My thoughts on the Super Mario movie

My thoughts on the Super Mario movie 

 

The fact that we're getting a Super Mario movie reinforces my point about why most video game movies are bad? That is Hollywood don't know how to pick video games that can work as a movie. 

When they do, they find a way to screw that up. 

Don't believe me, then explain to me why they are working on a live-action Pac-Man movie? Do I really need to give you a history lesson on Mario? This mascot is as iconic as Mickey Mouse. Really, I'm surprised that we didn't get to see these two fight in Death Battle but I digress. Making a Super Mario movie is a mistake because of how hard it is to adapt this video games series into a movie. First of all, this is a franchise that focuses on gameplay then telling a story. That's why it got away with telling the same story for over forty years for the most part. Second, because Mario is an avatar for the player, he doesn't have much characterization. The only thing we know about Mario is that he's a simp. Seriously, Mario keeps saving Princess Peach from the same guy most of the time over and over and over again with nothing to show for it. I mean he's not rich or married to Princess Peach. Well, that could be an issue because Luigi did help out. Come on, how smart do you have to be to figure out that Princess Peach wants to be with Bowser? 

To be fair, there are men who can relate to this as far as working on improving their body, looks and income to get women's attention. Only to get blown off because you have no street credit, or she's not sexually attracted to you. The premise of Mario saving Princess Peach could be a deal-breaker for older viewers. Filmmakers can't hide behind the excuse of this movie is for kids because you can't make a film like this without the kids who grew up playing these games in mind. Men are going to be put off by the story because they think Princess Peach is taking Mario and Luigi for granted. So why should they care if they save Peach or not? In order to fix that the dynamic between the characters needs to change. 

Really, I'm surprised that Nintendo would approve of this movie considering it's almost thirty years since the last Super Mario movie and Hollywood hasn't gotten better at making video game movies since then. Heck, we don't have a decent Mario cartoon. What about the Winnie the pooh movie, that should make Nintendo go yikes. Going back to the last Super Mario movie I'm surprised that it's considered a cult classic because A the movie has nothing to do with the game it's based on and B it wasn't appropriate for kids. Not only that Dennis Hopper wasn't happy with the production of this movie. Christian Bale's rant on the set of Terminator Salvation has got nothing on this. If you want to know the details of his outrage, you can find the article on the Guardian website. Also, fans or consumers are not happy with some of Nintendo's business practices so what made them think that people will watch this movie? Just like most people I wasn't happy with the voice cast because we already know what most of these characters sound like so what's the point of this?

Nintendo should have made a Legend of Zelda movie because that's the only IP that can work as a movie. (Beside Super Metroid.) Yes! The Legend of Zelda games are about Link saving a Princess however there is more to those games than that. (Plus, the fans ship Link with other NPCs.) The reason why Link is protecting Princess Zelda from Ganondorf is because all three of them are connected through the Triforce. (That's the game's MacGuffin.) Also, Zelda is a better Princess than Peach because she isn't a damsel in distress, she helps Link fight Ganondorf and helps Link on his adventures. (I not saying Princess Peach isn't helpful she's just not consistent about it.) Game of Thrones shows that there is a market for a movie like this. Plus, this franchise is more mature than Mario and Ganondorf is a better villain. For those of you who will say how can you make a Legend of Zelda movie if Link can't talk? There are ways around that issue like in Wind Walker we know what Link is thinking and feeling because of his facial expression. 

Don't get me wrong I'm not against the idea of a Mario movie but I would prefer it to be like the Lego Batman movie. As far as it being a comedy that pokes fun at itself and celebrates its forty-year history. That's the only option I can think of to make this movie appeal to everyone.

What am I talking about? We can do that ourselves. 

 

 

 

As far as the teaser trailer goes there isn't much to say about it because it only has three scenes. I will say this we can expect some laughs judging by how the first scene played out. Speaking of the first scene it has Bowser invading a castle looking for the star. This scene put my mind at ease because we know he's not after peach. (I hope I'm not jinxing myself.) If that's the case, what role will she play in this movie? It's safe to assume that Bowser wants the star so he can rule the mushroom kingdom. The second scene is Mario landing in an area full of mushrooms. Judge by his reaction he's never been here before. I hope this isn't a case where he's from the real world and he turns into a cartoon. After that, he meets Toad and they race to the mushroom kingdom. It looks like Toad will be Mario's guide in this world. The final scene is Luigi being chased by Bowser's goons. I hope he doesn't get the short end of the stick in this movie because he's the smartest character in this franchise.  

Besides Peach Donkey Kong is the only character not in the teaser. I think he could be working with Bowser as his right-hand man, that makes sense considering DK and Mario were adversaries. I like the animations in this trailer because it gives details on the character designs from the game. It's like giving flesh to a cartoon. The only complaint I have with the tease I don't like the voice acting, we know what most of these characters sound like the voice acting doesn't match that. With that said, this teaser did a good job of making us wonder how things will play out in this movie? It would be ironic if this movie broke the video game movie curse considering this franchise started the movie adaptions of video games. 

That's all I have to say about this teaser what do you think of it?        

My rant about the school system

 

My rant about the school system

Intro: I didn’t want to do this post at first because I already talked about how I felt about this topic here and there in my other posts. With that said, that doesn’t change the fact that this is a relevant subject and will stay relevant until the problem is fixed or the plant explodes. Some of what I was going to say, I was going to save in my overview of the pandemic, but I managed to narrow it down to two issues with the school system. Forgive me if I use the same talking points as before, but I don’t have time to backtrack everything I’ve said before.

Schools are supposed to be institutions that educate children on how to become productive and contributing members of society. In reality, it’s a daycare/ prison. The only difference between schools and prison is that no one seems to mind that women sleep with underage boys. Like I said before, just because boys fantasize about that doesn't mean you should indulge them. Instead of educating them about what they need to know, we keep them busy with a bunch of school and homework without knowing if they can comprehend what they learned. I've been to both public and private schools, and I can't tell the difference between the two. 

I can understand why teachers are underpaid because anyone with half a brain can order kids to stay seated until school is over. I want to ask you something, do you think you can be good at being a cop, firefighter, kickboxer, and Doctor just by reading? If the answer is no, then what makes you think kids can make something of themselves just by sitting a listening? Whoever came up with this system must be arrogant to think this system will benefit everyone. Seriously, what’s the point of standardized testing and someone from the school board coming to check up on them if nothing is changing? (Sidenote: they should show up unannounced.)    

We can’t change how schools operate anytime soon because A, it’s doing its job at keeping kids occupied. B we don’t expect anything from kids besides obedience. They can’t drive, vote, work (depending on where you live) go anywhere without their parents knowing, and their brains are under development. Until we stop treating schools like a daycare and kids like they're not human, then we can get somewhere. I'm sorry, parents are complaining about schools, it's just not for the right reason, but I'm getting ahead of myself. With that said, two things need to be done to make schools better. 

The first thing is that schools need to be reformed, and to do that, we need money. We all know that the government is not going to prioritize education. I would reconsider that if I were them. Do you think you can run and maintain society if most people's IQs are below 85? Do you think anyone would want to work at school if you're not going to pay top dollar for them? How is teaching its own reward, but not protecting and serving the community? If it were up to me, I would have the school be on a year-round calendar. I was against this idea at first, out of ignorance, I mean, when I thought you get no breaks. That's not the case; how this works is you get 9 weeks of school and three weeks off until summer break. 

Doing this would give the kids some relief and possibly boost their morale. Schools should also make knowing the basic laws and conflict resolution part of their curricula. Considering that there are so many videos of people fighting everywhere, do I really have to explain why we need conflict resolution? As far as the basic laws goes I think it's messed up that you can get in trouble for not knowing the law. As for teachers, they need to think outside the box to get students to learn or get the most out of them. 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

This leads to the second thing that needs to be fixed, which is the boundaries between parents and teachers. Lately, parents have been throwing a fit over their kids learning critical race theory, replacement theory, homosexuality, and removing certain books from schools. Look, I'm not saying that parents shouldn't have a say in their kid's education, but ranting a raving is not the best way to go about things. Teachers should have the right to run their classrooms as they see fit. If you don't like it, then homeschool them. The same thing goes for when your kids are acting up in class; they should be allowed to deal with it as long as they're not cussing them out, giving them bruises, and doing inappropriate things with them. 

I'm surprised that teachers are not going on strike for not being able to defend themselves against students. I mean, it's bad enough that teachers get lousy pay, but they shouldn't have to deal with students putting their hands on them. If you don't like the idea of teachers getting into fights with your kids, then you better tell them to keep their hands to themselves and don't get in their face. To be fair, teachers are not innocent; they do things where students want to pound them to the ground. For example, whenever something tragic happens to them, they want sympathy from us, but won't show us the same courtesy when it comes to our homework. I mean they will fail us for not doing our homework despite being a victim of domestic abuse, rape, your house being robbed or set on fire. Most of the teachers I had, I can care less if they get jumped right in front of me. 

My point is, Parents created this problem. I mean, you can't show teachers that you don't take pride in being a parent and not expect them to overstep their boundaries. If that's not true, then why do you only show up at school when your child is misbehaving? Why do you let retail workers babysit your kids? If I were running Walmart, Target, BJ's, or GameStop, I would put up a sign that says If you drop your kids off for us to babysit them, we will call child protective services. That will put an end to that problem, but I digress. How do you expect your kids to learn Spanish if you're not willing to learn it? Some examples you're setting. If parents expect teachers to take care of you're kids when they get sick, get them into Harvard, tell you that your kids are cutting class, or risk their lives to protect your kids, then they deserve more respect from you.

As for the issue of kids acting up, of course, they will. What do you expect when you have them seat in class most of the time, not letting them go to the bathroom when they want, and not teaching them subjects that they're interested in? If you are teaching them different things so that they can be well-rounded, that will mean nothing if they don't know how to incorporate this knowledge into their life. Also, they feel like you're wasting their time. I mean, what's the point in becoming a doctor or a lawyer if no one will give you a chance? Let me ask you this do you want a seasoned doctor or lawyer to help you? If the answer is yes, then that's my point. Don't get me started on student debts, I find it insulting that you spend years giving colleges all this money, and it didn't turn me into a Billionaire. How many of you wish you would cut your losses and invest that money in the stock exchange? 

That's all I have to say about this subject for now.  

My Spider-Man rant

 My Spider-Man rant 

Intro: Forgive me if you find this post underwhelming because I will be focusing on one thing involving this character. I might go off-topic in this rant; I have to do that to make my point. I can't talk about this character without talking about the impact he made on people, or lack thereof. 

I don't have anything new to say about this character that's already been said. Really, it's a miracle that this character is well-known to the public. The reason I said that is because the late Stan Lee's editor at the time was against Spider-Man because no one likes spiders. Then again, no one likes Bats, and Batman is a hit, so was that a fair argument? I consider this character Marvel's Superman more than Captain America. The reason why is because he's not put in a position to kill people, unlike Capt. Both of them also struggle with balancing being a hero with their personal life. I like the moments this character deals with bullies in the Amazing Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man; he either fights back against them or speaks up for himself. I just wish he would do it more often.  

Spider-Man is one of the few comic book characters that became successful outside the comics with cartoons and video games. Sidenote; it's a shame that other Marvel characters couldn't succeed in cartoons and video games. Don't get me wrong, we had some success with the Hulk, X-Men, Iron Man, and Captain America, but no one capitalized on them. I'm surprised that Spider-Man PS4 was a hit because the Amazing Spider-Man tie-in game and Web of Shadows told the same story. As far as stopping an infection from spreading. Despite that, I enjoy the cartoons and video games. The live-action movies are a different story. Before I get into that, I want to address two things about the Spider-Man mythos that annoy me. 

But first, I want to address the fans; they should be ashamed of themselves over how they reacted to the PS5 remastering of Spider-Man PS4. If I were in charge of making the next Spider-Man game, I would tell my employees to stop working on the game until I see a compilation of the fans on their hands and knees apologizing to Insomniac. There is no reason for them to react that way over something so small. Do I really have to comment on the controversy around the Spider-Man Lotus fan film? We've all done things that we are not proud of; if you can't forgive someone, then you should be canceled. (To be fair, I can understand why people have a hard time with forgiveness because of suicidal empathy; however, that's not the case here.) That's my problem with cancel culture; it's disingenuous. If everyone's life were public, we wouldn't have cancel culture because we're all guilty of doing something like this or worse. 

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of the "with great power comes great responsibility" quote. (This is another reason why I consider this character Marvel's Superman. Does this sound like something Superman would say?) Not because I disagree with it, it's because responsibility is a double-edged sword, and people don't talk about that enough. For example, Bruce Wayne watching his parents get murdered didn't turn him into Batman; he did that to himself. Let me put it like this, if someone shot you, are you going to wait for the shooter to treat your wound, or are you going to call 911? If the answer is to call 911, then that's my point. It's not Bruce's fault that his parents were murdered, but he's responsible for how he deals with it. You can't dedicate your life to fighting crime and then expect people to feel sorry for you that you don't have a life outside of that. The same goes for the Punisher; you can't commit mass murder and expect sympathy from anyone. There are better ways of coping. 

I don't understand how this character made such an impact on pop culture when people don't accept responsibility for anything. People in power don't take responsibility for creating resentment, segregation, and promoting or encouraging terrorism with a might makes right mentality. Parents and society are pointing the finger at each other instead of taking responsibility for why the youth is acting up. Law Enforcement doesn't take responsibility for why the public doesn't trust them. No one is taking responsibility for COVID-19, or why public schools are going down the toilet. (Well, that depends on where you live.) Casual gamers are not taking responsibility for why they suck at Elden Rings. Women don't take responsibility for why men don't want to put a ring on it. How are we holding the shooter's feet to the fire when we blame mental health for why they do it? The list goes on and on; that quote will lose its meaning if we keep this up. I would like to see a Spider-Man movie that deals with different aspects of responsibility. For example, is there such a thing as taking too much responsibility? 

If the answer is yes, then where does the line draw? 

This is what bothers me about the Hulk movies and TV shows. Why have a character that can turn green when he's angry if you're not going to explore different aspects of that emotion? Miles Morales is another thing that bugs me about the Spider-Man mythos. I don't like this character, not because he's a bad character, it's because he's a copy of Peter Parker. I know Spider-Man into the Spider-verse changed some aspects of the character, but that doesn't change the fact that he's the same character as Peter, but with a different look. Now I wouldn't have minded that if he were from a different universe where he got bitten by the spider instead of Peter. Speaking of Miles, what's going on with him? I mean, first the writers made him evil, then you turn him into Thor, and now the Hulk. I don't get it why create a new character if the writers are not going to separate him from Peter? This leads to another issue I have with Spider-Man, which is having different versions of the same character. When writers do that, you reduce Spider-Man to a mantel. Turing Spider-Man into a mantel takes away from what makes Peter Parker Spider-Man in the first place. Legacy characters are one of the many problems I have with comic books in general. 

I mean, where's the value in these characters if anyone can be them? 

How is this any different from giving people who participate in the Olympics a gold medal? The gold medal loses its value when you do that. Look, I don't mind someone else being Iron Man or Captain America if it's for a short time and if that person doesn't have the same backstory as the character that they're filling in for. The only exceptions to this are the Nova Corps and Black Panther. because they are space police, and the Black Panther is a mantle that's been passed down from generation to generation.  

In case you didn't read my reviews of the Spider-Man films, I didn't like most of them. We had three actors who played Peter Parker/Spider-Man, and none of them embraced this character, in my opinion. The reason why I feel this way is because none of them display how smart Peter Parker is or how funny Spider-Man can be. Tom Holland was more sarcastic in the Uncharted movie than he was as Spider-Man; that's saying a lot. I'm not saying he didn't make jokes as Spider-Man, but most of it is pop culture references. 

Sadly,  J Jonah Jameson is the only character Hollywood got right. I'm sorry, I do like Aunt May from the Raimi films, Uncle Ben, and Harry Osborn from the Amazing films. I would be surprised if we don't get a movie where JJ Jameson's son becomes Manwolf or JJ Jameson fall from grace trying to discredit Spider-Man by using Scorpion. Another thing that bugs me about these three is that most of the bad guys know Peter is Spider-Man. This wouldn't have happened if they had kept their mask on!!! To be fair, some of them figured it out, but that doesn't change the fact that Peter should be more careful with keeping his identity a secret. The Green Goblin is the only character who knows that Peter is Spider-Man in the comics, as far as I know. 

I didn't watch No Way Home because the writers wasted that movie to give us a sinister six movie. (I mean five.) That's a shame because that movie could have been good if the writers had focused on Peter dealing with the stress of everyone knowing he's Spider-Man and clearing his name. Doing that would make up for Marvel Studios not adapting that part of the Civil War comic book in their Civil War movie. In that comic, Peter not only has to deal with everyone knowing he's Spider-Man, he's conflicted about being on the right side of the registration act. This is what Spider-Man comics do; they tell stories about the internal conflict first and the external conflict second. I'm I the only one who finds it insulting that No Way Home tried to hide the fact that the other two Spider-Men are in this movie? I mean, this is the worst-kept secret since Star Trek into Darkness. I feel bad for Tom Holland because he never got a chance to carry a film. First, he was overshadowed by RDJ, and now he'll be overlooked by nostalgia bait. What's the point of casting him to play this character if Marvel Studios has no confidence that he can stand on his own? 

The villains are another thing that hurt these movies for me; most of them are not written well. Because of that, most of them feel like the villain of the week. It's a shame that The Amazing Spider-Man films didn't work out because both films were overshadowed by their competition. I don't know what Sony was thinking, trying to build a cinematic universe with Spider-Man alone. I can understand making a spin-off film or two, but a whole universe, really? After seeing the plans Sony had for this universe, I'm glad that it was discontinued. Well, something must have happened between then and now because Sony is making solo films of Spider-Man villains. I don't plan on watching them for reasons I explained in my villain's rant. Also, I don't see the point in these movies. I mean, what's the endgame? If this is what Sony's Spider-Verse looks like, then I'm not impressed. Wait! Why am I talking about universes? I thought that's what into the Spider-Verse was doing, so why do we need another one? Making a Spider-Verse is a mistake because, first of all, there are not enough interesting characters to justify this universe's existence. 

Second, the Spider-Men and women's abilities are not different enough to where they can stand out. 

How is this any different from giving each Power Ranger a solo movie? If anyone should get a solo movie is Agent Venom. That's saying a lot because I find Flash Thompson/Agent Venom annoying. I mean, you don't get to torment Peter and then be an anti-hero, screw you. He also gives him backhanded compliments outside the comics. Do you see why I find this character so aggravating? For this movie to work, Peter has to beat the crap out of Flash to the point where Flash is sent to the trauma room. After that, Peter visits him because he feels bad about how badly he beat him up, and they both reconcile. After that, it's all she wrote. 

As far as suggestions for future movies goes, hire people who care about this I.P., and the studio needs to stop undermining the director. With that said, I would like to see a story around an older Peter Parker because we got bits and pieces of what an older Spider-Man could look like in Spider-Man PS4 and into the Spider-Verse movie. Also, I'm getting tired of seeing him in a high school setting. That's saying a lot considering these movies haven't done much with this character in that setting. Seriously, who asked for a series of his freshman year? Now I wouldn't have minded that if the writers had added nuance to Peter being in high school. I would be interested in seeing unscheduled stop get adapted into a movie. We don't get a lot of superhero movies that are limited to two or three locations. 

Also, have Black Cat as a love interest for Spider-Man. It could be hard to bring her into the films because people will compare her to Catwoman. She would create an interesting love triangle. I say that because when Spider-Man reveals that he's Peter Parker, she wasn't happy about it. I know this has been done before; however, it wasn't done well. I like how this character was used in the Spider-Man 2 video game, because she boosts Peter's morale to be Spider-Man and causes Peter to have to choose between someone he loves vs someone Spider-Man loves. 

I would also like to see a Spider-Man movie with him, Black Cat, Anti-Venom, Agent Venom, and Harry Osborn as the Green Goblin. Having those characters would create an intreating dynamic considering that they all know each other. Another thing Hollywood should take notes on how Spider-Man PS4 took creative liberties with the source material. That game did it in a way that it still feels like Spider-Man for the most part. I mean, I'm not crazy about MJ being a Lois Lane clone, or Harry could be Venom.

That's all I have to say about this topic, for now. What do you think of the movies and what direction should they take?             

Superman and Lois season 2 review

 Superman and Lois season 2 review 

 

Intro: I hope the writers won't make the same mistake as the Flash writers. 

Superman and Lois season two: This season takes place three months after the events of last season and Smallville manages to get back to normal. Until someone from Lois's past shows up in Smallville and she has plans that will endanger everyone. So, Superman and Lois have to stop her before it's too late. 

This season is similar to last season but not as good. Part of the reason why is because there are so many subplots where all of them don't get resolved or they drag out. Yes! The first season did this, but they weren't stretched so thin. It's hard to appreciate the stake in this season because the writers didn't do a good job of reinforcing the consequences if the villain achieves her goal. The climax is also ridiculous because it opens up a can of worms about Superman's abilities. Basically, this season reinforces the things people didn't like about season one like family drama and side characters. The series also suffers from plot holes and some of the effects stand out like a sore thumb. The themes of this season are secrets and redemption. This season deals with how secrets can hurt relationships, but the creators drop the ball with handling the redemption theme.   

Besides having an arc on being a better father this season hasn't done much with Clark/Superman. I don't like that he's not doing anything for money as far as we know because that's going to create problems. 

Lois Lane has a lot of family baggage this season. I mean she still has issues with her father, mother and now her sister because of her connection to the big bad. The only complaint I have with her is that there was suppose to be a subplot of her building a relationship with Nat (John Henry Irons's daughter.) but the writer ignores that. Also, both her and Clark can be narrow-minded over what Johnathan did.  

This season hasn't done anything new with Jordan besides the creator taking steps to him becoming superboy. I would like to know why he stops playing football? 

Johnathan is still dealing with insecurities about fitting in Smallville. What annoys me about this character is that he did something that got him in a lot of trouble and the writers didn't stick to him dealing with the consequences of his actions what the fudge? 

Nat is a bright and mature girl. Like Jordan, she too is taking steps to help her father in the field. My gripe with her is she's out of line for telling her father how he should go through the grieving process.            

I don't know how I feel about Sarah because she did two things to Jordan that's messed up. OK, the first thing is understandable to a degree, but the second thing doesn't make her look like a good girlfriend.  

Lane Lang is running for Mayor of Smallville against a shady candidate and we see how this election will affect her family. 

Sam Lane just provided emotional support for Lois and her sister Lucy in this season. Plus, help Jordan with his powers. 

   

Lt. Anderson is filling in for General Lane and they don't have a good working relationship because he doesn't trust Superman for some reason. Of course, this leads to him escalating things that didn't need to be escalated. 

Tal-Rho (Formerly known as Morgan Edge.) has a redemption arc this season. We see him helping Superman and trying to make amends for what he did last season. My issue with this is that it's kind of rushed. Another thing where did he get an A.I. of his and Superman's mother?   

I'm not happy that this series wasted Bizarro! That's saying a lot considering that this is a Superman character that I'm not fond of. For example, the writers could have used Bizarro World as a cautionary tale for what's going on in Smallville. Also, his fortress of solitude is better than Superman's. 

Ally Allston (the main baddie) is a manipulative cult leader who's trying to make her followers feel whole at the expense of their and other people's lives. What annoys me about her is that the show hits that she's a Superman villain and I'm not crazy about it. Also, feeling whole is another theme this season could explore.  

I like that this season plays with our expectations and teases a villain for season three. This season confirms that this show is separated from the other CW shows. (Thank goodness.) Overall, this is not a bad fellow up to season one but it's underwhelming. 

My review of Lightyear

My review of Lightyear 

Intro: Congratulations Chucky! You finally have company because this is the second creepiest thing I've seen. 

 

My editor: Excuse me what about Babidi? 

I'm sorry this is the third creepiest thing I've seen. There is no way that this will sell as much as Elmo, Pikachu and Grogu. (After I saw the Movie.) OK, I like my Crow medium-rare. 

Lightyear: This movie is centered on a space ranger name Buzz Lightyear who is stranded on an unknown planet with other crew members and Buzz tries to figure out a way to get them off the planet. That task becomes difficult when he sees that doing this comes with a price and someone wants the MacGuffin that Buzz needs to travel in space. So, Buzz has to avoid this person and try to complete his objective. 

Pixar not only you be ashamed of yourself for giving us this lifeless movie the people who worked on the Buzz Lightyear cartoon deserve an apology. You can say what you want about the cartoon it was more entertaining and creative than this! Plus, the cartoon did some things better than this movie. If you consider that cartoon to be the black sheep of the Toy Story franchise, then why did you make two references to it? (No! The LGMs are not in this movie.) I appreciate that this movie wants to be about living with the mistakes you make but the movie drops the ball in that department. 

The movie didn't do a good job at world-building; for example, it doesn't focus on how people feel about adjusting to living on a hostile planet. Reinforce what a space ranger is, I mean are they space police or space explorers? Really they wouldn't have ended up on that planet if they used probes to investigate it beforehand. The film also has some head-scratching moments. I find it hard to believe that this movie cost 200 million dollars to make because we only get two locations in this movie.  

I refuse to believe that the Buzz Lightyear toy came from this movie because A Andy never mentioned this movie and B I thought this movie was going to be a parody of sci-fi movies considering what we learn about Buzz. Plus, this movie added things about Buzz that we didn't know before for example, I didn't know his suit can turn you into a fruit. I'm not kidding about that. Also, the writers could've written out two characters in this movie because they serve no purpose in this movie beyond being comic relief and they're not that funny. 

I don't have much to say about the elephant in the room in this movie because it's harmless. I understand why parents would have issues with it, but this is something that kids are going to be exposed to. I'm not saying what Pixar did in this movie was OK however you can't deny that this exists just because we don't like it. Now if the scene lasted for ten seconds or it was hot and heavy then I would understand why parents are outraged over this. Don't get me started on how time travel works in this movie. 

Buzz Lightyear is a by-the-book guy who's all work and no play. That's what bugs me about him he's not as fun as his toy counterpart. I'm not saying he has to be just like him, but at least have him be chumpy or smile. His ARC in the movie is also problematic because he doesn't have the right character traits for it to work and the other thing this movie did with this character could have been resolved sooner. The ACR in this movie was done better in the Star Command pilot movie. Plus, it's hard to appreciate that he's missing out on things because it lacks emotional weight and he broth that on himself. He only knows one person as far as we know and we don't get enough scenes with them together to value their relationship. He also does some questionable and dumb things.  

Alisha Hawthorne (Buzz's CO and best friend.) Is a fun character who bounces off Buzz being a stick in the mud. I don't like that she shared Buzz's famous line. 

Sox is like R2-D2 as far as being helpful. That's what bugs me about him, I mean how and why would a companion robot be this advance? Although Sox is adorable that doesn't make him less crappy or change the fact that he's in the movie to sell toys. Also, I'm not crazy about the cat jokes with him. 

Izzy Hawthorne (Alisha Hawthorne's granddaughter.) Is like her grandmother and has ambitions to become a space ranger. I wish that she had a better dynamic with Buzz.   

Zurg (the main villain) may look menacing but that doesn't make up for the fact that I'm not happy with what this movie did with this character. You'll understand when you watch the movie. (Really, I'm surprised that this wasn't the elephant in the room instead of the "bleep" but I digress.) His goal in the movie is not that bad I mean it won't harm people. because of that, it's hard for me to see him as a villain. The conflict between him and Buzz shouldn't exist when you think about it. Another thing his existence creates a time paradox. I'm also not crazy about his design in this movie. It's not bad but it doesn't match the toy. Did we really need a reason why he's called Zurg?     

Besides some funny bits and making references to other sci-fi films the only compliment I can give this movie is the CGI. The CGI in this movie is stunning to the point where you can notice every detail of the characters and environment. We get one brief moment where Buzz sees how much time has changed. You can argue that this movie did a better job at being about making the best out of your situation than Jurassic World Domination did. Also, this movie will make people appreciate the Buzz Lightyear cartoon.  

Overall, this movie will not be joining Pixar's list of best films. Really this movie shouldn't exist because it's a disservice to what came before. I wouldn't recommend you check this out if you like time travel films because Interstellar and Project Almanac did a better job than this movie.  

Rating = Trash      

My Jurassic World Trilogy review

My Jurassic World Trilogy review 

 

Intro: Did anyone think that a movie with Dinosaurs would beat Marvel at the Box Office? 

Jurassic World: This movie is about an island resort on Isla Nublar that's open to the public, it's called Jurassic World and it features Dinosaurs. Despite the resort running successfully for ten years people are starting to lose interest in dinosaurs, so they create a new attraction with a hybrid dinosaur called the Indominus Rex. That plan is ruined when the Indominus Rex escapes and wreaks havoc on the island. So, the staff has to stop this creature before it destroys everything.   

I consider this movie to be a proper sequel to the first movie. What bothers me about the last two films is that they feel like side stories that didn't do much to push the story forward, that's not the case here. The movie expands on the questions and themes from the first film by putting them into practice. The movie also captures what we love about the first film by paying homage to it without it feeling like the same movie. That was a smart move because it helps the movie be a shared experience for fans and newcomers. The movie is kind of self-aware I mean it makes fun of marketing, sequels and it even took a jab at JP3. The CGI and the resort are a huge improvement over what the first film did. I like the Indominus Rex because of how dangerous this creature is. The Indominus Rex doesn't just pose a threat to the tourist but to the other dinosaurs as well. I'm fond of the Velociraptors in this movie because they're used to explore the theme of control over nature. 

Owen Grady has a similar personality to Ian Malcolm but not as sarcastic. Owen is an ex military and an animal behavior specialist that trains the Velociraptors. That's what I like about this character because doing that makes him the bridge between the Dinosaurs and the humans. Despite training Velociraptors to do tricks looks ridiculous the movie pulled it off. He doesn't control raptors because they're still dangerous animals however he builds a rapport with them. I'm surprised that he has a history with Claire considering how off-putting she is.          

Speaking of Claire Dearing she's a workaholic to the point where she comes off as an ice queen. That's understandable considering that she's the manager of the park and it's a demanding job. I wish we learn more about her. 

Lowery Cruthers (an employee of the resort.) is the comic relief. I have an issue with how he responds to how Claire talks to him. If it was me I wouldn't respond in a civilized matter. Managers need to learn that they're not above getting hurt but I digress. 

Simon Masrani is the owner of Jurassic World, he's kind of like John Hammond but with a carefree spirit. The only complaint I have with him is that he's underdevelopment.  

Vic Hoskins is the head of security of Jurassic World. It's hard for me to consider him the villain because he didn't do anything bad. Yes! He was shady however he had the park's best interest in mind. However, there is one scene in the movie that made him look bad. 

The problem I have with this movie is the movie doesn't explain how the park is open to the public after everything that happened in the last three movies? The kids in this movie annoyed me because the director didn't do anything new with them. I understand why they're in the movie but it doesn't change the fact that it feels tacked on. Also, what was their mother thinking about leaving them with her sister who's too busy to do anything? The movie could have done a better job with the theme of control. There is a minor character from the first film and it's hard to appreciate what this movie has done with him or her because we don't know much about this person in any of the films. I wish the Indominus Rex wasn't viewed as a monster because it's not his or her fault that he or she is like this.  

Overall this movie is a good addition to this franchise, that's saying a lot considering how long it took to make this movie. I would recommend this if you didn't like the last two films.  

Rating = Worth Seeing               

Intro: I'm not feeling any love for this movie. Seriously I don't get why this movie got some much hate. I'm not saying that people are not allowed to dislike or not have issues with a movie however most of the complaints people have with this movie are not valid. The things that bother people about this movie makes them look stupid, hypocritically and pitiful. I was going to do a response to what people have to say about this movie but that would be a waste of time. This is what happens when you focus on what's familiar in a film you don't notice any nuance in it.      

Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom: The movie takes place three years after the events in the last movie and the resort has been shut down since then. One day the public learn that the volcano on Isla Nublar has become active and it could wipe out the dinosaurs. While world leaders are discussing what they should do about the dinosaurs, Claire takes it upon herself to get the dinosaurs off the island with the help of Owen and someone from John Hammond's past. That becomes difficult because of a conspiracy involving the dinosaurs, so Claire and Owen have to figure out what that is.  

This movie is a good way to celebrate the 25 anniversary of this franchise! I say that because the movie made references to the other films and it embraces elements from the novel more than the first film. The subtitle of the movie has three different means in the story. This is also the most entertaining film in this franchise, that's saying a lot considering that this movie can be dark and scary. The pacing in the movie is well done, you don't notice the movie's runtime. I appreciate how this movie incorporates a character from the original trilogy without this person being a part of the story. The new hybrid dinosaur may not be a step up from the previous one however it has a personality. It enjoys taunting its prey before he or she kills it. You can argue that the theme of this movie is responsibility, everyone has a role to play in why the dinosaurs are here and what happens to them. The twist in the movie could open new doors for this franchise. I like the way this movie ended because I was waiting for the franchise to go in this direction for a long time. 

Claire is a much more pleasant character than she was in the last movie. You really feel her pain when something undermines her ability to save the dinosaurs.     

Owen is jaded due to the events of the last film to the point where he has regrets.   

Franklin is a big chicken in this movie. OK, I'm being unfair if I was on an island full of untamed dinosaurs I would run and scream like a little girl too. 

Zia is the best female character in this franchise! I say that because she keeps her cool instead of screaming her head off, she's also sassy.    

I don't have a lot to say about Benjamin Lockwood because he's underdeveloped in this movie. I wish he was the villain to make up for John Hammond not being the bad guy in the first film. 

Eli Mills is an actual villain in this franchise. He's a ruthless man who will let nothing stand in his way of making a profit. 

One of the problems I have with this movie is it seems to retcon the origin of these dinosaurs. Blue doesn't really need to be in the movie when you think about it. The trailers gave away too much of the film. All in all, this is an underrated film that deserves a second viewing. 

Rating = Worth Seeing 

  

Intro: OK what was the point of showing us that five-minute preview if it's not going to be in the movie? 

Jurassic World Dominion: This movie takes place four years after the events of the last film and we see how Dinosaurs and humans are able to co-exist. Owen is reunited with Blue and she has a child. This reunion is short-lived when someone kidnaps Blue's kid, So Owen has to find her or him. 

Epic conclusion my butt! (Considering that this movie left doors open for more movies.) One of my gripes with this movie is the pacing is slow and it didn't focus on the premise of dinosaurs roaming the earth. I wish the movie gives us the public's perspective on the dinosaurs walking among them, I mean everyone can't be happy about it. This film tried to give someone a redemption arc but it's hard to appreciate it when we don't know much about this person. Despite being happy that this movie brings in an element from the novel, the movie could have done a better job with it. I have two issues with the characters from the original trilogy being in this movie. First of all, they are here for nostalgia bait kind of. Second, What the writers are doing with them is small in the grand scheme of things. The movie also suffers from plot holes like who's idea was it to expose the public to certain information and why did (censor) get away with (censor)? The ending was hard to swallow.   

Besides giving Owen and Claire a stable relationship, the movie hasn't done anything with them beyond being parental figures to Maisie. It's hard to appreciate this dynamic because we don't get a tender scene with the three. The movie was trying to give Claire an arc at the beginning of the film, but the movie drops it. 

As far as Alan Grant, Ellie Sattler and Ian Malcolm are the same characters as we remember for the most part. The problem I have with these three is Ellie is overshadowed by the other two. That's a shame because she's the driving force of the second plot. 

Maisie is a frustrated teenage girl. That's understandable considering how she's living. After how we responded when trouble hit the fan two years ago parents should be more understanding of putting their kids in this situation. What annoys me about her is her backstory. It undermines what we thought we know about her and opens up a can of worms. 

Kayla is just in the movie to aid Owen and Claire on their journey. She starts off as a tough woman, but she softens up though out the film. 

I like that this movie gave us a lot of dinosaur actions, moments and different species. When the old characters met the new characters, they play off each other well. The movie has funny moments and easter eggs. If there is a theme or message in the movie it's making the best of our circumstances. This was my most anticipated movie of the year and it was the weakest of this trilogy. I'm not saying the movie is bad however the writers could have done more with the story.

Rating = Average 

My rant about mass shootings

 My rant about mass shootings 

Intro: OK I didn’t want to talk about this because A I don’t have much to say about this topic. Plus, I covered bits and pieces of this in my other posts. B people in power don’t seem to take this seriously. The reason why I’m talking about this is because of the suggestion that was made to fix this issue.

In case you don’t watch the news or live in the wilderness there has been two mass shooting this month. One happened at a supermarket in Buffalo New York and the other happened at an elementary school in Texas. The reason why I mentioned that people in power are not taking this seriously is that they love to blame video games for this. Do I really have to make fun of them for doing that? You know what you shouldn’t have any authority if you think video games are the blame for everything. Not only that they are making it hard for citizens to carry firearms with gun control and background checks. The second amendment is the right to bear arms without the Government infringing on that right. I don't see the point in background checks, I mean anyone can lose their minds and most gun owners are not crazy. You can’t have it both ways you can’t say that we can’t rely on law enforcement and then take issue with the citizens arming themselves. How the police handled the elementary school shooting reinforces that.  

Since we’re on the subject I think it’s messed up that the eighteen-year-old can’t buy a gun. I mean they're old enough to join the Army and live on their own, but they can't buy a gun what gives? This should be a package deal either they are old enough for all three things or none of them at all. I hope congress won’t raise the age for all three things because that could create another problem. Being old enough for something is one thing mature enough that’s something else. Adults have moments where they act like fools. Why do I need to be mentally evaluated to have a God-given right? Why won’t people talk about bullying? I mean that’s one of the characteristics of a school shooter. If you think it’s acceptable for kids to be subjected to humiliation and bodily harm, then you shouldn’t make a big deal about this or kids being molested by their teachers. What are the fundamental differences between these three things?   

Really, I’m surprised that we still have this problem, I mean this has been going on for 15 years and I thought we profile the shooters. Last I checked they are the type of people who keep to themselves, immature, socially awkward and neglected by their parents. This is one of the reasons why it’s hard for me to take these shootings seriously because I’m the type of person that keeps to himself and people are still starting trouble with me. The other reason is that this is the down side of advocating for people owning guns unfortunately. I mean you can't say you want the right to firearm and then complain when this happens. That makes you indirectly responsible for mass shootings. The same thing goes with alcohol, if you like to go to bar or night clubs you don't get to complain about DUI. 

I don’t mind profiling shooters as long as you don’t single people out for having those traits because that could make things worse. Instead of doing that we should be helping them work past or through that stigma. I would like to know why we have this problem because there was a time when we can have a rifle outside of the school and we use to teach our youth how to use guns depending on where they lived. Now we are number one for most school shootings how did this happen? 

Now there are people talking about hardening the schools and having the teachers carry a gun. I’m not crazy about this idea. I know I asked why we don’t protect kids the way we protect money however I don’t think the ends justify the means. Also, we might be manipulated into going in this direction. I say that because there is more going on with the Buffalo shooting than the news is telling us. Look up Aaron Salter and you’ll see what I mean. Another thing this suggestion makes us look like hypocrites. I mean people are thin skin now because they don’t want to step out of their comfort zone because it makes them feel safe. So, staying in a bubble is harmful to your development but it’s OK to put them in a bubble to keep kids safe. (To be fair we put criminals and mentally ill people in a bubble so maybe that wasn’t the best argument.) How is doing this going to put the kid’s minds at ease? If you saw the interviews with the surviving children, they are afraid of guns how is putting them in a place full of them going to make them move past their ordeal?

Public Schools are already a prison you don’t think turning them onto one is going to make things worse? What about teens? We all know how testy they are what if they get in a fight with one of the teachers and the teacher shoots and kill the student in self-defense would you be OK with that? Guns are not the only thing you can use to kill people how will you guard against pencils and scissors? Look I’m not saying we shouldn’t lower the risks of this happening however parents need to do a better job at coming to terms with the fact that their kids will be exposed to the ugly side of life. Also, watching your kids grow up is a luxury we wouldn’t have the sex trafficking ring and kids dying of leukemia if that wasn’t the care. Plus, we don't want to risk alienating each other by projecting our fears onto each other. Another thing what about people who work at fast-food you don't think they need protection? That’s all I have to say about this subject for now. 

P.S. If you can stomach what a shotgun can do to the human body then you shouldn't want one. 

My thoughts on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy

My thoughts on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy 

Intro: OK I will try to keep this short and sweet because I know I'm beating a dead horse. Plus, I wanted to wait for everyone to air out their grievances with this trilogy before I do. 

This year marks the tenth anniversary of Disney owning the rights to Star Wars. They made five movies they are one trilogy and two spin-offs. Sadly, fans are not happy with what this company has done with this franchise. They despise these movies so much that they want them retcon. You don't think that's a slap in the face to the kids who grew up with this trilogy and the people who worked on it? The fans find this trilogy so bad that it's not good enough to make parody videos out of these movies. (Heck, the merchandise is not selling.) This trilogy makes me want to give a backhanded compliment to the prequels. They were bad in a creative way. 

Plus, there are things around the prequels that I enjoy. 

That's saying a lot considering that this trilogy has some of the same problems as the Prequels which is bad writing and not explaining things. To be fair, we have novels to make up for the prequel's shortcomings. The sequel trilogy is bad in a lazy way. I'll elaborate on that later. The fact that people despise both trilogies tells me two things. Either Star Wars has lost its novelty, or fans are too afraid to admit that the original trilogy was also bad. I'm surprised that Disney didn't use George Lucas's outline of the sequel trilogy, considering that they had no plans for this trilogy.  

Speaking of Mr. Lucas, I was rolling on the floor laughing when the fans said they wanted him to come back and do this trilogy. Let me get this straight, you access this man of raping your childhood, made a documentary vilifying him, gave him so much crap over the prequels, the special editions, and you even said that you don't want him anywhere near this franchise that he created. Now you're going to give him a backhanded compliment by saying that the prequels are good. I'm sorry, but you can't burn a bridge and expect someone to save you. 

I have mixed feelings about Mr. Lucas. On one hand, I do feel bad for him because of how fans are giving him a hard time. In a Vanity Fair interview, he said he feels like he's being restricted from making movies a certain way because of the fan's backlash. Look, Mr. Lucas, being creative is not a problem; however, if you go against what was established, then it's an issue. On the other hand, he's not taking responsibility for why fans feel this way about him. He didn't acknowledge that the fans made some valid points, pointing out the mistakes he made with this franchise. Also, I'm tired of him hiding behind this franchise was made for kids excuse, because A that's no excuse for you to be lazy. B You can't make a movie for kids without the kids who grew up with Star Wars in mind. 

The fans can blame JJ Abrams, Rian Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy all they want for how these movies turned out but that doesn't change the fact that they play a role in this as well. I say that because they are acting like women as far as sending mixed messages. After the prequels, you said you want the movies to be more like the original. Disney did that with The Force Awakens and you complain that it's too similar to the original. Despite The Last Jedi being almost similar to the Empire Strikes Back, it was too different from Star Wars and that got fans upset. The Rise of Skywalker tried to do damage control, but the damage is done. Do you see what I mean? This makes me mad because the fans got a studio to listen to them and they ruined it for other fanbases. I'm not just saying that because the fans kept flip-flopping it's because of how they lashed out at everyone who worked on these movies. 

Even Mark Hamill is disgusted by our behavior. Fans should be ashamed of themselves because acting like this shows that this franchise had no impact on them. I mean this franchise tells us that fear and anger are bad things,

 

yet you let those emotions get the best of you to the point where you take it out on people who don't deserve it. 

Seriously don't you feel bad that you chase the actor or actress off of social media and them wanting to commit suicide because of you? It's a shame that Transformers is the most civilized fans we have. Granted! I do talk about wanting to hurt someone when I get mad or disappointed however it's directed at the writers, directors and producers. Plus, I'm sarcastic about it. I'm not a sadistic person, my threats don't go beyond wishing people had cancer or die the most harmful and painful death. 

My editor: The devil is a liar! (He's reading my journey.) When I see Zack Synder, I'm going to chop off his fingers, burn off half his face, crack his ribs with a sledgehammer, run over his legs and rip out his... 

Me: Hey! Are you trying to get me canceled?  

Look I'm not saying that you don't have the right to dislike these films however, you shouldn't go on about it in a way that makes you look toxic and entitled. As far as this trilogy goes, it didn't anger me as much as everyone else. Considering that Disney discontinued the Star Wars EU, Lucas Arts is disbanded and this trilogy has a female lead I saw this coming, I didn't think it was going to be this bad. As far as the spin-off movies goes I didn't watch them because I didn't care about them. Also, is it me or does Rouge One remind you of Halo Reach? 

With that said I enjoyed the first film out of all of them which isn't saying much. The Last Jedi had potential but it's wasted. Rise of Skywalker is the worst of the worst. The people who worked on the first movie should have taken notes from Jurassic World because that movie did a better job at doing something different with a familiar story. As far as The Last Jedi goes I understand making divisive movies is Rian Johnson's MO but that shouldn't come at the expense of an already-established franchise. Subverting our expectations is pointless if it hurts the story. If you want a good example of how to do that watch Million Dollar Baby. For the most part, this trilogy is the same as the original trilogy because the characters are different from the original trilogy the story won't have the same impact on them. 

One of the problems I have with this trilogy is the First Order. I mean we don't know where they came from or how much manpower they have. This is the same issue I have with Snoke, I mean he's just as old or maybe older than the empire so where has he been all of this time? Speaking of Snoke if you're OK with how he was killed off then you should have no problem with Emperor Palpatine being in the third movie. As far as Emperor Palpatine goes, I can't believe that Disney is going to adapt the worst part of the Star Wars EU to bring this character back. Cloning opens up so many cans of worms that I don't want to get into. Also, bringing this character back undermines the original trilogy and the sequel trilogy. Regardless of how you feel about Snoke, you can't deny that the creators wrote themselves in a corner with how he was killed off.  

I know thirty years have passed but this is a franchise with world-building you can't just throw in a new threat with no rhyme or reason. Whatever victory the rebels have over them means nothing because they come back bigger and better. It's hard for me as a viewer to take the first order seriously because of how it's run. I mean everyone is screaming at each other, this is something you expect in a domestic dispute, not in a military organization. I feel bad for Gen. Hucks (the General of the first order) because both Snoke and Kylo undermine and humiliate him in front of his subordinates. Doing that is the quickest way to start a coup that's what happened on the rebel's side but I'm getting ahead of myself. Doing that doesn't boost the General's morale to lead the first order and it doesn't boost the subordinate's morale to follow his orders. I wasn't surprised that Gen. Hunk's sold out the first order because I would have done the same thing.  

Having Rey as the main character was a mistake because of how protective society is of women we don't get to see female characters struggle, rough up, or get their comeuppance in the media. This is why she's portrayed as a Mary Sue for most of the trilogy. Portraying female characters like this has caused more harm than good because we have women who have no respect for men. I'm glad that we have men vs women sports because they need to be reminded that they are the weaker sex. 

My editor: Whoa! Saying that will get you canceled. 

Me: You can shoot the messenger all you want but the facts are the fact. 

Rey started off as interesting as far as being a scavenger learning how to fend for herself and she's waiting for someone. That goes down the toilet when she meets Fin and that's a shame because this trilogy had a chance to give her things, she could work on but the writers didn't do that. For example, the creators could have made her selfish and not trust anyone due to her being abandoned by her parents because that makes sense. She doesn't want to believe that her parents the people who suppose to love her abandoned her. The writers did that with The Last Jedi but it lacks the emotional weight that it could have had. Speaking of Ray's parents I didn't mind them being nobodies because it helps reinforce that the force is mystical and not biological. Which was a problem I had with the Prequels. Plus, this is a lot better than what we got in Rise of Skywalker. What bugs me about them is the movie makes a big deal about them. 

To be fair her being Palpatine's granddaughter; would have worked if she knew from day one.  I mean the reason why she stays on Jakku is that she knows no one will want anything to do with her if they found out who she's related to. Doing this will help her dynamic with Fin and parallel with Luke. Fin is trying to run away for the first order and Rey is trying to hide from the world. Luke wants to know about his father Rey doesn't. After she reluctantly joins Fin, she gains allies and friends. When she reveals that she's Palpatine's granddaughter it doesn't change how they see her because that shouldn't define who you are. Doing that would be Star Wars way of telling a nature vs nurture story. It's hard to go in that direction with Rey because this is the same plot from the first Ratchet and Clank game.  

As far as Rey having a romance with Kylo it would have been interesting to see Star Wars doing their own version of Romeo and Juliet. (Plus make up for Anakin and Padme's romance.) However, I don't see how the writers can pull that off without both parties losing credibility with their respected groups. Also, why would Rey want to be with someone she can map the floor with? Am I the only one insulted to see her train in the last film? We already know you're OP so what's the point of this? 

Kylo Ren is wasted in this trilogy. I say that because we don't know much about him. I like what was done with him in The Last Jedi but the writers ruined it. This character starts off as an emotionally unstable man who's trying to live up to Darth Vader. This characterization ruins this character. I mean the viewers can't take him seriously if he's throwing temper tantrums. Also, it's hard to appreciate how dangerous he is in Luke's eyes when we don't see him cause much death and destruction. In The Last Jedi, he's done with his Vader worship and tries to be more calm and collected. That gets thrown out the window in the third act because he reverts to what he was and to make this worse he's taking orders from Emperor Palpatine in the next movie. After sensing that his mother died he switches sides and this amounts to nothing. If Rey and Kylo had a better relationship it could have mattered.  

Luke Skywalker where do I begin? Look I don't mean that a character falls from grace or having a change of heart however those things have to make sense with the character. Also, that didn't happen here because this is not Luke Skywalker. Luke wouldn't turn his back on the Galaxy and his family especially if he played a role in why the Galaxy is in trouble in the first place. Even if the reason why Luke doesn't want to train Jedi anymore is because he reached the same conclusion as Bendu that doesn't change the fact that everyone else is vulnerable to the dark side. Really, I'm surprised Yoda didn't want the Jedi to end I mean it would make sense why he would feel this way considering everything that happened in the prequels. So, Luke saw visions of Kylo causing death and destruction but not the role he played in it. Does Leia know Luke was thinking about killing her son? What bugs about this character is his interaction with Kylo in the last act. I mean he didn't say I'm sorry or I failed you he treats him like he's beyond saving. What gives? 

Luke: What? Did you expect me to take out my laser sword and take on the entire first order? 

No! I expect you to do something useful. Plus, doing that would be as ridiculous as giving Yoda a lightsaber. I didn't mind him using the force projection to save the rebels, but I wish he didn't do it from a long distance. His death scene wasn't good because it was isolated, I mean the people who know him weren't by his side at the end. That's what bothers me about Han and Leia's death scenes.  

I don't have much to say about Poe Dameron all we know about him is that he's an ace pilot. I
wish he was with Fin and Rey in the first movie. I mean wasn't the point of having three new leads if we barely see them together? We learn that he wasn't always an upstanding guy in the last movie but that amounts to nothing. In the second film, the writers tried to give him an arc of knowing when to lead and when to follow. The problem with that arc is that it wasn't done well. Leia demotes Poe for going against her order then later on she lets him back in the field. After Leia is in the hospital Gen. Holdo takes her place and all we get is them bickering over her plan until Leia gets back. After their back and forth, she gives him a backhanded complaint saying she likes him What the fudge!?! 

This wouldn't have been pointless and a waste of time if Holdo told Poe about her plan. Her excuse for not telling him is that he's a hothead. What is she talking about he wasn't like that with you and how is keeping him in the dark going to put him in a better mood? If your response to this is he should respect the chain of command first of all, where was your respect for the chain of command when Mr. Trump was in office? Second, There's more to being in charge than giving orders you have to put your subordinate's minds at ease with things go wrong. If you don't do that and you're calm about things going wrong you get a coup which ends up happening here. 

I wish I could say that Fin is the best character in this trilogy but the writers ruined him in the
last two films. Even the actor who plays this character wasn't happy with what was done to this character. I would be outraged too because it seems like the marketing pulled a bait-and-switch on us with this character. Fin starts off as a stormtrooper who somehow breaks free from his condition. After that, he helps Poe escape the first order so that he can get as far away from them as he can. After meeting Rey and forming a bond with her he develops to courage to stand up to the first order. In The Last Jedi, the writers hit the reset button with this character. (I still can't get over how fast he was able to recover from getting hit in the spine with a Lightsaber.) The subplot of him and Rose is insulting because it serves as a PSA on how bad war is. Considering what's going on between Russia and Ukraine that part of the movie didn't age well. He's face-off with Capt. Phasma was a joke. In the rise of Skywalker, all he does is shout Rey! and try to tell her that he loves her. How this trilogy handled this character makes me sick because he could have worked as the main character. 

The other problems I have with this trilogy are the MCU style of humor, the force and the themes in The Last Jedi. How the force works in this movie makes me question if there are any limits to the force? If you can use the force to communicate and touch people from a long distance, then why can't they teleport? Don't get me started on force healing! I don't like it because it eliminates any tension in a dire situation. Really, having this ability undermines episode 3. Do I really have to comment on Leia's Mary Poppen moment? Why didn't Leia use The Force to move the rocks? The themes in The Last Jedi is learning from your mistakes and letting the past die. The issue I have with the first theme is that it doesn't work if characters don't admit to their screw-ups. That's what bugs me about Yoda being in this movie because he could have acknowledged that the Jedi failed because of him not following the well of the force and gotten soft since the Sith haven't been around in a long time. How does this theme apply to Rey? I mean she hasn't made any mistakes so why have a theme that doesn't affect the main character? As far as letting the past die, I find it insulting considering the writers are using the past to tell their story. This theme could have worked if it was used properly in the story. 

Overall, Disney has dropped the ball with this trilogy. It's sad that this franchise can't have any success outside of the original trilogy era for the most part. 

It would be a miracle if we get any more movies out of this franchise not just because Disney is going down the toilet it's because the fans are starting to make this a franchise that no one wants to touch.