakin's traits should have carried over into Vader, and I think it's a crying shame if a lot of new EU misses the mark on that.

The new Disney+Marvel EU is kind of weird.

We've seen the DARTH VADER comic rebooted no less than three times so we have:

DARTH VADER (2015) x 25 issues
DARTH VADER (2018) x 25 issues
DARTH VADER (2020) - ONGOING

But here's the thing, they can't even keep track of their shared universe!

DARTH VADER (2015) opens just after ANH, Vader's returned from the destruction of the Death Star, and he has to batten down the hatches; so he hires Boba Fett (as one of Jabba's best bounty hunters) to find out the identity of the pilot who destroyed the Death Star and if possible, capture him.

This, alone, is a major issue. Wouldn't the Rebels want to trumpet the names of the survivors of Red Squadron as propaganda as the "Beings who took down a battlestation?"?

The way the Empire kills people for being connected to suspected rebels (like Owen and Beru, a bunch of Jawas and who knows who else on Tattooine) to the point of blowing up an entire planet, keeping ANY rebel's identity a secret would be high priority.

[MKSheppard]

So at what point do you think that Luke, Han, and Chewie became "known" as key rebels?

Empire Strikes Back seems like as good any point as to use for that; since at this point, the Rebellion is no longer about surviving and they're now looking ahead towards ENDGAME -- ROTJ happens about a year after ESB.

[Adam Reynolds]

This is a few days old, but it was a good one:

[chimericoncogene]

So at what point do you think that Luke, Han, and Chewie became "known" as key rebels?

Empire Strikes Back seems like as good any point as to use for that; since at this point, the Rebellion is no longer about surviving and they're now looking ahead towards ENDGAME -- ROTJ happens about a year after ESB.

Sometime after TESB, actually. Han was still talking about leaving at the start of that, and Luke only became a Jedi Knight in-training (surely a useful asset, as attested to by the Rebels cartoon) by the end of it.
Luke was addressed as "commander" by the start of TESB, but he never really seemed to lead heavily other than in the snowspeeder scene.
Chewie... never seemed to have command authority, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know what?

They should have just had the whole fucking thing done by Rian Johnson.

Disagree if you want. Hate me for saying that if you want, but the fact is that you would have had a stylistically and thematically coherent trilogy which actually had the balls to try to do something new, rather than a first film that was basically A New Hope with a new coat of paint and more plot holes, a second film which feels out of place because it was written by someone with a smidge of creativity, and a finale that was a disjointed pile of random fan service done as a craven apology to the most toxic elements of the fandom for the previous film daring to try something new.

Granted, almost any coherent trilogy would have arguably been better than the mess we got, even one that was all JJ Abrams. But I do think TLJ is the only film in the series that will be better received in ten or twenty years than it was when it premiered.

Edit: I should probably say, if I haven't before, that I was wrong. I argued when the new trilogy was announced, and even before that, that JJ Abrams would be a good man for the job. I admit it, I was wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong. While I'll still maintain that he's an okay director when it comes to visuals and casting, that man should not be let within twenty paces of a script.

[ray245]

Edit: I should probably say, if I haven't before, that I was wrong. I argued when the new trilogy was announced, and even before that, that JJ Abrams would be a good man for the job. I admit it, I was wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong. While I'll still maintain that he's an okay director when it comes to visuals and casting, that man should not be let within twenty paces of a script.

Only someone who has not looked closely into the works of JJ Abrams would think he is ever suitable for Star Wars in the first place. Yours and many other fans ( espeically the media) clamour for him is why the sequel trilogy has been so badly derailed. He is not good at visuals at all. ( He thinks lens-flare is a cool gimmick that he had to be told off to reduce the amount of lens flare by his wife). JJ Abrams embodies Hollywood privilege from the get-go, and he is more of a marketing director than an actual story-teller.

For someone that opposed JJ Abrams even before the film was released, I do feel very annoyed that it took people so long to come to my position. That said, I think you are still not a fundamental good judge of what works for the long-term enjoyment of a film because you had been so eager to support JJ Abrams.

You know what?

They should have just had the whole fucking thing done by Rian Johnson.

Disagree if you want. Hate me for saying that if you want, but the fact is that you would have had a stylistically and thematically coherent trilogy which actually had the balls to try to do something new, rather than a first film that was basically A New Hope with a new coat of paint and more plot holes, a second film which feels out of place because it was written by someone with a smidge of creativity, and a finale that was a disjointed pile of random fan service done as a craven apology to the most toxic elements of the fandom for the previous film daring to try something new.

Granted, almost any coherent trilogy would have arguably been better than the mess we got, even one that was all JJ Abrams. But I do think TLJ is the only film in the series that will be better received in ten or twenty years than it was when it premiered.

Rian Johnson is clearly a much superior director to JJ Abrams, but I do not believe he makes a good director for a genre like Star Wars. His talents lies in challenging the established views and mindset which the franchise has developed over the years, but he draws too much attention to the artificiality of the Star Wars universe. You need someone who can understand the absurdity of the Star Wars universe, but is willing to embrace it wholeheartedly.

His reference to WW2 movies and action sequences in TLJ actually reveals his misunderstanding of why and how Lucas used WW2 footage as an inspiration for Star Wars. The point of them is not because they were WW2 footage, but because those footage were able to capture a sense of dynamism that most sci-fi movies do not have at the time. In the prequels, he was more than happy to switch to different influences, like the old swords and sandals feel with the gungan army, and 18th century naval Galley warfare for the space battle in ROTS. It is about using a wide range of film vocabulary and repurpose them for a sci-fantasy world. There is a bit of cheesiness in the Star Wars movies and shows made by George Lucas. Without that, Star Wars would have lost the sense of fun that it evoke in its audience. It is a franchise for kids first of all. Not for the kids who grew up with the OT, or even the kids who grew up with the prequels. But kids today.

Rian Johnson is not a director who makes films for kids.

[The Romulan Republic]

TLJ had plenty of light moments and spectacle, I don't know that its a film you have to be a Serious Grown Up to enjoy. It does fit a little awkwardly with the rest of the franchise at times, but most of all with the rest of the ST.

I'll grant that Johnson was an awful choice for trying to win over traditionalist OT fans, because as you said he challenges the status quo. But at this point I'm so irritated with that segment of the fandom that I don't much care. About the only person with real talent who's managed to please them in the in the last quarter century or so is Filoni, and even he's had mixed success (I've seen a fair amount of "Ahsoka is a Mary Sue" whining lately).

Hmm, who do you think WOULD be a good choice (since we can at least agree that Abrams sucks)?

[ray245]

TLJ had plenty of light moments and spectacle, I don't know that its a film you have to be a Serious Grown Up to enjoy. It does fit a little awkwardly with the rest of the franchise at times, but most of all with the rest of the ST.

I'll grant that Johnson was an awful choice for trying to win over traditionalist OT fans, because as you said he challenges the status quo. But at this point I'm so irritated with that segment of the fandom that I don't much care. About the only person with real talent who's managed to please them in the in the last quarter century or so is Filoni, and even he's had mixed success (I've seen a fair amount of "Ahsoka is a Mary Sue" whining lately).

Hmm, who do you think WOULD be a good choice (since we can at least agree that Abrams sucks)?

James Cameron, even though he said he do not want to direct Star Wars movie because he has his own sci-fi franchise to deal with. Denis Villeneuve is another option, even though he'll be busy with Dune. Dave Filoni isn't perfect, but he captures the exact same mindset that Lucas himself have regarding SW. ( Even Geoge Lucas himself is divisive amongst SW fans).

I would much rather have a successor that captures the good and the bad of George Lucas, than trying to find a director the pleases the "fanbase" ( which conveniently ignores any appeals to kids).

The heart of Star Wars imo is the sense of wonder and excitement over seeing well-fleshed out worlds, with a sense of fun and adventure.

[MKSheppard]

( He thinks lens-flare is a cool gimmick that he had to be told off to reduce the amount of lens flare by his wife).

The USS Kelvin intro from 2009 Trek is still one of the best moments put to film.

Rian Johnson is clearly a much superior director to JJ Abrams, but I do not believe he makes a good director for a genre like Star Wars. .....His reference to WW2 movies and action sequences in TLJ actually reveals his misunderstanding of why and how Lucas used WW2 footage as an inspiration for Star Wars. The point of them is not because they were WW2 footage, but because those footage were able to capture a sense of dynamism that most sci-fi movies do not have at the time.

I'd like to make a point. Rian Johnson had bombers flying really slowly over star destroyers to drop .... thermal detonators to blow up star destroyers.

If you're aping WW2 movies to sink ships; here's a better go at it:



or

[Knife]

While I'll agree that an overreaching tone and consistency was needed for the trilogy, Johnson wasn't that guy either. A large amount of fans wouldn't have put up with 3 movies of deconstructing their heroes and subversion on the subversion, just to subvert. Johnson's need to subvert is almost as pathological and annoying as Abram's need for lens flare.

As to who can get them out of this hole? Obviously Filoni is a good choice. Jon Favreau would be a close second. He can do action/scifi as seen with being Director and Producer of Iron Man, and I believe Iron Man II. He did a lot of producing with Avengers as well. Hell, he made a passable movie out of Cowboys and Aliens, which in my book, puts him above Rian Johnson. And lets not forget the Mandalorian. He took some of the roots of Star Wars, that of the Western, and doubled down on that and made a good show that totally felt like Star Wars but was way different than anything we've seen yet.

[Galvatron]

Favreau and Filoni should have had the job on day one. Also, it baffles me why they're completely ignoring Joe Johnston these days given his Star Wars pedigree.

[Knife]

Also wouldn't mind if Taika Waititi got a shot at it. Thor Ragnarok was in theme, tone, and visually, exactly what I'd like in a Star Wars movie.

[Galvatron]

Meh, I think they should tone down the "comedy" in Star Wars. Stormtroopers are bumbling enough without the heroes playing Get Help with them.

[ray245]

[I'd like to make a point. Rian Johnson had bombers flying really slowly over star destroyers to drop .... thermal detonators to blow up star destroyers.

If you're aping WW2 movies to sink ships; here's a better go at it:

That will require Rian Johnson to know why Lucas aped WW2 movies in the first place.

Also wouldn't mind if Taika Waititi got a shot at it. Thor Ragnarok was in theme, tone, and visually, exactly what I'd like in a Star Wars movie.

I have some reservations about Taika Waiti in being in charge of writing a Star Wars movie. There are many reasons why he fits Star Wars, but my main concern is how he will address a sense of scale within Star Wars. Thor Ragnarok has a very minimalist sci-fantasy world, where nearly all of the Agsardian survivors can fit into one relatively small ship.

Star Wars do have a minimalist issue when it comes to mentioning of numbers, but you always get a sense of massive scale in what appears on the screen. Moreover, how much effort will Taikia put into playing around with the Galaxy at large? The sequels utter failure to develop a sense of scale for the Galaxy ( JJ Abrams' stupid starkiller base beam being able to be seen across multiple systems) is a big issue for the Star Wars franchise. Will he create re-develop a sense of how vast the Galaxy is?

[ray245]

Thought this should be brought up given how people are talking up Filoni:

https://twitter.com/ariesanakin/status/ ... 6488329219

[chimericoncogene]

Meh, I think they should tone down the "comedy" in Star Wars. Stormtroopers are bumbling enough without the heroes playing Get Help with them.

I'm fine with a little more comedy. A lot of what happens is darkly hilarious - the Chancellor secretly being an evil vampire who's been orchestrating a gargantuan galactic war just to get rid of his religious opponents, a gargantuan battle-station being blown up due to an overlooked design flaw; Ewoks ripping into stormtroopers; go rethink your life...

But Ray's right. I'm very worried about scale (as usual). The sheer lack of scale was fine for Marvel, since Asgard is basically populated by gods and we don't expect many of them, but Star Wars needs its grandeur.

I think the guy did a pretty good job with the trash planet, though. If he groks the scale of Star Wars (a big if, since JJ Abrams and Johnson never quite seemed to - one Resistance ship? A few score personnel? Seriously?), and uses the same tricks he used on the trash planet whose name escapes me, it might turn out well.

[The Romulan Republic]

[I'd like to make a point. Rian Johnson had bombers flying really slowly over star destroyers to drop .... thermal detonators to blow up star destroyers.

If you're aping WW2 movies to sink ships; here's a better go at it:

That will require Rian Johnson to know why Lucas aped WW2 movies in the first place.

Also wouldn't mind if Taika Waititi got a shot at it. Thor Ragnarok was in theme, tone, and visually, exactly what I'd like in a Star Wars movie.

I have some reservations about Taika Waiti in being in charge of writing a Star Wars movie. There are many reasons why he fits Star Wars, but my main concern is how he will address a sense of scale within Star Wars. Thor Ragnarok has a very minimalist sci-fantasy world, where nearly all of the Agsardian survivors can fit into one relatively small ship.

Star Wars do have a minimalist issue when it comes to mentioning of numbers, but you always get a sense of massive scale in what appears on the screen. Moreover, how much effort will Taikia put into playing around with the Galaxy at large? The sequels utter failure to develop a sense of scale for the Galaxy ( JJ Abrams' stupid starkiller base beam being able to be seen across multiple systems) is a big issue for the Star Wars franchise. Will he create re-develop a sense of how vast the Galaxy is?

I personally don't care much about the numbers. Sure, a dozen people on one ship is a bit oddly small, but Hollywood in general loves its focus on lone action heroes and small rag tag bands, and while its nice to see something else sometimes, its not a big deal to me.

Capturing the visual scale of the setting is much more important, and the ball is often dropped there. I get why it might happen, to a point- budgets are limited, and even when you have a huge budget for effects and sets, film is a visual medium, and they want to show their whole environment in one big panoramic shot- but often that ironically leaves the setting feeling small. Like that shot at the end of Two Towers where they show Mordor, and it doesn't look impressive, so much as "Huh, Mordord is the size of a single city?"

There are a few moments in the Disney films that capture a sense of visual scale well. Some of the shots from space of planets in Rogue One. Rey exploring the crashed Star Destroyer wrecks in TFA. Holdo's ramming in TLJ. Those moments captured a sense of epic visual scope for me, without making the world feel small. But it needed more of that.

Of course, popular sci-fi has always had a problem to an extent with treating planets as analagous to small towns- one planet, one culture, one environment. One of the reasons I loved and forever will defend the pacifist Mandalorians in The Clone Wars is that it was so refreshing to see a sci-fi society with more than one major culture or sub-culture, rather than "All Klingons are warriors", "All Hutts are gangsters", etc.

I will give TLJ props for having a multi-hour chase in one star system. That's a rare allusion to the size of space which we don't usually get in a setting with casual FTL.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, I just saw a great idea for direction on a Star Wars Facebook group:

Rian Johnson/Dave Filoni team-up.

If those two could work together, it would have everything everyone could want in a Star Wars film (excluding the incel/Nazi trolls, but fuck em).

[Adam Reynolds]

So here's a question. What should the sequel trilogy have even been about? What is the reason this story needs to be told?

While there are lots of problems with the details of the sequel trilogy, this is the underlying problem that really came to a head with Rise of Skywalker. The sequel trilogy ultimately did very little to justify its own existence.

[The Romulan Republic]

So here's a question. What should the sequel trilogy have even been about? What is the reason this story needs to be told?

While there are lots of problems with the details of the sequel trilogy, this is the underlying problem that really came to a head with Rise of Skywalker. The sequel trilogy ultimately did very little to justify its own existence.

Almost no story "needs" to be told. There didn't need to be a Star Wars. Lucas made it because he liked old adventure serials and he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon, Fox bankrolled it and Disney later bought it because they thought it was a good business decision, and fans watched it because they had fun.

But as to what the story should be... there are many stories you can tell in a galactic setting, but if you're making a continuation of the Skywalker Saga, specifically, post-RotJ, there are a few things you should probably try to land.

1. You need to capture the core metaphysical conflict of Star Wars: Light Side Force users vs Dark Side. I prefer Star Wars with a basically idealistic tone, though I know others disagree. There are other franchises if you want grimdark or lots of moral relativism.

2. It needs to be big. People expect epic scope and spectacle from Star Wars. It also needs the level of detail to feel like a real world, not a model. They... mostly managed this, but dropped the ball on a few details.

3. You need to deliver on the stuff promised by the ending of RotJ. New Republic, Han and Leia being a couple, Luke training new Jedi, including Leia. These notes were all hit by the ST, but mostly in the background/off-screen. I do think they failed Fanservice/audience expectations 101 in the most stupid way possible by not giving us a scene with Han, Luke, and Leia together on-screen from the start.

4. You need to transition to a new, younger cast. And, given this is the 21st. Century, you need a more diverse cast. The ST mostly did okay with this in the first two films. They then dropped the ball horribly with cutting Rose in RoS. The franchise could have done without their Latino character's backstory being that he was a drug dealer, too.

5. Story-wise... this is contentious, but I think you need to do something new. Not just remake Empire vs Rebellion with a new coat of paint. Its boring, and it actually arguably undercuts rather than honouring the OT, because rather than the conclusion of the OT leading to something new, you just get a cycle of same old same old, and a hollow echo of the original. This is where the ST failed from the start. They couldn't decide whether they wanted to remake the OT with a new coat of paint to appease the old school fanboys, or if they wanted to try to tell a new story. In the end, they largely took the coward's way out, and played it safe.

Mind you, literally remaking the OT with new names and faces would have been better than the clumsy mess we got.

Beyond that... personally, I feel Star Wars is usually at its best when it takes a classic story, and gives it a more modern twist. The OT took the classic pulp action good vs evil story, gave it an Oedipal twist with Vader being Luke's father and Leia being his sister, and then gave it a more modern twist by letting the hero choose a third option- Luke defies his seeming destiny to kill his father, and instead tries to save him. It gave us a very fresh and idealistic take on classic tropes. It wasn't intended at the outset, but it worked.

The PT, meanwhile, took the classic good vs evil story and gave it a cynical modern twist, with the bad guy secretly controlling both sides and the war being ultimately meaningless. This fits with the growing (and ultimately deeply problematic) "both sides" political cynicism of the time. It retained a bit of underlying optimism, though, because we know that Luke and Leia ultimately grow up to defeat the Empire. I do feel that Star Wars should be a fundamentally optimistic franchise, or at least retain some optimism and idealism even when it goes darker.

The ST... tried. But it was too There are, for example, hints of a very, very interesting twist on the classic "Chosen One" mythos with Rey being "nobody". It takes the classic chosen one identity and... gives it a modern twist. The hero isn't the product of some special bloodline or destiny- they're special because of who they are. I think, with hindsight, that the ST should have been about identity. Specifically the story of a person with no "special identity" having to discover who they are, and forge their own identity. This also would have made her a stronger foil/opposite to Kylo, the son of a special bloodline who fails because he's obsessed with aping the past rather than trying to build on it to create something new. That's what I wanted Rey's story to be in RoS. But the ball was largely dropped, and one line where she says she's a Skywalker is poor compensation.

As an aside: one thing I did have a problem with in TLJ, though its somewhat a matter of personal preference- it was far too self-referential. Star Wars has always played itself straight, in the films at least. In my view, when a franchise starts becoming obsessed with referencing itself or deconstructing itself, that's usually a sign that its lost confidence in the core concept/premise, and is starting to circle the drain.

[The Romulan Republic]

Belated Edit: despite my attachment to Rey as nobody, I do think the conclusion to the Skywalker saga needed a leading character of the next generation who was a Skywalker. That's just meeting the most basic of audience expectations which you yourself have created by billing it as a continuation/completion of the Skywalker Saga. I think we needed a new Skywalker who wasn't evil or dead at the end. Because in a mostly lighter series like Star Wars, ending the Skywalker Saga by killing off all the Skywalkers is a weird choice.

If it was me, rewriting the damn thing with the benefit of hindsight...

Kylo becomes Jason Solo (he basically is an Alt-Jason in all but name anyway), and we have a sister Jaina. She and Rey are co-protagonists. Or, Luke has a kid who Rey finds in Episode IX and trains as her apprentice.

[ray245]

I personally don't care much about the numbers. Sure, a dozen people on one ship is a bit oddly small, but Hollywood in general loves its focus on lone action heroes and small rag tag bands, and while its nice to see something else sometimes, its not a big deal to me.

Capturing the visual scale of the setting is much more important, and the ball is often dropped there. I get why it might happen, to a point- budgets are limited, and even when you have a huge budget for effects and sets, film is a visual medium, and they want to show their whole environment in one big panoramic shot- but often that ironically leaves the setting feeling small. Like that shot at the end of Two Towers where they show Mordor, and it doesn't look impressive, so much as "Huh, Mordord is the size of a single city?"

There are a few moments in the Disney films that capture a sense of visual scale well. Some of the shots from space of planets in Rogue One. Rey exploring the crashed Star Destroyer wrecks in TFA. Holdo's ramming in TLJ. Those moments captured a sense of epic visual scope for me, without making the world feel small. But it needed more of that.

Of course, popular sci-fi has always had a problem to an extent with treating planets as analagous to small towns- one planet, one culture, one environment. One of the reasons I loved and forever will defend the pacifist Mandalorians in The Clone Wars is that it was so refreshing to see a sci-fi society with more than one major culture or sub-culture, rather than "All Klingons are warriors", "All Hutts are gangsters", etc.

I will give TLJ props for having a multi-hour chase in one star system. That's a rare allusion to the size of space which we don't usually get in a setting with casual FTL.

Rian Johnson is a pretty good visual director, even if I disagreed with the world-building aspects of those depiction. Holdo ramming looks good, but it raises unnecessary world-building questions.

Almost no story "needs" to be told. There didn't need to be a Star Wars. Lucas made it because he liked old adventure serials and he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon, Fox bankrolled it and Disney later bought it because they thought it was a good business decision, and fans watched it because they had fun.

But as to what the story should be... there are many stories you can tell in a galactic setting, but if you're making a continuation of the Skywalker Saga, specifically, post-RotJ, there are a few things you should probably try to land.

1. You need to capture the core metaphysical conflict of Star Wars: Light Side Force users vs Dark Side. I prefer Star Wars with a basically idealistic tone, though I know others disagree. There are other franchises if you want grimdark or lots of moral relativism.

2. It needs to be big. People expect epic scope and spectacle from Star Wars. It also needs the level of detail to feel like a real world, not a model. They... mostly managed this, but dropped the ball on a few details.

3. You need to deliver on the stuff promised by the ending of RotJ. New Republic, Han and Leia being a couple, Luke training new Jedi, including Leia. These notes were all hit by the ST, but mostly in the background/off-screen. I do think they failed Fanservice/audience expectations 101 in the most stupid way possible by not giving us a scene with Han, Luke, and Leia together on-screen from the start.

4. You need to transition to a new, younger cast. And, given this is the 21st. Century, you need a more diverse cast. The ST mostly did okay with this in the first two films. They then dropped the ball horribly with cutting Rose in RoS. The franchise could have done without their Latino character's backstory being that he was a drug dealer, too.

5. Story-wise... this is contentious, but I think you need to do something new. Not just remake Empire vs Rebellion with a new coat of paint. Its boring, and it actually arguably undercuts rather than honouring the OT, because rather than the conclusion of the OT leading to something new, you just get a cycle of same old same old, and a hollow echo of the original. This is where the ST failed from the start. They couldn't decide whether they wanted to remake the OT with a new coat of paint to appease the old school fanboys, or if they wanted to try to tell a new story. In the end, they largely took the coward's way out, and played it safe.

Mind you, literally remaking the OT with new names and faces would have been better than the clumsy mess we got.

Beyond that... personally, I feel Star Wars is usually at its best when it takes a classic story, and gives it a more modern twist. The OT took the classic pulp action good vs evil story, gave it an Oedipal twist with Vader being Luke's father and Leia being his sister, and then gave it a more modern twist by letting the hero choose a third option- Luke defies his seeming destiny to kill his father, and instead tries to save him. It gave us a very fresh and idealistic take on classic tropes. It wasn't intended at the outset, but it worked.

The PT, meanwhile, took the classic good vs evil story and gave it a cynical modern twist, with the bad guy secretly controlling both sides and the war being ultimately meaningless. This fits with the growing (and ultimately deeply problematic) "both sides" political cynicism of the time. It retained a bit of underlying optimism, though, because we know that Luke and Leia ultimately grow up to defeat the Empire. I do feel that Star Wars should be a fundamentally optimistic franchise, or at least retain some optimism and idealism even when it goes darker.

The ST... tried. But it was too There are, for example, hints of a very, very interesting twist on the classic "Chosen One" mythos with Rey being "nobody". It takes the classic chosen one identity and... gives it a modern twist. The hero isn't the product of some special bloodline or destiny- they're special because of who they are. I think, with hindsight, that the ST should have been about identity. Specifically the story of a person with no "special identity" having to discover who they are, and forge their own identity. This also would have made her a stronger foil/opposite to Kylo, the son of a special bloodline who fails because he's obsessed with aping the past rather than trying to build on it to create something new. That's what I wanted Rey's story to be in RoS. But the ball was largely dropped, and one line where she says she's a Skywalker is poor compensation.

As an aside: one thing I did have a problem with in TLJ, though its somewhat a matter of personal preference- it was far too self-referential. Star Wars has always played itself straight, in the films at least. In my view, when a franchise starts becoming obsessed with referencing itself or deconstructing itself, that's usually a sign that its lost confidence in the core concept/premise, and is starting to circle the drain.

The story that "needs" to be told is a story about how the older characters actually grow and develop as people. How did Luke grow from a fresh Jedi knight to a Jedi Master? How did Han grow from being a Rebel general to what he is now when he retired? How did Leia grow from a rebel into a political leader?

And how do those characters pass on the torch? All of that went up in smoke the second JJ Abrams wanted a new Empire vs Rebel dynamic. JJ Abrams is extremely careless in thought, and that carelessness has destroyed any potential for good story-telling.

The story that "needs" to be told is destroyed the second they hired JJ Abrams.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think a new trilogy should have been all about the old heroes. That may be what the typical old OT fan wanted, but that's ultimately the franchise looking backward, not moving forward. Passing the torch, maybe. I think it needed to be about the changing of the guard, but in a way that is true to who the OT heroes are.

[ray245]

I don't think a new trilogy should have been all about the old heroes. That may be what the typical old OT fan wanted, but that's ultimately the franchise looking backward, not moving forward. Passing the torch, maybe. I think it needed to be about the changing of the guard, but in a way that is true to who the OT heroes are.

I don't think it should be about old heroes. I am saying it should be about the old heroes growing into a position where they realised they have to pass on the torch. Like Luke realising that he's getting to an age where he cannot run around saving the galaxy at the frontline, and he have to step back to a more Jedi council position and let the younger students do the fieldwork. Same goes to Han and Leia.