Were "fan expectations" the problem?

I think upon close examination we see Rose either chastises, corrects, overrules, or saves Finn the entire movie. I'm not sure if Finn is allowed an independent thought that he is allowed to follow to fruition regardless if Rose objects. I know what you all are arguing is something smaller (does Rose chastise Finn), and I think the answer is yes. On board the Raddus, on Canto Bight, and on Crait at least.

The utility of Finn's attack being futile is (respectfully) head canon. It possible but not at all gospel. People have asserted it as truth (in my opinion) because it best fits with their preferred narratives. There is just as much reason to believe it would be successful if we go by what is explicitly in the movie. I honestly trust Finn's assessment on his attack better than Poe's. He is, afterall, the resident FO specialist. No one else at the Crait Base even knew what it was when they saw it. Finn did. Also (against all logic and reason) Finn and Rose somehow make it into close proximity to the canon without being shot down. Taking heavy enemy fire was Poe's initial concern, it was no longer an issue once Finn was about to strike. Food for thought.

 

I see it differently. Rose’s introduction on the Raddus certainly did the character no favors. She immobilizes and subdues a fan favorite for being a traitor to a cause he never actually aligned himself with, and then never acknowledges this rather pronounced overreaction motivated by grief. I think that baffling choice by RJ turned a lot of people off to her from the jump and tainted their perspective on her actions after that. Add that to the now exhaustive list of puzzling executions in TLJ.

From that point forward though, I see her trying, out of genuine compassion, to inform him of a world he simply lacks a working knowledge of. He doesn’t grasp the full weight of what’s happening around him and she’s there to broaden that perspective. That, at points, has the flavor of condescension. This disconnect, again, I believe is a mismanagement of tone in the movie.

That’s why I presented it as only my interpretation. It isn’t really made clear. I lean that way because I don’t really see how the alternative jives with the overall theme. The movie starts with Paige’s noble sacrifice, expands with the medical frigate pilot’s noble sacrifice, punctuates with Holdo’s noble sacrifice, and ends with Luke’s noble sacrifice. Finn’s analogous effort is supposed to be wrong because his intent wasn’t noble enough?

Rose was prepared to let the Resistance perish, and the whole galaxy remain oppressed, because she didn’t agree with what she assumed was the climate of Finn’s headspace while trying to save them? I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t compute for me. How does that fit the established narrative? What lesson is that premise designed to impart to us? The only way it makes sense, to me personally, is that the deed was ill-fated at the core and everyone could recognize that but Finn, because he was consumed by ‘fighting what he hates’. Isn’t that a tidier and more appropriate message?

 

The problem was Finn never showed any interest in wanting to destroy the FO. This is something Rian decided to make up in order for Rose to look good trying to stop him. That's my problem with TLJ. It decides to change characters from what they originally were, so Rian's characters can point out their flaws. None of this was necessary for the next movie, but he wanted to make some characters look bad while others looked good.

 

I think saying fan expectations were the problem is absolving the movie of any faults, which once you actually open up this post and read it is not what you are doing.

I do think there are certain types of fans who are unhappy whenever they don't get to see what they thought or expected to happen. You see it a lot Star Trek and I think it has made its way into Star Wars fandom now. However, I don't think this is the majority of people.

I do think there is this bizarre faction of the fans that – for whatever reason – is insanely loyal to Lucas. You can spot them pretty easily, because almost immediately into the conversation they bring up "Disney", as if the prequels or special editions were universally well received.

But that doesn't mean I don't think the movie has problems. I didn't have a problem with her – like, at all – in the first movie, but things come to Rey far too easily in this movie. I actually really liked her after I saw the first movie, but they made her to perfect in this one.

And why the hell does she care about Kylo Ren? She hated him for about 1 3/4 movies, but all of a sudden cares about his fate?! No, no, no. Him being into her make sense, because he's creepy, lonely, and constantly seeking approval; and taking her on and training her would validate him. He's actually a really good villain IMO. He is what Anakin should have been. I love his temper tantrums and the entire throne room seemed with him, Rey, and Snoke was simply awesome.

I don't have the same problems some do with Snoke either. He's given the same treatment that Palpatine was in the original trilogy. The only reason people thought he sucked was because he died in the second movie, which nobody saw coming. It threw people off. It's untraditional and different.

Finn and Rose also genuinely suck in this movie. I liked him in the first one, but his antics just weren't as funny this time around and she was just a bad character portrayed by bad actors. I know exactly what they were trying to do with her. You're supposed to think she is adorable and endearing. Hell, I actually feel bad about disliking her, but she was not good at all.

One of the other problems that has come about in recent years is that any criticism = trolling. Obviously, that's not true, but that is the argument put forward by a lot of people. Don't like Rose? You're racist and sexist. Don't like the movie? Your "toxic fan" (a term that needs to be banned from the English language).

And Mary Poppins Leia? Cringe.

How have I not mentioned the casino planet yet?

There's basically three categories of problems. First, the movie itself has problems. It's a legitimate complaint. There are some things off with this movie.

The second is that group of fans who hate it because it Disney. It's an irrational hatred because Disney is a large company – as if Lucasfilm wasn't – that makes "kids movies". Once the company was sold, this group made up their mind – they were to heat the movies no matter what.

Then there's the group calls anyone who doesn't like anything or offers even the slightest amount of criticism a troll, racist, sexist, or homophobic. That's not to say there aren't legitimate trolls, there are. The poor young lady who played Rose had to deal with them. But having the criticism about a movie or a character does not make you any one of these things.

 

I actually agree with everything you say here, apart from your dislike for Rey's unexplained powers. I'm not particularly bothered by them and the explanation given for it in TLJ feels satisfactory for me at an intellectual level... But, yes, there were numerous problems with this film, like the humour, the editing (which made the rhythm difficult at times), Finn's character being a bit neglected, and also Rose's character, which probably worked better on paper than on screen... I agree with you when you say we were supposed to feel invested in Rose without the character really earning it, something that felt very different form the exquisite characterisation of Rey, Finn and Kylo in TFA and our generally positive engagement with those characters... But it makes me happy that a minority actress had such an important role in a SW film, and only wish it had been better written for her. This is why I really hope Rose has a few good scenes in episode IX, where the actress has a chance to display her genuine charm.

I should also add I have never been made feel "racist" or "sexist" for critiquing the character of Rose.

 

I think your analysis is actually really good and, in isolation, I would agree with it (i.e. Rose genuinely trying to inform him of a world he lacks a working knowledge of). The problem is (in my opinion) the execution of the movie doesn't have Rose acting in the capacity of an Angel on Finn's shoulder (to counter the Devil represented by DJ), it has her acting as Finn's chaperone. She doesn't merely try to inform him of a world view, she restricts his movements, lectures him, chides him, directs him, and saves him; not much unlike a legal guardian. And this is all excluding any discussion about Finn's failure to consult with his own moral compass and own past with the First Order, to decide what cause he would fight for (and potentially give his life for).

I think part of your conclusions on the utility of Finn's attack are a symptom of his separation. Finn's separation from the main story line manifests across the spectrum, in terms of continuity from TFA, themes, imagery, mood, pacing, everything. It's like a smaller lesser movie inside of a larger movie from which it is largely disconnected; it actually feels disconnected from the ST and the overall catalog as well. It's why I believe that the incongruity of showing noble sacrifices through out the movie and then suggesting that Finn should "save what he loves" caused a lot of people to say the movie is self-contradictory.

 

More than these actions contradicting themselves it was a case I think of having these two very distinct suicidal missions ( in terms of outcomes) somewhat yuxtaposed and feeling that the agency of the character we have grown to love (Finn) is being overruled by a character who has not earned the audience’s investment yet.

TLJ was full of nuanced moral messages like justifying war as a way to rescue and save “what we love” instead of a way to be destructive and show dominance. This is something we hadn’t seen in SW yet and, although it was an interesting idea, I think TLJ had not enough film time to make it justice.

Another thing that was not made clear enough was Luke’s change of heart about the legacy of the Jedi and I think that confusion was mainly due to continuity. That scene in acht to in which Luke senses Leia I feel was pivotal and somehow lost significance in the editing... Also the scene with Yoda, poetic and heartwarming as it was, should have been more effective communicating Luke’s change of heart. RJ during the director’s commentary spelled out what Yoda was advising him to do: “be what she (Rey) needs you to be”, and I think that was needed to understand Yoda showing up... that’s why I think leaving Yoda scene so suggestive and cryptic did no favours to the narrative. And this is coming from someone who usually has no problem with subtlety... I just think RJ was perhaps asking the audience to do too much work piecing things together so near the end.

 

I think you make some good points, but I don't blame editing. This is a good example of how people's expectations clouded fairly simply plot points. I wasn't confused when I watched the film.

Some people are upset they didn't get A, B, and C so obviously they don't like X, Y, and Z.

I'm really looking forward to Episode IX because it the first movie in the trilogy that doesn't have to deal with Han/Luke who really have had too much time in a series about Kylo, Rey, Finn, and Poe.

 

Yes, I admit I might have had a blind spot about this, but I just did not understand Luke’s mental process prior to “reckoning” that he needed to act and help Leia... It wasn’t really that the film challenged my expectations in that case, it was more like I did not “get” during that first viewing how and why Luke changed his mind about the Jedi’s usefulness after he had spent the whole film making such a good case about being “time for The Jedi to end”... I really needed RJ spelling out the Yoda scene to me in order to understand how important it was with regards to Luke’s change of heart.

 

I don’t disagree on that point. The Rose/Canto Bight subplot was designed to service Finn’s development and connect his growth with respect to the larger conflict behind the narrative. That being: this isn’t about ‘bad guys’ versus ‘good guys’. It’s not that simple. It’s about the unseen innocents suffering in the shadows. It’s about fighting FOR someone, instead of AGAINST someone. “It was worth it, though. To tear up that town - to make 'em hurt.” Rose is there to connect those dots for him (and us). “Now it's worth it.” Though that message gets garbled when she says things like “I wish I could put my fist through this whole lousy beautiful town.”

But, yeah, the implementation is awkward and muddled. The Rose/Finn dynamic is clumsy and gets to its logical conclusion irrespective of the buildup. ‘A’ led to ‘C’, but the ‘B’ portion was fairly hollow. Then the DJ character, who is there to represent the unsavory extreme potential of Finn’s ethos, doesn’t really land as being particularly influential to this outlook. It isn’t entirely convincing as a moral quandary for Finn even though it’s treated that way. At its base, I feel I get what the story is going for, and I appreciate the intent even if it wasn’t wholly successful . . . in my opinion.

There is that. Maybe I’m just willing to be more generous here and think it was by design rather than contradictory oversight.

Some more thought food to chew on though is the ultimate futility of the very premise. The point behind disabling that stupidly named cannon wasn’t to defeat the FO or facilitate an escape. It was to stall the siege long enough for an SOS to reach the Resistance’s supposed allies and secure a very unlikely rescue. Turns out that was never going to happen. “They've heard us, but no one's coming.”

Finn could have sacrificed himself to blow up a million battering rams and it wouldn’t have mattered. The net result would have been the same. He’d be dead and they’d be just as screwed.

Anywhozel, I get it if unfulfilled expectations led to dissatisfaction with the Finn character’s role in the story. I maintain though that the problem laid more in the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what’. I think that if the content had remained largely the same, but had instead been presented in a more crowd pleasing way, there’d be much less resentment. But that’s about as unprovable as any other armchair theoretics. What the hell do I know?

 

This is how I feel like most of Infinity War. The Canto Bight stuff is relatively small part of the film, but it matters for character development for Finn and for Rose. Where in Infinity War most of the film is dedicated to plot lines that are kind of pointless at the snap and the twist is something we all know is going to be removed after another two hours of sequel. I like Infinity War, but are people complaining about how pointless Thor's story is in that film like people are complaining about Canto Bight 14 months later?

 

So, let me say that a lot of what you're saying (I think) is probably going to be a really good fit for those who are newer to the franchise and/or are principally immersed in this trilogy, and not particularly concerned with the degree to which it aligns with previous installments. And to be clear I think a lot of what you mentioned here is well thought out and insightful (so I in no way mean this as insult) but as I'm examining (for example) why your observation of the suicidal missions doesn't land for me, I realize it's because I'm looking at this from a definitively macro view. A great deal of what does not work for me in TLJ isn't the nature of it's content, it's the overarching context into which it fails to integrate (and here I might argue it appears to make no attempt to)

To use the suicide runs as a means for messaging (especially if that message is counter-intuitive to the action on the screen), could be both effective and brilliant (from a movie making stand point). But SW already has a well-established framework from which to view suicide missions/runs; and it spans several movies. R1, ANH, ESB, RoTJ, TFA. And that protocol does not include scuttling the mission because it seems hopeless or that we, while in the commission of our warfare, do so to save what we love. I would argue that is not what has been established in the GFFA and it cannot be jettisoned because it's inconvenient to the time constraints of TLJ.

Of course themes and frameworks can change (and arguably in a multi-chapter tale such as this, they ought to because there is more to explore, re-examine, and scrutinize more closely). For example I, for one, welcomed the the PT introducing the idea that not all of the Sith ideology was inherently evil and not all of the Jedi ideology patently constructive. But here's the thing: they spend the course of 3 feature length movies creating that arc for the audience (whom may have already bought into a strict binary of good and evil with respect to Jedi and Sith). The PT incorporates the subtlety on Force User ideology and ethics that is not in the OT, but yet is consistent with the OT. (BTW this is me essentially agreeing with you that TLJ ran into problems, in part, by biting off more than could possibly be chewed in one movie) If they wanted the pay-off for new ideas, they have to lay the ground work, do the heavy lifting, and tell the story that expands the SW spectrum, and not simply stuff important paradigm changes into Director's cuts or time jumps.

I think my argument from above applies here as well. There is nothing inherently wrong with the messaging: "this isn’t about ‘bad guys’ versus ‘good guys’. It’s not that simple. It’s about the unseen innocents suffering in the shadows." There is, however (I would argue), a coherency problem if this becomes a major theme in a SW Episode movie in a SW anthology that is arguably benign to suffering and views it a facet of the galaxy. When the Jedi found Anakin, they won his freedom but they did not end the practice of slavery. Shmi remains a slave. When Han meets Chewie they are in bondage. Jabba's Twi'lek dancer? Slave. Rey is sold to Unkar. And now we see the children of Cantonica in some form of oppressive servitude. It is difficult (at least for me) to accept now it's about the innocents suffering in the shadows, when traditionally, the innocents always have. The rise of Canto Bight happens on the watch of the New Republic and The Resistance (neither of which showed any particular on-screen interest in addressing the child slavery issue going on in Catonica and elsewhere). The end result has the feel of Finn abandoning his existing developmental trajectory from TFA, to participate in a bizarre, unexplained pivot in franchise architecture that requires him to repeat previously achieved milestones.

You make a good point here, regardless of what happens to the canon, the message goes out and the allies do not answer. But regardless of what happens to the canon, Rey also shows up and opens up the back entrance. So I feel like you're not really demonstrating the futility of the premise so much as you are demonstrating the sequence itself is superfluous and has no impact on the larger outcome (as is the case with many of Finn's scenes). Outside of it's service to a message Rian wanted to communicate, the attack against the Ram Cannon is of limited utility to Finn and Rose. And this is underscored by gaps and holes that the movie makes no attempt to explain regarding how Finn and Rose make it into such close proximity of the canon, and how they make it back to safety of the Base with Rose incapacitated. They don't plug these holes because the characters don't matter, the messaging does. (My take)

 

I see that perspective, but point to your earlier statement.

I’d argue that these elements were always problematic. The Republic, which stood for liberty, and the Jedi who maintained its peace and justice, were strangely indifferent to slavery? That’s a touch hypocritical. Isn’t it? Morals, ethics, and values aren’t static entities. They grow and evolve over time. Just because a particular behavior was considered acceptable by a previous generation, doesn’t mean it should stay that way.

The Old Republic, evidently, wasn’t doing it’s job. That’s actually a fairly significant component to its ultimate downfall. It’s how Palpatine got to his position of power to start with. The New Republic, we have to surmise, was also not doing its job. Hell, they (for some reason) tolerated the First Order’s rapid militaristic occupation. They were both imperfect systems that failed. They were flawed and don’t represent the preferred state of resolution (otherwise this trilogy would be pointless). They were just stepping stones on the path. Heck, anywhere this otherwise repetitive sequel story is bringing anything at all new to the table will always have my endorsement.

In my observation, there are two basic functions of the ski speeder sequence and they’re both centric to character development and thematics rather than plot necessity. First is for Poe. It’s the extension of his arc started after the dreadnaught bombing. “There are things you cannot solve by jumping in your X-wing and blowing something up. I need you to learn that.” His decision to call off the attack is supposed to serve as recognition and a lesson learned. Second is for Finn. It’s the extension of that fathier freeing nonsense on CB: why, and for who, do we fight?

I won’t claim for a second that either of these aspects were handled terrifically well. They’re mostly clunky and confusing from my point of view, but do grant that element utility. Beyond that though, it’s largely empty spectacle. A “fun”, visually striking Star Warsie type action sequence for the sake of having one and . . . I’m OK with that. I’d prefer a set piece advance character, themes, AND plot, but two-out-of-three ain’t bad

I posted a while back in a thread about expectations for TLJ before it came out. My only request for it, at the time, was for it to simply not repeat the same beats from ESB - to do something different. That was my bar. So I guess it’s a little unfair of me to discount other’s hopes and investments when I technically got what I was asking for

 

I agree, viewed from our lens, they are problematic. I think the GFFA presents them as one facet of the harsh reality in the realm; but it always puzzled me that the Jedi (in particular) could co-exist in parallel with this type of oppression. If the argument being made is that, it is one of their blind spots and one of the ways they needed to change, I would have no problem with. Just do the work that comes along with changing the previously established framework. And I don't mean to suggest necessarily that every change requires a trilogy's length of development, but some of the larger galactic gears and cogs that make the story go have to be changed systematically and (in some cases) over the course of projects. Some of the smaller changes can happen within a movie.

So I'll agree that part of the Crait Battle is supposed to serve as a vehicle to observe Poe's change. I get the intent. But my macro view just won't allow that sequence a "safe place to land". TLJ is trying to convince us that Poe has changed without convincing us there was a need to change his (and our) view.

"What do you mean? What about the battle of D'Qar, that was the lesson right there. Look at the cost of their victory."

What if this same attitude had been applied to say, the SKB attack? How many ships did we see go down? How many ships that participated in the attack on the 2nd Death Star returned? How many fighters returned following ANH? The entire ground force was lost on Scariff, and all the fighters that made it through the shield as well as a few Capital ships in orbit. The truth of it (to let me tell it), the Battle of D'Qar was no more bloody or costly than the aforementioned conflicts. The only difference is now we are meant to understand that the cost is too high. This is one of those galactic gears which, in order to be changed, must be paid for in the labor of writing and making films (plural). Because every other similarly themed conflict (across the franchise) featured bleak-odds, heavy-losses and were the foundation for the ultimate victory by the Resistance/Republic.

 

I loved TLJ. It had some of the greatest moments in my heart for Star Wars. --> Yoda was perfect.

But I also had some problems, as with any movie. I think most of these problems occurred in the writing room. Story structure related. I could talk to you for an hour about that.

It's kinda cool how Star Wars fans have some of the highest expectations out of all franchises. I'm hoping it pushes the franchise to someday try to TOP the originals.

 

All that makes sense to me. It really does. This trilogy is in a unique position within the series with regard to justifying its existence. The PT and OT combined tell a complete story. So, how is this addition to that story progressing what gave the impression of finality.

My take: by finding the cracks and leaks in that resolution and expanding on them. Things only appeared to be resolved. It only seemed like victory. The underline issues though that led to the conflict we’re all familiar with are still there. They didn’t go anywhere. "I've seen evil take many forms...today, it is the First Order."

The opening crawl to TFA talks about “restoring peace and justice to the galaxy”. Lor San Tekka’s introductory line to the film mentions an existing “despair in the galaxy”. Maz says the First Order’s “shadow is spreading across the galaxy”, but the impression I get is that they’re really only the symptom of something larger - a systemic problem that neither previous trilogy really addressed. That even if they do defeat the FO, that won’t truly fix anything.

I don’t know, I think I’m rambling. Maybe I’m just reaching for a foothold to view this new trilogy as something more than a shameless cash grab. All I’m really saying is that this is a ‘new’ story. It should have a ‘new’ perspective. Otherwise, why bother? “Do the work that comes along with changing the previously established framework”? I really do think that’s what RJ was aiming at with this movie. Your mileage may very on whether or not he managed.

It seems to me (and I’m certainly not in the know here) that Rian started at his destination and worked backward from there. I don’t mean from a plot perspective, but from a character point of view. He back-burnered the greater narrative in order to focus on the players and their arcs. The larger story elements then sprung from there by necessity. Not totally unlike ESB.

He was tasked with composing a middle chapter. As most writers will generally attest: one of the trickier bits in writing is curating the meat in that particular sandwich. Heck, any student that’s ever been assigned to write an essay has run into this sticky wicket. Introductions are easy. Conclusions are easy. It’s all that in-between material that can really throw you. You don’t have a defining ‘inciting incident’ to propel you forward and you don’t have a coalescing ‘conflict resolution’ all that momentum is heading toward. There’s no start and no end, but you still have to convey a satisfactory narrative that gives the impression of both.

George was confronted with that same problem when he was fleshing out his own midsection. He solved it by making the stakes personal. He looked at the positive attributes of each of his mains and devised scenarios that would present the most significant challenge for them specifically. Rian, it seems, took the same approach. The Poe we meet in TFA is described as Leia’s “most daring pilot”. He’s bold and courageous, decisive and unstoppable in a star ship. So, Rian constructed situations that would turn those glaring assets into fundamental deficits.

The wrinkle is added that Leia has apparently been grooming him for leadership. That devil-may-care attitude of his: it works well for a maverick, but not for someone responsible for the lives of others. That ship he’s so terrific at flying: blown up. That golden boy status he has with Leia: meaningless, she’s out of commission. His defiance of authority: gets him kicked out of the command structure. His impulsive desire to swing in and save the day: gets most everyone killed.

Every bit of Poe’s thread in TLJ (and the rest of our mains) is about provoking the character with dilemmas where his previous toolset won’t be effective. He has to learn new ones, he has to ‘grow’ in order to get beyond them and become a better version of himself in the process.

And that’s a drawback of contriving plot scenarios to tailor a character’s arc. Poe’s dreadnaught plan, in the grander scheme, isn’t way worse than any other established expense paid for the greater good. But the story requires that it be viewed that way anyhow. Like with the conditions on Crait, if the bombers don’t attack and everybody runs to ‘safety’ instead, they’re ultimately in the same position. The FO still catches up and gives chase. So, the intent of the element gets a bit scrambled.

The relevance of it then, is for the character and not necessarily for the plot. And, to be honest, I’m OK with that. I’d have preferred the mechanics and verisimilitude be airtight, but this is a fantasy adventure for children. Sometimes some T’s don’t get crossed and some sad I’s don’t have their lovely little dots.I wish it had been done better, but it is what it is.

Wow, I ended up writing way more than I was aiming to. Sorry

 

I agree again. I don't think the GFFA has rid itself of evil by RoTJ end, and there is the obvious parallel between the Jedi failing again and again as a collective and an ideology, and the Republic as organization and an administration failing again and again. It makes sense that the next thing is a re-examination of who we perceive to be the good guys (Jedi and Rebel/Resistance) and why they perpetuate cycles of failure. I'm in alignment with the idea, but not the execution. You can't cut corners (IMO) in the story telling otherwise the changes meant to expand the SW galaxy, actually end up countering what has long been established about the SW galaxy.

Here I differ a little; I don't think George and Rian are dealing with the same variables. We know that George originally wrote ANH as a stand alone, picking up the story from there (with no other existing episodes or pre-existing stories to draw from) and trying to find what was next definitely required some thought. A lot more of the GFFA has been fleshed out and established by the time of TLJ. Rian knew that he was writing a middle installment of a trilogy and TFA was written like anything but a stand alone. If there was one thing JJ did provide it was a bevy of mystery boxes for TLJ to explore (or in this case, to largely disregard).

I don't dispute that Rian likely worked backwards or that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the approach. But if a bridge has to go up between 2 land masses, and one land mass already has a road, if you choose to build backwards, your bridge HAS to line up with the existing road. And that's where TLJ misses (for me). Poe for example is someone I could see being worked backwards, learning that strategic retreat is a viable option. So what about that doesn't work? The bridge being built backwards, makes landfall in a place where the road is not. The Poe that begins TLJ isn't the Poe we saw portrayed in TFA in terms of his lack of respect and recklessness. It's like Rian worked Poe backwards into a character that didn't exist prior, and only appears to exist now to fulfill the preferred developmental arc. That is a problem for myself and others. The same with the strategic retreat idea. Without any new information or new variables, why should the audience accept that every costly engagement before was ok, but that D'Qar should have been a strategic retreat? This isn't where we left the franchise, but Rian has built a bridge backwards and it no longer aligns to the existing road.

And again, SW can change and expand, but it can't run counter (not without new information or new variables) and expect to gather buy-in from the audience. So my critique is partially levied on TLJ and the handlers for the ST. If these new dynamics really were welcome to the GFFA, they should have been planned for and executed far better. TFA should have been providing hand offs that supported the new changes being presented in TLJ rather than mystery boxes that Rian doesn't feel obligated to nurture (which I actually understand in some regards).

But I do understand what you're saying and I agree, as a matter of personal choice, we all get to extend (or not) a degree of latitude for the story teller and what they're trying to do based on what is important to us. Continuity and consistency is important to me so TLJ doesn't work. You are willing to grant some leniency in cross Episode consistency for the sake of focus on character development. And that's ok too. Different strokes.

 

Addressing the first part of your post.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you, so please be patient lol.

Are you suggesting that the ST needs to reframe the context and wrap it up at the same time of the entirety of the saga? So in the OT, we had a basic concept that had Jedi able to access the force which guided their actions and obeyed their commands, and that taking short cuts in access to power corrupted Jedi who didn't take time to learn and respect the power they wielded.

In the PT, it expanded on that, including prophecy, a will of the force and manipulation to a greater extent.

So assuming you agree with the above, your suggestion is that due to both the apparent failure of the Old Republic, and the New Republic, that the ST is required to expand on the idea of the Force and the evil of the dark side? The ST has to create a physical enemy, dark force to combat? I don't know about anybody else, but that sounds horribly cheesy to me lol.

I think that's what I liked about the OT (and my subsequent head canon) the most, is that it never presumed the Force had a will or intelligence or goal. It was (or could be) simply a force of nature a precious few people could access. The PT added to that with the insertion of will and prophecy, which is one of the bigger things I disliked about the PT (I had mostly ignored that assuming it was the religious nature of the Jedi as presented that led to that interpretation, but that interpretation was a loose, imperfect one). Still, the PT kept the onus on the individual and the choices they make, and I respected that.

Now, assuming I'm reading this right, you're suggesting that SW and the ST goes the way that there's an actual evil that make people create evil things like the FO? Dark force user? If SW goes this way, I'd be horribly disappointed. Yes, I get it's a fantasy, but this would now regulate it to ordinary fantasy tropes that would not feel like SW to me. It would feel overly religious, as in... "the devil made me do it" type of explanations for Vader and Kylo, which to me would be horribly weak to finish off the Skywalker saga.

It would oversimplify a complex and nuanced message into a fantasy trope... the evil god/deity ect is to blame for suffering. It would make SW lose any and all philosophical debate or weight imo. It would be a sad deconstruction of what was initially presented in the OT. I guess some could see it as a progression from what the PT presented us, but I somewhat doubt that's where GL was headed.

Governments fail because people fail, because we cease to discuss and explain our thinking, methodology, vision and goal in a compelling way. There is no evil influence beyond the extreme views, authoritarian views that seek to squash opposing view points on governance. Governments fail by failing to govern the whole, or in a democracy, to be a pendulum that swings and covers issues on both sides of the argument. In a SW universe, it would be even more complicated, with intelligent species that have far different values. Insectoid, reptilian, aquatic, mammalian ect... in the real world, our needs are essentially the same, we share them as having humanity as a common denominator, but still we struggle with governance with even minutiae to argue about (mostly how we decide to reach a common goal), but in SW it would be so much more complicated due to the needs and priorities of differing species.

It would be a shame, to me anyways, to regulate all that to... this evil thing needs to be destroyed to eliminate evil and good could be victorious. The Empire was evil because it was authoritarian in nature, forcing through military might, upon pain of death for dissent, to follow rigid rules that did not allow for individualism. There's a real world comparison there that we can relate to and struggle with. Safety vs freedom at its very core. It should be debated and discussed, not simplified in such a banal way to dismiss the human condition, or in the SW universe, humanoid condition.

In short, I don't feel there should ever be an ultimate victory over evil. The evil is within us. It's the unwillingness to discuss and compromise. It's the will to remove freedom from others upon pain of death (at which case we usually see the movie as the counter to that authoritarianism in military conflict). It's the pushing of a single idea at the detriment of all others. It's complicated on our planet, it should remain so in a GFFA or the SW universe will struggle to be relatable to a large viewership. To simplify it to destroying an evil artifact, or spirit or being, would be to relegate the SW universe to a B movie. The question and the threat should remain, and those who live in that world should remain vigilant, just as we must in ours. It doesn't need to comment on the nose about our politics, but rather on the reality that ideas can fail by the radicalization and intolerance of all other ideas that meet to challenge it. The strength in our diversity is also our weakness due to our inability to agree on the nuance. We contain maintain a single idea since our state of being is so fluid, and we're only one species. In SW, any government is trying to balance multiple species. The complexity of that should not be taken for granted (I think there's probably room for a series on those complexities alone).

Evil could be personified in a leader, but not to the point where the defeat of said leader eliminates evil forever. The potential for evil lurks within us all, we've all made mistakes and done things that we later realize was wrong or that we're not proud of, so deep down inside we know this to be true. We can't expect a government to defy the reality that it is led by fallible people, whether human or alien. Those traits will inevitably infiltrate a government that could resist military conflicts, but governments/societies will eventually succumb to their own imperfections and flaws from within as corruption sets in based on our personal evils and not the influence of a malignant entity. No malignant force required, simply human(oid) hubris. The idea that I know better than you. We all struggle with this every day, the irony of this post does not elude me either lol. There are some universal truths out there though, and I suppose a GFFA could have it's own set, I just can't help but think an ultimate victory over evil in any way in the ST would diminish the SW universe because it simply is not the human condition.

 

That last two movies was wasted because it should been building Finn and Poe and Rey and the movie didn't. Rey's arch and hero journey was complete when she beat Kylo in 7. It was a over kill in 8 when we find out she don't need training, and in 9 with Ninja flips no training, bested the main villain in 7, never needed the Jedi master in 8, and 9 take the seat as the Queen of Mary Sue, there nothing to look forward for, because she completed her arch in 7.

Going into the last movie of the Saga and this Trilogy its way too late to build arches for Finn or Poe or Kylo Ren, that is where 9 either going to struggle to do that or realize it can't and bring in new characters who arches are already developed before we see them on screen or knowing who they are which will confuse movie goers and fans and make them wonder is this movie about Rey, Finn, Poe and Kylo or not and why introduce these newer characters either villains and heroes at the end of the Saga. Unless they going to be a 10, 11, 12 in the future.

Lucas Film have no vision or direction, no story telling, or over arch of characters just a strong woman lead who needs no training, no father figure, no teacher figure just bad ass with powers she doesn't understand why she have or what to do with it. Then she have supporting actors that she does not need so they just run back and forth on the screen doing stuff that does not make sense as long they do not over shadow what she is doing so the fans do not like them better than her.

MOD EDIT

 

Rian's desire to get Rey and Kylo is the biggest part of TLJ's failure. He had to pick this up from Reylo people. There is no way he could say with a straight face that scenes with Rey and Kylo serves the story better than scenes with Kylo and Luke or Kylo and Leia, or Luke and Leia. Everything else had to be destroyed in order to bring those two together. Luke had to reject Rey. Finn had to be occupied by someone else. Rey had to ignore her only friend, Finn, so she could be more concerned about a fight she didn't even know existed before she met Maz and Finn. She also had to ignore what Kylo did to Finn. Finn's injuries had to be minimized, because that would make him too sympathetic, and make Rey look like an Peedunky for going to Kylo. Then you have the force link. Did any of these things have to happen in TLJ?