Ranking the Star Trek Films

I saw some people were ranking the Star Trek films, so I thought I'd join in the fun.  I have a hard time ranking anything that's covers such a long span of time, because I have to weigh sentimentality versus rewatchability.  Plus some of the movies are wildly different genres, so it's like comparing apples and oranges.  But this is as close as I can get:

1) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
2) Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
3) Star Trek: First Contact
4) Galaxy Quest
5) Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
6) Star Trek (2009)
7) Star Trek: Generations
8) Star Trek Into Darkness
9) Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
10) Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
11) Star Trek: The Motion Picture
12) Star Trek Beyond
13) Star Trek: Nemesis
14) Star Trek: Insurrection

So, some specifics:

1) Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - This one gets the gold because it ranks high on both sentimentality and rewatchability.  It has good pacing, it's quotable, and it stands the test of time.  Khan is still one of the best villains of any franchise.

2) Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - Star Trek struggles on the big screen, because the TV's tone and pace don't always translate into blockbuster films.  Some Star Trek films add more action, some add higher stakes drama, but Star Trek IV leaned heavy into comedy.  And somehow, it worked.

3) Star Trek: First Contact - This one might be personal bias.  I was a latecomer to Star Trek, so Next Generation is my favorite series.  This is the best of the NextGen films, and features the best of NextGen's villains, the Borg. 

4) Galaxy Quest - Yeah, the fourth best Star Trek film isn't a Star Trek film, bite me.  But it does a stellar job as both a parody and an homage, making fun of Trek and its fans without being cruel.

5) Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - Just a good, solid movie.  This one is special to me because it's the first Star Trek film I saw in the theater after becoming a Trekkie.  (I had seen first two movies in the theater as a kid, but I didn't like Star Trek then.)

6) Star Trek (2009) - A few years ago I saw Marina Sirtis and Michael Dorn at a comic convention.  Somebody asked them how they felt about the reboot movies.  They weren't fans.  They said that the TV shows usually have some sort of message, but that the movies were just flashy action with no message.  I agree, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.  The 2009 reboot is sleek and shiny, and not nearly as deep as the TV shows, but it does its job well.  It shows us that Star Trek movies can be summer blockbusters with broader appeal, as long as they abandon what Star Trek was all about in the first place.  I think there's a place in this world for both styles of Star Trek.

7) Star Trek: Generations - This one's just fanservice, but that's okay.  Star Trek fans are often the type of people who enjoy fanservice the most.  I'm pulling this statistic out of my ass, but there was a time when 90% of Star Trek fanfiction involved crossovers with other TV shows.  (I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I had a Star Trek / X-Men comic book.)  So having the generations meet was a no-brainer.  It's not a great movie, but it was a fun way to pass the theatrical torch.

8) Star Trek Into Darkness - A lot of people don't like this one, due to the clumsy handling of its fanservice.  They're not wrong.  It wasn't the best way to reintroduce Khan.  But if you get past that (and some other minor nitpicks), it's a fun movie.  Cumberbatch is a terrific villain no matter what you call him, and overall it's a decent film as long as you don't think about how it relates to the rest of the Star Trek franchise.

9) Star Trek III: The Search for Spock - First off, let me just say that there isn't a single Star Trek film I hate.  But around here is where my list goes from "fun to watch on a Friday night with a big tub of popcorn" to "I would leave it on as background noise while I play Sims 4 on my laptop."  Search for Spock is a utilitarian movie.  It does a serviceable job of tying up the loose ends from Star Trek II, but it doesn't do much else for me.  I do like Christopher Lloyd as a Klingon, though.

10) Star Trek V: The Final Frontier - I have to say, "What would God need with a starship?" is one of my favorite lines in a Star Trek movie.  Beyond that, there's just not much here to write home about.

11) Star Trek: The Motion Picture - I vaguely remember seeing this in the theater (I was six) and being bored.  I watched it again when I was seventeen, and it was still pretty boring, but I can imagine how cool it might have been to a Star Trek fan.  People who loved the original series, and were then starved for ten years, only to see it return on the big screen with more expensive special effects - it had to be an experience.  I like the twist - that V'ger is Voyager - but beyond that it's a slog.

12) Star Trek Beyond - I saw it once in the theater and forgot about it.  I remember some of the imagery, but I actually had to go to Wikipedia to be reminded of the plot.  And wow, it turns out I remember even less than I thought.  I do remember having fun, but it obviously isn't the most memorable movie.

13) Star Trek: Nemesis - Honestly I barely remember this movie at all.  I didn't hate it, but there just wasn't much to love.  I remember reading at the time that it was written by a Star Trek fan, who was trying to give Picard an arch enemy as compelling as Khan.  If they were going to emulate Khan, they should have used an enemy from the NextGen series, someone who has an established reason to hate Picard.  For example, Gul Madred from "Chain of Command". 

14) Star Trek: Insurrection - And finally, we have the reason you shouldn't use TV plots for movie scripts.  Insurrection is a perfectly fine story.  It feels like a dozen other episodes of the NextGen TV series.  But that's all.  I came out of it feeling like I'd just spent $20 to see something I could have seen on TV.  If it had actually been shown as an episode of the series, it would have been a decent episode.  But there was just nothing theatrical about it, nothing that warranted a big screen budget or leaving the house.  But it also proves that even the worst Star Trek movie is still a pretty good time.

Second Look: Tron Legacy

I saw "Tron: Legacy" in the theaters ten years ago, and was severely disappointed.  Yesterday I gave it a rewatch, and it was slightly better the second time.  But it's still severely disappointing.

To recap: Sometime after the first Tron film, Flynn disappears.  His son Sam goes looking for him, and gets sucked into the virtual world.  He thinks he's been reunited with his dad, but it turns out to be "Clu" - Flynn's pet program that turned into an evil dictator, leaving the real Flynn Clu-less.  Sam is made to fight in the games, and is rescued by a mysterious woman named Quorra.  She takes Sam to the real Flynn, who has been living in exile.

Quorra turns out to be the last member of a species called "ISOs", the rest of whom were killed by Clu.  Now Clu is focused on stealing Flynn's identity disc in order to do bad things.  Flynn refuses to fight because he knows it's dangerous to let Clu know where he is.  Sam and Quorra go off on their on to foil Clu's plans, but run into trouble, and are rescued by Flynn.  The three of them try to escape the virtual world together, and everyone fights on the way to the portal.  In the end (spoiler alert), Flynn and Clu kill each other, while Sam and Quorra escape to the real world.

What I liked: It's a very pretty movie.  Other than Flynn's de-aged CGI face, most of the special effects hold up ten years later.  Michael Sheen's character is over-the-top in the most delightful way - he should play the Riddler someday.  Quorra is a pretty neat character, presented as a stock "badass female fighter" character, but not so powerful that she seems like a cliche.

What I didn't like: Almost everything else.  Admittedly the original Tron isn't nearly as good as I thought it was as a kid, but at least it was cheesy enough to laugh at.  Legacy is more serious, and feels heavy handed.  But the story isn't good enough to support a serious tone.

Quorra's "last of her kind" backstory felt pointless.  The ISOs could have been taken out of the script entirely without losing much.  It feels like they just threw in an act of genocide to make Clu seem more evil, but he could have just killed a lot of the regular citizens of the virtual world and had the same impact.  Random trivia: There's actually a word for something that's the last of its species: "Endling".

In a way, the visual design was actually too good.  It didn't look like they were in a computer, it just looked like an alien planet, or futuristic Earth.  I wish they had dumbed it down a bit and given it a more jagged look.  The fashions in the virtual world just looked like modern racing gear, with some illuminated piping.  I miss the circuit-style aesthetic of the original.

Meanwhile, the CGI de-aging on Jeff Bridges was pretty bad.  Now, that would have been okay if they'd only used that special effect in the virtual world.  In fact, maybe they should have made everybody CGI in the virtual world, in order to sell that it's a computer generated world.  But they definitely shouldn't have had so many shots of young Jeff Bridges in the real world.  It might as well have been a scene from Roger Rabbit for how artificial it looked.

I also didn't like the soundtrack.  It was too generic and atmospheric.  During one major fight I noticed that the soundtrack was practically asleep.  Some heart-thumping boss battle music would have ramped up the tension.  But I really miss the techno-esque score from the original, and wish they had updated it.

The actual character of Tron - despite his name being in the title - is turned into an evil henchmen, and basically serves as this movie's Darth Maul.  He's an okay villain, but it's really a disservice to the character.

The plot is not interesting.  To be fair, the original Tron is just a Wizard of Oz remake.  Dude gets trapped in a fantastical world (complete with a different color palette) and spends the rest of the movie trying to get home.  Yeah, there's a subplot about wresting back control of his stolen copyrights, but the main story is basically an escape plot.  It's the same plot as Jurassic Park III, now that I think about it.

Anyway, Legacy has a similar plot, but it fleshes out the universe more, which ends up making it worse.  I really liked the 80s Tron universe, and would have liked to have seen more movies, games, comics, and cartoons set in that universe.  But the universe of Tron Legacy is bland and soulless, and left me cold.

What a wasted opportunity.

Bad Dialogue

I’ll be honest here, I have no idea what good dialogue sounds like.  I can’t write good dialogue, and I can’t judge it, either.  But here’s the thing, I don’t think you can, either.

A few years ago I read a book about writing, by Orson Scott Card.  At one point he gave an example of dialogue.  While reading it, I found myself thinking, “Wow, I wish I could write dialogue that realistic.”  Then, after the example, he said it was obviously an example of bad dialogue.  This means one of two things:  Either my own dialogue is so bad that I aspire to one day be as good as a bad example, or my own dialogue is actually better than I think it is, because it’s not similar to that which would be considered bad.  But either way, I’m not a good judge of dialogue, and I’m definitely not qualified to write a blog entry about bad dialogue.  But here we are.

Of course, I don’t really respect Mr. Card’s opinions any more.  Putting aside his political views for a moment, I’m really no longer sure he’s that great a writer.  Ender’s Game was brilliant, but a lot of people have one good story in them.  I’d say he’s more like how most people see George Lucas – he had a few good ideas when he was younger, then he spent the rest of his life milking them dry.  There are nearly 20 books in the Ender’s Game series now, and exactly one good one. 

Okay, I can’t really say that, since I’ve only read six of them.  But from the ones I’ve read, none of the Ender’s sequels and spin-offs match the creativity and fun that the original had.  And I found plenty of examples of bad dialogue.  But I’m getting off track, here.  I didn’t come here to complain about OSC, I came to complain about people who complain about bad dialogue.

First I want to draw a line between “realistic” and “good” dialogue.  Realistic dialogue is not good, and can sometimes render a movie unwatchable.  In real  life, people cough, they stutter, they interrupt themselves when they get a new thought, they repeat themselves, they say sieve instead of sleeve and stop to correct themselves, they skip words in response to their target’s body language, they repeat themselves, they leave sentences dangling like…

This is a realistic paragraph:  “Hey, John, did you… Oh, I see you already have… okay, so… *cough* sorry.  I was wondering if you had the – do you remember last week when I put the red rolder – I mean folder - in my drawer and – no, wait, I think it was the orange one – because it’s not… never mind, I remember Sheryl had to borrow it.”  This is exactly the kind of thing I hear around my office, and it’s awful.  If real life were a movie, half the dialogue would get put in the gag reel.

So no, people don’t actually want realistic dialogue.  For my money, there’s two kinds of good dialogue – invisible and snappy.  Invisible dialogue is just neutral.  There’s nothing distinctive about it, and you don’t notice the writing at all.  This is great for movies where the dialogue isn’t the focus.  I prefer snappy – the kind of bantering you see in Moonlighting or The Road to El Dorado.  This dialogue is in no way realistic, as very few humans are that consistently clever.  But it is entertaining, which is the reason we watch TV and movies in the first place.

It's all relative.  When adults try to write teenagers, they often use what they think is current slang.  But if adult writers think this is how teens talk, then adult viewers might too.  So you end up with teen movies where adult viewers think the dialogue is realistic, but actual teens burst into tears laughing at the same scenes.  When I was a kid in the 80s, I always thought it was funny how kids talked in some movies.  At school we would do impressions of valley girls, but we never met one in real life.  I don’t know, maybe they actually existed in Hollywood, where these scripts are usually written.  Sometimes Hollywood slang is hilariously out of date, and sometimes it actually influences viewers to start using the words. 

Voice acting is probably even harder, because adults are often doing children’s voices.  At least on a sitcom a teenage actor might point out their difficulty with a line, because it doesn’t sound like something a real teen would say.  But in a cartoon that type of situation would fly by unchecked. 

And video games probably have it the worst.  Lines sometimes have to be recorded one line at a time, because different events might trigger the same line.  It’s hard to make dialogue flow when the voice actor isn’t able to directly reply to the last voice actor’s line.  People having an actual conversation tend to match each other’s tone and volume, but video game conversations can be jumpy and erratic.  Thankfully things have gotten a lot better since the first Resident Evil, but they’re still not perfect.

I sometimes hear video game dialogue described as “full of cringe.”  If I saw someone use “cringe” that way on TV, I would dismiss that as bad dialogue.  But I see kids use the term unironically on the internet all the time.  I don’t like to pull the age card, but if you describe bad dialogue as “full of cringe”, then you’re too young to judge the quality of dialogue. 

So where was I?  Anyway, I just don’t think I can trust anyone’s opinion on whether dialogue is realistic, because actual humans range from walking dictionaries to people who randomly shout “Mandibles and Freon!” for no reason.  The only thing less realistic than movie dialogue is actual real life dialogue.  So don’t strive for realism, strive for the minimum amount of noticeable cheese.  If you’re hoping your movie is quotable, fine, just remember that meme-ability can be a blessing or a curse.  For every “I’ll be back” there’s an “I hate sand.”  And you can quote me on that.

Gullible

Transformers: The Movie came out in 1986.  About a year later, a friend of mine told me he saw a trailer for the sequel.  It showed Megatron returning and challenging Galvatron for the leadership of the Decepticons.  How is this possible, since they're both the same character?  Did it involve parallel worlds?  Time travel?  Though a similar scene did eventually happen in the comic book in 1991, this was well before that.

...and of course, my friend was lying.  But I was gullible enough to believe it.  I believed it so much, that I told another friend about the trailer.  Then later I lied and told the first friend that I'd seen the trailer too, and he just went, "Interesting."  That was when I realized he'd made it up.

But I had a tendency to believe people when they told me these things.  I had friends to lied to me constantly about video game news.  One guy told me that if you beat Metroid thirty times, you would get to play as Ridley or Kraid.  I spent several weekends playing the game from start to finish, until I'd beaten it at least forty times, before I called him and told him it didn't work.  Then he started adding details, "Well, each time you beat it, you have to complete it in under an hour" or whatever.  Eventually I called the Nintendo Power hotline and was told it wasn't true.

That same friend told me a lot of details about Metroid 2.  I mean, there was eventually a Metroid 2 for Gameboy, but he was a couple of years early and specifically talking about the NES.  He also told me that you could fight Ganon in Zelda 2, by beating the game a certain number of times and then using a specific spell in a specific room to resurrect him.

The dumbest part of my gullibility is that nobody ever actually scooped me when it came to video game news.  When I was in school, I was the guy everyone else called for video game tips.  Sometimes students I didn't even know would call me and ask me if I had codes for certain games.  And I usually did.

I read every video game magazine, and had subscriptions to most of them.  EGM, Nintendo Power, GamePro... if it was on the shelves, I read it.  I knew level select codes for games I'd never played, because I studied these magazines the way I should have been studying my high school textbooks.

So if somebody told me a bit of video game trivia I didn't know, well, where exactly did I think they were getting that information?  We didn't have the internet yet, and there weren't any video game programs on TV. 

I wish I could say I was less gullible now.  Frequenting sites like Snopes has made me a lot more skeptical of memes and fake news, but when it's a friend telling me something, I usually still believe them.  After all, why would they lie?

DC Universe

I need my Marvel fix!  Okay, so Far From Home came out 7/2/19.  Black Widow doesn’t come out until 5/1/2020.  That’s just ten months, but it feels like ages.  Realistically, this is not the longest break they’ve had.  Iron Man 2 came out nearly two years after The Incredible Hulk, and Iron Man 3  came out almost a year after The Avengers… still, arguably the MCU wasn’t in full swing yet at the time.  This break just feels longer because I’m used to a new Marvel movie every five or six months now.

Still, this was a good time for a break, and the future does look pretty saturated.  To be honest, I’m more interested in some of the upcoming TV shows than the next three movies.  Specifically, WandaVision, Loki, and What If.  But those are pretty far off.

In the meantime, I’m catching up on some DC.  I’ve always preferred DC’s characters over Marvel’s, mostly because I got into them at an early age.  Those characters just mean more to me.  It really bugs me that DC has been in such a slump lately.  Yes, I loved the Wonder Woman and Aquaman movies, but they still made me say, “Wow, that’s almost as good as a Marvel movie.”  I mean, imagine if Pepsi’s new slogan was, “Pepsi: Almost as Good as Coke.”  It’s not a flattering look.

The big difference IMO: Marvel optimizes, DC reinvents.  The MCU takes the most iconic versions of their heroes, makes little changes like modernizing their costumes so they look less like cosplay, and cleans up the details that were too convoluted or made them less cinematic.  The current DC trend is to reimagine their characters – which is great for standalone movies like Joker (which I still need to see), but is terrible for building a shared universe. 

The DCEU feels like a set of Elseworlds graphic novels.  What if Superman wasn’t a boy scout?  What if Batman was shortsighted and reactionary?  What if Ares was a foppish gentleman?  What if Aquaman was a hunky dreamboat?  What if the Flash dressed like a robot?  Look, I love Elseworlds.  They’re some of my favorite comics to read.  But for movies, these reimaginings only work as unconnected, one-off films.

We cancelled our cable last year, and we’ve been experimenting with different streaming services.  We currently have Amazon Prime, Netflix, CBS All Access, Disney+, and DC Universe.  If you’re on the fence about DC Universe, it’s… well, it depends on how much you love DC.  It’s like this… Netflix has thousands and thousands of movies and TV shows, but I’m only interested in about fifteen of them.  DC Universe has, like, twenty movies and TV shows, but I’m still interested in about fifteen of them.  I exaggerate, but the channel really is light on content. 

But that wouldn’t bother me if, at the very least, they’d make sure they had everything DC.  They’re still missing a ton of DC movies.  I understand not having the newest releases – gotta give people time to buy those DVDs before you let them stream ‘em – but even a lot of the older DC films are conspicuously absent.  Everything just looks so sparse – you go into the movie section, and you see about fifteen movies.  You go into the TV section, you see about fifteen shows.  The only thing really big is the Animated Shorts section.  Maybe DC just isn’t big enough to warrant a channel.  Maybe Warner Bros should have started a streaming channel instead, and let DC be a subset of the programming, like Disney+ does with Marvel. 

But the content that’s there is pretty cool.  Right now we’re watching Doom Patrol, which is really good.  The DC Animated Universe from the 90s-2000s is also a welcome addition to our household, even though we already own the Justice League series on DVD.  We just watched the first episode of Harley Quinn, and it was very funny, but too adult for my wife’s tastes.  I’ll have to find time to watch it without her. 

We haven’t tried Titans yet, but it’s on our list.   And we’ll want to rewatch the first two seasons of Young Justice to prep us for season three.  So yeah, there’s a ton of content for us.  But still… it just doesn’t feel like a good value.  It’s about the same price as Disney+, but only has about a quarter of the content.  And I keep finding myself doing the math – if I were to just go ahead and buy all the DC content I want on Blu-Ray, how much would that cost versus a year of DC Universe?  But the truth is, it is a pretty good value if you’re a DC fan… just not nearly as good a deal as the Marvel fans are getting with Disney+.  YMMV.

Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Something Something

Birds of Prey was surprisingly fun.  I had low hopes because the trailers were just awful.  But they really are just bad trailers, almost like the studio is trying to sabotage the movie.  Don't fall for it.  And don't fall for the huge campaign against this movie being perpetuated by sexist dudebros on Twitter.

First things first - Get over the whole "they don't look like they do in the comics" bullshit.  Movies have a history of changing things up.  When Batman came out in 1989, they gave him a new black costume to make him darker and more cinematic.  The 2000 X-Men movie didn't even attempt to dress them like their comic book versions.  The absolute best version of the Joker - from 2008's The Dark Knight - is almost nothing like the comics version.  

Also, recognize that BoP is basically an origin movie.  Just because these characters don't look like their comic equivalents now, doesn't mean they won't later.

Second thing - Those of you who are worried that the movie looks too "woke" - as in, has a SJW bias - it really doesn't.  Yes, the main characters are all women, and yes, most of the males in the movie are psychopaths, and yes, there is an overall theme of female independence... but beyond that, it really doesn't hit you over the head with any sort of message or agenda.  Hell, Deadpool had a stronger "treat women like people" message than BoP does.

And speaking of Deadpool, the writing is similar.  Harley makes a lot of fourth wall jokes, and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously.  I didn't think it was quite as violent as Deadpool, but it does earn its R rating.

The characters:
Harley Quinn - Despite the Birds of Prey getting top billing, it's Harley's movie.  If you liked her from Suicide Squad, you'll like this movie.  Her best moments are when she reminds you she was once a psychiatrist, and lapses into psychobabble until she's distracted by something shiny.

Black Canary - She really didn't have much to do with her comic book counterpart, but she was still a solid character.  I felt like it didn't give her enough background to explain why she was such a good fighter.  A lot of people complained about them hiring an African American actress.  To me, that's like complaining they cast 6'2" Hugh Jackman to play a much shorter X-Man.  If they nail the role, skin tone is a tiny quibble.  And she did fine.

Huntress - She was my favorite character in the movie, but she doesn't get much screentime.  Her personality didn't seem very fleshed out, but I think that's because when she's not living for revenge, even she doesn't know who she is.  I saw touches of Starlord - the whole "Haven't you heard of me" shtick from the first GotG.  But other times, she almost feels like she didn't have any scripted lines.  Still, I liked her.

Renee Montoya - I didn't really like her.  This version of Montoya was disillusioned and fed up with the system, and she was unnecessarily foul-mouthed and irrationally unprofessional.  There was a great joke in there about how cops do their best work after they've been ordered to abandon the case and put on suspension, but this Montoya is so disrespectful to her coworkers that I'm surprised she's lasted this long on the force.

Cassandra Cain - She's a great character, but I wish they'd named her something else.  She has nothing to do with the comic book character of the same name.  This wouldn't bother me, except Cassie was a great Batgirl in the comics, and this closes the door on that version of Batgirl getting a movie any time soon.

Black Mask - Ewan MacGregor isn't bad, but he feels a little miscast.  My wife suggested Sam Rockwell might have been better for that role, and I see her point.  Black Mask doesn't really remind me of his comic book version here, but I never thought he was that interesting in the comics anyway.

The fighting choreography is fantastic.  I've heard that the fight scenes were done by the same person who did The Transporter and John Wick.  It really shows.  Great use of improvised weapons and slow-mo shots.  Unfortunately, sometimes you could spot the victim of a move getting into position to take the blow, or helping the attacker throw them.  That's an editing problem.  But the fight scenes are worth the price of admission.

I didn't like the whole 70's lounge aesthetic.  It reminded me of Quentin Tarantino and why I hate his movies.  But it wasn't so bad as to affect my overall enjoyment.

When they handed this movie to Margot Robbie, she got to choose between this and Gotham City Sirens, which would be about the trio of Harley, Catwoman, and Ivy.  Robbie chose Birds of Prey because she wanted to give the spotlight to some lesser-known characters.  But if BoP does well, Robbie will probably get to proceed with the Sirens movie.  I really want that to happen, but so far BoP isn't doing well.  So if you're reading this, please go see BoP.

I'm not going to say Birds of Prey was a masterpiece - it's just a fun afternoon, and nothing I need to see a second time.  But it's much better than the trailers make it out to be.

Controversial Star Wars Opinion: Blasters Are Innacurate

Stormtroopers are bad shots.  You’ve seen the jokes; it’s one of the most prominent elements of Star Wars humor.  Even people who haven’t seen Star Wars make jokes about it.  It’s even a trope.  You’ve seen explanations in Star Wars novels and comics – the clones are imperfect or the troops are trained too quickly, blah blah blah. 

Now, I don’t care about Expanded Universe explanations.  The original EU is no more, and the Disney EU is only temporarily canon until it contradicts something in a future film.  The movies themselves give better explanations anyway.  Two of the biggest scenes of Stormtrooper ineptitude are already explained in-universe.  While escaping the Death Star in ANH, and on Cloud City in ESB, the Stormtroopers are on orders to miss.  Also, Luke says he can’t see a thing when he tries on a Stormtrooper helmet.  And let’s be honest, the nameless rebels aren’t much better shots.  This is a series where only named characters are competent.  (Except Greedo, apparently, who can’t even hit a guy across a table.)

But for me, I think Obi-Wan was on to something when he called blasters “clumsy and random”.  I think that perhaps Star Wars blasters simply aren’t very accurate.  It’s not a design flaw, it’s a fundamental problem with how energy weapons work in that universe.  Perhaps – and hear me out here – blaster fire tends to drift randomly.  Perhaps the moving bolts of energy are naturally attracted to static electricity in the air, and no weapons designer has been able to compensate for this.  It doesn’t matter what targeting system you use, energy drift can’t be predicted. 

So why do the heroes miss less?  Well, you can always blame The Force, but that’s too easy.  Maybe there’s something about Stormtrooper armor that attracts blaster fire.  Maybe they build up static electricity, so for the same reason blaster fire drifts, it drifts in the direction of Stormtrooper armor.  That would be a serious design flaw, but we already knew Stormtrooper armor was badly designed.  Not only does blaster fire go right through it, but it won’t even protect you from a rock thrown by a teddy bear.  But let’s be fair – they had to mass produce millions of these outfits for Stormtroopers all over the galaxy, how expensive did you expect this armor to be?

Do I get a No-Prize?

Control Freak

Nothing to see here, just a trip down Joystick Memory Lane...

My first console was the Atari 2600.  The Atari’s joystick was iconic – you still see pictures of it today used to represent the history of video games.  However, it was a horrible controller.  Despite being covered by a rubber sleeve, the joystick was easily broken.  

Or maybe we kids were just too rough on them.  But regardless, everyone I knew had at least one joystick they didn’t use any more, because one of the directions didn’t work.  Some of the third party controllers were more durable and controlled better.  I had this one:

Atari’s competitor, Intellivision, had even worse controllers.  The number pad was occasionally useful, but that control disc was just awful.  They made little joysticks you could stick onto the control discs, which helped, but really it was just a bad design all around.  

The Colecovision used similar controllers, but with squat little joysticks instead of discs.  It was slightly better, but still, yuck.

My first computer was the TRS-80.  It had some odd controllers – square plastic bases with thin metal joysticks.  Unlike most joysticks, these were not spring-loaded, so they didn’t center themselves.  If you pressed right, the joystick stayed right, until you moved it back to the center.  Not good.  

My next computer was a Commodore 64.  It used the same controller ports as the Atari, so I just used the third party Atari sticks that we still had lying around. 

When the 8-bit Nintendo was released, I was surprised that its default controllers weren’t joysticks.  It seemed like a step backwards somehow.  And yet, those control pads were possibly the first good controllers made for a video game console.  They were the most durable controllers to be released so far – there were no parts jutting up far enough to break off, and the plastic was far sturdier than the controllers on older consoles.  I quickly adapted to them.  Of course, I did get the NES Advantage joystick later, but by then I was so used to joypads, that the stick actually felt less precise.

When the SNES came out, I loved its controllers even more.  It had everything I loved about the NES controller, only now it had more buttons, a more pleasing curved shape, and a nice gray/purple color scheme.  

But this is where my friends and I started to disagree.  Some people felt that the SNES controllers were too small, but they were the right size for me.  Some of my friends preferred the Genesis controller.  Now, I might be a little biased, because I was a SNES fan during the early 90s console wars.  But to this day I can’t stand the Genesis controller.  They felt cheap and airy and the buttons just didn’t click right.  With the SNES, I could rest my thumb across all four buttons, and sort of lean it in the direction I wanted to press.  But the Genesis had bigger buttons, spaced farther apart, so I had to actually lift my thumb from the A button to hit the C button, like some sort of neanderthal.

The six-button version that came later was a slight improvement, but I still didn’t care for it.

The Nintendo 64 was a mess all around.  First off, it had one of the most fragile-feeling analog sticks I’ve ever seen.  Second, they stuck it awkwardly in the middle.  This was supposed to give you the freedom to control different games in different ways.  But the result was a controller that just felt “wrong” no matter which way you held it.  Not wanting to trash anybody’s memories here.  I liked Ocarina of Time just as much as you did.  But that was one of the worst controller designs in history.

The original Playstation controller was great, but that’s because it was just a glorified SNES controller with a more ergonomic shape.  I had an unusual problem with the original PS controllers – they kept dying on me from static shock.  You know, you walk across carpet in the winter, touch something and ZAP!  Whenever I got a shock from a PS controller, one of the buttons would stop working.  After two or three controllers, I learned to touch something metal before touching the PS controllers. 

The Playstation DualShock controller was the best controller design of all time, and it just keeps improving with every new Sony console.  The symmetry of the two analog sticks is aesthetically pleasing, and it feels good on the thumbs.  The controller is the right weight, the button configuration is familiar, and all the buttons are easy to reach.  I'm glad Sony hasn't messed with the basic design much.

I know I’m kind of jumping around a bit here…  The Sega Dreamcast was kind of neat because of the little removable Gameboy-like memory card.  I never really understood why controllers with screens never caught on; it would be great for inventory screens and multiplayer games.  Sure it’s expensive, but it’s cheaper than buying multiple Gameboy Advances to plug into your Gamecube.  Anyway, Dreamcast had some neat ideas, but the controller was a little bulky for my tastes.

The original XBox controllers were just too big.  The XBox 360 controllers were an improvement, but I hated the buttons.  The best controller designs either make the buttons out of rubber, or make the buttons concave so your thumbs rest in the little divots.  The 360 buttons were both rounded and hard as rocks, so after a few hours of gaming I had little divots in my thumbs.  The XBox One controllers are a little better, but I still prefer the PS4’s.  

Since so many games come out for both systems, controller style is one of the bigger factors in which console I buy.  I wish third party manufacturers would make PS-shaped controllers for XBox systems and vice versa, but there’s probably legal reasons why they don’t.

Unpopular opinion time, but I think the greatest video game configuration for first-person shooters was the Wii’s “Wiimote/Nunchuck” combo.  In one hand, you basically held a gun, and you aimed by pointing at the screen.  The other hand had your joystick for moving around.  I honestly can’t imagine a more intuitive controller setup.  

I mean, when I play Metroid Prime with that controller setup, I am Samus Aran, and the Wiimote is my arm cannon.  The only thing that would make it more immersive is a VR helmet.

And yet, the Wii wasn’t known for first-person shooters.  It’s insane.  It would be like packing your console with a steering wheel controller, then never releasing any driving games.  Unfortunately the Wii came out in 2006, a good five years after Halo.  Of course Halo wasn’t the first FPS to use dual analog sticks, but its popularity taught an entire generation to control shooters that way.  This is just how FPS games control now, and there’s probably no going back.  I honestly believe that in an alternate universe, a Wii-style gun/joystick combo could have become the default way to play FPS games. 

So anyway, here’s my top 10 console controllers of all time:

1. Playstation DualShock (any generation)

2. Wii Classic Controller (and similar DualShock knock-offs)

3. SNES

4. Wiimote/Nunchuk

5. NES

6. That’s it.

7. No, seriously.

8. No other controllers matter.

9. Why are you still reading this?

10. It’s settled.  Go home.

Star Wars: The Next Generation

Fun fact: In a few months, Star Wars Episode 1 will be old enough to drink. 

The other day I was watching some people on Twitter argue about Star Wars.  Actually, I do that most days.  One person said that he can’t wait until twenty years goes by, and the new trilogy is just another part of the series.  I remember saying the same thing about the Prequel trilogy a few years ago. 

Of course, there were a ton of responses to the tweet, some complaining about all the new films, some praising this film over that film, and so on.  But I noticed something interesting.  The younger tweeters kept saying things like, “Episodes 1-6 are timeless classics.  These new movies will never be as accepted as the original six.”  Gee, that sounds familiar.  Judging by their profile pics, these tweeters were probably about the same age when they saw The Phantom Menace as I was when I first saw A New Hope.  The cycle continues, and I love it.  But still, that phrase – “the original six” – hit me hard.  Twenty years from now, another generation will be referring to the current movies as “the original nine” while complaining about the newest entries. 

If it takes twenty years.  The latest rumors seem to indicate that the next trilogy will take place 400 years earlier, during the New Republic era.  What I’m wondering is if these movies will be called “Episodes 10-12”, or if they’ll have their own numbers.  I hope it’s the latter.  I don’t want the main series to jump back and forth in time.  I say keep the main series generational, with a new trilogy every couple of decades.

Anyway, it’s neat that the kids who grew up on the prequels are adults now, criticizing the next generation.  If you’re exactly the right age to appreciate one trilogy, it means you’ll be exactly the wrong age to appreciate the next trilogy.  I just don’t think adults get how Star Wars movies are supposed to be written.  George Lucas conceived Star Wars as an homage to the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials from the 30s and 40s.  They were never supposed to be serious dramas.  They were supposed to capture the imaginations of children, and make silver screen buffs misty-eyed with nostalgia.

Star Wars isn’t bad when it’s serious, but it’s at its best when it’s cheesy.  People had lots of complaints about The Last Jedi, but I wonder if it’s biggest flaw may have been that it was too good to be a Star Wars movie.  Maybe it was deeper than Star Wars fans expect, in ways that didn’t fit the “space opera” genre.  I don’t know, it’s just a thought.  For me, out of the new trilogy, The Force Awakens feels the most like a Star Wars movie.  The Last Jedi went a little too far trying to subvert expectations, and Rise of Skywalker went a little too far with the fan service, but both are fun movies in their own way.

Unrelated, but I think it’s neat that each trilogy consists of one stand-alone movie, followed by two movies that complement each other.  A New Hope?  Perfect stand-alone movie, with a valid beginning, middle, and end.  But Empire Strikes Back is useless without the other movies.  You won’t know what’s happening if you haven’t seen A New Hope, and you don’t get any resolution if you don’t see Return of the Jedi.  A New Hope can be enjoyed by itself, but ESB and ROJ need each other. 

The Prequels even more so.  The Phantom Menace is a cute (if sometimes boring) story introducing the characters and showing us Anakin’s roots.  It’s not a great movie, but it’s a complete one.  Episodes 2 and 3 are a two-part story showing the rise and fall of the Clone Wars.  It’s nice to see that the newest trilogy keeps the tradition alive.  The Force Awakens is a solid one-shot movie, if a little derivative of A New Hope.  Its sequels are a bonded pair, even if the fans are too stubborn to recognize it.

This is why I hate all the fighting between Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker fans.  The two movies complement each other just fine, just not in the ways some fans hoped for.  Empire Strikes Back had you asking questions that Return of the Jedi answered.  But the new trilogy has a slightly different relationship:  The Last Jedi starts rumors that The Rise of Skywalker debunks.  It’s less like the teacher/student relationship of earlier trilogies, and instead Rise of Skywalker is like Snopes, and Last Jedi is like that geriatric aunt of yours who only watches Fox News.  You didn’t get the answers you wanted, but you got the answers you needed.  It’s a somewhat rocky relationship, but it’s still a relationship.

Anyway, here’s a video I made about the whole “Last Jedi” vs “Rise of Skywalker” civil war:

Further Proof That You Can’t Satisfy Star Wars Fans

(Spoilers for Rise of Skywalker)

So, Last Jedi was blasted for straying too far from the Star Wars formula.  Rise of Skywalker is getting blasted for sticking too closely to the Star Wars formula.  This is why we can’t have nice things.

Seriously, I've heard nothing for the past two years but how much The Last Jedi sucked, and how Rian Johnson should never be allowed to direct a movie again.  But Rise of Skywalker overturns a few of TLJ's decisions, and suddenly Johnson is the second coming of Christ.  How dare they retcon all these things you've been complaining about for two years?  

Critics say Rise of Skywalker paid too much attention to the criticism of the last movie, and uses too many of the suggestions put forward by fans on internet message boards.  One humorist even said it felt like it was written by Reddit.  Is this a bad thing now?  Listening to criticism?  Trying to please your fans?  How dare they!

They say it’s not performing as well as expected in the box office, but do remember that Saturday was the busiest shopping day of the year; some people are too busy for a movie.  Besides, it’s competing against Cats!  *gigglesnort*  I hope it picks up some momentum after the holidays, because I don’t like it when Disney thinks things underperformed. 

But I just have to wonder what fans were expecting.  They did everything you asked, and you’re still unhappy.  Look, I would love to get an intelligently-written, seriously dramatic Star Wars movie someday.  But I only say that because I’d like to see Star Wars cross all into all sorts of genres eventually.  Star Wars sitcom?  I’m there.  Star Wars horror?  Awesome.  The best Star Wars novel I’ve read was a romance.  And The Mandalorian is basically a Star Wars western, and it does the job beautifully.

Side note:  Okay, so a lot of people will argue that Star Wars has always been a space western, but I don’t see it.  Sure, Han Solo is obviously a cowboy, but he’s not the main character.  To me, Luke’s story arc always more closely resembled old ninja movies, right down to him seeking out knowledge from an ancient wizened sage who is more powerful than his tiny frame would suggest.  But Star Trek also gets compared to westerns, so I honestly think some people just compare everything to westerns.  It has good guys and bad guys and sometimes they shoot at each other?  Must be a western, cuz gosh, no other genre has that.  But IMO, the only true space western is Firefly.

So yes, I would have no problem with Rian Johnson taking the reins again, turning the formula on its head, and making a movie that confuses our expectations.  But I also like Star Wars movies feeling like shallow theme park rides.  I hate to admit this, but Star Wars is supposed to appeal to twelve year olds.  I love that it can be enjoyed by all ages, but I think the target audience should always remain the tween demographic, at least for the numbered films.  That should be the goal: to put in just enough plot to keep the adults entertained, but to keep it light and energetic enough to keep the twelve-year-olds from looking at their smartphones.  Use the spin-off movies to experiment with other genres.

When The Sixth Sense put M. Night Shyamalan on the map, it also branded him as the “twist” guy.  There was a certain expectation that went with seeing his movies, and if he made a movie that didn’t have a twist, some people felt cheated.  I think there is a similar expectation that Star Wars movies follow a certain formula.  The minute Rey was introduced, audience members speculated on who her parents would be.  There just had to be some explanation as to why Force powers came to her so easily.  But then, they never really explained how Anakin came to be, at least not on film.  It’s a big universe; there’s no reason why any new characters have to be related to anybody.  But apparently some Star Wars fans just can’t accept a character without knowing their complete genealogy.

Anyway, there’s no accounting for why one likes or dislikes something.  But the reasons I’m hearing for people not liking Rise of Skywalker are, frankly, stupid.  This goes back to my blog on “Introspection Illusion”, but I don’t think people dislike things for the reasons they think they dislike them.  Can’t keep up with the movie’s frenetic pace?  Must be because you didn’t like them retconning Rey’s parentage.  Dialogue not making you laugh?  Must be because you didn’t like the Chewbacca death fake-out.  Ending feels too happy?  Must be because they showed too much (or too little) of Rose Tico.

If none of that makes any sense, well, that’s how I feel reading some of the reviews out there.  I don’t think some of you actually know why you didn’t like it.  I’m just saying, if you had enjoyed the movie on a more subconscious level, you might not be quibbling about the strange plot twists.  I’ve only seen Rise of Skywalker once so far, but I think this is one of those movies that’s probably more enjoyable a second time.  Once you know what happens, and aren’t worrying so much about who’s going to die or whether you missed a twist, you can enjoy it for what Star Wars has always been: popcorn munchers, roller coaster rides, special effects showcases, and homages to the cheesy serials from the 1930s.

If you didn’t like Rise of Skywalker, that’s okay.  It’s not your fault you’re a dullard, you probably just had boring parents.  I won’t hold that against you.  But I’m going to go hang out with the cool kids.  You know, the ones who don’t hate fun.  Feel free to join us when you’re ready to let your inner twelve-year-old out to play.  We’ll be happy to have you.

Rise of Skywalker Thougts (Spoilers)

Spoiler Alert for Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker

If you haven't seen the movie yet, read this blog instead.

I saw the movie yesterday, and I'm still trying to put everything together in my head.

The plot jumped around so much that I'm having a hard time remembering the sequence of events.  Most Star Wars movies are pretty easy to summarize, and are so sectionalized that they feel like two or three mini-movies.  For example, Return of the Jedi has the Jabba part, the Yoda part, the Endor part, and finally the climax (which jumps back and forth from three locations).

But Rise of Skywalker was so chaotic, that I'm going to have to watch it again just to get the timeline straight.  Not that I'll need an excuse to see it again.  I mean, yeah, I know they spend a fair amount of the movie looking for a MacGuffin that will lead them to the planet where the climax takes place, but that search covers so many locations that I can't remember what happens when.

Regarding Leia - While I'm glad they utilized unused footage instead of CGI (mostly because I didn't want to hear people whining about it), it didn't actually look any better than CGI would have.  Some of her scenes were so obviously digitally inserted that she wasn't even lit the same as the characters standing around her.  Maybe it was more obvious because I knew about it in advance, but I'm pretty sure I would have noticed something was odd about her scenes.  Plus, a lot of her lines felt like they could have fit anywhere.

I was disappointed that the finale didn't involve a huge lightsaber battle.  I mean, I know there was some swordplay there, like with Kylo vs the minions, but I wanted a boss battle.  Either have Kylo or Rey get temporarily possessed for a big duel, or let the newly healed Palpatine pull out a saber like he did in Episode 3.

But Star Wars climaxes are hard.  Rey is put into the same position Luke was in at the end of Return of the Jedi.  Kill Palpatine and become evil yourself, or let him live and he kills all your allies.  RotJ handled this brilliantly, with Luke refusing to fight, and Vader killing Palpatine.  I thought something similar was going to happen here.  Either Rey or Kylo would strike him down, become possessed and evil, and they would fight each other.  Instead, Rey defeated Palpatine with some reflected lightning / force of will / power of love scene that feels right out of a Disney movie.  Oh, wait.

Of course, we did get a nice duel between Kylo and Rey earlier in the movie, but I found that fight a little underwhelming.  It was a cool location with the crashing waves, but it just felt like something was missing.  I think it was the soundtrack.  It needed something like "Duel of the Fates" to really make me feel it, but if I remember correctly a good portion of that scene didn't have music at all.

The ending - with Rey calling herself a Skywalker - makes it feel like the entire trilogy is Rey's origin story.  It feels like something really great is about to start.  Too bad Daisy Ridley says she's done with Star Wars after this trilogy.  Maybe she'd still agree to do voice work.  I would totally watch an animated series about Rey that takes place after this movie.

The little shout outs and fan service didn't do much for me, and seemed a little pandering.  Yay, Lando's back, but he doesn't do much that another character couldn't have done.  He would have been put to better use if he'd been the casino contact they were looking for in The Last Jedi.  Yay, Chewie finally gets a medal, but it felt like such a wink to the audience that it took me out of the film.  Yay, there was a lesbian kiss, but it felt like such a hollow token gesture that it annoyed the GLBT community just as much as it annoyed the bigots.

I know there's a lot of criticism in this blog entry, but I really did love this movie.  It's just easier (and more fun) to point out a movie's flaws than its virtues.  But nothing I've listed above is damning, just minor quibbles about a movie that's almost perfect.

The thing is, a lot of the negative reviews I've read about Rise of Skywalker have basically accused it of trying too hard to please fans.  It's a pet peeve of mine that "trying too hard" is considered a bad thing.  The world is full of movies that don't try hard enough.  Yeah, yeah, "Do or do not, there is no try", but Yoda's never directed a movie.

Ranking the Star Wars Movies

A few months ago, everyone was ranking the Star Wars films.  I wanted to wait until Rise of Skywalker to post mine.  Note that I’m only ranking theatrical films here.

1. Return of the Jedi
2. A New Hope
3. Empire Strikes Back
4. The Rise of Skywalker
5. The Force Awakens
6. Rogue One
7. Revenge of the Sith
8. Attack of the Clones
9. Solo
10. The Last Jedi
11. The Phantom Menace
12. The Clone Wars

Some notes…

1. Return of the Jedi:
Okay, yes, I like RotJ best, have at me.  I know a lot of Star Wars purists don’t like it because it rehashes the “blow up the Death Star” plot from ANH, and also because their testicles will shrivel off if they admit they think Ewoks are cute.  But RotJ also has Jabba the Hutt, the Rancor, the Sarlacc pit, speeder bikes, a huge space battle, Ackbar’s legendary line, Boba Fett actually fighting instead of just standing around, and a top notch lightsaber duel.

2. A New Hope:
A New Hope should really be at the top of the list.  After all, it is the quintessential Star Wars movie.  It deserves the honor just for being so groundbreaking.  But honestly?  I can no longer watch it over and over like I can the others.  I just know it too well.  As much as I love it, it’s so ingrained in me I might as well watch a blank wall and imagine the movie.  There’s nothing new in the background to notice, there’s no nuances to catch.  That’s why I like the Special Editions – not because they’re actually better, but because there’s new things to see.

3. The Empire Strikes Back:
Yeah, sure, most people like ESB best.  I don’t blame them, it’s a solid movie with a great script.  But to me, it just doesn’t feel like enough happens in that movie.  The cynic in me thinks that the reason ESB is so popular is because the bad guys win, and human beings are basically miserable little black-hearted trolls who like to see evil triumph because it gives them hope for their own lives.

4. The Rise of Skywalker:
This one's so fresh on my mind, it could go up or down this list in the future.  I mean, I loved The Phantom Menace when I first saw it, but the flaws stood out more and more with time.  Still - and I might eat these words later - I think Rise of Skywalker is going to stand the test of time.

5. The Force Awakens:
Yeah, yeah, it's basically a remake of A New Hope, but so frakking what.  I like ANH, but as I said above, it's boring now.  TFA is much prettier telling of the story.

6. Rogue One:
I thought a lot of this movie was boring, but the ending makes up for it.  A lot of people were turned off by the CGI actors, but Star Wars has always been about experimenting with technology.  The original trilogy pushed the limits of what they could do with miniatures and prosthetics.  The Special Editions and the prequels did the same for CGI, for good or ill.  One of the prequels was the first film ever shot entirely digitally.  The Force Awakens showed us how CGI can coexist with practical effects so well that it’s hard to tell the difference.  Plus, BB-8 was kind of an engineering marvel.  Defending Star Wars always feels like defending NASA.  You know, it’s not about sending people into space.  It’s about all the technological breakthroughs it takes to get someone into space, and how those breakthroughs can also be applied to everyday life.

7. Revenge of the Sith:
I rank Episodes 2 and 3 about the same.  But while AotC takes a while to get going, RotS is exciting pretty much from the start.  So RotS just barely beats AotC.

8. Attack of the Clones:
This one starts out slow, but the last forty-five minutes or so is great fun.  Some of the special effects aren’t aging well, though.  Some of the shots of the clone troopers look straight out of Battlefront.

9. Solo:
I thought Solo was much better than people gave it credit for.  It wasn't great, it wasn't bad, it was just fun and pointless.  Yes, it spends a little too much time on fan service, showing how every aspect of Han Solo's being came into existence.  But I'm glad there's finally a canon, on-film explanation of the "12 parsecs" thing, so people can finally stop making fun of Han's line in ANH.  And young Lando was spot-on perfect; it's a shame he didn't get his own spin-off movie.

10. The Last Jedi:
You know that feeling when you’re about 85% of the way through Skyrim, and you decide you want to finish up a bunch of the side quests before you get back to the main story?  That’s how I feel watching TLJ.  It’s a perfectly entertaining movie, but it always feels like something more important is happening somewhere else.

11. The Phantom Menace:
I’ll say this, I loved opening night.  We had friends who spent days in line to buy tickets.  My wife and I decided to wait and see it when it was less crowded.  But on opening night we changed our mind, and managed to find a theater that still had tickets available.  The energy was electrifying.  Star Wars fans everywhere, some in costume, it was awesome.  As far as the movie itself is concerned… well, the pod racing is kind of neat.  And that lightsaber fight is still one of the best scenes in the series.  But overall it’s a bit boring.

12. The Clone Wars:
I was going to just list the live action movies, but I figured, hey, I saw Clone Wars in the theater, I might as well put it on the list.  As a pilot for the TV series, it was serviceable, but the decision to release it theatrically was baffling.  There is no reason a movie about rescuing Jabba’s baby should have made it to the theaters.  Also?  I didn’t care for the CGI style they used, where everybody looked like they were carved out of wood.  I prefer the earlier, “Samurai Jack”-style Clone Wars cartoons.

Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker (Spoiler Free)

Star Wars has always been divisive.  Starting with the Great Ewok Divide of 1983, Star Wars fans have always been at each other’s throats.  Special Editions?  Broken fan base.  Prequels?  Broken fan base.  Disney resetting the expanded universe?  Force Awakens being a little too similar to A New Hope?  Rogue One’s CGI actors?  Solo’s overindulgence in fan service?  Each one broke the fan base a little bit more.  And The Last Jedi was probably the most divisive of all.  At this point, Star Wars fandom is divided into so many splinter groups, you can’t even find a Star Wars conversation online that doesn’t devolve into name calling and Force choking.

I went into Rise of Skywalker with high hopes.  I’d read a few reviews that called it disappointing, but I don’t think those reviewers really get Star Wars.  They said it was predictable, didn’t break enough new ground, and undid too much of The Last Jedi’s progress.  Knowing these potential shortcomings going in, I was prepared for a fun romp with lots of cool action scenes, but that doesn’t blow me away with originality.  So, how did it measure up to my expectations?

I loved it.  It had lots of action, great special effects, and it wrapped up this trilogy quite nicely.  And what's more, I actually like The Last Jedi a bit more now, now that I can see where things were going.  If I have one complaint about The Rise of Skywalker, it's that it's damn near exhausting.  There's almost no downtime, no good time for a bathroom break, and it jumps from scene to scene so quickly at times that my brain was still processing events from three scenes ago. 

It's two hours and twenty one minutes, but it still feels over-edited in places, like they wanted to guarantee we wouldn't get bored.  Which is not to say it's all action.  But even the expositional scenes kept up the pace.  After watching the world's slowest car chase in space in The Last Jedi, this movie really sped things up. 

The reviewers who called it “disappointing” mostly complained about what wasn’t in the movie, and I don’t like that.   Always review a movie for what it is, not what it isn’t.  It’s true that Rise of Skywalker commits the same sins as Force Awakens – it retreads too much on past ground, and it doesn’t do much new or clever with the series.  Oh darn.  I wish the prequels had been that “disappointing.”

…So I’m torn here.  On the one hand, I think everyone is entitled to their opinion.  We all want different things out of movies, and one person’s trash is another ones treasure, yada yada yada.  But… This a fantastic movie.  It has everything I want out of a Star Wars film.  And if you don’t like it, then I don’t like you.