Star Wars Episode IX Cast Announced (Billy Dee Williams is back) - Sensationalist Headlines

I have very little interest in episode IX but I can tell you right now I'm more than likely going to see it one or more times in theaters. Once with family then once with friends or some shit like that. It's just going to happen, there's a reason Star Wars movies are considered money generating machines.

I somewhat agree about keeping Snoke's background vague, but at the same time, knowing that there's a powerful force-user loyal to the Empire who also assumes the role of Supreme Leader shortly after Sidious' fall raises a few questions as to who he is, where he came from, and what he's been doing the whole time. This extends to the Knights of Ren who have been completely unused. If we explored some back story with, perhaps, Snoke leading a Sith-influenced cult (Knights of Ren) that Sidious used to uncover ancient Sith/Jedi artifacts across the galaxy for his own ends and the First Order is much more fanatical than the Empire under Snoke's rule; that opens not only character potential but also some more world-building. It would be a nice set up for an internal conflict between Kylo Ren and his Knights at odds with the First Order and Hux in episode nine. Sure, they can explore stuff like that in the expanded media, but, I think the films didn't do enough to differentiate Snoke and the First Order from just being Emperor/Empire 2.0 and although I loved that the Last Jedi subverted it with Snoke's death and Kylo assuming dominance, it leaves me disappointed that we may not find out more about him in the films (and I would find it annoying if the films were to just introduce key characters and plot points and only give them context through expanded media).

I just kind of accept that Star Wars will never be what it originally was, because it never will. The era it was made in, the actions behind its creation, all of the crew behind it, everything all lined up to make the original three films what they were. That's never going to happen again. I don't think they're bad, even if they have their flaws.

I'm personally still of the opinion that the problems in the The Last Jedi came from the fact that Johnson just hated pretty much everything JJ set up in Episode 7. "I hate your Palpatine wannabe, so I'll kill him." "I hate your leaning heavily on the original cast, so I'll kill or otherwise incapacitate them." "I hate your setting Rey up to be a cliche 'chosen one' with a mysterious past, so I'll make her explicitly a nobody." "I hate your villain being a Vader wannabe, so I'll have his master tell him to 'take that ridiculous thing off.' " "I hate having to pick up after what I consider to be your dumpster-fire of a film, so I'll just shit something together to segue into my original idea." "I hate your miming the original films, so I will create an original idea with the casino planet." "I hate the fact you put me in a box of shit to work with, JJ, so I'm going to put you in a box to shit to work with on Episode 9. HAVE FUN!" Pretty much everything that people point out as a criticism of Johnson's film is a result of him undoing the things that JJ added. It feels to me that Johnson just had major beef with what JJ did the story. At the same time, I feel like Johnson has a better handle on what makes up the spirit of Star Wars. Where JJ just mimed A New Hope, Johnson took the ideas of Star Wars and spun them into the casino planet, which I think is the highlight of the film and where it really shines. It's only really the end-points of the film that really suffer, where he had to segue off of Episode 7 and set up for Episode 9. The casino planet on its own I think was a great sequence. The fact that it was absolutely pointless and served no greater purpose, I think, is mostly just due to the fact Johnson was forced into the middle of a series of films he didn't want to be in the middle of. Do I think Johnson should have made a better middle film? Absolutely. Do I think he could have? Honestly, I sincerely believe so. Do I blame him for disliking some of the things JJ did that he then tried to undo? Not really, because on some level I agree with him that a lot of those things were either just uninteresting decisions or just blind miming. Do I think Johnson should have taken out that dissatisfaction in the film itself, in the way that I personally feel like he did? No, not at all; the film definitely suffered for it. All of that being said, though, I am personally very interested to see what Johnson can do when he doesn't have to both ride off the heels of and set up for films that he personally dislikes. Give him his own sandbox to play in, and I think he can make some great films. If the casino planet were a feature film all on its own, with no ties to Episodes 7 or 9, I personally think it could have been a fun and interesting Star Wars story. And I expect that's exactly the kind of thing he'll do if he is indeed given that trilogy of his own. All of this is, of course, my own interpretation and opinions of things. Not trying to say that this is how things are or how they will be. Just how I interpreted things and how I predict them to go.

Snoke telling Kylo Ren to take the mask off felt like a natural progression though, TFA already set up and carried through the subversion of him being more than a one-note Vader knock-off. Also I get that Abrams relied on classic SW imagery, but claiming that Johnson came up with original ideas because he hated it is a bit much.

I don't see how you can equate the backstory void for Snoke and the Emperor at all, they're entirely different situations. Palpatine was a character introduced in a self-contained way where his introduction wasn't something that was at odds with the lore or story, because there wasn't anything else to go off of - he was just there, and that was all that was needed. Not being told exactly who he was or where he came from did not matter in the slightest, his purpose was to add a bit more substance to the lore and he accomplished that without that backstory, because the setting was still being established so there was no existing information he needed to fit within. Snoke on the other hand, is a character introduced in a setting that has already been established. The Star Wars setting has now been defined and there are aspects of it that carried over from previous films because of that. The existence of a super powerful, mysterious, horrifically scared, old darkside Force user, who seemingly has intricate knowledge of the Empire and was able to bring the First Order to it's current level of power, all without ever having been hinted at or even mentioned previously, is something that needs to fit within the already established Star Wars setting...but it doesn't. The lack of explanation is much more of an issue with Snoke than it was Palpatine because there's now reasons why he needs to be explained - if he isn't, there are holes and problems with what we know of the lore. It isn't some inconsequential backstory that ultimately doesn't affect much like it was with Palpatine.

It also makes no sense when you consider how Rian himself homages classic SW iconography in TLJ.