The Last Jedi The Biggest Problem with The Last Jedi is The Force Awakens.

[Patchwork Man]

I still feel like JJ dropped the ball with Finn in TFA.
RJ tried to salvage him, but Finn was already set for a bad course.

Lets hope 9 can try to do better, but it may already be too late.

They could have set him up sooooooooo much better.

He's a former Storm Trooper who defected and never got any real hint of trauma outside of his first mission. Instead he was just the scary and silly guy. So much so that I've lost interest in what happens to him now.

They did better here, but its up to JJ to right his wrongs.

Finn was doomed as soon as he revealed he was part of the Sanitation Dept.

 

[DeadStroke]

Found this post on another forum. I agree.

- Well the thing is that Rian Johnson build an Arc for Finn.


If you watch The Force Awakens Finn was still running from everything and his only link to anything was Rey. What Rian does in this movie is develop Finn character more and create an attachment to something.

That is why that stupid Casino Sequence is there...

Because in that Mission, Finn thanks to Rose begin to see what The Resistance stands for and why Rose and her sister have given their entire life to this fight againts injustice an inequality around the galaxy.

After he deserted the First Order. Finn was searching freedom. But he became sort of a coward. Sort of a man running from things when they get ugly. So what this movie did with Finn was to make him a fighter that finally faces his fears and demons and defeat them.

So Finn thanks to that Casino Mission understands the ideals of the Resistance and ends up attaching to them. So now he has finally found a fight that he stands for. Something that is worth fighting for or even giving your life for.

That is when we got to that Captain Phasma scene. There Finn after finally finding his place has to go againts his demons again. Againts something he couldnt defeat before: Phasma. But this time around Finn alone has to deal with something he couldnt deal before and he does. Finn defeats Phasma...

And what Phasma says between the fight explain it all:

"You are a mistake in the system" .... "You are scumbag".

In another words. Finn is fighting the fact that he is a nobody. A nobody that doesnt has to be forever a nobody that become somebody by his own means... And by the end Finn just correct Phasma...

"Rebel Scumbag"...


Finn has accepted who he is and has finally found his place in life. Phasma fulfill his role in this Saga. His role was small and uneventful that is true. But his role did succed in developing Finn that is what matters and what he was created for...

 

[TheVileOne]

It wasn't scumbag. It was scum, lol.

 

[batman1]

There are always possibilities, and very good writing may be able to salvage part 3.

But there are legitimate issues because this movie didn't really do what part 2 should do, which is develop the conflict and add complexity. The reason being that it is more interested in ending Luke's story than anything else.

Kylo seemed for a moment like he was going to come into his own as a villain, but then he is immediately humiliated to give Luke his hero's moment. He may be powerful, but I'm not sure how anyone in the first order can possibly avoid laughing at him behind his back after that.

Rey wasn't developed at all. She's a person with Force powers after 2 movies. Or a reflection of Kylo. Which is a little humiliating, tbh. I think they will have to get rid of that.

Luke, Han and Leia are all out of the picture, so no more relying on them. Granted, Leia not being around is a result of tragic circumstances.

The rebel characters (Finn, Rose and Poe) are probably in the best place, since they are a solid group and are more or less where they should be at this point in the story. Ready to light the spark of rebellion.

But the main characters are Kylo and Rey, and both were sacrificed on the alter of Luke. Kylo is ridiculous, and Rey is either a non-entity, or a mirror of Kylo. Or both.

EXactly. This trilogy is all over the place.

 

[godisawesome]

Found this post on another forum. I agree.

And I'm of the opinion that TFA did a much better job with Finn on everything, and that TLJ dropped the ball on its message out of a love of space horses and one the few moments where Rian Johnson mostly told instead of showed:

-TFA visually showed Finn change through the film on a much greater level than TLJ from his panicked epiphany about how he won't be a killer for the First Order, to his growing care for Rey, his panic over her being captured, and eventually his willingness to charge Kylo Ren when he knows it's hopeles. I also can't help but feel that TFA had subtly moved Finn past just being about Rey; he runs to Han when the Hosnian System gets blown up, well before he finds out anything about Rey. So the initial starting point of TLJ already makes me a bit leery; it's not full character regression, but it is underselling and ignoring inconvenient creative decisions (like Luke leaving a map behind when he wants to die in the middle of nowhere.)
-There's also the fact that it seems one of the deleted scenes showed exactly what I though would be the perfect encapsulation of Finn's arc; encountering old compatriots aboard the Supremacy, trying to get them to join him, and then Phasma kills them. Here's the deal; that entire scenario shows RJ was aware of the dramatic potential to illustrate his point in a visceral and on-scene fashion. Phasma becomes an actual despised enemy. We're reminded that Stormtroopers are just as much a victim of the FO as they are, and Finn's given a more concrete flesh and blood reason to think beyond himself. If this scene exists, than it should have been in the film well before kriffin' space horses.
-Finall, with Canto Bight... They missed a chance to show the FO taking over a planet with the upper crust's permission, and if you want to show little kids being exploited, show them being handed over to Phasma. It also does a better job of showing us how the upper crust and FO exploit the downtrodden, instead of having Kelly Marie Tran have to sell us with exposition.

 

[TheVileOne]

First Order forcefully recruiting the youth isn't much different than what the Jedi did when you get right down to it

All that deleted footage, if it does exist, definitely sounds like it would've added a lot more dramatic weight to the Finn subplot. Unfortunately, really good character stuff often gets sliced in service of keeping runtime shorter. This was already the longest Star Wars movie ever. They also probably cut Luke's third lesson for Rey, showing her run on the beach.

This had to involve Luke's third lesson for Rey, right?

 

[batman1]

Lol. What a mess.

 

[moviedoors]

Lol. What a mess.

A scene being cut doesn't indicate much of anything. It's business as usual for filmmaking.

 

[godisawesome]

It may just mean that the script had too many balls to juggle to cover effectively in actual live action. Which is where you get into questions about concept in plotting or feasibility in editing the actual movie. To me, Finn was more important and more intriguing than Poe, and I've got a suspicion that was the case in the original script for TLJ as well. But RJ was probably faced with questions about what content to cut and where, and found that Poe's comparatively simple plot was easier to keep largely intact, while his Finn plotline was chalk full of things that ultimately weren't intrinsic to the plot, so he cut it down to the things he wanted to keep.

Which is partially why I think the film has some plotting issues instead of script issues, per se. It's more like a dozen little problems that complain upon each other outside of the Force storyline that really aggravate the film's pacing and kind of shoot Finn's storyline.

 

[Sithborg]

Longer doesn't = better. For example, DOFP theatrical cut > Rogue cut.

 

[godisawesome]

Longer doesn't = better. For example, DOFP theatrical cut > Rogue cut.

Agreed. And that's also why I still think the plotting of the non-Force stuff is where it gets more shaky; you've only got so much screen time, and while the Luke, Ren and Rey stuff feels very well plotted overall (even if I have some issues with character motivation on a conceptual level or Rey's power), the chase sequence stuff and Finn's probably held most of the cut content, because it was simply too long and probably still suffered some pacing problems.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

First Order forcefully recruiting the youth isn't much different than what the Jedi did when you get right down to it

All that deleted footage, if it does exist, definitely sounds like it would've added a lot more dramatic weight to the Finn subplot. Unfortunately, really good character stuff often gets sliced in service of keeping runtime shorter. This was already the longest Star Wars movie ever. They also probably cut Luke's third lesson for Rey, showing her run on the beach.

This had to involve Luke's third lesson for Rey, right?

Something I had heard was that there was supposed to indeed by another lesson by Luke, but also something pertaining to the nuns on the island. The species in this case have the males separate from the females. At some point the males arrive and during this time the nuns and the males have a celebration. Luke and Rey take part in the celebration. During this celebration raiders come to the island to steal from the Jedi ruins, taking advantage of the celebration distracting everyone. I think Rey, or Rey and Luke fight off the raiders and this allows both the nuns and Luke to be much more accepting of Rey. I think this would have added to the reaction Luke had after he reconnects with the Force, when he sees Ben and Rey Force skyping each other. He had seen Rey was a good person willing to do what a Jedi is supposed to and then he has the rug pulled out from under him seeing her with his evil nephew.

But as you stated... It was already a long film and some things have to be sacrificed.

 

[Mjölnir]

Trust me, as a huge Batman fan, that right there is far, far worse than anything done to Luke in TLJ.

I'm not so sure I agree. The issue with Luke isn't really whether he would kill (he does kill a plenty of people), it's really whether he would instantly give up on his nephew. So both the big issues with Luke is really about him giving up and leaving others to suffer both his mistakes and stand without his help.

That's really going against the one thing that has been 100% consistent with Luke up until now. Batman has been portrayed as both killing and giving up in previous films so it can be seen as a lesser deal due to that.

 

[FunkMiller]

I'm not so sure I agree. The issue with Luke isn't really whether he would kill (he does kill a plenty of people), it's really whether he would instantly give up on his nephew. So both the big issues with Luke is really about him giving up and leaving others to suffer both his mistakes and stand without his help.

That's really going against the one thing that has been 100% consistent with Luke up until now. Batman has been portrayed as both killing and giving up in previous films so it can be seen as a lesser deal due to that.

Instantly? It’s pretty clear that over time Luke begins to suspect Ben is being seduced by the dark side, and that Snoke is corrupting him. I don’t think him going into Ben’s hut was a knee jerk reaction.

And Luke leaving is perfectly within keeping of a character who is ashamed of his mistakes and hubris.

Batman not killing is one of the absolute rock solid main cornerstones of the character throughout the years. Yes, he has killed, but few and far between, and it’s never been good. And also, Batfleck is dumb as **** in that movie - though that’s a discussion for another place.

 

[Mjölnir]

Instantly? It’s pretty clear that over time Luke begins to suspect Ben is being seduced by the dark side, and that Snoke is corrupting him. I don’t think him going into Ben’s hut was a knee jerk reaction.

And Luke leaving is perfectly within keeping of a character who is ashamed of his mistakes and hubris.

Batman not killing is one of the absolute rock solid main cornerstones of the character throughout the years. Yes, he has killed, but few and far between, and it’s never been good. And also, Batfleck is dumb as **** in that movie - though that’s a discussion for another place.

Going into the hut wasn't a knee jerk reaction since he went in to get a reading on Ben. That's when he saw how far towards the dark side Ben had fallen and his first instinct was clearly giving up on him as he had a very far gone impulse to murder him.

It wasn't leaving in itself that was the problem, it was that he left with the plan to walk away from everything and let others suffer from his failure without even trying to do anything about it. We're not discussing something arbitrary like "a character", we're discussing Luke Skywalker who's core trait has been that he never gives up on the ones he care about and never stops trying to help people. That's seen strongly all throughout his otherwise quite significant character development in the OT.

I'm not defending BvS Batman, I'm just stating that it has happened before on film while Luke never giving up on doing good is an equally fundamental part of the character and that hasn't been broken until now. It's a small thing but something that can be a tiebreaker between two bad things.

 

[Flemm]

What I find odd about this movie is that Johnson seems to have been appalled at what happened to Luke, but also unwilling to accept it.

The main story of the movie is hyper-focused on the series of events that led Luke to retreat from the conflict, which are alluded to in The Force Awakens, but which are not subjected to a lot of analysis there.

In TFA, it's just a recognizable Star Wars trope (the master retreating from the world), like a lot of things in that movie.

But obsessing over the implications of that didn't need to be the subject of this movie.

Obi Wan is able to play an important role in the first Star Wars movie, without that movie becoming a dissection of Obi Wan's failings.

So, for me personally, I think that the Luke material in this film works well, and I think it's easily the best part of the movie (though controversial for obvious reasons).

The problem for me is that this movie is more a conclusion to Luke's story than anything else. Which is very weird in the 2nd act of a trilogy. It would be like Yoda being the main focus of Empire.

 

[hopeless]

I'm still wondering why do what he does with Luke like this?

We know Snoke has links in the New Republic and knew Leia was also Vader's daughter enough that he has been corrupting him before she recognises the threat and sends him to Luke.

But if Leia fears assassination if she tries directly approaching the Senate what about Luke himself?

It wouldn't take much to coax Ben to carry a tracking beacon or communicator if he wants to talk, the New Republic send a strike team to follow and they hit Luke's Academy perhaps tricked into thinking it's a rescue mission?

Ultimately Luke knows he can't trust the New Republic warning Leia leaving R2 with her as he goes into hiding rather than draw attention.

Ben is already fallen, he becomes Kylo Ren to complete the path he's more interested in by now his hero worship of his grandfather whose identity Snoke revealed to him is turned into an obsession this could easily explain the same event but Luke left the map in case Leia needed to contact him Lor San Tekka is clearly known well to both as well as Ben given his reaction.

As for Leia's force talents would it have hurt revealing she had training and taught Ben but being indifferent to the lightsaber that's why Kylo possesses greater force powers yet may not have been properly trained with his substandard lightsaber?

Would this work better?

 

[writer0327]

What I find odd about this movie is that Johnson seems to have been appalled at what happened to Luke, but also unwilling to accept it.

The main story of the movie is hyper-focused on the series of events that led Luke to retreat from the conflict, which are alluded to in The Force Awakens, but which are not subjected to a lot of analysis there.

In TFA, it's just a recognizable Star Wars trope (the master retreating from the world), like a lot of things in that movie.

But obsessing over the implications of that didn't need to be the subject of this movie.

Obi Wan is able to play an important role in the first Star Wars movie, without that movie becoming a dissection of Obi Wan's failings.

So, for me personally, I think that the Luke material in this film works well, and I think it's easily the best part of the movie (though controversial for obvious reasons).

The problem for me is that this movie is more a conclusion to Luke's story than anything else. Which is very weird in the 2nd act of a trilogy. It would be like Yoda being the main focus of Empire.

You are correct, it is the conclusion of the old and the beginning of the new, and this is necessary. Star Wars in a lot of ways had no where else to go. People don't like the deconstruction of Star Wars, but this is a necessary move, because by destroying the previously established archetypes and systems, it allows for the new to take its place. Creatively, SW was limited as a franchise; it's always been Jedi vs Sith, Empire vs Rebels, and outside of that, there's not much more to it. If you want to continue with the Star Wars as we know it, all you're left with is a heightened, stylized version of what we've already seen....Luke, the badass Jedi in a black robe, only this time, turned up to 100.

So what do you do? How do you get away from the same old stuff? Abrams, Johnson, and Lucasfilm chose to underscore all the failures of the previous heroes and legendary characters, show the whole "history always repeats itself", "it's like poetry, it rhymes" nature of the previous SW regime, and then you introduce two characters who look like they will fit that mold, but then they don't. You allow these new characters to systematically reconstruct Star Wars for a new generation.

And one way of accomplishing that is to veer away from how Star Wars tells its stories. As a series, Star Wars had its roots in simple, but epic and time-honored storytelling: traditional values set within classic archetypes. Abrams first, then Johnson deliberately breaks away from this in order to set the stage for the new Star Wars going forward: kill off the past archetypes to allow the ordinary to be extraordinary. In times past, the big hero would have been someone from a special family or a fabled hero. But once ESB made the decision for Luke to be Vader's son, where else was there to go? The only sensible option was to take these lives of these main characters and these ongoing battle of conflicting ideologies and show that they, in the words of Luke, “will not go the way you think."

 

[Flemm]

I appreciate your thoughts, it's an interesting read, as always.

However, I'm skeptical that this was the only or best choice.

Does moving in an new direction have to mean obsessing about the old? I don't think so.

I would actually characterize that as my main issue with the movie. A bit like Kylo, for all its bluster about leaving the past behind, it's actually obsessed with the past, I think arguably even moreso than The Force Awakens.

On some basic level, I just want to ask: did we really need another movie about Luke? We already had a whole trilogy about Luke. Of course he can play an important role. But, in spite of all the various subplots in this movie, it's basically another movie about the hero of the original trilogy.

 

[writer0327]

I appreciate your thoughts, it's an interesting read, as always.

However, I'm skeptical that this was the only or best choice.

Does moving in an new direction have to mean obsessing about the old? I don't think so.

I would actually characterize that as my main issue with the movie. A bit like Kylo, for all its bluster about leaving the past behind, it's actually obsessed with the past, I think arguably even moreso than The Force Awakens.

On some basic level, I just want to ask: did we really need another movie about Luke? We already had a whole trilogy about Luke. Of course he can play an important role. But, in spite of all the various subplots in this movie, it's basically another movie about the hero of the original trilogy.

Your skepticism is fair; only time will tell if they made the right choice.

TLJ certainly focuses on the past, but I see it as a way of bringing the past to the forefront in order to bring it to a fair conclusion. It was one of those between a rock and a hard place type situations, because in order to relaunch the Star Wars franchise in TFA, it was almost mandatory that you bring back the characters from the OT and replay some of those old beats and themes. But then once you do that, you're also obligated to play that all the way through, and that means concluding the stories of Luke, Han, and Leia. Many thought they would end everything in IX, and that might have been the headier play when considering that gives you more room to build up the new characters and do a soft handoff for the franchise.

 

[InJustice]

Honestly, the problem seems to be a lack of a coherent vision. TFA and TLJ are two completely different kinds of Star Wars movies, and as a result, the entire saga suffers because the films tried to do two different things. And before someone mentions ANH > ESB, the movies still had the same feel without one clashing with one another.

And I say this as someone who loved TLJ and TFA.

 

[TheVileOne]

Something I had heard was that there was supposed to indeed by another lesson by Luke, but also something pertaining to the nuns on the island. The species in this case have the males separate from the females. At some point the males arrive and during this time the nuns and the males have a celebration. Luke and Rey take part in the celebration. During this celebration raiders come to the island to steal from the Jedi ruins, taking advantage of the celebration distracting everyone. I think Rey, or Rey and Luke fight off the raiders and this allows both the nuns and Luke to be much more accepting of Rey. I think this would have added to the reaction Luke had after he reconnects with the Force, when he sees Ben and Rey Force skyping each other. He had seen Rey was a good person willing to do what a Jedi is supposed to and then he has the rug pulled out from under him seeing her with his evil nephew.

But as you stated... It was already a long film and some things have to be sacrificed.

That's not what I heard:

Spoiler

There are no raiders. Luke tricks Rey and that's the lesson. The Resistance needs people who will spring into action quickly and not Luke. Rey then gets angry and upset about how her friends are dying.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Found this post on another forum. I agree.

Well the thing is that Rian Johnson build an Arc for Finn.


If you watch The Force Awakens Finn was still running from everything and his only link to anything was Rey. What Rian does in this movie is develop Finn character more and create an attachment to something.

That is why that stupid Casino Sequence is there...

Because in that Mission, Finn thanks to Rose begin to see what The Resistance stands for and why Rose and her sister have given their entire life to this fight againts injustice an inequality around the galaxy.

After he deserted the First Order. Finn was searching freedom. But he became sort of a coward. Sort of a man running from things when they get ugly. So what this movie did with Finn was to make him a fighter that finally faces his fears and demons and defeat them.

So Finn thanks to that Casino Mission understands the ideals of the Resistance and ends up attaching to them. So now he has finally found a fight that he stands for. Something that is worth fighting for or even giving your life for.

That is when we got to that Captain Phasma scene. There Finn after finally finding his place has to go againts his demons again. Againts something he couldnt defeat before: Phasma. But this time around Finn alone has to deal with something he couldnt deal before and he does. Finn defeats Phasma...

And what Phasma says between the fight explain it all:

"You are a mistake in the system" .... "You are scumbag".

In another words. Finn is fighting the fact that he is a nobody. A nobody that doesnt has to be forever a nobody that become somebody by his own means... And by the end Finn just correct Phasma...

"Rebel Scumbag"...


Finn has accepted who he is and has finally found his place in life. Phasma fulfill his role in this Saga. His role was small and uneventful that is true. But his role did succed in developing Finn that is what matters and what he was created for...

^^^ THIS! THIS so many times! Finn's arc in this was huge, and central to the theme Rian chose for the movie as a whole. The war cannot be won be looking for heroes to come and save the day. The war is won when we find the heroes within ourselves.

 

[Grommers]

Instantly? It’s pretty clear that over time Luke begins to suspect Ben is being seduced by the dark side, and that Snoke is corrupting him. I don’t think him going into Ben’s hut was a knee jerk reaction.

And Luke leaving is perfectly within keeping of a character who is ashamed of his mistakes and hubris.

Batman not killing is one of the absolute rock solid main cornerstones of the character throughout the years. Yes, he has killed, but few and far between, and it’s never been good. And also, Batfleck is dumb as **** in that movie - though that’s a discussion for another place.

It was pretty instantaneous, I mean Darth Vader had been...well, Darth Vader for who many years? and still never gave up on him. And here's this kid...and its like "aw hell nah".

As for the batman comic, although not the right area you are completely wrong, the no killing rule was really only brought into massive light under Nolan even in B:TAS they're are clear instances where the thugs..wouldn't have survived explosions etc.

So, you can't compare the two situations given what we know about Luke is from the OT. (Episodes 4/5/6) in which he has probably some of the best character progression told in any story, the only one who might outshine him so far in the whole series is Vader himself, given he had about 6 movies about him. (It's just not as apparent till after the PT was filmed, and you also had TCW, and as of late both Rogue One and SW:Rebels)

The justification I find is ridiculous - its well, luke was going through some hard times, the point of the character is that he overcame "hard times" that he found hope where there was none. While so many others told him there was no turning Vader, he believed, and believed in good, in episodes 4/5 he made foolish decisions, by 6 coming around, he rights the wrong, and realizes he has to handle situations much more tactfully.

Then episode 8 comes around, and its like "lol, that character never existed, this still episode 4 luke cept now he has powers."

 

[godisawesome]

You are correct, it is the conclusion of the old and the beginning of the new, and this is necessary. Star Wars in a lot of ways had no where else to go. People don't like the deconstruction of Star Wars, but this is a necessary move, because by destroying the previously established archetypes and systems, it allows for the new to take its place. Creatively, SW was limited as a franchise; it's always been Jedi vs Sith, Empire vs Rebels, and outside of that, there's not much more to it. If you want to continue with the Star Wars as we know it, all you're left with is a heightened, stylized version of what we've already seen....Luke, the badass Jedi in a black robe, only this time, turned up to 100.

So what do you do? How do you get away from the same old stuff? Abrams, Johnson, and Lucasfilm chose to underscore all the failures of the previous heroes and legendary characters, show the whole "history always repeats itself", "it's like poetry, it rhymes" nature of the previous SW regime, and then you introduce two characters who look like they will fit that mold, but then they don't. You allow these new characters to systematically reconstruct Star Wars for a new generation.

And one way of accomplishing that is to veer away from how Star Wars tells its stories. As a series, Star Wars had its roots in simple, but epic and time-honored storytelling: traditional values set within classic archetypes. Abrams first, then Johnson deliberately breaks away from this in order to set the stage for the new Star Wars going forward: kill off the past archetypes to allow the ordinary to be extraordinary. In times past, the big hero would have been someone from a special family or a fabled hero. But once ESB made the decision for Luke to be Vader's son, where else was there to go? The only sensible option was to take these lives of these main characters and these ongoing battle of conflicting ideologies and show that they, in the words of Luke, “will not go the way you think."

Very good post, and you're later point in the next one about how the creators are stuck between a rock and a hard place is also excellent; some of the same issues faced (and in some cases, crashed) the old Legends continuity, with brand new types of Sith being revealed and made bad guys seemingly because that was the only real villain creators could rely on.

But if I can make some conceptual criticism of RJ's decisions vis-a-vie the bolded part above...

One of the things that weirdly was more of a pain in my neck story-wise was the reversion of TLJ to the Empire vs Rebellion status quo. It wasn't necessarily a big problem for me, like Finn and the Resistance chase as a whole, but it did feed into it, and I'd argue it's one of the other kind of let downs coming from TFA into TLJ. It felt like TFA depicted a First Order in line with some of the initial metaphors Abrams himself used: they were Space!SS officers retreating to the equivalent of Space!South America, hiding from plain view because they couldn't afford a face to face confrontation, and rebuilding themselves along leaner, more fanatical, and more surgical lines.

And TFA and its ancillary material did seem to embrace that. There was an air of professionalism and intensity to the First Order in TFA, with Hux especially coming off as a frightening combination of fanatical and energetic without seeming especially stupid. The only cracks you see in the facade of calm and collected evil doers is when Starkiller Base goes up, and even that is because characters are sensibly realizing the situation. There's even a suggestion of resourcefulness and caution with resources, with an onscreen debate about the most efficient and reliable army, better equipped TIE Fighters, and a moment where Ren and the FO feel totally fine withdrawing from a conflict instead of staying to fight it out like the Empire would. The initial background material also bolstered this idea; we got information on crew members being raised aboard their new ships, everything was being stationed in a few small colonies in the UNKNOWN REGIONS (which was almost a byword for how they could stay hidden and a promise of secrets to come).

TFA and its material treated the First Order as being a new, significantly different evolution of the Empire, in the same way that Snoke's portrayal was just a tad more furtive, paranoid, and less arrogant than the Emperor, with a somewhat more creepily paternal relationship with Kylo Ren. They were still very much Imperial stand-ins, but there was a concerted effort then to make them almost an evil Rebel Alliance striking against the New Republic.

And then clearly Johnson wanted to ramp up the Imperial parallels, as well as the parallels to the OT's political situation. It started with Bloodline first introducing the idea of Centrist secessionists, which significantly altered the canon landscape by giving the First Order a larger territory and logistical base, as well as a subtle but apparent dropping of some of the UNKNOWN REGIONS hype. And it concluded with the portrayal in TFA, where the First Order comes off as less of an evolution and more as a pastiche or even caricature of the Empire: they're even more incompetent, more slow and lumbering, and outclass their opponents by an even larger amount than the Empire did the Rebellion. Hux is now a straight up moronic tool, and Snoke loses an distinguishing twists in his portrayal to pretty much just be Palpatine.

And it doesn't really help that Johnson downplays the more likely fallout form TFA in the wider Star Wars Galaxy to focus on his "Like the OT, but MORE" political backdrop. Some of that was simply a matter of his time scale; that 18-hour window created by his Space Chase did more than launch a bad subplot and make Rey's growth a bit incredulous. But other parts were simply choosing to ignore the size, scale, and lore built in by previous films or inconvenient logic. Palpatine had to stage a years-long false-flag war to build up the military forces enough to dominate the Galaxy, and that was as the head of the official political center of the Galaxy and raising an entire clone army to accomplish the mission first. And the Empire has entire planets and species that hate it, and enough numbers that once the Emperor was dead, they lost the Galaxy in a year. Yet the First Order can lose its greatest trump card in Starkiller Base, still nominally have only *maybe* half the logistical base that the Empire had (and was still supposed to be sneaky about the extent of its re-armament), be formed from a political party that lost to an opposition party more about decentralized system security, and somehow just move in, conquer the Galaxy, and send a gigantic armada to chase a handful of outdated ships.

It's a disappointing missed opportunity to mix up the political situation just to transform the Resistance into a new Rebellion. I hope Abrams quietly uses a time skip and background material to make the new war more unique, with say, equal numbers on both sides, but a large logistical advantage to the First Order.