I’d argue that it was better implemented in Star Wars though as at least there was a price. Ben did bring Rey back from the dead but the result was that it killed him. A life for a life. Star Trek implied you could heal death as long as you kept Khan or one of his super-people around and could siphon off their blood.
I can agree with that. However, either way it cheapens death, lessens the stakes. I can behind the force healing for a lot of things, but bringing someone back to life after they’ve died is a poor plot
decision that lessens the impact of Rey’s sacrifice. I actually feel that both Rey and Ben dying would make more sense. Both the Jedi and the Sith die out for good allowing for something new to take their place. Alas, Disney played it safe and again just made the all the good guys win and I’ve happily ever after ending.
…it’s film 9 following that logic…only 3 of those were Disney. How are they playing it safe? It is a fantasy story, any death within it is meaningless. A death in fiction serves no other purpose than to surprise an audience.
Anybody can just comeback when it’s convenient for the plot. There are no stakes anymore.
Also,
Can they seriously not come up with an alternate galactic threat to endless Death Stars?
Were there any stakes to begin with in that regard? Alec Guinness is killed off in his first appearance, yet is still able to make 4 more appearances. Spock dies in Wrath Of Khan, yet appears in 6 more films after that.
And given Lucas had Death Star 2…no, no they can’t.
Not my cup of tea. Also, it seems to be a one-joke story, due to the limited potential of this character. Kind of like Jack Sparrow. A bit of him in one movie - great. A whole movie about him… boring.
Yeah, I’m personally having a complete disconnect. Maybe I’m just not the target audience. At all.
The movie looks crazy. Perhaps too much for its own good? Not sure how to digest all that. But I do like Margot Robbie, and she gets to be off the wall silly. So while not expecting much, I may just see it…
I used to have this joke answer when students asked me if I preferred Star Wars or Star Trek and the third of the three reasons I answered Trek was because there was always a way back from death. Either you were on some planet that re-organized organic matter, or there was a parallel universe, or you got preserved in the transporter beam for decades.
Whereas in Star Wars, you had to be a Jedi to become a spirit in the afterlife, and that usually involved losing an arm or a hand after a life of celibacy.
P.S. Reasons #1 and 2 were Jar Jar Binks and Romulan Ale.
It’s all wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey…
PS - you quoted what was hidden in the spoiler tag.
A take on the film I found interesting–especially regarding the idea that TROS had to be both parts two and three of the trilogy.
I like it. I wasn’t sure what to make of the first trailer but this one really worked for me and I’m totally on board with the manic energy. Plus we get to see Black Mask wearing a black mask so that’s something.
This film, along with Joker, could represent a real turning point for DC on film. If lower budget R rated comic book movies can be profitable then it could really open some doors for what types of films we can see. Personally I’m hoping more horror driven Justice League Dark.
Woops! Thanks, I edited it out.
So, that was an interesting perspective, but like the film, it moves to every story beat too fast and doesn’t let anything stick. I can certainly understand the parallels made between The Rise of Skywalker and mythology, but I also think that’s giving the writers too much credit. The film more closely follows the archtypes laid out by the previous Star Wars films. For example, the revelations of Rey’s grandfather is just a weaker rehash of the Vader reveal from Empire. It undoes the stronger inversion of the Empire reveal from TLJ. The third act retreads story beats from Return of the Jedi, which in turn retreads the third act of ANH. It goes back to the Star Wars films all “rhyming with each other.” TLJ is the standout that tries to build something new. TROS is a play it safe sequel that stubbornly sticks to established formula, but somehow also breaks its own lore.
Star Wars has always been a old fashioned tale of good vs evil, the good guys winning is in keeping with the spirit of the series. And I don’t think Rey surviving was a bad thing either. In the previous film Luke himself says “I will not be the last Jedi” and I feel the ending makes good on that promise as well as ending the saga in a hopeful note.
I don’t even mind Rey adopting the name Skywalker at the end. I like to think that in generations to come Skywalker will become the title held by the head of the Jedi Order.
But I would be happy if we never saw another Force Ghost or planet destroying super-weapon again. With the Force Ghosts it’s not just that they can come back, it’s that coming back from death has become inevitable.
I think that criticizing TROS for being a “playing it safe” sequel disregards the obligations it had. To end the trilogy and the saga, and in addition to that justifying the costs for these movies AND giving an incentive to make more Star Wars films, was a monumental task that in reality no cutting edge, more daring or game-changing film would have accomplished. Hell, even making a film that is as successful as this one at the box office was already a huge risk, and what was put on Abrams´ shoulders was so immense, it is just surprising that he did not break down or deliver a film that became a flop.
So, let’s keep that in mind for NO TIME TO DIE. Again, EON (rather than Fukunaga) really has to prove that Bond can still deliver while acknowledging that the highly successful Craig era will end with this and uncertainty begins again.
If NTTD underperforms (apparently expectations are set for breaking the 1 billion dollar mark of SKYFALL again) it will have dire consequences for MGM and the sale of the library AND the next Bond film.
That’s more than a tall order. Sure, NTTD is destined for success, but how big will it be? April is now becoming the start of the new summer season, and THE AVENGERS have proven that it is possible to start that season with accumulating the most money of any blockbuster. But Bond is no Marvel hero, and it does not appeal to the same audiences.
Imagine NTTD having a first weekend under 100 million. No Bond film has ever had an opening over that mark. However, big blockbusters now are almost obligated to go beyond the 100 million mark. If NTTD does not the moneycrunchers will argue that the brand is not reaching enough people.
And if the second weekend will not bring the film towards another 200 million, at least worldwide, it will present a problem. Adding to this is the possibility that NTTD´s running time will be over 2 1/2 hours, resulting in fewer showings per day. Yes, for THE AVENGERS that wasn’t a problem. Nor was it for AVATAR. Bond films might appeal to the four quarters-audience. But the biggest part is not consisting of kids and teenagers. It is adults, increasingly older ones. And they don’t go to the theaters again and again and again.
I saw that report, hoped it wasn’t true, as Skyfall was a perfect storm of expectations and cultural feeling, and is unlikely to happen again.
On the other hand, if MGM needs NTTD to do that kind of money, the MGM albatross may be gone sooner than I expected.
I also don’t have a problem with Rey surviving, just more of a problem with her dying and being brought back by the force-healing.
My reasoning for it being a “play it safe” sequel comes more from the fact that it seems to pander directly to the fans who complained about The Last Jedi. It relies way too heavily on nostalgia and fan service instead of crafting its own identity. I understand the immense pressure it had to wrap up this trilogy and the saga as a whole. Again, I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion, I’m just explaining my issues with the film and why I didn’t enjoy it as much as other people.
When was the audience for Bond changed? When I was a teenager in the eighties at least half of the audience was a kid, or teenager. If I think for example of the audience when I saw Octopussy most were kids or teenagers, but that was in 1983 ofcourse.
Was that changed with the Craig movies being more serious, or earlier on?