Parasite and The Rise of Skywalker: How public perception can shape expectations (SPOILER ALERT)

I wasn't planning to make this post, but in light of recent developments, I'm postponing my review of the third arc for the Life is Strange comic series. It was a decision I couldn't take lightly (considering virtually no one is willing to give a detailed review that has a critical take on the comics), but since I couldn't get a few thoughts out of my head, I wanted to write the following so I can move on with my usual work. And it all started with this year's Oscars. SPOILERS from hereon out.

The "best" movie of 2019

When Interstellar failed to get at least the same number of nominations as Gravity at the the 87th Academy Awards back in 2015, it was the time I stopped taking the Oscars seriously. So when the nominees for 92nd Academy Awards was originally announced, I had no intention to pay much attention. Until I saw that the film with the most number of nominations was none other than Joker. Yes, a film based on a comic book villain the Academy decided to pay attention to... and it wasn't about Thanos. When the winners were unveiled on February 9, 2020, it was painfully predictable that Joker didn't win Best Picture. That award went to a little known movie called Parasite. I wasn't going to pay much attention until I noticed that Parasite was also the first foreign language movie to win the Best Picture award. Not only that, it also won the Best International Feature Film award (Weathering With You wasn't even nominated!). This South Korean movie made Hollywood history by winning those two awards, along with Best Director (sorry Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki) and Best Original Screenplay. Those wins alone made me curious. However, without those awards, I felt the movie didn't look very enticing one bit. That was until Youtube's algorithm decided to remind me of this movie's newly crowned awesomeness - on my homepage no less. Despite not watching a single video about Parasite with my Youtube account, the site recommended me several videos on the movie, most notably the following video essays: Parasite's Perfect Montage, The Visual Architecture of Parasite, How Parasite Critiques Class, and Why Parasite Should Terrify Us. That's quite a lot of videos when considering the site could have recommended me instead more history, video game or Star Wars related videos. The last time I checked those kinds of videos greatly outnumbered the Parasite video essay count. The number of video essays gave me the impression Parasite was on par with A Silent Voice, to say the least. It didn't help that the video reviews that were on my recommended page practically had the same message: Parasite is worthy of an A+, 10/10, and two thumbs up! With the praise for Parasite now firmly established and in my backyard, my younger brother and I finally decided to bite the bullet and watch the movie.

And... we were both underwhelmed to say the least.

Before I get into why I felt that way, let me share some audience reviews that encapsulated what people were claiming this movie was. Here's the second highest rated user review on movie's IMDB page:

I am remarkably stingy with my 10/10 ratings. I'll be the first person to acknowledge this. Of the roughly 2600 titles I've rated on here, only 34 have a 10. Parasite is one of them. If this isn't a masterpiece, then I don't know what is.

I'm going to keep it vague on the plot-front, because I didn't know anything about it going in, and was really excited to see it progress and unfold in satisfying, unexpected ways.

What I will say is that this film, more than just about any other I've seen, put me through so many different emotional states during its 132-minute runtime, and did so without ever feeling muddled or tonally inconsistent. Parts of this movie were hilarious. Parts were heartbreaking. Other parts were insanely suspenseful (I'm honestly not sure if I've felt this close to the edge of my seat since the final season of Breaking Bad, way back in 2013).

And it does all this while being perfectly paced, beautifully directed, and amazingly acted from every single member of its cast. All the characters are understandable and sympathetic to some degree; the amount of conflict, drama and tension derived from a narrative with no clear heroes and villains is staggering. You come to care for just about all of them.

I'm stumped to come up with any flaws for this movie. And sure, I've seen many movies that are hard to fault, but it's rare that a movie appeals to me on a gut level and excites me to this degree while also being so close to technically perfect. It's extremely entertaining, thoroughly moving in so many different ways, and as icing on the cake there's a ton of social commentary and some heavy themes to chew on once the movie's over (and this one's not going to leave my head for a while, I can tell).

Catch this one when you can and believe the hype. [This movie's director] has made many great films (and so far no bad one's), but this even manages to stand head and shoulders above all the others.

When it comes time to consider what the best film of the 2010s was, this one will surely be up there.

The fifth highest rated IMDB review had this to say:

Parasite can best be described as astonishing, astounding, stunning or any other synonym of amazing. It is so far my favourite film of the year and one of my favourite films of the decade. The very idea of the plot is simple but incredibly hard to execute and that's, why it's editing, is pitch-perfect and leads to an unexpectedly shocking and brutal ending.

The biggest forte of Parasite is the screenplay as it impeccably mixes comedy, drama and horror featuring flawless pacing, breath-taking cinematography, a beautiful score and a brilliant cast making it a masterpiece. Parasite also perfectly presents the subject of classism, showing us how both the working class and the upper class view each other and the people around them. Themes of capitalism can also be felt throughout the film, but Parasite shouldn't be mistaken as a pro-capitalism film as it doesn't support or hate anyone or any side; it's ambiguity also contributes to this factor.

Taking everything into account, Parasite is a true work of art and a rare and extraordinary masterpiece that should be viewed by everyone at some point in their lives, especially film lovers.

Hmm, "taking everything into account"? Was that really the case? And here's the highest user review on Metacritic to date:

To sum this movie it up, it is a black comedy, a thriller, a horror and a social satire in 2 hours. Seems like a lot in 2 hours, but not only is the message of class division clear, [The director] presents it in the most accessible and humorous way while being able to shock his viewer; and everything from the performance of the cast, to the script, to the cinematography and to the production is flawless and jaw dropping.

Calling it a great movie is an understatement. [The movie's director] has created a masterpiece and what could possibly his best film so far. Go watch the movie as soon as possible. If you love cinema, this is one movie you have to watch. It will leave you speechless at the end.

I find it peculiar that this viewer didn't mention how "flawless" the soundtrack was. Now another kind of a positive user review were similar to this one from IMDB:

This movie is a gosh darn masterpiece. It will make you belly laugh, it will chill you to the bone, and it will make you shed a tear. This movie will stay with you long after the credits are over.

If you plan on watching this movie, AVOID SPOILERS AT ALL COSTS.

If a review didn't gush how superlative the movie was, there was a tendency to ensure that anything outside the basic premise of "poor family cons rich family" wasn't revealed or even hinted at. In retrospect, this added to the disappointment as I felt there was nothing in the movie that should be kept under wraps like the twists from The Empire Strikes Back and Fight Club. People acting as if they had signed a nondisclosure agreement to watch this movie didn't help at all.

With so much praise, I couldn't help but adjust my expectations accordingly. People claimed this was a masterpiece... so I expected nothing less than one. It's apparent that my standards for a film to qualify as a masterpiece are very different from that of viewers swooning over Parasite. Seems like I'm much more stingier than that IMDB user who claimed he rated only 34 movies a 10/10.

The biggest disappointment I have with Parasite is how impotent the movie was when it came to shaping my views on society. When I saw Fight Club in my first year of college, it blew my mind away. It amalgamated some ugly facts about modern day society that I took for granted. It shattered my preconceived notions of capitalism and consumerism. And it lead me on the path to be more progressive in my political views. What made this more amazing in retrospect was that I had to watch the film as a school activity! Mind you, despite how personally impactful Fight Club proved to be, it's a film that falls short to what I'd regard as a "masterpiece"... but it's very close. Parasite utterly failed to rekindle the kind of impact Fight Club had on my life. Whatever social commentary the movie had were merely reminders of stuff I already knew that were packaged in cinematic gift wrapping. The documentaries Capitalism: A Love Story and Inside Job were a bigger eye opener to the problems of economic inequality than Parasite ever was. If Parasite was "terrifying" because of its "exposé" on society, then I'd consider the aforementioned documentaries as "scary enough to kill." For social commentary, the movie failed to provide anything insightful, groundbreaking, or thought provoking to the table. And this was the one aspect of the movie that I really was hoping it would live up to my personal expectations.

Such a very personal disadvantage could have been offset if the movie had built up far stronger emotional ties to the characters. Life is Strange was derivative of older media such as My So Called Life when it came to its social themes, but it was because of how well developed the main cast were that the game managed to have such emotional resonance to all those who enjoyed playing it. And that's another personal gripe I have with Parasite - the characters are as fleshed out as the cast from Rogue One. Members of the Kim and Park families won't end up having more fans than the likes of Revan or Kyle Katarn. I guess that's part of the reason why HBO is in the initial stages of making a miniseries based on the movie, supposedly starring Mark Ruffalo.

On the flip side, not everyone was as easily impressed as those folks claiming Parasite is "nothing less than a perfect gem." For instance, we have this review from IMDB:

The only horror about this film... Is the fact that people who voted for it to win the Cannes film festival award and those who gave it anything higher than a 7/10 on this platform, actually exist.

A family living below the poverty line in a 1st world nation whose kids couldn't pass the national exams or fold a pizza box would suddenly become world class con artistes overnight infiltrating a wealthy family? And when things took a dark turn, we the audience are supposed to feel sorry for them, just because they are poor, never mind their greed, pride and total lack of character?

Please don't insult our intelligence, at least 1 out of 3 accounts here are real and still give honest review.

Here's another one from IMDB:

A story there was. Thrilling scenes there were. Some pretty cinematography yes. Solid character build-up, hell no. Logical plot, no. Entertainment, not much. Consistency of characters, missing. Petty resentful ignorance towards the rich, yes. Narrow and shallow depiction of the poor, very much.

So not convincing. Every stretch of the movie i thought I started understanding the characters a bit more, but no, next stretch would make me scratch that understanding and try to rebuild again.. In the end, it made me fail to attach with any of the characters.

Without enough entertainment, what were the film makers trying to tell the audience? I completely don't get it.

Really doesn't match the hype. Wasted two hours of my life.

Here's a third review from IMDB:

This movie is not a "masterpiece" by any means. And all the apparent hype it's getting? Why? Is it because this is a foreign film trying to be an "American film"?

... We've all scene those less-than-stellar films, where the criminals make one stupid horrible decision after another. Not the comedies where it's supposed to be funny or dumb, but the serious films. And you sit there thinking, "Man, these criminals are effing morons, it's just NOT believable." You've seen those, right? Well, this is one of those.

I could suspend my disbelief over one bad decision, even two. But every single one? It's just not believable, because the criminals are good at pulling off their cons and getting all employed by the wealthy family. But once they're all in and making buck... then they all become stupid? Doesn't work.

The bad decisions start when the wealthy family goes camping, and the criminals decide to hang out, get drunk and make a mess in the wealthy family's living room. Even one of them foreshadows the wealthy family coming home unexpectedly by mentioning it as a "what if." Next bad decision is they let in the former housekeeper who shows up unexpectedly. Really??

Then the next bad decision is how they handle the housekeeper and her husband. Once the criminals are being held hostage by the threat of disclosure, why wouldn't even just one of them think of trying to negotiate something? Oh, sure, one of them eventually does, but like 30 minutes later when it's too late....

All in all, not the worst film I've ever seen, but NOT deserving of the high praise and ratings it's getting here.

Meanwhile at Metacritic, here's a review that rated the movie a 3/10:

... I was left quite disappointed, as nothing really "stuck" with me after viewing it, aside from how uncomfortable it made me feel. This film won Best Picture over Joker at the Academy Awards. While there are probably others in the category that might have deserved it better, these are the only two nominees I've seen and I disagree with the choice. There's a difference between addressing the elephant in the room (which Joker did) and stating the obvious (which is what Parasite does). This film does not give any insights about wealth inequality that don't warrant a "yeah, no sh*t" response. Furthermore, the film fails on several basic levels, particularly in that it's just hard to care about the main characters and hard to care what happens to them. At first I did, then as the film ticks along you are given plenty of reasons not to. This film is simply overrated as hell and metaphorically impotent... (in a word: pretentious), too far-reaching to lead to any actionable solutions or helpful change of mindset among the viewers.... Parasite basically says that the dream of escaping poverty in an honorable manner just by working hard is nothing but a fantasy, yet it offers no solution to that. It also mischaracterizes the poor as conniving and cutthroat with dishonesty and competition among each other being the only way "up". I guess this film was made so that woke filmmakers like [the movie's director] can sleep at night, in their gated communities, feeling like they're justified in living in their upper world, and have done something significant to help the poor just by stating the obvious about us, that our lives are hard and filled with struggles the rich won't have to endure. If this film had reminded viewers that the sky is blue it would have been equally insightful.

Why 3 points and not 0? Cinematography was great. Opening act of the film was compelling mostly. Some scenes were thrilling or humorous, and there was decent suspense and dread when needed. However, all that said, there were some serious pacing issues, and one of the all-time most annoying suspense/horror no-nos pertaining to strange visitors in the night and what you should probably not do if one shows up.

All raves surrounding Parasite misconstrued the movie's actual quality. Somehow the 2013 film Elysium came under more intense scrutiny while Parasite walked away Scot-free, and with awards and hyperbolic praise to boot? I guess director Neill Blomkamp should have added more dynamic, meticulous cinematic shots along with tons more blatant metaphors for Elysium to have gotten the praise it deserved.

Overall, I'm going to have to borrow a quote I got from one reviewer's thoughts on Your Name., as I feel it perfectly sums up my perspective on Parasite in a civil manner :

Contrary to popular opinion, this isn't the greatest movie of 2019, let alone the greatest movie ever made. The hype surrounding this work is borderline poisonous, and anyone who actually believes it is bound to be disappointed. Even from a technical standpoint, it isn't perfect. While the movie has meticulous & dynamic camerawork, it felt derivative of camera techniques used in anime. Plus, certain animated works such as Your Name. feature far more vibrant and picturesque scenery. I appreciated the pacing of its individual scenes, but it could've afforded to add up to 20 minutes of content to better establish most of the characters. The characters feel like they exist primarily to support the movie's thematic objectives. This movie might change your life, but it definitely isn't going to change everyone's life. I know many people who haven't seen it probably already suspect as much, but here's confirmation: Parasite is different, but it isn't mind-blowing. Movie goers have a tendency to overreact. It happens.

Do I recommend this movie? Maybe, but I'd prefer if people went to see films such as Fight Club instead.

Side note: When compared to the "perfect" 5 minute montage in Parasite, Your Name's montage sequence featuring Zenzensense starts at the film's 29:51 mark, and has approximately 70 shots compressed into around 2 minutes and 46 seconds! Now as much as I enjoyed that sequence, I won't pretend and oversell to anyone it's a "perfect montage", because the material shown ought to have been fully fleshed out scenes to help further develop the characters.

2019's "most disappointing" film

Back in 2017, I published my most popular blog post to date: Thoughts on Star Wars: The Last Jedi - as told by concerned fans. I wrote that in the wake of what is now perceived as the most divisive Star Wars movie to date. The timing of The Last Jedi couldn't have been more inopportune - only a month prior to its release, a good number of Star Wars fans who also happened to be video gamers were up in arms over the lootbox controversy surrounding Star Wars Battlefront II by Electronic Arts. It was so bad that mainstream news outlets even took notice. At the time, the activity on the Battlefront subreddit gave a clear picture of the level of dissatisfaction that fans were expressing, to the point that I got the impression it was "Rebel HQ". If you ask me, the lootbox controversy had the unintended consequence of putting at least some Star Wars fans on critical alert, meaning that they were in no mood for any more nonsense in their favorite space opera franchise.

It was amidst this backdrop that The Last Jedi was released. Whereas critics somehow loved the movie, audience reactions were mixed, to say the least. The debate whether or not The Last Jedi was a bad movie could have been left to fans battling over in various sites all over the internet. But it wasn't to be. To begin with, the movie's director Rian Johnson decided to wage war on Twitter against those who disagreed with his vision for Star Wars. As if that wasn't bad enough, certain entertainment media websites decided to join into the discourse, and decided (on the most part) to defend The Last Jedi. Was it simply for the sake of more clicks? Did they really love the movie? Were they bribed by Disney/Lucasfilm? Or was it something else? What made the situation fascinating was the fact that these usually impartial entertainment outlets decided to put blame on Star Wars fans that hated The Last Jedi. Explanations from them ranged from blaming nostalgia to personal fan theories being disproved. The most notorious however was the narrative that detractors of The Last Jedi were racist, sexist, misogynist white males. As if that wasn't enough, there was even a study from October 2018 which certain media outlets claimed was proof that most of the hate for The Last Jedi came from... wait for it... Russian bots! [Gasps] While an article or two tried to actually read what the study claimed, the genie was out of the bottle. It was so bad that the study's author even had to make clarifications in a Washington Post article. By then, mainstream online entertainment media had set a narrative that vilified detractors of The Last Jedi for reasons other than the well documented complaints fans had against the movie. Given the size of the Star Wars fandom, it was a mathematical certainty that there would be bad apples who were indeed " racist, sexist, misogynist". But to miscast all those who had misgivings towards The Last Jedi as such was a bridge too far. And those fans made sure Disney got the message by not watching Solo: A Star Wars Story in theaters, which caused that movie - among various other reasons - to become one of the biggest box office bombs to date.

The surreal online war between mainstream entertainment media and Star Wars fans did not help when Disney started its marketing campaign for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, the "epic conclusion" of the new sequel trilogy. Thanks to The Last Jedi and the fallout surrounding that movie's reception, "excitement" for Episode IX of what has now been dubbed The Skywalker Saga was laced with pessimism. As I wrote back on December 18, 2017:

Speaking of endings, with JJ Abrams' return to the final installment of the Sequel Trilogy, I'm concerned the odds are against his favor. With only 2 years left (instead of the 3 years we got with I-VI) and the writer of Batman v Superman as the co-writer of the film, JJ Abrams has to pull off nothing short of a miracle to get this trilogy, the lore, story threads and characters he built back on the right track and deliver at least a satisfying conclusion.

Knowing the odds and after seeing the ruckus online, my expectations for Episode IX were at rock bottom. Such caution felt justified after seeing the disastrous finale for Game of Thrones, which turned out the way it did despite being postponed by an additional year! If Game of Thrones faced a terrible ending even after a one year delay, how much more would The Rise of Skywalker fare when it only got a 7 month reprieve? The wait for the film's release felt like a chore that I wanted to get over with immediately.

A part of me wanted to prepare for the worst, so I decided to pay attention to leaks. In theory, one of the most high profile film productions of the year would be under heavy security to prevent any premature reveals. What made The Rise of Skywalker unusual was that were individuals within the production crew that decided to break their nondisclosure agreements and spill the beans to a privileged few, who in turn shared what they were told to anyone willing to listen online. One notable site where spoilers ended up is the Star Wars leaks subreddit. In the months leading up to the release of The Rise of Skywalker, leaks would appear in various online sites. Unlike your "clickbait" leaks, they had a strange consistency to them, that they weren't mere guesswork by fans that could be deduced by watching/reading publicly available details, like what was disclosed in trailers. One rumor that had me extremely worried was that the Millennium Falcon would be blown up in the film, killing all of the original trilogy cast that were onboard! Talk about letting the past die.... To my relief, this travesty of a scene didn't appear in the theatrical release. The biggest "story" leak was posted before September 2019, and it turned out to be eerily accurate in the end! The most notable tidbit was the reveal that Rey was Emperor Palpatine's granddaughter, and the very last scene of the film showed Rey giving herself the name "Rey Skywalker" on Tatooine. Not all the leaks though focused on the story details though, and instead shone a light on a very troubled production. Some have claimed that there were at least three different cuts of the film: a cut approved by Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy, a cut supervised by Disney CEO Bob Iger, and a cut used material from an 11th hour intervention by George Lucas! Then there were claims that the film had around six different endings shot, one of which had Rey defeating Palpatine by literally kicking him in the a**! Other leaks suggested Disney's lack of confidence in the film, and interfered with the final theatrical release, causing JJ Abrams to loose creative control over the film. Related rumors claimed that this interference resulted in reshooting around 75% of film, long after the production phase of the film had been declared officially over. Mainstream news reports such as the "final cut" of the film being completed on November 25, 2019 - less than a month prior to the film's release date (!) - as well as a reduced runtime from 2 hours and 35 minutes to a mere 2 hours and 21 minutes seemed to lend credence to the rumors/leaks. And who can forget the infamous Rolling Stone interview for Kathleen Kennedy, who claimed that:

Every one of these movies is a particularly hard nut to crack. There’s no source material. We don’t have comic books. We don’t have 800-page novels. We don’t have anything other than passionate storytellers who get together and talk about what the next iteration might be. We go through a really normal development process that everybody else does.

Huh. No source material?! Right...

Since The Last Jedi, I suspected that Lucasfilm management had gone south. The revealing Rolling Stone interview further reinforced that perception.

The rumors/leaks surrounding The Rise of Skywalker painted the picture that it was nothing less than a disaster in the making. On the eve of the film's release, I felt like a passenger caught in a plane crash  - the question was how catastrophic the explosion would turn out. When professional film critics got to view the film, reception was mixed. Some folks interpreted this as a bad omen, that the worst was all but confirmed. Personally, I took this as a good sign. Why? Because most of the critics that gave the film a "rotten" rating were fans of The Last Jedi, with one detractor going as far as claiming that ‘Rise of Skywalker’ Is The Worst ‘Star Wars’ Movie Ever. On December 21, 2019, finally I got my chance to see the film.

So, what are my thoughts on The Rise of Skywalker? A good analogy I can use to describe how the theatrical version felt would be this: the plane I was onboard did suffer a crash landing, with some parts such as the wings and the engines being torn off, but the plane miraculously did not blow up, and no one got killed. Was it the worthy conclusion to the main Star Wars film series? Definitely not. The film was more like "Justice League 2017 redux, in space" instead of "The Return of the King: Galactic Edition". The Rise of Skywalker showed clear signs of a troubled production throughout the film. From the pacing to the lack of any explanation for some important story points, the film's final state seemed to vindicate all those leaks/rumors that reported multiple reshoots. The alleged budget of $275 million helped reinforce the notion. And I'd consider Episode IX no better than Attack of the Clones. That being said, I did not walk away from the film feeling worse than after my initial viewing of The Last Jedi. To me, that was the most important thing that The Rise of Skywalker had accomplish. Against all odds, it somehow managed to do so in the end. Perhaps Nostalgia Critic said it best in his Rise of Skywalker review:

I didn't hate this film by any means. It did give me some cool scenes. And honestly, it is nice to finally have some closure even if its not 100% satisfying. But that's kinda of the Star Wars we have now. Where in the past Star Wars seemed to bring fans together, whether for one reason or another, it now seems to leave them divided.

If you consider The Last Jedi as the movie that did the most damage to the Star Wars brand, you'll probably like The Rise of Skywalker a little bit more. After all that, I can now walk away from Disney's Star Wars films... perhaps for good.

Finale

Parasite and The Rise of Skywalker illustrate two vastly different tales of how movie goers perceived the movies they went to see. On the one hand, we have a foreign language movie that general audiences weren't expecting and easily impressed critics and movie goers alike (well, most of them). On the other hand, we have the latest entry in what was once the largest entertainment brand in the world that had an insurmountable task to win back fans who lost interest in the series due to arguably the most divisive movie blockbuster in recent memory. 2019 was a year of great expectation for pop culture geeks like myself. It was the year when Avengers: Endgame, Game of Thrones: The Final Season, & Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker were going to bring down the curtain on their respective series. Yet, only one out of the three ended up being "not a disappointment". For pop culture geeks, it was really bad to see more than one of your favorite series crash and burn all in one year. While I have no quantifiable proof, I suspect this air of disappointment surrounding high profile releases in cinema and TV contributed immensely to Parasite's success. It was a different movie from your typical Hollywood blockbuster nowadays, and initially didn't had any built-in expectations that was demanded of big franchises such as the Marvel movies and Star Wars. Then there was the "timeliness" of the movie's release. With growing economic inequality being a major issue, the time was right for Parasite to be unleashed upon cinemas. As an article from the Washington Post stated:

While many of the movie’s details are specific to its South Korean setting, the core conflicts that animate it feel immediately relevant to any country grappling with income inequality. And one of the great strengths of “Parasite” is that Bong has created a cast of characters and a set of moral dilemmas that allow viewers to sympathize both with the Kims and with the Parks. Which is why plenty of Americans grabbed on to the movie as a symbol of class revolt...

On that note, it seems that films such as Fight Club and Elysium were years ahead of their time. I also feel that Parasite benefited from being the new "it" movie of the year: if you want to be seen as culturally refined, you have to shout your praise of this movie on the highest mountaintop. It became trendy to one up the next guy's praise for this movie, so much so that it seems to have snowballed online. Folks craving for attention and recognition used Parasite as an easy way to gain likes, or at least have more visibility above the online pandemonium. Even Donald Trump criticized the movie for winning the best picture award! Ever since I got down to read dozens of Parasite reviews, I had a gut feeling that it was too good to be true. And it was. The success of Parasite would remind me of this simple fact: being different doesn't mean it's good, let alone great. Parasite is a movie that people oversold as if it was going to be as revolutionary and game changing as the likes of Jaws, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, The Matrix and The Dark Knight. It is not. Hell, even The Avengers was a bigger game changer to the landscape of Hollywood than Parasite will ever be.

Conversely, while Parasite was overvalued, The Rise of Skywalker was predicted to be a cinematic disaster. Back in 2015, on the eve of the premiere of The Force Awakens, if you asked me what were the two most anticipated films of the next five years, I would have easily said Star Wars: Episodes VIII and IX. Back then, the idea that a Star Wars film could somehow end up being worse than any of the Prequels didn't cross my mind. I assured myself that with extensive documentation posted on the internet - most notably the Mr. Plinkett reviews - filmmakers have an easier time to get things done right, and not screw up. Then The Last Jedi happened, dealing a mortal blow to Star Wars that negatively impacted fans everywhere. It resulted in a decline in toy sales along with a divided community, some of whom lost interest for Episode IX. That disinterest manifested in The Rise of Skywalker's box office dropping 19.4% from The Last Jedi's earnings - a 259 million dollar loss! I felt that it was a fool's errand to hope that The Rise of Skywalker would somehow be no worse than Revenge of the Sith, and somehow replicate that film's commercial and critical success. Alas, I was right. Episode IX finally provided the answer to the following question: What is the weakest JJ Abrams film? Yet somehow, it was not a total disaster. If it had been, a predicted box office projection of around $770 million should have been closer to reality. Still, The Rise of Skywalker's final box office tally and its reception merely solidified a new reality: Star Wars is no longer "the largest entertainment brand in the world". As described in a Forbes article:

Come what may, in 2019, Marvel is the unqualified ruler of blockbuster mountain, while Fast & Furious rules in China. Disney’s Star Wars may just be, especially without George Lucas’s involvement, just another very big franchise among other big brands.

If you ask me, Star Wars right now is like the British Empire at the end of World War II - expansive, but no longer the greatest among its peers. With that comparison in mind, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is now the United States. How long will the MCU's dominance last? Stay tuned....

2019 turned out to be an interesting year for pop culture fans. In the end, I'd say that a little known film called Jojo Rabbit turned out to be far superior than either Parasite or The Rise of Skywalker.

Why Star Trek films can still return to the Kelvin Timeline

Happy 2020 everyone!

When Paramount released JJ Abrams' second feature film on May 8, 2009, it became a surprise critical and commercial hit. The film was a reboot of one of the most celebrated science fiction IPs of all time - Star Trek. The film introduced into Star Trek lore what has been officially dubbed the Kelvin Timeline - an alternate reality that diverged from previously established Star Trek history (aka the Prime Timeline). More than ten years later, the newest series of Trek films are struggling to get a fourth installment off the ground.

On January 30, 2020, CinemaBlend published an article titled "Why The Star Trek Movies Don't Need To Return To The Kelvin Timeline." As the title suggests, it outlines one writer's thoughts on why "it's time to move on from the idea of... the Kelvin Timeline in general." The following post is going to be my response to that article, starting off with the most agreeable point and going on from there.

1. Bringing the band back together

CinemaBlend writes:

...we have no idea right now if Paramount is looking to make Star Trek 4... but if [it is], that may be a challenge. The development process so far has been start and stop for partly that reason, with big ticket actors like Chris Pine... exiting for other projects when things stagnate. [He would] surely come at a high price tag, as would others, like Marvel actress Zoe Saldana.

The article brings up a valid concern - what would it cost for the main Kelvin Timeline cast to reprise their roles a fourth time? Though I find it rather odd that somehow Warner Bros. (WB) can afford to have Chris Pine in Wonder Woman while keeping that film's budget at around $150 million. Perhaps Paramount should work out a deal similar to what WB offered to have Steve Trevor return in Wonder Woman 1984?

2. Dude, where's the fire?

The first excuse reason the article tries to justify the idea of abandoning the Kelvin Timeline is the existence new Star Trek shows. As CinemaBlend indicated:

Star Trek currently has Star Trek: Picard and Star Trek: Discovery (STD) running in the Prime Timeline, and more shows are on the way. The lore is expanding and new plot threads are being developed, and that's going to be the case for quite a while.... Then there's the Kelvin Timeline, which hasn't had a movie in close to four years. Granted, long gaps between these movies has been typical, but beyond some comic book entries and an upcoming novel, there's not a lot happening in the Kelvin Timeline. Why pick things back up there, especially when there's so much going on in the Prime Timeline?

Okay, this reads like a rather superficial excuse. So what if a lot is happening in the Prime Timeline? Going by the writer's logic, then perhaps Voyager should have been cancelled because Deep Space Nine had "a lot of things happening" and was still located in the Alpha Quadrant when compared to the former (Dominion War vs. Lost in Space, which sounds more exciting?).

The writer from CinemaBlend tries to support his flimsy argument of "don't bother with something that ain't fleshed out" with what I feel is the actual reason why he doesn't want to see more films in the Kelvin Timeline:

Personally, I'd love to see the return of Star Trek movies that are tied to shows, especially now that the likes of Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard are back to "boldly going" in uncharted territory in the Prime Timeline. It'd be great to see these shows get their due on the silver screen, though I can understand why Hollywood may not want to make movies that specifically cater to the niche television-only crowd.

LOL! Anyone who has done their homework is well aware that STD has a mixed reception with general audiences at best. If more well received shows such as Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise couldn't get their own films, it wouldn't make much financial sense to gamble on a movie based on what's perhaps the most controversial iteration of Star Trek to date. If movies featuring the most popular Star Trek crew -  The Next Generation (TNG) cast - couldn't get past $150 million in the box office, its very unlikely that the STD cast - the least liked crew in Star Trek history - can do better. (Unless its a total reboot that magically turns them better than Picard and company.) With the new Picard series only two episodes in, I feel it's too early to properly comment on that show's future prospects.

3. Established foundations

CinemaBlend expands its case with the following:

Star Trek: Beyond underwhelmed at the box office though, so it wouldn't be surprising to learn a reboot is in order.... I would think it would be much easier to reboot the movies within the Prime Timeline, provided that is the plan. The lore is established, which means the guidelines of what not to do or contradict is already set in stone. Plus, there's an opportunity to bring in some added familiarity through characters cameoing who Star Trek fans know and love, if only to help put butts in seats and warm them up to new characters.

At first glance, this seems easy. But the major caveat I would point out with using the Prime Timeline is this: because there are already established rules/aesthetics/events, you have to pay utmost respect to those guidelines. And knowing how zealous (at least some) Trekkies can be, you must treat the so called Roddenberry box as though you are handling nothing less than holy writ. With how STD has been doing thus far, the one thing the show is good at is ruining the coherence of the Prime Timeline as left by Rick Berman and company after Enterprise was cancelled in 2005. STD added technologies, aesthetics, and events that didn't exist during the 23rd century in prior shows. One notable example is the depiction of the USS Enterprise:

Anyone can easily discern that the above image doesn't show the exact same ship. Further proof of this would be the bridge:

"Officially", STD and its showrunners want you to believe that the Enterprise in the show was the precursor of the same ship featured in The Original Series (TOS). It's like someone claiming that the F-14 Tomcat is a future iteration of the F-22 Raptor, and that the two planes are the one and the same! I'd argue that the STD Enterprise is a better fit as an older model of the Kelvin Timeline Enterprise. Now this is just one out of many examples how STD ruins the coherence of the Prime Timeline. I'd better stop right here before this post turns into a list of inconsistencies on STD.

Regarding the idea of using cameos in new movies, while I'm not against it, if done wrong they might end up somehow overshadowing the new characters intended to be the leads of the story. Case in point: STD Season Two when Christopher Pike became the temporary captain of the Discovery. Some fans even speculate that this was one reason why William Shatner wasn't brought back for the 2009 Star Trek film, as his presence alongside Leonard Nimoy might have diverted the film's focus away from Chris Pine and the new cast.

4. New things

The final point the article touches upon would be this fancy to see something "new". As written in the article:

Part of the thrill of this Star Trek television renaissance is that, for the first time in a long time, major things are happening in the franchise. It would be a real shame that while Star Trek is traveling a thousand years into the future on the small screen, the movie side could potentially be going back to a franchise it started over a decade ago.

I believe fans want something new, which is why there was such a buzz surrounding the possibility of Quentin Tarantino directing a movie. Star Trek is getting the kind of shake up akin to that on the television side, but the mainstream hasn't seen that as of late from the movie side.

After 18 years of continuous syndication, it was inevitable that a franchise run by the people who did not want make things "too different" would feel stagnant to audiences. One of the criticisms of Star Trek Into Darkness was that it was nothing more than a rehash of The Wrath of Khan. Conversely, doing something new and/or distinctive does not automatically make the end product good. It ultimately boils down to execution. Yes, STD shook up the franchise by "boldly going in uncharted territory in the Prime Timeline", but it was not in a direction that is consistent with the rest of Star Trek on TV. Despite having the word "Discovery" in the title, STD feels more of a prelude to "a grim dark future where there is only war" as opposed to a series focused on exploration and... well, discovery. And also, "Star Trek television renaissance"? What is this pertaining to? Is it because, as per the Oxford dictionary, Star Trek is experiencing "a situation when there is new interest... after a period when it was not very popular." I sincerely hope that the writer was using the term "renaissance" in that context, and not with the Merriam-Webster definition in mind: "a movement or period of vigorous artistic and intellectual activity." If anything, STD represents Star Trek television in the Dark Ages. Why else are dispirited Trek fans are jumping ship for The Orville, a show that some have dismissed as "TNG with dick jokes"?

Do I want to see "New, Exciting Things" for Star Trek on film? Yes, but only if done right. If not, I'd rather watch that Wrath of Khan rehash any time of the day... or the worst that the Rick Berman era Trek has to offer for that mater.

Overall Take

The article's final point made me ask this one simple question: "So why couldn't a revitalization of Star Trek on film occur within the Kelvin Timeline?" Besides the already quoted paragraphs, there were a couple that had a rather disconcerting line of thought, namely:

... crafting a story that fully utilizes this talented cast... can be an issue. Guys like Karl Urban have almost backed out in the past due to their lessened roles, and there's really no getting around excluding a number of the cast in any Star Trek adventure. It's typically not a huge deal in television because there are more episodes to let individual cast members stand out, but obviously the situation is different in movies.

The initial impression I got out of this part of the article was this: it's problematic to make a script for an ensemble event movie such as, I dunno, Captain America: Civil War, Avengers: Infinity War, and Avengers: Endgame! At first, I told myself it was just a passing nitpick. Then the article stated this:

My problem with a reboot happening in the Kelvin Timeline is that it would be complicated, which may sound contradictory considering I literally just said the universe is empty compared to the Prime Timeline.

But it really isn't, because... rebooting the franchise within the Kelvin Timeline then creates the burden of further fleshing out the universe. For example, if [someone] decided to cast James McAvoy as the Kelvin Jean-Luc Picard, there are going to be questions on how the world has changed since Chris Pine's Kirk was on the Enterprise. This means concocting a whole timeline of events that are similar to the Prime Timeline, but different in key areas.

Before I get to my main point, let me say get this observation out of the way: despite being allegedly set in the "Prime Timeline", after 29 episodes, STD has yet to explain why the technology and aesthetics look futuristic for a show that claims to take place before The Original Series. Because of that, I have many "questions on how the galaxy has changed since Capt. Jonathan Archer was on the Enterprise." For starters, did the Temporal Cold War somehow brought more futuristic technology into early 23rd century? In the interest of time though, I'll leave that discussion to more dedicated Trek fans online.

I feel that the among the article's main arguments, the most disconcerting for me is this: it's just too hard, complicated, and burdensome to make a good story! This mentality reminded me of what I feel is a worrisome development when it comes to the most vocal of Trekkies on the web. Namely, that these fans love to complain so much (ie: calling JJ Abrams as Jar Jar Abrams because they claim that he's just as bad, if not worse than Uwe Boll because he "ruined" Star Trek, which was "perfect" before the 2009 reboot film), yet they don't present any interesting alternatives or solutions because "it's too hard." They remind me of the Vaalians from the TOS episode The Apple - a group that stagnated because of being unable to think for themselves and are dependent on the gods (in this case, the showrunners). In contrast, after the disastrous Star Wars: The Last Jedi, many vocal fans online not only clearly pointed out what made the movie so problematic, but also presented ways on how could it have been better. The same thing happened in the aftermath of Game of Thrones: Season 8, with fans going into alternate scenarios how that final season could have played out. I'm not saying that there are no Trekkies out there who are problem solvers as well, it's just that the whiners somehow managed to obtain the loudest possible megaphones that drown out the more sensible fans. I'm tired of seeing this "can't do", defeatist attitude among Trekkies who whine about viewscreens and nacelles yet can't give suggestions or alternatives to the problems they are complaining about. I supposed I expected better from Trekkies in general, because presumably Star Trek is a more scientific, intellectually oriented IP compared to Star Wars. On that note, my critique about the CinemaBlend article comes to an end. But what can you do with the Kelvin Timeline? Now I'm going to put money where my mouth is....

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."

As the article pointed out, "there's not a lot happening in the Kelvin Timeline." The way I see it though, it presents a golden opportunity for any Trek fan with creative talent. As Winston Churchill once said:

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

The fact that not much has been established in the Kelvin Timeline means a lot more freedom to create new stories within that timeline, take it to places that ain't confined within the Roddenberry box whilst honoring what made Star Trek so influential in the first place. Now a great 120+ page screenplay won't just spring forth fully formed like Athena from Zeus' forehead, but there are interesting ideas out there that can be used as a foundation for such a story. One obvious starting off point would be contemporary issues. As an article from the History Channel points out, "When Klingons Were Stand-Ins for the Soviets", since the days of TOS, Star Trek has dabbled with real world events. From here I'm going to give a simple pitch for a future Kelvin Timeline film: have the Federation compete against another superpower that threatens to destabilize the peace and prosperity of the Alpha Quadrant. But what will this "anti-Federation" superpower be like? Thankfully, you don't have to look far to find a potential real world counterpart: The People's Republic of China under Xi Jinping. The China of today is arguably more authoritarian than the surprisingly progressive empire ruled by the Tang Dynasty during the 7th and 8th centuries. The Washington Post published on January 30, 2020 an article titled "Putting China in charge of the world’s intellectual property is a bad idea." Here are some relevant excerpts:

Beijing is lobbying hard to take over leadership of the international organization that oversees intellectual property, which could result in dire consequences for the future of technology and economic competition....

On its face, allowing China to assume leadership of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) poses a clear risk to the integrity of the institution, given that the U.S. government has singled out China as the leading source of intellectual property theft in the world. The Chinese government has made economic espionage, the theft of trade secrets and forced technology transfer key parts of its state-sponsored strategy of economic aggression. If China were to control the WIPO, all kinds of fundamental intellectual property information could go directly into the hands of the Chinese government, and that, in turn, could undermine basic trust and confidence in the international patent system.

“We cannot let a regime that continues to blatantly undermine the rules-based system by failing to ensure open markets or respect for intellectual property rights, ascend as the global leader of intellectual property policy,” Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote to President Trump last month.

China’s WIPO leadership bid is just the latest part of its comprehensive effort to assume control of as many U.N. and multilateral organizations as possible. Smartly, Beijing has recognized the importance of playing a leading role in global governance and has devoted enormous resources to its plan.

A look at Beijing’s record reveals that its strategy is not to bolster these institutions for universal benefit but to advance China’s interests. In the U.N. organizations China now leads, the results have been terrible. 

In 2015, China took over the leadership of the International Civil Aviation Organization. The ICAO quickly stopped inviting Taiwan to its annual assembly. This week, the ICAO blocked experts on Twitter who demanded that the group include Taiwan in response to the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. 

Last February, reports revealed the ICAO hid for months a major hack of its servers that originated from China. The ICAO leadership then retaliated against the whistleblower who exposed the coverup. 

Since China assumed leadership of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in 2015, the ITU has drastically increased cooperation with Beijing, among other things by promoting China’s Belt and Road Initiative and defending Chinese telecom giant Huawei. The United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), also led by a Chinese official, is pushing the Belt and Road Initiative and is building a “big data research institute” inside China in partnership with Beijing.... 

“Beijing’s ambition to head the WIPO is part of a wider pattern in which the Chinese authorities are looking to take a leadership role in critical rules-based institutions, including but also not limited to the U.N.,” said Christopher Walker, vice president for studies at the National Endowment for Democracy. “They have proved adept at using these positions to transform organizations from within, often in ways that are inhospitable to governance integrity and basic democratic standards.”

This is worse than letting the fox into the henhouse. This is akin to choosing a bank robber to be president of the bank. In Beijing’s economic strategy, intellectual property theft is a feature, not a bug.

The United States and its partners who believe in rule of law, transparency and accountability in world governance cannot and should not try to thwart every Chinese attempt to lead international organizations. In this case, though, the stakes are too high not to try.

As if stealing intellectual property wasn't bad enough, it gets worse. A day before, The Washington Post published an article titled "100 things the United States must do to compete with China." Without further ado:

There is a growing bipartisan consensus in Washington that the United States is losing its advantage in the strategic competition with China. But, so far, there has been little agreement on what to do about it. Today, there is a new blueprint with almost 100 ideas for how to get started. 

A group of former officials, both Republicans and Democrats, and experts have put forth a large set of specific proposals on how the U.S government, industry and society writ large can meet the challenge of a rising China. The aim is to give the United States the best chance of preserving its national security, prosperity and freedom in the face of China’s growing power and influence. 

What’s important about this group and its report, released by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), is their taking for granted that competing with China is the most important foreign policy task our country faces. The work also assumes that Beijing’s comprehensive international expansion must be countered with a commensurate effort on the part of the United States, which will require reforms and new initiatives on a scale unseen in the modern age.

“If we are going to get this right, the China challenge has to be the single or one of the top organizing principles of U.S. foreign policy,” said CNAS senior fellow Ely Ratner, one of the report’s principal authors. “What we need now is an honest conversation that dealing with the China challenge is going to require more cost and more risk than we anticipated.” 

The report was mandated by Congress in the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act and contracted to CNAS by the Defense Department. It’s the third of its kind in the past decade. The initial mandate was to focus on developing a comprehensive defense strategy for the Indo-Pacific region. 

But the final product ended up covering much more than just defense and addresses the China competition far beyond Asia....

Of course, there’s no political consensus yet in the United States on the severity of the threat coming from the China as it expands economically, technologically, diplomatically, militarily and culturally, and as the Chinese Communist Party seeks to exert political pressure far beyond its borders. Some believe the China threat is overblown. Some believe confrontation is inevitable. 

This group set out to avoid either extreme and simply to agree that the strategic competition with China is on, that it can’t be waged by the national security community alone and that the United States is far from prepared.... 

Modernizing U.S. defenses and reorienting them toward the China competition makes up only one aspect of the recommendations. The authors lay out ideas for changes and new programs to secure U.S. technological primacy, shore up U.S. economic integrity, reinvigorate U.S. diplomacy, fight the worldwide ideological battle for Western values, preserve a free and open information environment and build a talent pool to do all of the above. 

There’s a heavy focus on bolstering the United States and its partners rather than trying to contain China’s ambitions. There are also proposals for new rules, norms and institutions to address issues brought forth by the advance of new technologies. 

Engagement with China must be part of the overall strategy, the authors emphasize, but the recommendations take a clear-eyed approach to Beijing’s economic aggression, military expansion and efforts to interfere in free societies to serve China’s interests. Crucially, the authors argue, the greater public must be educated and engaged on the China challenge....

The political debate over the China threat remains unresolved. But meanwhile, the Chinese government’s strategy to replace the United States as the primary power in Asia — and eventually in the world — continues apace. These 100 tasks can, at least, get our response going in the right direction. There’s no time to waste.

Whether or not you believe these articles are sensationalized or not, they illustrate that China's march to reclaim its "rightful place in the sun" can provide a lot of interesting ideas that can form the basis of a future Kelvin Timeline film, or for any upcoming Star Trek project. Imagine a scenario where the Federation became stagnant and a new galactic power (perhaps the Dominion in the Kelvin Timeline?) takes advantage of this situation to position itself as the dominant force in the Alpha Quadrant without firing a shot. In response, the Federation has to shake itself from apathy and rise up to the challenge of maintaining the stability of the Quadrant, but without going to war against this "anti-Federation" power. That, in my opinion, would make an engaging, relevant and inspirational story if done justice. Of course, this is just one example where Star Trek can go from here. Other ideas I have offhand include Kirk vs. the Borg, or a Federation mission to explore the Andromeda Galaxy. Where some may see the Kelvin Timeline as a blank slate that deserves to be abandoned, I see a foundation for something greater.

As of now, Star Trek is under the "guidance" of Alex Kurtzman and his production company Secret Hideout. Under his control, Kurtzman has turned the franchise into something so tonally different from what it was in the past that it might as well be called "Star Trek In Name Only." It's a damn shame that despite Disney's Star Wars going off the rails, Star Trek isn't capitalizing on the void being created by Kathleen Kennedy's multiple misfires. I can't wait for Kurtzman and Secret Hideout to loose control over the franchise. Only then can a more creative and dedicated group of fans have an opportunity to really take Star Trek into a true renaissance, "a period of vigorous artistic and intellectual activity."

Thoughts on Star Wars: The Last Jedi - as told by concerned fans

"This is not going the way you think." - Luke Skywalker

After watching Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi twice in the theater, I couldn't help but feel disappointed. Prior to the release of the movie, I was fearing that Porgs and a rehash of The Empire Strikes Back would be the biggest problems I was going to face. But oh boy I was wrong. The movie broke my inner fanboy to the point that I got a newfound feeling of respect to the things the Prequel Trilogy got right. The movie definitely was not the worst of 2017 and was solid on the technical aspects at least, but I wanted to give out my thoughts on the movie as to why it was a let down. However, there have been thousands of reviews by fans that have been released in the past few days, and some of them have written down the same thoughts I have, only better. So I decided to compile and showcase some interesting quotes from these like minded fans who felt that The Last Jedi, at the very least, didn't live up to expectations. I won't claim any of these were written by myself originally, but they were too good to be left alone. This post isn't intended to be a scene-by-scene dissection of what the movie got wrong; I'll let the more passionate fans or someone like Mr. Plinkett to have that honor.

WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD

In Star Wars: The Last Jedi, we first see Luke Skywalker just moments after right the end of The Force Awakens. What happens next felt like, in retrospect, a forshadowing of things to come. He takes Anakin's lightsaber from Rey and casually throws it away like a piece of junk. His father's lightsaber, the lightsaber he first used, the lightsaber he lost his hand with in his first lightsaber duel against his father, the first lightsaber ever seen on screen is tossed aside with little thought. For me, this scene feels like a metaphor for Disney throwing away the saga's rich heritage in favor of elements they can completely control and tailor to a focus group driven checklist. This one scene should set your expectations for this movie.

At best, The Last Jedi is a missed opportunity or a forced effort to clean the slate. To long time Star Wars fans, however, it may feel more like a cruel prank.

The Last Jedi indulges in some of the worst traits of the Star Wars saga (awkward sub plots, undeveloped characters, unearned dramatic queues), at the same time it conscientiously - almost spitefully - labors to discredit some of the best (epic deeds of heroism, the hard-earned nobility of Luke, the mythos of the Jedi). 

One user on the internet tried to rationalize the main theme of the movie. He said,

The Last Jedi was all about the heroes failing. There’s no more magic plot armor. Poe gets a lot of good people killed by his heroic plan in Act 1. Finn, Rose and Poe get a lot of good people killed by their heroic plan in Act 2. Luke gets a lot of good people killed 10 years ago by failing his failing pupil.

As a response to sacrifice the movie in the name of themes, subverting expectations, taking the Saga to a new direction, I feel that, in the words of other fans...

I found myself asking time after time, "did Rian Johnson (the writer and director of Episode VIII) even watch The Force Awakens?" Because it looks like that he went out of his way to burn every bridge JJ Abrams built in The Force Awakens, without leaving any new ones behind. Mysteries are left unanswered or given lousy, underwhelming resolutions. Relationships and character quirks are completely ignored or ruined. The characters and their respective characterizations are just awful. They might as well have just renamed them all and made them new characters entirely. 

JJ Abrams had set up so many interesting story threads in The Force Awakens, then Rian Johnson decided to go nowhere with most of them. Apologists claim this is "bold risk taking."

The problem is that little was accomplished by anyone in this movie, and what did happen had absolutely little meaning or purpose. It was like JJ Abrams set up the chess board and had everyone prepared to watch a well thought out game, then Rian Johnson sits down across from him, knocks over all of JJ's pieces and just says "I win..." Was it surprising? Sure. Was it unexpected? Of course. Does that make it a bold, fresh, or risky take on the game of chess? Nope. Does that make it good? Nope. It makes Rian Johnson a dickhead with no respect for the setting, or the people watching. And yet there are people who are saying it was a brilliant move, and defending that its good because it was something one never thought of it before.

This outing is so preoccupied with subverting expectations and disavowing its predecessors that it never actually gets around to creating a convincing or compelling narrative of its own. 

What some critics seem to like are the subverting of expectations. The problem for a movie goer such as myself is that those subverting of expectations completely destroys my willing suspension of disbelief that is required for me to buy into a fantasy/sci fi movie. I had an understanding of the powers of the force that were contradicted in order to surprise the audience. Characters go on quests for MacGuffin characters that aren't found and this call into question the narrative choice of creating that MacGuffin. Objects and character histories are set up as being important and then tossed off for a cheap shock. If they aren't important, they shouldn't be including in the storytelling or else I start to question the nature of the storytelling itself - destroying my suspension of disbelief.

This movie gets high review scores from critics because it tries to present itself as something clever and deep, a subversion of Star Wars conventions. It strokes the critics' hypothetical dicks because it makes them think themselves smart by "getting it". But the thing about genre subversion is that your supposed to give the audience not what they were expecting but something just as good or better, not give you absolutely nothing or lackluster - as was the case in The Last Jedi.

And no, making a jumbled, disjointed, unrecognizable mess that stupidly kills off important characters is not "taking risks". It's bad film making. Almost nothing of consequence is addressed in this film.

It's almost as if Rian Johnson disagreed with JJ Abrams' direction for The Force Awakens and sought to make a point by slashing away everything set in motion in Episode VII. I wish The Last Jedi could be redone entirely.

I get the sense that Johnson doesn't really loves Star Wars and barely understands the rich history and cultural impact it has. Despite The Force Awakens being a flawed film, I never doubted that JJ Abrams is a huge Star Wars fan. At the very least, he understood the tone of the saga. Some may applaud Disney for taking a risk, whereas The Force Awakens played it too safe, but The Last Jedi isn't a well-constructed movie. It feels that rather than immersing himself in the lore of Star Wars, Johnson spent his time reading fan theories to make sure that The Last Jedi fooled them all.

After watching the movie, I got this feeling that Disney and Rian Johnson only want to keep light sabers, untrained force users, and the whole Imperial vs. Rebel conflict for future movies. Instead of being a continuation of the Star Wars saga, this movie seems to be some kind of transition story to set up the rules for the future Star Wars movies. As a fan of the previous seven Episodes, I left the theater feeling something that I have never felt after seeing a Star Wars movie, and not in a good way.

In a pivotal scene in the movie, Kylo Ren says to Rey ,"Let go of the past. Kill it if you have to." How ironic that Rian Johnson is like Kylo Ren and wants nothing to do with nostalgic ideas of the past. Kill them all with no explanation and move on.

Rian Johnson failed to realize that The Last Jedi is the middle part of a three part Sequel Trilogy that should continue the previous narrative. Instead all the story threads laid out by The Force Awakens and the Original Trilogy are completely disregarded with little finesse. If this movie came through Disney's scrutiny without reshoots then God knows how bad Rian Johnson's new trilogy will be. Disney should cancel this trilogy because clearly he doesn't know how to make a proper Star Wars film.

Due to Disney's lack of transparency, after seeing this movie, one can sense the real reason why Colin Trevorrow was fired from directing Episode IX. He rocked the boat by pointing out what a cluster**** he was inheriting from Johnson. I never thought I'd say this, but JJ Abrams has my sincerest sympathies. I was excited after The Force Awakens for the next installment. After The Last Jedi though, I'm not as eager. I just hope J.J. Abrams can fix Episode IX and wrap this up in a respectable manner. 

To all the fans who originally wrote all the above quotes in their reviews, I would like to thank you for doing your best to express your thoughts on The Last Jedi.

There are reports of a 3 hour cut of The Last Jedi. I'm genuinely curious to see that version of the movie. Will it contain critical scenes, or is it more of the same of what we got in the theatrical release? 

The very last scene in the movie was also a radical departure from what any Star Wars film to date has shown. In all previous films, the final shot before we cut to credits is that of a key character in the story - from Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen in Revenge of the Sith to Leia on-board Tative IV in Rogue One. In The Last Jedi however, the final shot before the credits roll is that of a no name stable boy looking up to the stars.... Wow, what a fitting final visual cue for Rian Johnson and Disney's possible intent with The Last Jedi. That final scene reminded me of another somewhat similar ending:

Well done Rian Johnson, you reminded me of what is arguably the most disappointing ending in video game history as a final slap in the face. I'm excited for this movie's behind the scenes material, as he has a lot of explaining to do.

Speaking of endings, with JJ Abrams' return to the final installment of the Sequel Trilogy, I'm concerned the odds are against his favor. With only 2 years left (instead of the 3 years we got with I-VI) and the writer of Batman v Superman as the co-writer of the film, JJ Abrams has to pull off nothing short of a miracle to get this trilogy, the lore, story threads and characters he built back on the right track and deliver at least a satisfying conclusion.

The Last Jedi should be an important case study for all would be filmmakers and storytellers. In an established series like Star Wars, how far should one go to push and emphasize elements, themes, subvert expectations without damaging everything else in your story and alienating most of your audience?