Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker (SPOILERS) 0

[Get Marwood & I]

30 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

I liked The Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker too.

I thought Force Awakens was the weak one. 

Yes, The Force Awakens was curiously bland and is the one of the three that I wouldn't go out of my way to watch again. The other two, though they weren't what I was hoping for, have enough in them to make me want to watch them again. The good in them was really good, the bad was terrible. That kind of thing. 

[Bosco685]

 

 

Quote

Does the Emperor's 'Rise of Skywalker' plan make sense, if you think about it?

Many Star Wars fans came out of The Rise of Skywalker baffled about Palpatine’s return, complaining that his master plan was illogical, inconsistent and maybe even a little convoluted. Luckily The Hollywood Reporter contributors (and Star Wars experts) Andrew James Myers and Dan Gvozden are here to attempt to answer all the questions you have about what exactly J.J. Abrams and Lucasfilm have been planning for years. This deep dive into Palpatine's Final Order promises to clear everything up about how the Emperor's whole plan actually makes total sense if you think really hard about it. 

 

Let’s start from the beginning; how did Palpatine come back in The Rise of Skywalker? Didn’t he die in Return of the Jedi?

 

Well, you know, Sheev Palpatine always had a Plan B in the case that whole Galactic Empire thing didn’t work out. It turns out he ran a Sith cult on the hidden world of Exegol in the Unknown regions. His loyalists there, called the Sith Eternal, were ready and waiting to transfer his spirit into a reconstructed body in the case of his death. This contingency plan was triggered at the end of Return of the Jedi, when Vader betrayed Palpatine and threw him into a pit aboard the Second Death Star.

 

Wasn’t the Second Death Star already a Plan B? In case the first Death Star was destroyed.

 

Fine, this is Plan C.

 

Where did Palpatine get his powers to cheat death?

 

The Rise of Skywalker directly references a key line of dialogue from the prequel trilogy when Palpatine tells Kylo Ren, “the Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.” According to Palpatine in Revenge of the Sith, his master Darth Plagueis “had such a knowledge of the Dark Side, he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying.” Palpatine learned everything his master knew, including this technique to cheat death, and then killed him in his sleep.

 

If Plagueis had the power over death, why did Plagueis not use it to come back to life?

 

Ah-hah, see, that was the one limitation of his power: “Ironic. He could save others from death, but not himself.”

 

So by that logic the technique Palpatine learned from Plagueis was how to save others from death, not himself. So that doesn’t explain at all how he came back.

 

Well he must have figured it out at some point then.

 

So we really have no clue how Palpatine came back, do we?

 

He probably just doesn’t like talking about it.

 

Has Palpatine been the one pulling the strings in the background of The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi?

 

Of course. He’s been the phantom menace all along.

Was this seriously some of Rise of the Skywalker's backstory? I'm waiting this one out.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Bosco685

[tv horror]

2 hours ago, Get Marwood & I said:

The good in them

Richard E Grant maybe?

[fantastic_four]

15 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

That end reveal seems to have spun some people up.

Rise of Skywalker's Rey reveal undoes one of Star Wars' boldest choices: Opinion

But the intent seems reasonable.

That does seem to be the biggest canon difference between Rian and Abrams.  The fact that two directors can have that kind of disagreement without being mediated by Kathleen Kennedy is why someone else needs to take her place as curator of Star Wars.

My recollection is that Lucas flip-flopped on this over time, and I don't know that it was ever crystal clear where he ended up.  He's been quoted when asked early on in the 1970s as saying that anyone can be Force-sensitive and it's not genetic, but unless I'm forgetting or have overlooked something, everything he actually ended up putting in the movies suggests it's genetic.

[fantastic_four]

11 hours ago, IkewithMike said:

12 hours ago, drotto said:

I am a full supporter of changing the time frame and moving to completely original characters ( or start harvesting the old EU).  Would prefer the Old Republic but jumping forward a few hundred years would work also.

An old republic epic would be fantastic, if they can build it on the foundation of the birth of the sith and jedi, I havent seen anything close to that yet, unless KotOR counts 

+2

I'd kill for HUGE Jedi/Sith battles.  The big lightsaber battle in Attack of the Clones was super-fun at the time, but I'd like to see more.

[fantastic_four]

I'm hoping Abrams opens up at some point about what conflict between he and Disney may have led to Rian being allowed to venture out onto his own.  Abrams almost certainly had something in mind about where Snoke came from and who Rey's parents were when he left those threads hanging in Force Awakens, but my understanding is that the main reason he didn't direct Episode 8 is that Bob Iger pissed him off by not pushing the release date and forcing him to work 100+ hour weeks for months, so by the end of the film he had enough.  But did he and Rian ever collaborate or talk at all?  And why did he come back, did Iger and/or Kathleen Kennedy come and kiss his arse, perhaps?  And if he and Rian did have diametrically opposed ideas about Rey and the Force being tied to genetics, why not go a different way than he originally planned that would fit in Rian's take?  

[fantastic_four]

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

That does seem to be the biggest canon difference between Rian and Abrams.  The fact that two directors can have that kind of disagreement without being mediated by Kathleen Kennedy is why someone else needs to take her place as curator of Star Wars.

A bit more about this.  I've been praising Kevin Feige as something akin to a genius in these forums for years now.  "Genius" overstates it drastically; really he's just the first of his kind that needs to be duplicated.  What he's doing isn't entirely unique, it's just unique within the film industry.  Television producers have known this since forever, and comic editors have known it, too.  Feige is really just acting in a similar role that Stan Lee, Jim Shooter, or Joe Quesada did at Marvel in making sure that authors don't stray too far from universe canon.  Gene Roddenberry did this for Star Trek back before he died.  Kathleen Kennedy is doing a LITTLE bit of this kind of curating--most evident when she fired the original directors on Solo--but for the most part, she has mostly just relied on a VERY long tradition in filmmaking known as auteur theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur

The idea is simple--films are better when one person controls every aspect of the creative concept.  That's why aside from actors we focus on directors more than any other role in film.  In general, this is absolutely the way to achieve the best possible films.  Christopher Nolan wasn't interfered with in any way by Warner Brothers, and as a result we got the Dark Knight trilogy and TDK as the best comic book film ever made.  And when we get Feige's predecessor Avi Arad breaking auteur theory and ham-handedly forcing Sam Raimi to shove Sandman AND Venom AND Green Goblin 2 into one film in part because his toy company Toy Biz knew those villains were all among the most popular sellers of toys, then we get cruddier films even from great directors as we did with Spider-Man 3.  However, when we're talking about a serial UNIVERSE of content like Star Wars, Marvel, or DC, the auteur theory breaks down.  You can't just let film directors have creative control over each film and break canon within the universe.

This is one of the reasons MANY film critics have limited respect for Marvel movies, and it's an element in the criticism Martin Scorsese had for Marvel films earlier this year.  He has absolute reverence for the auteur theory of film and has mostly been allowed to operate under it himself throughout his career, and just the fact that Marvel can't use it means that their directors are inherently limited in what they can do.  Which is in part what he was alluding to with his comments about Marvel movies being more like "theme park rides" than cinema.  He's not wrong at all, but he's being overly pessimistic.

But if you're going to do serialized fiction--and unlike Scorsese (BTW he admitted in his New York times follow-up editorial to his comments that he can envision a different version of himself that may have taken to serial/universe-based films had his background been different than it was) I absolutely, positively believe it's worth doing--you can't let directors have absolute control.  There has to be a curator to keep the overall universe consistent.  Ideally that would have been Lucas, but my past experience with his ego is that he's not really capable of doing it; he's far too negative about other people's ideas and far too narcissistically controlling over the creative process to do the job.  Unfortunately, it seems clear that Kathleen Kennedy either isn't willing to do it or just isn't very good at it.  I certainly don't look at Solo, TLJ, or Rise as failures at all and I enjoyed all three, but they're not among my favorite Star Wars works, so I'd rather have someone like Dave Filoni, Pablo Hidalgo, Feige, or whoever step up and fill the curator spot.  Star Wars is not alone in this--few or no movie franchises have ever had their competent curator.  DC hasn't had one yet, and the Fox or Sony Marvel movies didn't, either.  Hollywood has never been geared towards the best way to do serialized or universe fiction and has always revered auteur theory, so for now, it's rare for a studio to know to hire or to find a guy like Feige.

Edited December 23, 2019 by fantastic_four

[media_junkie]

6 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

I'm hoping Abrams opens up at some point about what conflict between he and Disney may have led to Rian being allowed to venture out onto his own.  Abrams almost certainly had something in mind about where Snoke came from and who Rey's parents were when he left those threads hanging in Force Awakens, but my understanding is that the main reason he didn't direct Episode 8 is that Bob Iger pissed him off by not pushing the release date and forcing him to work 100+ hour weeks for months, so by the end of the film he had enough.  But did he and Rian ever collaborate or talk at all?  And why did he come back, did Iger and/or Kathleen Kennedy come and kiss his arse, perhaps?  And if he and Rian did have diametrically opposed ideas about Rey and the Force being tied to genetics, why not go a different way than he originally planned that would fit in Rian's take?  

To me the failing is squarely on Kennedy.  She was in charge, she should have made sure something was mapped out for all 3 movies and that any/all directors followed that plan.

[Get Marwood & I]

41 minutes ago, tv horror said:

Richard E Grant maybe?

Not really. Too identifiable for his previous roles for me to believe in him here. Heck, they may as well cast Adrian Edmondson as a Captain on one of the Star Destroyers!

 

Hang on...

[Bosco685]

21 minutes ago, media_junkie said:

To me the failing is squarely on Kennedy.  She was in charge, she should have made sure something was mapped out for all 3 movies and that any/all directors followed that plan.

Bingo!

I may not agree 100% with all that has occurred with the MCU direction. But I do recognize the fantastic contributions Kevin Feige has made with being the creative glue keeping all the details flowing together to tell a fairly consistent and entertaining story overall. Though he learned some lessons like allowing Ed Norton to revamp The Incredible Hulk -script because the actor was such a huge fan, he wanted to add his expectations into the story.

Directors can add value like James Gunn did with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. But they still need to have limitations in how much they can deviate from the general backstory and direction. Even helping suggest changes where such details make sense. But the overall creative lead makes the final decision when changes are to occur to fit the overall plans.

[fantastic_four]

5 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I may not agree 100% with all that has occurred with the MCU direction. But I do recognize the fantastic contributions Kevin Feige has made with being the creative glue keeping all the details flowing together to tell a fairly consistent and entertaining story overall. Though he learned some lessons like allowing Ed Norton to revamp The Incredible Hulk --script because the actor was such a huge fan, he wanted to add his expectations into the story.

Was that Feige letting that happen or Perlmutter and the Marvel Creative Committee?  He was still under their thumb back then.

I've also heard Norton did some parts of the screenplay, but I've never heard which parts, have you?  I've heard him comment on Marvel several times in interviews including in 2-3 interviews this year, but he's not at all forthcoming about what went wrong with Marvel.  He mostly denies that ANYTHING went wrong, but clearly something wasn't entirely great for them to switch from him so fast.

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, fantastic_four said:

Was that Feige letting that happen or Perlmutter and the Marvel Creative Committee?  He was still under their thumb back then.

I've also heard Norton did some parts of the screenplay, but I've never heard which parts, have you?  I've heard him comment on Marvel several times in interviews including in 2-3 interviews this year, but he's not at all forthcoming about what went wrong with Marvel.  He mostly denies that ANYTHING went wrong, but clearly something wasn't entirely great for them to switch from him so fast.

That is a good point about the Marvel Creative Committee possibly being the problem like what took place concerning with Ant-Man and Age of Ultron. Or, the MCC heavy-handedness came from the Ed Norton situation where going forward they didn't want to allow directors to help guide the story. Even with Patty Jenkins leaving (fired or quit) over the direction of Thor: The Dark World something was going on during that period of the films.

It sounds like Norton wanted to make a modern Frankenstein with Hulk.

Edward Norton Wishes His Hulk Movie Had Been as “Dark and Serious” as Promised

Quote

But he says he has no hard feelings toward Marvel’s boss: “What Kevin Feige has done is probably one of the best executions of a business plan in the history of the entertainment industry.”

 

Edward Norton’s 2008 The Incredible Hulk is one of the rare Marvel misses of the last few years, a stab at something darker and heavier than the sunny, comedic MCU that began to take shape that same year in Iron Man. Much has been made of the missed opportunity, as well as the fact that Norton was eventually replaced by Mark Ruffalo in The Avengers. In an interview with the New York Times, Norton revisited the ordeal, saying that Marvel had apparently been in support of his vision to make a serious Hulk film, in the vein of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, before sprinting in the opposite direction.

 

“What Chris Nolan had done with Batman was going down a path that I aligned with: long, dark and serious,” Norton said. “If there was ever a thing that I thought had that in it, it was the Hulk. It’s literally the Promethean myth. I laid out a two-film thing: The origin and then the idea of Hulk as the conscious dreamer, the guy who can handle the trip. And they were like, ‘That’s what we want!’ As it turned out, that wasn’t what they wanted. But I had a great time doing it. I got on great with [Marvel boss] Kevin Feige.”

So the happy-cheery theme wasn't working for him with the assumption this was the darker side of the MCU.

[fantastic_four]

Hulk is a limited character anyway.  He's got the same problem Superman does--he's so powerful, who's he going to fight?  With Superman, everyone loves other Kryptonians like Zod best, but that's just so unoriginal.  Same with Hulk--Abomination is his ultimate foe, but really he's just an uglier copy of Hulk.

I still freaking love Incredible Hulk.  Or more specifically, I love every scene with Tim Roth, and I revere that last Abomination/Hulk fight.  That's the absolute pinnacle of Hulk on screen.  Ripping a taxi in half and using the two halves as boxing gloves to punch Abomination?  WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT?!?!     Hulk probably isn't in the top ten of my favorite comic superheroes, but everything that film gave me exceeds whatever it is I do like about Hulk.  But yea, everything else in that film is meh...when I re-watch that film, it's just the Blonsky highlights and that last fight.  My adrenaline still goes up when Hulk crawls out of the street and Abomination starts taunting him to fight.  

Edited December 23, 2019 by fantastic_four

[@therealsilvermane]

It seems to me that the events in Rise of Skywalkers was Abrams’ gameplan from the start after Force Awakened i.e. Luke’s mission, Rey’s lineage, Palpatine’s return, everything. Since Abrams (a lousy storyteller to begin with) only had one movie now to play out those events and “course correct” from Last Jedi, it gave the plot of Skywalker a crammed feel.

I think K. Kennedy, after Abrams left, saw an opportunity to try something different with the second movie and the rest is history. Rey can’t have been a nobody, she had to have a special lineage. There’s no way she could do what she did in Force Awakens otherwise. Abrams knew this and had to bring the story back around to the original game plan, which included also revealing Luke’s noble Jedi mission on the island and him not being such a loser. 

[fantastic_four]

2 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

It seems to me that the events in Rise of Skywalkers was Abrams’ gameplan from the start after Force Awakened i.e. Luke’s mission, Rey’s lineage, Palpatine’s return, everything. Since Abrams (a lousy storyteller to begin with) only had one movie now to play out those events and “course correct” from Last Jedi, it gave the plot of Skywalker a crammed feel.

I think K. Kennedy, after Abrams left, saw an opportunity to try something different with the second movie and the rest is history. Rey can’t have been a nobody, she had to have a special lineage. There’s no way she could do what she did in Force Awakens otherwise. Abrams knew this and had to bring the story back around to the original game plan, which included also revealing Luke’s noble Jedi mission on the island and him not being such a loser. 

This is also my guess, and I'm hoping Abrams eventually either confirms or denies it.  But I doubt he does that within the next year or two.

[tv horror]

34 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Bingo!

I may not agree 100% with all that has occurred with the MCU direction. But I do recognize the fantastic contributions Kevin Feige has made with being the creative glue keeping all the details flowing together to tell a fairly consistent and entertaining story overall. Though he learned some lessons like allowing Ed Norton to revamp The Incredible Hulk --script because the actor was such a huge fan, he wanted to add his expectations into the story.

Directors can add value like James Gunn did with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. But they still need to have limitations in how much they can deviate from the general backstory and direction. Even helping suggest changes where such details make sense. But the overall creative lead makes the final decision when changes are to occur to fit the overall plans.

However it worked for the Harry Potter series of films.

[fantastic_four]

3 minutes ago, tv horror said:

However it worked for the Harry Potter series of films.

David Heyman was the curator of all of them, wasn't he?  And he's also producing the Fantastic Beasts follow-ups?

[@therealsilvermane]

Yes, Rise of Skywalker was crammed with plot. There was almost an ADHD feel to the whole thing. But after Last Jedi, I didn’t mind this action stuffed plot. 

In Last Jedi, I really hated what was going on, beginning with Luke Skywalker’s poor attitude to everything else. But the other problem for me was that Rian Johnson’s storytelling lingered on everything to the point of torture. Yes, I get that Luke turned into a jerk. Do we have to spend twenty minutes on this and watch him milk cliff cows? Lingering on bad plot points was a problem for me in LJ.

With Rise of Skywatcher, there was so much happening. We went from one plot point to another within minutes. Again, I didn’t mind this. While I didn’t agree with some events in ROS and thought the Kylo always missing Rey in their little chase story began to get silly, at least we didn’t linger on it. Move on with the story, don’t stand still, seemed to be Abrams modus operandi for this movie and that worked for me. If a plot point was bad, I wasn’t given time to let it fester in my head like in Last Jedi. This made Rise of Skywalker a much more entertaining time at the movies than that last flick.

 

 

[Gatsby77]

The fault here lies with the Star Wars Story Group, not the individual film directors.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Gatsby77

[fantastic_four]

5 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Abrams was never supposed to direct Episode 9. The idea was to have three different directors, under the guidance of the Star Wars Story Group (which included Kathleen Kennedy, Pablo Hidalgo, etc.).

Colin Trevorrow was originally hired to direct Episode 9 and did indeed work on it for more than a year and a half before he was fired in 2017. Also, Abrams did have both awareness and some --script input into Episode 8.

Didn't realize they fired Trevorrow, interesting.  Wasn't paying attention to Star Wars much the last two years due to all the bad news so I'm not surprised I missed it.

Was the three different directors idea a reaction to Abrams declining Episode 8, or was that the original plan?  My memory from 2016 is that they didn't announce that Abrams wouldn't return for a few months after Episode 7, and given the massive critical and box office success of the film it didn't make sense at the time not to bring Abrams back if he would have actually agreed to do it.