Trilogy not planned?

This really can't be any clearer and lines up with what we know. There's a general idea where this is all going and they're leaving it up to the directors to flesh out the story. I have some general issues with the overall trilogy choices, but I get the sense there's a general plan and that's constant with what we know.

 

So you're just basing this off of what you personally think is possible?

Turns out people actually get payed to professionally make movies, and have (over the course of about 100 years) actually gotten quite good at it.

Your opinion is noted, but ultimately I think I'll hold off on it until anything concrete surfaces.

 

That should be what's happening with the story group but tbh I've been pretty disappointed with them even long before TLJ. When Disney took over the promise of a big thought out story told over all media was one of the main things that made me look forward to new Star Wars. Instead they pretty much let everyone do whatever (not only directors, also novelists etc.) and just give some notes here and there to avoid major contradictions.

I'm sure everyone in the group works hard on something, but from the outside it appears as if it's mostly just Pablo Hidalgo coming up with after-the-fact explanations for plot holes and inconsistencies introduced by creators (in the Visual Dictionaries, Rebels Recon, his Twitter feed...) and Leland Chee checking the database if a character name is already in use.

 

Again, as it's been pointed out again and again there's a loose outline for this trilogy. Adam Driver knows where his character is going. He doesn't know how he gets there.

Also, this is another person saying "plot hole." There aren't any plot holes in these films. There are however, lots of people who don't know what a plot hole is in a movie.

 

This. This this this.

I had hoped Disney's new EU would be much more cohesive, but it really is just the same as always. A mish-mash of miscellaneous stories that don't really tie in terribly well together, have completely ambiguous timeframes, damage some things we thought were true from the movies and don't even make terribly much sense from a canonical standpoint.

 

I'll admit the term plot hole as it is commonly used today is probably broader than the technical definition. Maybe something like contrived storytelling is more fitting but that's just semantics and it seems plenty of people understand it just fine. I'm usually a technically-correct-is-the-best-kind-of-correct type of person but just arguing a certain complaint is not technically a plot hole is probably not going to convince anyone. Nonetheless "There aren't any plot holes" plays exactly into my previous post. Everything is addressed somehow, whether by a throwaway line (The FO fighters have to retreat because the capital ships are out of range to provide cover) or in a visual dictionary (Bombs are magnetically propelled into space such that is looks like they are falling) but that doesn't mean any of these explanations are any good or justify the terrible decisions that made them necessary in the first place. For example

• Why do the FO fighters need cover? From what? There are no resistance fighters anymore!
• What does that even mean? Clearly the FO capital ships can't even hit small fighters in close range so what cover could they provide?
• Also, how urgent is it to retreat to cover? Can you not drop off just another quick rocket or two? Clearly we just saw single rockets destroying the entire bridge and hangar. Even if the back is shielded heavily, a few more rockets to the front should have incapacitated the Raddus.
• Finally, why would the FO even care? Send your pilots into a suicide mission! That's more what I would expect from an evil organisation.

And that's just this tiny aspect. TLJ is full of this more than any other Star Wars movie. RJ likes to say he wrote what the story demanded but so often it feels more like he had a visual in mind (WW2 bombing run! Naval chase! That tracking shot from Wings (1927)! So, so many Twin Peaks references! ) and then wrote whatever he needed to get there.

Certain people like to complain a lot about overthinking stuff in movies but where do you draw the line? At what point do "sacrificing logic for story/character/feelings" and "it's just a fantasy movie with space wizards" turn into "just turn your brain off and enjoy the colourful pictures" ?

 

There's an entire thread dedicated to this topic. You have issues with story choices. You don't like them. That doesn't mean the film is objectively flawed.

As for overthinking... You may want to rewatch the other Star Wars films with a more consistent eye. There's tons of examples of the stuff you seem upset with in the other films.

 

This last point sums up my immediate reaction. I mean, seriously... since when does a tyrannical organization have issue with overwhelming an inferior opponent, even if that means sustaining losses?

I am not going to argue semantics regarding the definition of "plot hole" so let's just call it something that makes no sense whatsoever within the context of the film and is completely inconsistent with the established narrative of the players involved.

Amen. I will gladly accept any premise for a fantasy movie, but the darn thing has to be internally consistent or it fails at being a good story.

 

Yet, Daisy Ridley has always known the answer to this question. This tells us JJ and RJ were aligned on this question very early on in the process. It's also not a big of this story. Lately, it's a better story choice.

 

Although this video was made because of Simon Pegg's interview where he mentions Rey's origin, it sums up the issue of this trilogy being pre-planned (or not) quite nicely.