Rise of Skywalker Official Discussion thread -spoilers allowed-

[7,052,770]

Haven't seen the Movie but by all Accounts not worth spending a dime. Abrams has created a massive cluster just by the Reviews I read.

Don’t trust the critics they loved the last Jedi while the audience hated it . The audience score on rotten tomatoes for The Rise of Skywalker is 86% while the audience score for the Last Jedi was 43%(critic score was 91%)

Pretty much every "audience score" is faked by fans or haters mass skewing the ratings though.

[Roblox]

I would contest the idea there was nowhere to go after TLJ. JJ could've explored Kylo Ren as supreme leader, the galaxy responding to Luke's Sacrifice, or the implication of more force sensitive people across the galaxy. If anything, there was more of an open playing field than a corner to write in.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Haven't seen the Movie but by all Accounts not worth spending a dime. Abrams has created a massive cluster just by the Reviews I read.

Don’t trust the critics they loved the last Jedi while the audience hated it . The audience score on rotten tomatoes for The Rise of Skywalker is 86% while the audience score for the Last Jedi was 43%(critic score was 91%)

Pretty much every "audience score" is faked by fans or haters mass skewing the ratings though.

Yes die hard Star Wars fans hated the last Jedi while on the other hand they didn’t like Rise of Skywalker a lot , thought it was still ok .

[Progressive Pessimist]

I would contest the idea there was nowhere to go after TLJ. JJ could've explored Kylo Ren as supreme leader, the galaxy responding to Luke's Sacrifice, or the implication of more force sensitive people across the galaxy. If anything, there was more of an open playing field than a corner to write in.

That would have been the most sensible way to go, but it probably wouldn't have been the most exciting. Abrams and Terrio seemed to want to be as grandiose as possible with the final entry into the "Skywalker Saga."

[OSR stands with Israel]

JJ should have just directed all 3 movies. The fact is this could have been episode 8 if that happened:


- The first act of the movie centers around Rey training with Luke, and Kylo training in Vader's castle on Mustafar on Snoke's orders. During this time you see the bond between Rey and Kylo happen just like OTL

- The second act of the movie centers around Luke retuning to the resistance and us seeing his full powers unleashed, and with Rey going to challenge Kylo but would surprisingly realize its a trap and would be captured by Snoke

- The third act would happen very similarly to OTL with Kylo killing Snoke and Rey and Snoke killing Snoke guards as well and Rey escaping. Just like OTL, Kylo now supreme leader would pursue Rey and find the resistance base but this time with a far larger fleet and once he sees Luke we would see him even more enraged just like OTL and order the entrie fleet to fire at Luke, but now Luke having reached his full potnetial would not only block the fleet's attacks but destroy the entire fleet with the exception of Kylo's ship.


Kylo then even more enraged would try to kill him with his lightsaber, but Luke would easily defeat Kylo without even igniting his lightsaber but just as about he is about to kill Kylo, he senses the future and allows Kylo to kill him which allows the Reisisetnece to fully escape as well.


This is how the movie would end : A Hologram of Palpatine would suddenly appear in Snoke's flagship and Palaptine would tell him that he not Kylo killed Snoke and would tell him to kill Rey. Kylo would then ask Palaptine why and he would say because the girl is my grandaughter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I saw it today, and as a standalone film, I thought it was good. The problem is, it's not a standalone film, it's a Star Wars film. There's an established Force canon that it largely ignored in ways as bad as the introduction of midichlorians in the prequels.

Take for example, Force healing, having Rey pull that ability out of nowhere was terrible canon-wise, yet if it had been around before, there would've been no need for Vader to be stuck in his suit. So, in the context of the film alone, it wasn't a problem, but its effects on the entirety of Star Wars it is a major problem.

[brucejoel99]

I saw it today, and as a standalone film, I thought it was good. The problem is, it's not a standalone film, it's a Star Wars film. There's an established Force canon that it largely ignored in ways as bad as the introduction of midichlorians in the prequels.

Take for example, Force healing, having Rey pull that ability out of nowhere was terrible canon-wise, yet if it had been around before, there would've been no need for Vader to be stuck in his suit. So, in the context of the film alone, it wasn't a problem, but its effects on the entirety of Star Wars it is a major problem.

Again, since when do interesting new ways in which the Force can work contrast with "established Force canon"? Indeed, the movies literally serve (& always have served) as the "establishment" of further Force canon, not least because the Force has always been something (literally, since the OT) that can work however the writers want it to.

And I myself thought that the ways introduced within TROS were quite good.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I saw it today, and as a standalone film, I thought it was good. The problem is, it's not a standalone film, it's a Star Wars film. There's an established Force canon that it largely ignored in ways as bad as the introduction of midichlorians in the prequels.

Take for example, Force healing, having Rey pull that ability out of nowhere was terrible canon-wise, yet if it had been around before, there would've been no need for Vader to be stuck in his suit. So, in the context of the film alone, it wasn't a problem, but its effects on the entirety of Star Wars it is a major problem.

Again, since when do interesting new ways in which the Force can work contrast with "established Force canon?" Indeed, the movies literally serve as the "establishment" of further Force canon, not least because the Force has always been something (literally, since the OT) that can work however the writers want it to.

And I myself thought that the ways introduced within TROS were quite good.

I already pointed out the problem with Force healing. As I said, it worked well for a standalone film, but it wasn't a standalone film, was it. The Force is essentially a science fantasy version of magic, and from a dramatic POV magic (and other superpowers) need to have well defined limits. Those limits can be different in different fictional works.

[Robert California]

Big ol’ plate of ambiguity with some key things in need of recognition:

1. Obviously, I am glad that Ben finally got to make out with his dream girl, something that had been building since VII.
2. The overall romantic ambiguity of the films (incl multiple about-faces) is almost interesting only in that it likely mirrors our own universe in present-day.
3. Stupid, stupid, stupid. The Galaxy is now exactly where we left it in VI. The evil guys are overthrown. Everyone is happy. There is now one Jedi. We’ve already seen that this doesn’t play out well, but apparently no filmmakers are going to try to answer the question of what you do with a Galaxy when you’re now too dog following a 20 (then ~50) year civil war.

[Morgan Kingsley]

JJ should have just directed all 3 movies. The fact is this could have been episode 8 if that happened:


- The first act of the movie centers around Rey training with Luke, and Kylo training in Vader's castle on Mustafar on Snoke's orders. During this time you see the bond between Rey and Kylo happen just like OTL

- The second act of the movie centers around Luke retuning to the resistance and us seeing his full powers unleashed, and with Rey going to challenge Kylo but would surprisingly realize its a trap and would be captured by Snoke

- The third act would happen very similarly to OTL with Kylo killing Snoke and Rey and Snoke killing Snoke guards as well and Rey escaping. Just like OTL, Kylo now supreme leader would pursue Rey and find the resistance base but this time with a far larger fleet and once he sees Luke we would see him even more enraged just like OTL and order the entrie fleet to fire at Luke, but now Luke having reached his full potnetial would not only block the fleet's attacks but destroy the entire fleet with the exception of Kylo's ship.


Kylo then even more enraged would try to kill him with his lightsaber, but Luke would easily defeat Kylo without even igniting his lightsaber but just as about he is about to kill Kylo, he senses the future and allows Kylo to kill him which allows the Reisisetnece to fully escape as well.


This is how the movie would end : A Hologram of Palpatine would suddenly appear in Snoke's flagship and Palaptine would tell him that he not Kylo killed Snoke and would tell him to kill Rey. Kylo would then ask Palaptine why and he would say because the girl is my grandaughter.

I appreciate you trying, but this trilogy was already doomed from the start

[Mr. Smith]

JJ should have just directed all 3 movies. The fact is this could have been episode 8 if that happened:


- The first act of the movie centers around Rey training with Luke, and Kylo training in Vader's castle on Mustafar on Snoke's orders. During this time you see the bond between Rey and Kylo happen just like OTL

- The second act of the movie centers around Luke retuning to the resistance and us seeing his full powers unleashed, and with Rey going to challenge Kylo but would surprisingly realize its a trap and would be captured by Snoke

- The third act would happen very similarly to OTL with Kylo killing Snoke and Rey and Snoke killing Snoke guards as well and Rey escaping. Just like OTL, Kylo now supreme leader would pursue Rey and find the resistance base but this time with a far larger fleet and once he sees Luke we would see him even more enraged just like OTL and order the entrie fleet to fire at Luke, but now Luke having reached his full potnetial would not only block the fleet's attacks but destroy the entire fleet with the exception of Kylo's ship.


Kylo then even more enraged would try to kill him with his lightsaber, but Luke would easily defeat Kylo without even igniting his lightsaber but just as about he is about to kill Kylo, he senses the future and allows Kylo to kill him which allows the Reisisetnece to fully escape as well.


This is how the movie would end : A Hologram of Palpatine would suddenly appear in Snoke's flagship and Palaptine would tell him that he not Kylo killed Snoke and would tell him to kill Rey. Kylo would then ask Palaptine why and he would say because the girl is my grandaughter.

I appreciate you trying, but this trilogy was already doomed from the start

Yeah, they needed a definite road-map, which would've been solved if they had just kept Lucas' story...but any kind of Kevin Feige-esque figure could've done it.

That said, just having Rey be Luke's kid or grandkid would've solved a lot of issues.

[Devout Centrist]

JJ should have just directed all 3 movies. The fact is this could have been episode 8 if that happened:


- The first act of the movie centers around Rey training with Luke, and Kylo training in Vader's castle on Mustafar on Snoke's orders. During this time you see the bond between Rey and Kylo happen just like OTL

- The second act of the movie centers around Luke retuning to the resistance and us seeing his full powers unleashed, and with Rey going to challenge Kylo but would surprisingly realize its a trap and would be captured by Snoke

- The third act would happen very similarly to OTL with Kylo killing Snoke and Rey and Snoke killing Snoke guards as well and Rey escaping. Just like OTL, Kylo now supreme leader would pursue Rey and find the resistance base but this time with a far larger fleet and once he sees Luke we would see him even more enraged just like OTL and order the entrie fleet to fire at Luke, but now Luke having reached his full potnetial would not only block the fleet's attacks but destroy the entire fleet with the exception of Kylo's ship.


Kylo then even more enraged would try to kill him with his lightsaber, but Luke would easily defeat Kylo without even igniting his lightsaber but just as about he is about to kill Kylo, he senses the future and allows Kylo to kill him which allows the Reisisetnece to fully escape as well.


This is how the movie would end : A Hologram of Palpatine would suddenly appear in Snoke's flagship and Palaptine would tell him that he not Kylo killed Snoke and would tell him to kill Rey. Kylo would then ask Palaptine why and he would say because the girl is my grandaughter.

I appreciate you trying, but this trilogy was already doomed from the start

Yeah, they needed a definite road-map, which would've been solved if they had just kept Lucas' story...but any kind of Kevin Feige-esque figure could've done it.

That said, just having Rey be Luke's kid or grandkid would've solved a lot of issues.

But isn't this Lucas's story? I don't think these films deviate very far from the plotline Lucas originally constructed.

JJ should have just directed all 3 movies. The fact is this could have been episode 8 if that happened:


- The first act of the movie centers around Rey training with Luke, and Kylo training in Vader's castle on Mustafar on Snoke's orders. During this time you see the bond between Rey and Kylo happen just like OTL

- The second act of the movie centers around Luke retuning to the resistance and us seeing his full powers unleashed, and with Rey going to challenge Kylo but would surprisingly realize its a trap and would be captured by Snoke

- The third act would happen very similarly to OTL with Kylo killing Snoke and Rey and Snoke killing Snoke guards as well and Rey escaping. Just like OTL, Kylo now supreme leader would pursue Rey and find the resistance base but this time with a far larger fleet and once he sees Luke we would see him even more enraged just like OTL and order the entrie fleet to fire at Luke, but now Luke having reached his full potnetial would not only block the fleet's attacks but destroy the entire fleet with the exception of Kylo's ship.


Kylo then even more enraged would try to kill him with his lightsaber, but Luke would easily defeat Kylo without even igniting his lightsaber but just as about he is about to kill Kylo, he senses the future and allows Kylo to kill him which allows the Reisisetnece to fully escape as well.


This is how the movie would end : A Hologram of Palpatine would suddenly appear in Snoke's flagship and Palaptine would tell him that he not Kylo killed Snoke and would tell him to kill Rey. Kylo would then ask Palaptine why and he would say because the girl is my grandaughter.

Boy, thank God you didn't direct Episode 8!

[Orser67]

3. Stupid, stupid, stupid. The Galaxy is now exactly where we left it in VI. The evil guys are overthrown. Everyone is happy. There is now one Jedi. We’ve already seen that this doesn’t play out well, but apparently no filmmakers are going to try to answer the question of what you do with a Galaxy when you’re now too dog following a 20 (then ~50) year civil war.

Yeah, this is one of my two major issues with the sequel trilogy (along with a general dislike for much of Episode 8). Episode 7 basically reset the galaxy to where it was at the end of Episode 4, and Episode 9 reset the galaxy to where it was at the end of Episode 6.

[Mr. Smith]

3. Stupid, stupid, stupid. The Galaxy is now exactly where we left it in VI. The evil guys are overthrown. Everyone is happy. There is now one Jedi. We’ve already seen that this doesn’t play out well, but apparently no filmmakers are going to try to answer the question of what you do with a Galaxy when you’re now too dog following a 20 (then ~50) year civil war.

Yeah, this is one of my two major issues with the sequel trilogy (along with a general dislike for much of Episode . Episode 7 basically reset the galaxy to where it was at the end of Episode 4, and Episode 9 reset the galaxy to where it was at the end of Episode 6.

This is what happens when original premises are thought out...and lambasted by the fans!

[Robert California]

3. Stupid, stupid, stupid. The Galaxy is now exactly where we left it in VI. The evil guys are overthrown. Everyone is happy. There is now one Jedi. We’ve already seen that this doesn’t play out well, but apparently no filmmakers are going to try to answer the question of what you do with a Galaxy when you’re now too dog following a 20 (then ~50) year civil war.

Yeah, this is one of my two major issues with the sequel trilogy (along with a general dislike for much of Episode . Episode 7 basically reset the galaxy to where it was at the end of Episode 4, and Episode 9 reset the galaxy to where it was at the end of Episode 6.

Since first watching A New Hope 3.0, I’ve been very much of the mind that the central challenge of a hypothetical sequel trilogy ought to have been about the attempt to reestablish order in the Galaxy. My personal preference was in a scenario (which I have fleshed out previously) that ended somewhat tragically—with Luke ruling a nominal republic as a Napoleonic figure, the attempts to reestablish constitutionalism and rule of law consensually having failed. This need not be purely “political” as it could easily involve battle scenes, rebuilding the Jedi (or attempting to), and fighting off new breeds of Dark Side Force users (of necessity, though, would be the tense Senate meetings where a Chancellor Leia Organa-Solo attempts to whip complacent and divided pols into a body of some worth, battling corruption, neo-imperialists, and local elites).

[Orser67]

I've been reading Star Wars: Bloodline, which is set a few years before TFA. It focuses on Leia and the political dysfunction of the New Republic. It's not bad, but the author made the unfortunate choice of naming the two factions "Centrists" and "Populists".

[Zohran "The Sword of Islam" Mamdani]

Or or or, you could just not s**t on most movie-goers (& their tastes) simply because they wanna sit back & enjoy some spectacle for a couple hours.

I'm sorry, but this was never an option. I am aggressively unsympathetic to this argument, and I have no patience for the "movies are just supposed to be fun" excuse-making by Marvel, DC, and Star Wars fans these days. I do not think they have any right to claim that their sense of "spectacle" is somehow more accurate or valid than mine. I do not accept that "fun" must come at the expense of coherent plotting, basic character development, and dialogue that doesn't make my sphincter pucker up in disgust. I object to the idea that a movie must be tailored to the lowest common denominator in order for it to succeed. My point is that there is currently no incentive for writers or directors to do better because audiences are not providing that incentive. So long as they continue to pay money to see special effects in movies with their favorite logos on the poster, the studios will continue to put less and less effort into every other aspect of the films. That is having a direct effect on the quality of the movies being made today. I want stupid people to stop watching movies because they're making them suck.

You can't say Hollywood is losing creativity because of the top-grossing films. There's no correlation there. The correlation here is between top-grossing movies & what people will pay to see. Yes, these were the most fiscally successful movies of that year, but I don't think that anyone who's a true fan of film as an art form will argue that Pirates of the Caribbean or Marvel or even Star Wars are the most fulfilling movies out there. They're just the movies that everyone paid to go see. A night of entertainment, if you will, as opposed to a night of serious critical study like some of us do in our own homes.

I am not saying that everyone should be watching """serious""" movies and doing critical studies of The Seventh Seal every night for entertainment. My point is that high-grossing movies weren't always remakes. Rain Man was the highest-grossing movie in America for a few weeks. Do you honestly think a film like that would be hitting the top of the box office charts if it were released today? A quick look at the data shows that 88%(!) of the highest-grossing movies in 2019 were remakes, sequels, or adaptations, up from 75% in 2016. I'm not saying that Hollywood is losing creativity. Obviously, good independent and small-budget films are still being made. But the taste of the general public has shifted from "quality" to "brand recognition," and my data illustrates that.

As to why this is, there are many factors. These are the movies people choose to shell money out for to see in theaters for a reason: they're familiar. Familiar is good. Hollywood is a business, first & foremost, & selling your product is the most important thing possible. Especially when your product costs you upwards of $200 million to produce & has roughly a couple of months to make it back in spades. With that in mind, is the suit whose job it is to greenlight a movie to spend $200 million on going to choose the new Charlie Kaufman script or Terrence Malicks' new project? Or are they gonna try & use that money to lure Johnny Depp back into his pirate costume even though another sequel isn't really necessary? He chooses the latter. Why? Because, as parents of 3 (equaling 5 tickets in 1 person's decision), are you gonna take your family to see an introspective & mind-blowing film that may be very pretty but also very confusing? Or are you gonna take them to see characters they're familiar with in a big-budget sequel that'll make them laugh, make them feel, & make them excited? After paying $10+ per ticket & the ridiculous concessions prices, you're damn right people are gonna choose a film that they know will be entertaining. And who could blame them?

Who the hell brought up Kaufman or Malick? Again, I am not comparing these godawful franchise films to Badlands or Adaptation. I am comparing them to the high-grossing movies of the 1970s and 80s, which were generally not sequels, prequels, reboots, soft reboots, se-boots, or soft se-boot re-boot prequels. I have nothing against action movies, high-grossing blockbusters, or box office hits. My point is that, while a movie's success or failure at the box office used to generally depend upon a number of factors like word-of-mouth, critical reception, and repeat viewings, the box office hits of today are more or less a foregone conclusion. Their success is dependent upon branding, which means that the incentive for studios is to acquire more brands, not to produce quality films. Also, you don't get to excuse this as a result of family-oriented programming-- are people having more kids these days, thus increasing the demand for family entertainment? No. The driving force behind these movies are mentally stunted man-babies. The children you speak of are far more open to new experiences than the average Star Wars fan.

Advertising also has a lot to do with this, but it's for the same reasons. Advertising costs a s**t ton of money. Getting the trailer in front of the biggest releases months before the movie is released, countless TV spots, product placement (buy a pack of Dr. Pepper, why can't I hold all of these Marvel characters!?), internet space (go to IMDB.com & the background will surely be an elaborate ad for the newest big-budget film), & so on & so forth. It's all for the same reason. The studios are gonna advertise a movie that they know advertises itself. Spending all that money on advertising a philosophical film wouldn't pay off the same as advertising the new Star Wars.

"Hey, average movie-goer! I heard Tree of Life is great! And by heard it's great, I mean it has been pumped into my brain everywhere I look for the past month."

"Oh, hey other average movie-goer. I saw it. It was confusing, long, & I have no sense of beauty outside explosions, so I didn't enjoy it. Ignore all millions of dollars worth of advertising they pumped into you & go see the new Deadpool movie. It has dick jokes in it."

I responded to this basic argument above. Once again, this is not about Terrence Malick and I am not here to shill for low-budget art films. I'm talking about movies that perform well at the box office-- the films that make or break studios and create the profit incentives for each major project they green-light. And because moviegoers right now are so conditioned to value brands over characters, plot, dialogue, and story, the studios are incentivized to slap brand names on things and assume that the livestock will eat the slop no matter what's in it (which they will). It is possible for a high-grossing movie to also be original, as we know from the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

So, yeah, voting with their wallets. I realize this is less of a voting process & more of a mathematical process for the studio. If we get handsome & well-known actor & actress X & Y to do a sequel to ABC, even though there's no artistic need for a sequel, & if we then spend N on advertising, then we'll make all of those letters back plus the rest of the alphabet too. But we still do technically vote with our wallets. I would've never seen a Twilight movie in theaters, but millions of people did. Just like millions of people voted for Trump in 2016. Which means that Twilight made a s**t ton of money, & Trump became president. It doesn't matter if I voted for them; it matters what the masses did. Sometimes, I'm a part of those masses, & sometimes, I'm not. This year I went and saw Knives Out in theaters. Then I went and saw The Rise of Skywalker. In one situation, I was the masses; in the other, I was not. Both were great movies in their own right. Only one has the potential to break any box-office records.

So, is all of this a bad thing? Not really. Hollywood has perfected a money making formula. That money goes a lot of places. To the studios, who make more big-budget movies & make more money. To the actors, who now have the financial freedom to perfect their art. Look at Shia LaBeouf. He made a TON of money doing Micheal Bay movies, & then he was done. He's spent his time doing artistic indie movies, the kind of "original films" that you wanna see. And because of his name, they'd get more attention than they would've otherwise. Or Ryan Gosling. Gosling made a s**t ton of money because he did big budget movies & I, as a straight male, wanna have sex with him. Now, he gets to write scripts of his own. These are the "original movies" you wanna see, made possible by big-budget movies. Also, for every incredibly successful super box-office hit, a studio has the freedom to greenlight a couple of original works that may be a slightly bigger gamble as well as make the next big thing. Kind of like that idea that, if a popular director does a big-budget movie, the studio then lets them do whatever movie they want to make next in return for having made them such assloads of money, a-la Inception.

I'm going to skip all of this because it's the same misunderstanding of my argument that I responded to earlier.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I've been reading Star Wars: Bloodline, which is set a few years before TFA. It focuses on Leia and the political dysfunction of the New Republic. It's not bad, but the author made the unfortunate choice of naming the two factions "Centrists" and "Populists".

Ew! Hard pass!

I hate that the world-building for this trilogy got relegated to other sources. I hate when any important information to the films gets treated that way! Better world-building would have given this trilogy more legs to stand on, but alas failing at that and planning it out properly doomed it from the start.

[Devout Centrist]

Who the hell brought up Kaufman or Malick? Again, I am not comparing these godawful franchise films to Badlands or Adaptation. I am comparing them to the high-grossing movies of the 1970s and 80s, which were generally not sequels, prequels, reboots, soft reboots, se-boots, or soft se-boot re-boot prequels.

Does this include adaptations?

[Blue3]

I've been reading Star Wars: Bloodline, which is set a few years before TFA. It focuses on Leia and the political dysfunction of the New Republic. It's not bad, but the author made the unfortunate choice of naming the two factions "Centrists" and "Populists".

What's wrong with that?

[Mr. Smith]

It just occurred to me that there was barely any lightsaber action this time around.

I was okay with it in The Force Awakens, because Rey and Finn were both novices and it was the beginning of the journey...also it was carbon copy of another film that only had one short fight.

But then came The Last Jedi, which only had The Throne Room, and I'll note that it wasn't even a saber fight in the purest sense, and the choreography was absolutely terrible. Could've had Luke actually fight Kylo and go down in an Obi-Wan moment...instead of the troll act he actually did. Could've

Finally, instead of finally upping the ante...the one saber fight we had looked just like the clumsy fight from The Force Awakens, which kinda once again puts Rey's development into question. If Rey really is powerful enough to hold "all the Jedi", you'd think she wouldn't make all the same kinda mistakes she made a novice I get that McDiarmid was perhaps too old to plausibly have Rey take on The Emperor in that sense, but something could've been done.

[BP🌹]

Take for example, Force healing, having Rey pull that ability out of nowhere was terrible canon-wise, yet if it had been around before, there would've been no need for Vader to be stuck in his suit. So, in the context of the film alone, it wasn't a problem, but its effects on the entirety of Star Wars it is a major problem.

There is precedent for force healing, albeit in the Legends timeline. In fact, it was a specialty among some Jedi.

Upon further research, in the main canon, it seems that it's unique to force dyads.

[Orser67]

I've been reading Star Wars: Bloodline, which is set a few years before TFA. It focuses on Leia and the political dysfunction of the New Republic. It's not bad, but the author made the unfortunate choice of naming the two factions "Centrists" and "Populists".

What's wrong with that?

My issue is that I'm sick of hearing the term "populist" in real life, and I wish it wasn't used in Star Wars. I also think that a better term for the party would emphasize their key position, which is their opposition to a centralized government.

The two major parties are actually kinda similar to the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The Centralists favor a strong centralized government with a powerful executive and a powerful military, are ambivalent towards the empire (sort of like what the Federalists felt towards Britain), and generally seem to represent the richer worlds that are more connected to the galactic economy. The Populists loathe the empire, are suspicious of a large military, favor planetary independence over a strong central government, and generally seem to represent more isolated and rural worlds.

[Zohran "The Sword of Islam" Mamdani]

I've been reading Star Wars: Bloodline, which is set a few years before TFA. It focuses on Leia and the political dysfunction of the New Republic. It's not bad, but the author made the unfortunate choice of naming the two factions "Centrists" and "Populists".

What's wrong with that?

My issue is that I'm sick of hearing the term "populist" in real life, and I wish it wasn't used in Star Wars. I also think that a better term for the party would emphasize their key position, which is their opposition to a centralized government.

The two major parties are actually kinda similar to the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The Centralists favor a strong centralized government with a powerful executive and a powerful military, are ambivalent towards the empire (sort of like what the Federalists felt towards Britain), and generally seem to represent the richer worlds that are more connected to the galactic economy. The Populists loathe the empire, are suspicious of a large military, favor planetary independence over a strong central government, and generally seem to represent more isolated and rural worlds.

Princess Leia: #PopulistHero

[Illiniwek]

As someone who didn’t grow up watching the films, I thought this movie, and the whole trilogy did just fine. I’m still not going to say it was a favorite movie of mine, but I was thoroughly entertained. I’d watch any of the recent trilogy movies over any of the prequel movies and would probably enjoy them more than any of the original movies.