Poll of the Day > 'The prequels are worse than the Disney trilogy!!!"

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://i.imgur.com/gOsuGZk.jpg

lmao
this sums up exactly why i hate this new trilogy. the prequels provide a decent backstory to the OT while the sequels shit all over them.
---

The prequels also had cool villains such as Darth Maul, Count Dooku and General Grievous.

And Samuel L Jackson.
---

The new trilogy is more fun to watch, but has a far less cohesive story. Whatever is said about the prequels, they were telling a contiguous story. Unfortunately they just shit the bed with it.

In these movies, they're visually stunning and fairly well directed in terms of shooting, locations, practical effects (where possible) etc. but so far the storyline has just been dog shit. It seems like they're constantly stitching together random bits of information to try and make something work. They had a fine jumping off point with 7, but then our boy Rian decided to say fuck it and go off the rails. I'm guessing the new one isn't going to be much better if anything I've heard is true.
---

Star Wars has being going downhill since the OG trilogy with the expectation of Revenge of the Sith being better than Attack of the Clones.
---

I enjoy the souls vibe of everybody wasting their time, falling to madness then dying.
---

The original trilogy was awesome. Aside from that, its all trash that I pretend doesnt exist.

LeetCheet posted...

The prequels also had cool villains such as Darth Maul, Count Dooku and General Grievous.

And Samuel L Jackson.

All of that together doesn't make up for Jar Jar. Or the super cringey budding romance between Amidala and young Anakin. An obviously grown woman playing a 14 year old that is interested in an 8 year old just feels icky. The actor playing young Anakin was pretty awful too.

Perhaps that's why I only really enjoyed the third one. "Little Anni" was gone and Jar Jar was barely there.


---

The prequels were shit. Sometimes I wonder if people lionizing them have actually watched them at any point since they came out.

Seriously, TPM's plot was an absolute mess, but still somehow managed to be the best of the trilogy, pretty much by default. AotC somehow one-upped its predecessor for absolute nonsense (seriously, the plot for this movie seems to have been written by a three-year-old suffering from massive head trauma given how little sense it makes), introduced some of the cringiest acting I've ever seen in a big-budget blockbuster, and generally shit over the Star Wars name. RotS managed to at least be a bit better than AotC, but not by much and only because it would be difficult to be any worse.

Say what you will about the sequels - and there are plenty of valid complaints against them - at least they're fun to watch. At least they have decent pacing, actors who can actually act, scripts that have actually seen an editor's desk, and directors who know what a second take is.
---

darkknight109 posted...

At least they have decent pacing

no

darkknight109 posted...

actors who can actually act

no

darkknight109 posted...

scripts that have actually seen an editor's desk

lolno

darkknight109 posted...

directors who know what a second take is.

have you even seen the sequels?
---

whatever, pretty much anything but OT is garbage, but i managed to snag a copy of the anti cheese edits for the prequel trilogy and it makes them much more watchable.
---

Bah...TPH had no redeeming qualities at all really, don't remember it much, but what I do remember is that it was the one with alot of Jar Jar.

AoTC had Darth Maul and some good light saber battles, yeah the acting blew, but hey the force was used a decent amount (which I mean it really wasn't ever in any movies up to that point if you think about it. Barely used in the first 2 original ones (other then some training) and then briefly used early on in Jedi and then for the final battle). Still not great, and not as good as any of the original 3, but it had some things that were decent.

Episode 3 had more then a few good points between tons of total crap, but those good points were pretty cool. Killing the younglings for instance, that was hard core cold lolz. I could dig the end where he basically crushed anakin's spirit and turned him into vader as well. Was it great? Nope, but it wasn't horse dung.

The prequels actually did set up things for the original 3, and while bad, it didn't destroy the story and more importantly...it didn't get rid of the extended universe (The Thrawn books etc). All that was still part of the series...and could even possible be made into movies (Mara Jade would have been awesome).

The "new" episodes 7 and 8......both sucked and were forgetabble (to me...I literally saw a clip of Ben and Rei fighting whatever the bad guys name was and didn't remember it at all), but basically screwed over all the original cast from the first 3 movies. Luke ends up an old hermit dude who hates life. Leigh and Han split...but not before Han knocks her up etc. The books by Timothy Zhan were WAAAAAAY better ...a million times better and would have made freaking GREAT movies. Why they didn't go with them is beyond me (I think Zhan felt the same way).

So yeah, sorry, but even if taken by themselves, somehow you like 7 and 8 (and 9 eventually) more then 1 and 2 and 3......they still suck more for ruining the original movies and any chance of actually having GOOD ones made (or ever seeing Mara at all.

I was hoping for a Solo sequel in fact because I felt that at least had some potential. I could care less about episode 9 myself. I'll watch it on DVD probably some year.
---

@darkknight109 I watched TPM for the first time in years last week on a plane and was blown away by how much I actually enjoyed it
---

wolfy42 posted...

Why they didn't go with them is beyond me (I think Zhan felt the same way).

They want to own the stories and the characters that are in their movies. They don't want to have to pay licensing fees and risk potentially losing the rights to any of that stuff down the road.


---

wolfy42 posted...

AoTC had Darth Maul and some good light saber battles

This kind of proves my point about how most people clearly haven't watched the prequels in years.

wolfy42 posted...

The books by Timothy Zhan were WAAAAAAY better ...a million times better and would have made freaking GREAT movies. Why they didn't go with them is beyond me

Most likely because those books took place 5 years after the OT, whereas in reality it was over 25 years between RotJ and TFA. I somehow don't think Hamill, Fisher, and Ford could convincingly pull off being ~30 years old in 2015.

wolfy42 posted...

So yeah, sorry, but even if taken by themselves, somehow you like 7 and 8 (and 9 eventually) more then 1 and 2 and 3......they still suck more for ruining the original movies

And the prequels didn't? They turned Darth Vader into a whiny bitch who leg-humped his way to the dark-side; they made Obi-Wan a prissy mother-hen, shoved a stick up Yoda's ass, turned the Jedi from an order of ascetic monks into a bureaucratic council who sat around all day to discuss politics, and gave us baby Boba Fett for some reason; they fucking turned the Force into a bacterial infection!

The prequels retroactively made the OT worse just by existing. They were that bad.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

I watched TPM for the first time in years last week on a plane and was blown away by how much I actually enjoyed it

So you watched the most tolerable of the prequels and the only one that's actually worth seeing. I'm not seeing a good argument there.
---

@darkknight109
? revenge of the Sith is generally considered to be the best
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

@darkknight109
? revenge of the Sith is generally considered to be the best

Revenge of the Sith is basically AotC part II, making the exact same fuck-ups, just not quite as badly.
---

6>5>4>CW>3>1>RO>7>2>>>>>>8

I haven't seen Solo or the madalorian so won't judge those
---

Prequels are good for the fight scenes and universe building. 7 is formulaic, but good enough for a Star Wars movie . 8 was forgettable and good for nothing.

---

7 was very entertaining imo and left a lot of unanswered things to build on

8 answered all of those questions in boring, unsatisfying, and conclusive ways to such a point that I really dont care how the trilogy wraps up

Anything I found even mildly interesting from The Force Awakens got either killed off or ruined in TLJ
---

RO>New Hope>Empire>Force Awakens>RotJ>TLJ>Revenge>AotC>Phantom
---

Bugmeat posted...

LeetCheet posted...

The prequels also had cool villains such as Darth Maul, Count Dooku and General Grievous.

And Samuel L Jackson.

All of that together doesn't make up for Jar Jar. Or the super cringey budding romance between Amidala and young Anakin. An obviously grown woman playing a 14 year old that is interested in an 8 year old just feels icky. The actor playing young Anakin was pretty awful too.

Perhaps that's why I only really enjoyed the third one. "Little Anni" was gone and Jar Jar was barely there.

I think the only character thats worse than Jar Jar Binks is Rose Tico from TLJ.

Both are annoying and are almost entirely useless. But at least JJ Binks didnt have a pointless sideplot that took out a huge chunk of the movie's screentime.
But he did contribute to the rise of the empire though lol

As for the kid who played Anakin in Ep 1, he claims Star Wars ruined his life and people/kids has bullied him like crap ever since.
Last I heard of him was him getting arrested.
---

LeetCheet posted...

Last I heard of him was him getting arrested.

Poor guy actually suffers from schizophrenia now and is in a long term mental health center.
---

8>7>3>1>2>6>4>>>>>>5

argonautweakend posted...

8>7>3>1>2>6>4>>>>>>5

Is this one of those reverse order pranks?
---

5>4=6>3>RO>7>1>2>shitting your pants at work>8
---

LeetCheet posted...

The prequels also had cool villains such as Darth Maul, Count Dooku and General Grievous.

And Samuel L Jackson.

maul was a jobber, dooku had a funny name but otherwise not bad, grevious is just trying too hard be edgy and cool.
---

The new trilogy is just fine. But no matter what they make people will whine about them. They've been whining since TPM.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

The new trilogy is just fine. But no matter what they make people will whine about them. They've been whining since TPM.

People actually whined a lot about RotJ when it came out too from what I hear
---

5 > 6 > 4 > RO >3 > 7 > Solo > 2 > 1 > The Holiday Special > Ewok Adventure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
---

Mead posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

The new trilogy is just fine. But no matter what they make people will whine about them. They've been whining since TPM.

People actually whined a lot about RotJ when it came out too from what I hear

Yup. They'll whine about this trilogy most likely until a new trilogy comes out, then they'll whine about that one and then you'll have some of those same people saying "7 - 9 weren't as bad as I remembered."
---

Smarkil posted...

Is this one of those reverse order pranks?

Yeah....

While we know what this topic is about, i always thought those lists with just numbers were weird so i wanted to see if anybody called me out and ya did.

darkknight109 posted...

actors who can actually act

John Boyega and Adam Driver are both honestly pretty terrible and unconvincing

Last Jedi is amazing and Im super hyped for IX

4 > 5=8 > 6 > 3 > Solo >= 7 > RO > 2 > 1

OhhhJa posted...

darkknight109 posted...

actors who can actually act

John Boyega and Adam Driver are both honestly pretty terrible and unconvincing

Adam Drover is one of the best parts of the ST. You have awful opinions lmao
---

I don't really care about anything the TC said. My main issue with the sequel trilogy is that they do too much telling and not enough showing. "Show, don't tell". Pretty much everything explained in the OP was NOT shown in the movies, it was either told to us or you had to surmise it yourself.

That's like, shitty movie making 101. IDC about the story shitting all over the originals. I care that the storytelling and execution of the new movies has been bad.
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

OhhhJa posted...

darkknight109 posted...

actors who can actually act

John Boyega and Adam Driver are both honestly pretty terrible and unconvincing

Adam Drover is one of the best parts of the ST. You have awful opinions lmao

Kylo ren is not at all nearly as convincing of a villain as Darth vader. It's not even comparable. But who am I to argue with a guy who calls 10 year olds on xbox live homophobic slurs. You're obviously someone with very meaningful, well informed opinions

lmao sounds like I triggered the snowflake

and why does he have to be exactly like Vader? Totally different character
---

Smarkil posted...

argonautweakend posted...

8>7>3>1>2>6>4>>>>>>5

Is this one of those reverse order pranks?

It is the only thing that makes sense.

Mead posted...

7 was very entertaining imo and left a lot of unanswered things to build on

8 answered all of those questions in boring, unsatisfying, and conclusive ways to such a point that I really dont care how the trilogy wraps up

Anything I found even mildly interesting from The Force Awakens got either killed off or ruined in TLJ

I agree with most of this. Even at the time, when some people were complaining that TFA was just a rehash of the original trilogy meant to exploit nostalgia, my response was "If this sets up better things in the next two movies that fan service was used effectively, but if it doesn't pay off effectively then it kind of makes TFA worse retroactively." The nostalgia and fan service was necessary to win back good will after the prequels burned off a lot of it, but then Episode VIII and IX needed to build from that base and do something new and interesting.

Then TLJ basically came along, slit TFA's throat, and then raped the corpse. Which sort of ruins the entire trilogy no matter what happens in Episode IX.

Just in terms of each film standing alone, I'd say TFA is easily better than all of the prequels, but TLJ is easily worse than all of them. But as collected trilogies I'm tempted to say that TLJ makes the sequel trilogy unavoidably worse no matter what TRoS does, because I don't see how it can even remotely salvage everything that's broken now (and none of the advance talk seems to inspire confidence).

What sucks is that Disney is clearly capable of making Star Wars content that isn't 100% terrible. Rogue One was interesting in its own way, and it seems like everyone loves The Mandalorian. But for some reason they decided to completely half-ass production on the most important movies they'll ever make in a franchise they paid billions for. That's almost criminally negligent, especially when in their own company you've got the Marvel movies as an example of how to properly organize and produce multi-film epics in an expansive universe. Star Wars basically needed a Kevin Feige, and instead it got a Kathleen Kennedy.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

The new trilogy is just fine. But no matter what they make people will whine about them. They've been whining since TPM.

To be fair, the only good movie they've made since TPM is Rogue One. So all of the complaints are justified.



Mead posted...

People actually whined a lot about RotJ when it came out too from what I hear

I was there at the time, this isn't really true. Especially compared to the reactions to the prequels and sequels.

The only real complaints that people had about RotJ was that the Ewoks were kind of stupid and feel like they were put there solely to be cute and sell toys (which is a valid argument), and that the Yub Nub song was kind of stupid (also true). Almost everything else about the movie was near-universally praised, and plenty of people unhesitatingly said it was better than the original Star Wars/Episode IV/A New Hope. And that the Luke/Vader/Emperor scenes were easily the best in the entire trilogy.

Some people even said it was a better movie than Empire, but those people were objectively wrong, so we'll ignore them.

The real backlash to Star Wars didn't really start to pick up steam until the Special Editions, when people were like "Wait, why is Greedo shooting first now?" and "Why in the holy fuck did Lucas replace the musical number in Jabba's palace with a song so cringe-y my asshole is now lodged somewhere up near my neck?" Along with people saying "Man, that restored scene where Jabba meets Han in the hangar is kind of lame, because CGI Jabba looks like shit and they're mostly just repeating the exact same lines Han said to Greedo earlier, this is so unnecessary", and "You know, most of the stuff he's added to these movies is almost completely pointless. A few more CGI animals in the background of scenes doesn't really add much of value at all, and the really blatant stuff he changed is all terrible."

And ironically, he replaced the Yub Nub song (which we SHOULD have enjoyed, because we'd been making fun of it for 15 years), but we didn't like it because he replaced it with something completely generic and dull, and added a few more stupid pointless scenes, and made the whole thing kind of lame. And as much as we'd made fun of the Yub Nub song, we'd sort of gotten used to it, so taking it away and replacing it with something mediocre just made us feel like it wasn't really an improvement at all.

But even then, everybody was SUPER-excited for Phantom Menace before it came out. The teaser trailer was awesome. We all had so much hope, so much optimism, so much joy. We were all READY to love the shit out of more Star Wars.

And then the movie came out and we all embraced the Dark Side because there was nothing left but hate.

Now the fanbase has basically been taught to have zero hope, zero optimism, zero joy. We've been burned way too many times, so now the expectation is that whatever movie comes next is probably going to be mediocre at best and terrible at worst, and we're almost going to see them more out of a weird feeling of nostalgic obligation than out of any real enthusiasm. Most people at this point don't see Star Wars films any more because they LIKE Star Wars, they see them because they USED to like Star Wars.
---

OhhhJa posted...

John Boyega and Adam Driver are both honestly pretty terrible and unconvincing

Compared to Hayden Christiensen and Natalie Portman in the PT? They're practically Oscar winners.

OhhhJa posted...

Kylo ren is not at all nearly as convincing of a villain as Darth vader.

He's not meant to be.

That's the point - he was set up to be the anti-Vader, a fanboy desperately trying to live up to his grandfather's legacy and failing horribly at it.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Even at the time, when some people were complaining that TFA was just a rehash of the original trilogy meant to exploit nostalgia, my response was "If this sets up better things in the next two movies that fan service was used effectively, but if it doesn't pay off effectively then it kind of makes TFA worse retroactively." The nostalgia and fan service was necessary to win back good will after the prequels burned off a lot of it, but then Episode VIII and IX needed to build from that base and do something new and interesting.

Then TLJ basically came along, slit TFA's throat, and then raped the corpse. Which sort of ruins the entire trilogy no matter what happens in Episode IX.

See, I blame TFA for this more than TLJ, because JJ Abrams did exactly what he always does: set up some grand mysteries which *sound* really intriguing on the surface, but when you think about them hard enough they have no satisfactory answer (then he dumped them on another director's lap who basically did what he could to sidestep the issue altogether).

I mean, to pick one notable one, let's talk about Rey's parentage. TFA sets it up like it's some big deal, with her last name never released, Obi-Wan showing up prominently in her visions, and Han hinted at having some insight on who she is, but... who would her parents be? None of the obvious, widely hypothesized candidates - Luke, Leia/Han, Obi-Wan, or Chewbacca - make much sense. Obi-Wan was a by-the-books Jedi, meaning him having descendants is unlikely in the extreme, and none of the other answers would have had any reason to dump her on a desert planet in the middle of nowhere. She could be from a "branch" of the family - like Obi-Wan's grandniece - but how would that be significant from a narrative perspective?

So Johnson is left to answer this impossible riddle and goes with: nobody. Her parents were junk dealers of no significance at all. Which, honestly, is probably the most sensible answer he could give, plus it dodges the annoying trend Star Wars developed of having every important character be related to someone who first appeared in the OT.
---

I saw RoTJ when it came out and there was some backlash about ewoks which were kinda silly/stupid but nothing on the level of Jar Jar and Luke kicked some freaking arse which made it all worth it. Yeah....It was a bit of a let down from ESB....but almost anything would have been at that point.

No way it compared in let down status to Ep 1/2/3 or now 7 and 8.

Yeah I was much older, jaded etc, when the new ones came out, but I STILL enjoy watching the originals which I have seen many times, over the new ones (some of which I can not even make it through again).
---

darkknight109 posted...

Compared to Hayden Christiensen and Natalie Portman in the PT? They're practically Oscar winners.

To be fair to them, that's not really on them. That's Lucas' fault as a phenomenally shitty director when it comes to actors (nearly every actor who has worked with him has said so, even the original cast back in the 70s), combined with it being extremely hard to work when you're in a featureless green room talking to empty space that will be CGIed in later.

The main strength of the sequels (possibly the only real major strength) is that they were filmed with far more practical effects under directors who are better at directing human beings to emote and interact.

Hayden Christensen is a much better actor than most people realize. You'd just never know it from the prequels, because the only actor in them that seems to have overcome the multiple handicaps filming them was Ewan McGregor.



darkknight109 posted...

He's not meant to be. That's the point - he was set up to be the anti-Vader, a fanboy desperately trying to live up to his grandfather's legacy and failing horribly at it.

I definitely agree with this, though, and have defended Kylo's personality to people who complain about it. He's a shitty version of Vader because he's NOT Vader, and he's not supposed to be. He's not Maul, who is designed to look cool and nothing else, he's not meant to be a badass. He's supposed to be confused, inept, and struggling towards establishing his own identity.

The problem is "He's supposed to be whiny and annoying" doesn't really change the fact that he's whiny and annoying. So people bothered by that are going to be bothered by it regardless of whether or not it's part of the overarching plot establishing that he's basically a rebellious teenager trying to be like granddad and completely failing, because he doesn't even remotely understand anything about his grandfather.



darkknight109 posted...

See, I blame TFA for this more than TLJ, because JJ Abrams did exactly what he always does: set up some grand mysteries which *sound* really intriguing on the surface, but when you think about them hard enough they have no satisfactory answer (then he dumped them on another director's lap who basically did what he could to sidestep the issue altogether).

This would be valid if that's what actually happened. But multiple people involved have said that Abrams actually HAD answers for most of the questions he asked, and gave the list of details and ideas to Rian Johnson, who was told "You can use whatever you want, or ignore whatever you want - you've got full freedom to do what you think is best."

And then Johnson basically shat on every single one of those answers, and provided far more unsatisfactory answers for every one, because he decided he felt like making the film a deconstruction ("Let the past die, kill it if you have to"), and didn't give a shit how that would affect the next movie or the trilogy/franchise as a whole. Which left them scrambling with how to salvage Episode IX.

Johnson didn't just say "I don't know how to answer these questions", he said "None of these questions matter and the answers are pointless". Which kind of leads people to ask "Then why am I watching these movies again?"
---

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, to pick one notable one, let's talk about Rey's parentage. TFA sets it up like it's some big deal, with her last name never released, Obi-Wan showing up prominently in her visions, and Han hinted at having some insight on who she is, but... who would her parents be? None of the obvious, widely hypothesized candidates - Luke, Leia/Han, Obi-Wan, or Chewbacca - make much sense. Obi-Wan was a by-the-books Jedi, meaning him having descendants is unlikely in the extreme, and none of the other answers would have had any reason to dump her on a desert planet in the middle of nowhere. She could be from a "branch" of the family - like Obi-Wan's grandniece - but how would that be significant from a narrative perspective?

You're actually underselling things pretty significantly there - there ARE potential answers that could easily work.

A lot of the fanbase assumed she was Han/Leia's daughter because that would cast her in the Jaina role counter to Kylo, who feels like a blatant copy of Jacen from the EU (because he probably was). But Luke's daughter also works, because then she's a gender-swapped Ben. Any of them could easily have kids, and there are always ways to justify why she was abandoned if you're willing to do the work. Easiest might be to have Luke be her father, but her mother left with her without Luke ever knowing she was pregnant, with the intent to hide her from Luke in a deliberate echo of hiding Luke/Leia from Anakin. Or even just have Luke have a Force vision that says she needs to be hidden for the good of the galaxy, so he sends his wife away.

The other easy way to handle things is to assume she was left in the custody of a guardian/babysitter/nanny/etc for some reason, and they left her on Jakku to hide her (perhaps they were being chased by remnants of the Empire/the First Order), with the intent to go back for her later, but died before they could, or could tell anyone where she was. With her actual parents assuming she was dead, unable to find her.

Conversely, you go the other way. She IS the Emperor's daughter/granddaughter, or the daughter of some other Imperial (perhaps abandoning her to hide her from Rebellion/New Republic forces), and the narrative becomes her eventually rejecting her heritage and choosing good over evil.

For more minor options, she could be the daughter of some other minor figure (hell, Wedge's daughter!), where she has the connection, but you also push the idea that the important thing is less WHO her parents were, but more the moment when she eventually discovers her past and the reason why she was abandoned (ie, she assumes she was left behind deliberately, but if her parents always wanted to come back but couldn't, it changes a large chunk of her backstory, and thus, her perspective).

Hell, you could always stoke the fanboy boner and say Boba Fett escaped the Sarlacc, had a daughter, and ditched her. Even THAT is more satisfying than the non-answer.

In a realistic sense "Your parents aren't important" works (because it's the most likely answer if this happens in the real world), but in a narrative sense it's actually bad writing, because the story clearly builds them up as being significant right up until it spontaneously decides they aren't and that particular plot thread is immediately hacked away without any real resolution. It's breaking the Chekov's Gun premise.
---

darkknight109 posted...

So Johnson is left to answer this impossible riddle and goes with: nobody. Her parents were junk dealers of no significance at all. Which, honestly, is probably the most sensible answer he could give, plus it dodges the annoying trend Star Wars developed of having every important character be related to someone who first appeared in the OT.

There actually was an answer, though. Daisy Ridley has admitted that she knows what it was supposed to be.

Johnson didn't refuse to answer the question (and every other question) in any satisfying way because he couldn't think of a satisfying answer. He refused because his explicit philosophy and the theme of the movie is "The answers don't matter." He was given answers he could use if he wanted to, but he deliberately rejected every single one of them and intentionally dismissed the questions entirely. Stop asking questions, the past isn't important. The past is actually a handicap. Let it die, kill it if you have to.

Which, again, can be a thought-provoking theme for a deeper movie, but it kind of clashes horribly in a franchise which has almost entirely been built on symbolism and myth arcs (which is what he's actively rejecting). It's something he might have been able to get away with in a side-movie like Rogue One or Solo, but not as the middle episode of the new trilogy.

There was also an answer who Snoke might be, Johnson didn't use it (and basically shrugged and said "And it doesn't matter because he's dead now anyway").

If you're going to blame ANYONE for TLJ, it is entirely on Rian Johnson. Because he was given complete freedom to do whatever he wanted to do with the movie, without having to answer any of the questions from TFA or set up new hooks for Episode IX, with none of the people in charge even remotely attempting to enforce a consistent through-story to connect the three movies.

Rian Johnson made exactly the movie he wanted to make, and that is what we got.

But it isn't really the movie he should have made.
---

I recall hearing somewhere that Johnson considers movies good when they're controversial. If that's true than he certainly succeeded with TLJ but I think he forgot to factor in something very important; why the movie is controversial in the first place. Let's look at Fire Emblem: Three Houses for an example here.

Edlegard is a very controversial character. Starting off as the lord of the house most people will pick on their first playthrough and as the closest thing to a 'poster child' a lot of people played her route first where she makes some choices which are, doubtless, extremely tough and difficult to achieve her ideal world. She does things like ally with those who caused her much pain and blames Rhea and the crest system for much of the ills in the world and is willing to do terrible things to try and improve the world by getting rid of the crest system, nobility, and other such things. This results in a situation in which the question of 'does the ends justify the means' becomes center-stage to the question of if you like or despise her. On the one hand she is responsible for things like TWSITD still being around and killing the characters father; but if she succeeds she gets rid of the crest system which is shown to be highly problematic, the church which is highly flawed due to Rhea, and other reforms effectively improving the world. Is she right or wrong? Good or evil?

The problem is that, in TLJ, the controversy stems not from good writing, moral ambiguity, or anything else; but from its exact opposite. Terrible writing and plot, idiotic morality, and a complete lack of anything else. Non-answers abound, stupid decisions are constantly made, and terrible ideals are constantly forced and pushed about. The result is that a lot of people consider it a terrible movie while others consider it to not be a terrible movie effectively because 'it subverts' which is a TERRIBLE metric to use.
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

lmao sounds like I triggered the snowflake

and why does he have to be exactly like Vader? Totally different character

Says the guy who actually PMed me lmao. Triggered people PM people

Dude actually sent me a pm calling me gay to try and insult me. Are you in 4th grade?

@DirtBasedSoap

hahahahahhahahaha
---

but bro I was just apologizing for my homophobic comments I made like 6 months ago because you keep bringing it up and i thought I hurt your feelings
---