Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

[anatess2]

The Previews were exciting! 

Top Gun Maverick was Whoa... I actually got chills running down my spine it was that good.  Of course I loved the original because... well, Val Kilmer.  I didn't see him in the preview of the sequel so I think he's not in this movie but I still can't wait for this movie to show!  

Wonder Woman 1984 was Whoa... the WW fast-stop-slow-mo action was, like what has become a WW signature, spot on.  Still not sure about Steve coming back from the dead because it's just waaay too overused such that we have started to feel like they're all living in a video game world with unlimited life.  But I love the WW-Steve pair up so let's see what they make of it...

There was one other preview that made me go... oooh... but I can't remember what it was.  Not 1917 - I've seen that preview several times before.  Not Jungle Cruise - I've also seen that before and another Theme Parky movie just doesn't excite me even if it has the Rock on it.  Not that stupid preview titled Barbara and Stars that was too gimmicky I'm sure the movie is going to flop.  I'll post it in this thread if I remember it.

[Jamie123]

And Skywalker?

[Guest Godless]

Just saw it this morning. It's a very satisfactory end to the saga, and the best of the new trilogy imo.

I was a little late getting to the theater, so I missed the previews. Caught the very end of the "Onward" trailer. Looks interesting. Definitely looking forward to the new Top Gun.

[anatess2]

Just now, Godless said:

Just saw it this morning. It's a very satisfactory end to the saga, and the best of the new trilogy imo.

Comedy gold this post is.

 

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

And Skywalker?

[Fether]

Haven’t seen it yet, but I’m sure it will yet again be the best Starwars movie ever released just like every movie since the beginning of the prequels.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Maverick was Whoa...

You rang?

[Ironhold]

The fact that this was a lunchtime matinee and people all around me were falling asleep does more to condemn this film than anything I could ever write in a family publication.

[Midwest LDS]

I enjoyed it. It wasn't perfect, and it demonstrated why you needed to have one director the whole time instead of switching back and forth. But I liked it.

[star.bright]

On 12/20/2019 at 4:32 PM, anatess2 said:

The Previews were exciting! 

Top Gun Maverick was Whoa... I actually got chills running down my spine it was that good.  Of course I loved the original because... well, Val Kilmer.  I didn't see him in the preview of the sequel so I think he's not in this movie but I still can't wait for this movie to show!  

Wonder Woman 1984 was Whoa... the WW fast-stop-slow-mo action was, like what has become a WW signature, spot on.  Still not sure about Steve coming back from the dead because it's just waaay too overused such that we have started to feel like they're all living in a video game world with unlimited life.  But I love the WW-Steve pair up so let's see what they make of it...

There was one other preview that made me go... oooh... but I can't remember what it was.  Not 1917 - I've seen that preview several times before.  Not Jungle Cruise - I've also seen that before and another Theme Parky movie just doesn't excite me even if it has the Rock on it.  Not that stupid preview titled Barbara and Stars that was too gimmicky I'm sure the movie is going to flop.  I'll post it in this thread if I remember it.

 

On 12/20/2019 at 4:32 PM, anatess2 said:

The Previews were exciting! 

Top Gun Maverick was Whoa... I actually got chills running down my spine it was that good.  Of course I loved the original because... well, Val Kilmer.  I didn't see him in the preview of the sequel so I think he's not in this movie but I still can't wait for this movie to show!  

Wonder Woman 1984 was Whoa... the WW fast-stop-slow-mo action was, like what has become a WW signature, spot on.  Still not sure about Steve coming back from the dead because it's just waaay too overused such that we have started to feel like they're all living in a video game world with unlimited life.  But I love the WW-Steve pair up so let's see what they make of it...

There was one other preview that made me go... oooh... but I can't remember what it was.  Not 1917 - I've seen that preview several times before.  Not Jungle Cruise - I've also seen that before and another Theme Parky movie just doesn't excite me even if it has the Rock on it.  Not that stupid preview titled Barbara and Stars that was too gimmicky I'm sure the movie is going to flop.  I'll post it in this thread if I remember it.

Kindergarden. A SF movie for children. And Hollywood...? Wrecked movie makers. Riding the same old stallion and trying to impress the world with movie trash in the first degree.  🤠

Edited December 22, 2019 by star.bright

[star.bright]

On 12/20/2019 at 7:35 PM, Vort said:

You rang?

 He doesn't wear the hat a Cowboy would. 🤠  ... And it's not a Cattleman.

Edited December 22, 2019 by star.bright

[star.bright]

On 12/20/2019 at 6:37 PM, anatess2 said:

My oh my. "Hello, a Jedi I am. Out of trouble I will bring you." ...That gnome with donkey ears and some kind of a jute sack wearing as a coat should first learn how to speak properly.  👨‍🌾

Edited December 22, 2019 by star.bright

[Colirio]

On 12/20/2019 at 12:37 PM, anatess2 said:

 

An example of when the fans become more creative than the creators:

 

 

[Ironhold]

I've been talking to a *lot* of Star Wars fans lately, and the general consensus seems to be that having Finn as the lead would have made for a far more compelling story arc, what with "former storm trooper turned Jedi knight" being seen as essentially a kind of redemption arc. 

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Colirio said:

 

An example of when the fans become more creative than the creators:

 

 

Wait. Wasn't Yoda 1000 years old when he died? Like 950 in the first movie? So what's up with the lack of technological development? In 1000 years of a super-high-tech industrial society, the best they can do as far as technological development goes is...build a deathstar and some gigantic heavy cruisers?

So 1000 years ago, our ancestors had a cavalry that could fight on mounts, had longbowmen, and shield-bearing ground troops. Today, 1000 years later, we have...what? Larger cavalries? Bows that shoot maybe twice as far?

Is this a joke? Or do the writers that Disney hired simply have no basic grasp on things like engineering evolution? Or am I missing the whole point of what's going on? I admit that I have not seen the latest Star Wars movie, and I further admit that there's a good chance I never will.

[MarginOfError]

I'd say it was a good movie. It wasn't a very compelling story.

In fact, the only really compelling story I've encountered in this trilogy is the Rey-Luke portions of The Last Jedi*. 

The obsession that is happening in entertainment of making everything relate back to previous installments has pretty much sucked the joy out of a lot of these stories. It's almost like we don't believe a person's story is worth telling if they aren't somehow tied back to someone we already know. 

 

 

* Well, and Luke standing out to face eight AT-whatevers on his own. They should have ended The Last Jedi on that cliffhanger.

[Guest Godless]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

Wait. Wasn't Yoda 1000 years old when he died? Like 950 in the first movie? So what's up with the lack of technological development? In 1000 years of a super-high-tech industrial society, the best they can do as far as technological development goes is...build a deathstar and some gigantic heavy cruisers?

So 1000 years ago, our ancestors had a cavalry that could fight on mounts, had longbowmen, and shield-bearing ground troops. Today, 1000 years later, we have...what? Larger cavalries? Bows that shoot maybe twice as far?

Is this a joke? Or do the writers that Disney hired simply have no basic grasp on things like engineering evolution? Or am I missing the whole point of what's going on? I admit that I have not seen the latest Star Wars movie, and I further admit that there's a good chance I never will.

The baby isn't literally Yoda. It's the same species.  But since no one seems to know the name of that species, everyone is just calling it "baby Yoda". The show takes place shortly after the fall of the Empire.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

The obsession that is happening in entertainment of making everything relate back to previous installments has pretty much sucked the joy out of a lot of these stories. It's almost like we don't believe a person's story is worth telling if they aren't somehow tied back to someone we already know. 

I get what you're saying, but this is a 9-part saga. I think it was always intended for some of the old characters to stay relevant throughout. Otherwise, why link this trilogy to the others at all?

I'm glad the saga is over. The spinoff stories have become more interesting to me than the Skywalker story arc. It actually started to feel like the saga was holding up progress in exploring other parts of the SW universe. Rogue One was fantastic, but even that movie was strongly tied to the trilogies. I look forward to seeing what Disney does with the franchise moving forward. 

 

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

The obsession that is happening in entertainment of making everything relate back to previous installments has pretty much sucked the joy out of a lot of these stories. It's almost like we don't believe a person's story is worth telling if they aren't somehow tied back to someone we already know.

This contradicts what you said just before

 

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

In fact, the only really compelling story I've encountered in this trilogy is the Rey-Luke portions of The Last Jedi*.

Rey's personal story should have been enough... yet the best parts are when she relates back to what you already knew.  You are the very problem you are complaining against

[MarginOfError]

 

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

This contradicts what you said just before

 

Rey's personal story should have been enough... yet the best parts are when she relates back to what you already knew.  You are the very problem you are complaining against

I adamantly disagree. I think trying Rey to a previous character made her story much less interesting. In fact, while everyone else in the theater was gasping, I was groaning, "oh please."  It was gratuitous and unnecessary.....and redundant again.

Edited December 23, 2019 by MarginOfError

[estradling75]

11 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

 

I adamantly disagree. I think trying Rey to a previous character made her story much less interesting. In fact, while everyone else in the theater was gasping, I was groaning, "oh please."  It was gratuitous and unnecessary.....and redundant again.

Yet your own quote was that was the best part of her story... Unless you made a typo or mispharse the part you like best was the part you are finding gratuitous and unnecessary.  Those are conflicting statements 

[MarginOfError]

Oh, I think you're misunderstanding which previous character I object tying Rey to.  I'm being vague because I don't want to open too many spoilers in an unmarked thread.  Perhaps we should open a Spoilers thread so we can be more explicit?

[MarginOfError]

48 minutes ago, Godless said:

I get what you're saying, but this is a 9-part saga. I think it was always intended for some of the old characters to stay relevant throughout. Otherwise, why link this trilogy to the others at all?

I'm glad the saga is over. The spinoff stories have become more interesting to me than the Skywalker story arc. It actually started to feel like the saga was holding up progress in exploring other parts of the SW universe. Rogue One was fantastic, but even that movie was strongly tied to the trilogies. I look forward to seeing what Disney does with the franchise moving forward. 

 

One of the things that made Rogue One so great was that it did a really good job of staying away from previously established characters.  There was a brief appearance of Darth Vader, and then Tarkin was really the only other previously established character that had any role. (Even then, they made Tarkin's conniving ascent into power pretty interesting)

But by and large, they stuck with new characters with their own stories. Their relationship to the rest of the saga was more-or-less tangential. In fact, it was done well enough that you could have enjoyed Rogue One without ever having seen anything out of the greater saga at all. It may be the best story produced in this franchise*

 

* I have a thing for tragedies, though. I like movies where the protagonists die.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Oh, I think you're misunderstanding which previous character I object tying Rey to.  I'm being vague because I don't want to open too many spoilers in an unmarked thread.  Perhaps we should open a Spoilers thread so we can be more explicit?

It's Monday.  Spoil Away.  In Star Wars tradition - if you haven't seen the movie in the first weekend, don't blame people spoiling it for you...

So... here's a spoiler:

Because Ruin Johnson decided to kill the bad guy in the 2nd installment of the new trilogy, JJ ended up having to distill the trilogy down to Palpatine versus Skywalker... and what happens?  Palpatine wins, then decide to identify as Skywalker and that's how we ended up with Rise of Skywalker.  The Dark Side Wins Y'all!

 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

This film shows why the focus should always have been about the fall and redemption of Ben Solo. Rey should have been a padawan of Luke that he hides away to eventually take Kylo out. I can now see why Lucas feels betrayed by the mouse.

The movie was boring when the hero's were on the screen and was only interesting when Kylo was the center of the action. Sorry, it was not that good and I would give it 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Emmanuel Goldstein