Star Wars Editor Marcia Lucas Slams Kathleen Kennedy and J.J. Abrams’ Sequel Trilogy: “Just Terrible, Awful”

Endgame said:
We also see in Ep 2 that deflecting blaster bolts isn't guaranteed - sometimes Jedi miss.
Click to expand...
They can get overwhelmed by excessive volume of fire too. They aren't infallible which is part of the reason why the sequel trilogy is so hard to watch. Even in Return of the Jedi, Luke fails to deflect a blaster bolt which hits him in his cybernetic hand. Rey, makes no mistakes. The one time she thought she did, it turned out that she was mistaken.

That's literally what passes for writing in the sequel trilogy.
Uvilla said:
I love when star wars discussions get technical/s Star wars is bad sci fi, perhaps the worst sci fi. However the original have a lot of everything else going for it. .. this last trilogy have nothing going for it but polished visuals and sound. Everything else is plain garbage, expensive looking and sounding garbage, but garbage.
Click to expand...
Oh, there is worse. Try watching series 11 and 12 of Doctor Who. The sequel trilogy is almost a masterpiece comparatively. Star Wars has always played it loose with the physics and science in general. The stories never covered how things worked, just that they did. It was about spectacle and grandeur. However, Star Wars was at least internally consistent. It did have a set of rules that were followed to make sure the films had consistent portrayal of technology. This was even true for the prequel era. While everything was different stylistically, it was at least basically the same as what came after.

The Force Awakens hasn't been panned as hard by fans as the subsequent movies, despite being more idiotic than people noticed. Even it's badly written. Here is an example of what I mean:

The sequel trilogy now has a Death Star the size of a planet that somehow fires a huge beam by draining a star to do it. The problem is, when you siphon off a star's mass like that, it's going to either expand into a red giant phase and destroy your planet sized death star, or the ****ing thing will supernova and destroy your death star planet thing. Then the beam somehow travels faster than light and then splits up to hit like five planets at once.

For some reason, the entire New Republic government is based in a system with three to five inhabitable planets that all get hit at once. That was sure convenient for the First Order. Why would a galactic civilization put all their government and military leaders in a single star system? How does this system have five inhabitable planets in it? What are the odds of that? Was it terraformed that way? It was sure lucky that the beam had a straight shot to hit all of them at the right time without the system's star or some other celestial object being in the way or something.

How did they make a beam that travels faster than light and split apart just in time to hit all its targets? Remember, the beam fired from the unknown regions or unexplored region of the galaxy all the way to the Galactic Core worlds. It's also worth noting that the Star Wars Galaxy is roughly twice the size of our own at nearly 200,000 light years across.
1632257271624.png

Star Wars may have always been bad on the science part of science fiction but again, at least it was consistent and the rules were easily understood. The main draw to Star Wars beyond its visual style was its story and character work. Yeah, the dialog is cheesy in places but the character work is fantastic. Luke's hero's journey is both entertaining and compelling. It's formulaic, but there is a reason why its survived in literature, film and TV for this long. It ****ing works.

The sequel trilogy, doesn't have a good story. It has no character arcs. No character development. It has plots that are driven by contrivances and sheer coincidences. The Force is used as a simple McGuffin to do whatever the writers need it to. It's all flash with absolutely no substance. There's a place for that sort of thing, I won't deny that. Look at a lot of your big budget MCU flicks. They are about as deep as a kiddie pool with a hole in it.

That being said, they entertain a lot of people. The sequel trilogy doesn't do that for many because it's badly written, breaks Star Wars canon, mistreats beloved legacy characters and even insults the intelligence of the audience. People are often stupid creatures but even American audiences are sophisticated enough to know that its a pile of ****.
 
Dan, you really hit the f*cking nail on the head with all you have stated thus far. Your posts will help me more easily explain this whole Ep7-9 train wreck to a bunch of people.
 
Last edited:
Paul_Johnson said:
And I thought that was the worst thing Star Wars could do.....then 7, 8, and 9 came out. Now, I miss Jar-Jar and the Midichlorians BS.
Click to expand...
I agree. I had rewatched them right around the time when Disney+ came out just so I could see them in 4k and I had no intention of buying them again. At first, I was like, these have not aged well, except for my favorite scene with Obi and Jango in the asteroid belt. I recently rewatched them again about 2 months ago and they actually seemed uplifting after surviving this mess. I was able to stomach all the kid stuff George shoveled out and enjoy it. One of these days I still want to make a custom edit of Ep2 with some of the deleted scenes restored. There are a few good ones. I'd also like to do the same for Phantom menace with the even more extended pod race that's on the bonus DVD(still got it even though I hated the movie). At the time I didn't like the pod race either but in my later years its growing on me.
 
Brian_B said:
Midichlorians.
Click to expand...
I don't recall them saying too much about it other than the midichlorian count having to do with anything beyond measuring potential power levels. That said, I always thought of this as the biological difference between those who could use the Force and those who couldn't. That is, it is the biological mechanism that allows some people to use the force. It also explains how the ability to use it is hereditary.

I didn't like this mechanism either and wish they had never done it. I never said the movies were without fault and that's why I stated they were "mostly consistent" rather than "100% consistent."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top