Tommy Siegel | Bluesky

TranscriptA Helpful Guide To Star Wars vs Star Trek

Star Wars

[Image of Han Solo in Tommy’s style]

  • Don’t start with the ‘first’ movie, let me tell you where to start
  • Looks like ruined farm equipment in space
  • In summary: the past was horrible
  • JJ Abrams ruined it

Star Trek

[Image of Jean Luc Picard in Tommy’s style]

  • Don’t start with the first season, let me tell you where to start
  • Looks like a cruise ship in space
  • In summary: the future is incredible
  • JJ Abrams ruined it
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 8 hours ago (4 children)

The ending sets up literally nothing for episode IX

wouldn’t you say the same for A New Hope?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

    I would, but A New Hope gets the excuse of actually being a standalone movie. A New Hope came into theaters as "Star Wars" and became Episode 4 later. Like I said, The last Jedi probably would've been an okay standalone movie. The problem is that The Last Jedi was never supposed to be a standalone movie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago* (2 children)

    I'll accept that. In general, though, I feel like having the time jumps pull a lot of weight is core to the Star Wars movies' identity, so if there's any movie that should leave few threads loose at the end, it would be Star Wars. (Thus, I also feel there was no reason for IX to have been what it was.) I would also argue Kylo Ren being now in control of the New Order in the state of mind that he is (plus his arc with Rey) is a very loose thread with very promising potential. (Plus the ending shot seemed like foreshadowing the fate of the trilogy's end would be decided by entirely new possibilities.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (1 child)

    You can have time jumps between movies but if the movie is a part of a trilogy it needs to serve the trilogy. Imagine if at the end of two towers Frodo throws the ring into the fire. What would return of the king be about? You couldn't have the return of the king because the story is resolved, the ring is gone. It would have to be a completely new u story and it wouldn't make any sense in the context of the trilogy.

    That's basically what Johnson did. He took the whole story and instead of setting up the final movie to resolve the story he resolved the story on his own and left nothing for the last movie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    All the New Order lost was the equivalent of two aircraft carriers. (Using the ancient art of calculus, 1+ \int_{TR-8R}^{some other named squadron} fighter dust = 2.) The story absolutely was not resolved. Ren in control of the Order while going insane, whatever’s up with Finn and Rose surviving, how exactly was the rebellion going to continue (they clearly were but what do they do now?), and final scene may as well had marked with big giant circles who shall be the next heroes.

  • source
  • parent