Original Saga,  Prequel Trilogy,  Skywalker Saga,  The Rise of Skywalker

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker: rumor about how the reshoots changed Palpatine’s scenes


Warning! Potential spoilers ahead.

JediPaxis, a reliable “leaker”, has posted an updated version of his summary of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker on Reddit. It includes the changes due to reshoots and edits. Click here to download it.

Below are the main changes concerning Palpatine’s scenes.

• When Kylo Ren finds Darth Vader’s wayfinder, he hears Palpatine’s voice calling him to come to him.

• When Palpatine meets Kylo, he doesn’t explicitly refute that he died on the Death Star II.

• Palpatine’s mentions of the “Force dyad” (a strong link between his granddaughter Rey and Kylo) have been deleted.

• Palpatine senses Leia’s death and he’s happy about it, because he thinks that Rey now has nobody to turn to but him.

• Luke Skywalker’s ghost tells Rey that he and Leia knew that Rey was a Palpatine.

• Palpatine’s royal guards appear during the final confrontation. Rey defeats them.

• Palpatine really wants Rey to kill him with anger, take over and carry on his legacy, but he fails to convince her. Sucking Rey and Ben Solo’s energy to rejuvenate himself was only his contingency plan.

• The appearance of Luke and Leia’s ghosts to help Rey against Palpatine was cut. Instead, Rey communes with many dead Jedi who spritually help her. The voices of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Ahsoka Tano and Leia are heard among others.

Remember that those are just rumors for now.


  • Stefan K

    These changes are more in line with my personal interpretation of SW: More a spiritual victory than an overpowering of the Dark Side.
    I am not sure about Palpatine’s original plan: He may be more than justified that Rey would act as intended after killing him (the Dark Side brings the worst part of you to the surface, especially your craving for power – so given the opportunity, you would most certainly become the new Emperor/Empress). Still, would Rey be competent enough? She may be willing, but without proper machiavellian training, the new Empire would probably crumble after a short amount of time.
    As these are just rumours and parts may be missing, we will see.

    • Natalie

      Probably means it’s true.
      Anyone seen the Cnet article about the ST vs. the PT? Funny how the tide is turning. All Lucas needed to do to get some appreciation is to sell the franchise to a greedy corporation (unfortunately)

      • Cryogenic

        @ Natalie:

        As I just wrote in another post, that same CNET article is suppressed at TFN. Two prequel fans were shot down and had their posts censored by a moderator for having the nerve to provide a link in the main “Pro-Prequel Articles” thread on the PT forum. Unbelievable; and yet par for the course over at that place now.

        The article itself, I have to say, is nothing special. But to actively block people from sharing it is something else…


      • Cryogenic

        @ Natalie:

        Oh, LOL!!! You’re one of the people censored, Natalie. Makes sense, I guess.

        Doesn’t matter who you are; if you go against some arbitrary edict that protects the precious sequels from the scurrilous harm of disapproving words — WORDS!!! — your posts will be interfered with and adjusted regardless.

        Fascinating how the prequels were never granted such special protection. I guess corporations (empires) have more rights than countries and individuals. I mean, it’s been obvious for a while, but the impositions by the former on the latter are now leading to the decay of democracy and the fomenting of civil unrest.

        So, all in all, good job by the mods at upholding human values and completely embodying the major themes and story warnings of the prequels!

      • Cryogenic

        @ “Ty”:

        This is account number… what… from you? I lost track a long time ago.

        Big strings of pejorative words back there:

        – “you’re too angry, jaded and corrupt to understand”
        – “your endless cycle of fear, hate, rage and powerlessness”

        It sounds, to me, like you’re actually describing yourself — what in psychology circles is known as projection. But that’s none of my business…

        As for censorship/not censorship on TFN:

        It’s censorship.

        Ask yourself why they don’t allow PT vs. ST debates or discussions of any kind there in the first place.

        And I did (implicitly) acknowledge the reality of such specific censorship. I said the prequels were never granted such protection — meaning there was no equivalent restriction on pitting the prequels against the originals, and vice versa. In other words, yes, when it comes to the sequels, you aren’t allowed to discuss the trilogies as rival/competing artworks or production regimes. That is a change and a difference from how things *used* to be.

        One thing I didn’t actually get into is that the mod who slapped those posters down and censored them is also lying. These are his exact words:

        “We have never allowed PT vs. ST/OT/etc. stuff here.”

        That assertion is totally false. They used to allow it. In specific threads. Then they started clamping down and initiated a purge of such discussion — including certain members (like myself) who engaged in it. And now they actively lie about it and pretend it has always been that way. Message board Stalinism.

        The same mod then disingenuously deflects when a prequel poster asks him where he might be able to post such material (comparing the sequels to the prequels in an unfavourable light). The mod suggests trying a different forum. However, the forum he cites also has the same censorship in place.

        The mod casually adds that the poster might want to “run the specific content by the staff over there first”. But what that means is: “Good luck getting those other mods to agree to it.” Indeed, another mod then posts in the thread by quoting the first mod and replying with a Britney Spears “cringe” graphic.

        The reality of the situation is very clear: They are actively, consciously, and deliberately suppressing criticism of the Disney films from taking place.

        It started when they muzzled people by telling them not to use the term “Mary Sue” in relation to the Rey character. Which is an obvious synecdoche, given that Rey is the main protagonist, designed to discourage a range of critical sentiment and multifarious lines of conversation on the new films. Not long after, they upped the censorship by doubling down on the Mary Sue restriction, adding that people could no longer pit the trilogies, or Lucas/Disney, against one another.

        It’s how censorship always starts. Seize control of the language (and pretend you’re building in restrictions for the greater good). George Orwell explained this with chilling precision in “1984”. Maybe you should read it. In fact, everyone should. We are more or less living in that world now.

      • Ty J

        *** Hi, I’m Alessio Pasquali. My comment was edited by the administrator of this blog because I’m a troll who insults and threatens people and who keeps coming back despite having been banned dozens of times. ***

      • Cryogenic

        @ “Ty”:

        Sure. Life has never been fair. But people have the capacity to make it fairer. However, power tends to corrupt, and there are plenty of poisonous ideologies and ideas around. It is against that kind of malevolence and stupidity that we must all do battle.

      • Natalie

        The personal canon can be anything you want (some people only acknowledge the OT or maybe even only Star Wars 1977). However, without the creator involvement it’s not canon in a general sense (especially with no respect for the existing legacy).

      • Slicer87

        TFN is just one group of many Disney shills trying to control fan dissent with the ST aka Nuwars. As I predicted, the PT hatehoys have turned on the ST too. Sadly, SW is a sinking ship thanks to Disney’s complete mismanagement and SJW pandering. The censorship of the ST criticism is nearly everywhere now.

  • archdukeofnaboo

    Here’s what a reliable “leaker” has been telling me: Palpatine’s true identity will be revealed to be Xi Jinping.

  • maychild

    Although we’re supposed to think the SW prequels are universally reviled (and before you jump on me with your tale of being traumatized by their “objective badness,” which absolutely EVERYONE you’ve EVER met agrees with, I KNOW a lot of people hate them…I could scarcely believe otherwise, given that said people have controlled the microphone for 20 years, though to hear them talk, they’re persecuted and silenced), the prequels have actually had more influence on filmmaking, and genre entertainment, than is usually commented on. Rather like the Original Trilogy, in fact, though of course that had a more drastic and far-reaching impact not just on movies but on popular culture. And, of course, whether the influence of the prequels — and the originals — has been positive or negative is dependent on who you ask.

    But back to the point. One of the ways the prequels have been influential is that they have inspired the trend of…well, of prequels, not just in movies, but in TV series, book series (as is the case here), just about every form you can think of. I know the concept of the prequel was not invented by Lucas and that prequels have been made for movies, et al for quite some time. But not on this scale. And again, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on who you ask.

    However, it is reasonable to say that the SW prequels did inspire this significant trend. Even the holy, sacred pretentious LOTR borefests were initially held above said trend by the self-righteous Rhodes scholars who bragged that the series had more “substantialness” (sic) than SW — only to succumb to it with an unnecessary stretching out of “The Hobbit” (the source of which, it must be said, was not a prequel to LOTR; Tolkien wrote those books AFTER “The Hobbit”) into a trilogy. Weirdly, the critics who panned “The Hobbit” managed to drag Lucas and the SW prequels into it; I guess they blamed his pernicious evil and greed for corrupting the virtuous Saint Peter “The Great” Jackson, who they’d previously lauded for making “King Kong” entirely with blue/green screen in the same year they excoriated Lucas for supposedly doing likewise with “Revenge of the Sith.”

    • jpieper668

      also screen rant has a new article saying The Prequels aren’t better than the sequels i promise i won’t provide a link But if you’re Curious about it check it for your self and tell me what you think

      • archdukeofnaboo


        Don’t worry about this too much, man. There lots of us out there, all over the world, celebrity and non-celebrity, who think the prequels are great and fine the way they are. That Screenrant clickbait ain’t foolin’ anybody.

      • Cryogenic

        @ Joe:

        Post it, Joe. A couple of prequel fans posted it at TFN and have already been censored by the mods. Naboo News allows for freedom of speech. I think it’s important we can actually read the damn articles that the geek-media complex puts out. At TFN, there’s a different philosophy at work, and people are actively stifled and controlled like small children. Hopefully, Naboo News doesn’t go the same route.

      • Cryogenic

        This is the heinous, awful, terrible, insidious, civilization-ending dirge of an article that the mods at TFN don’t want anyone reading (not sure if it’s the same as the article Joe alluded to).

        Because — horror of horrors — it actually dares to suggest those putrid prequels (they still get bashed in the article) actually have a few things over the sequels, and such heretical notions can not be allowed to endure into the cold light of day.

        Not at message boards aiming to maintain a crooked, feudalistic power structure over a manipulated serf population, anyway.


      • Cryogenic

        @ Joe:

        Ah, okay… You were, indeed, speaking of a different article.

        These pieces of annoying household lint keep coming, don’t they?

        I’ll assume you left the “leave-comment” part of the URL intact just for me. I don’t have much to say, however, except maybe this:

        (Quoting the article)

        “What are well-made movies are Disney’s Star Wars Sequels. That’s not to say they’re perfect, but just on a basic filmmaking and scriptwriting level, they’re a clear cut above what Lucas was doing with the Prequels: the effects, the dialogue, much of the action, the characters, and the storylines (at least in terms of execution) that we see in Disney’s Sequel Trilogy totally surpass what’s in the Prequels.”

        Sorry, but no.

        Now, I did just warn you, I don’t have much to say, but:

        These sorts of compressed diatribes/polemics/click-pieces (call ’em what you will) strike me as little more than “the chattering buzz of ideologically possessed demons” (credit to Jordan Peterson for that one). Completely vacuous, flattened out, stultifyingly uninteresting “assertions” — if you can even dignify them to that limited extent — that do little more than stiffly dissect and itemise the films, offer no real insight into anything, lack even the polite veneer of intellectual rigour or seriousness, and make about as much impact on the brute fact of the films’ existence and their dense aesthetic magisteriums as a bug splatting on the windshield of a slow-moving trailer truck.

        The amazing thing is how these pieces are churned out in a totally alienating and dispiriting assembly-line process (a droid factory of click culture): one dull, idiotic fifty-cent pamphlet on why you should dislike and shun the PT and ritually purge it from any sort of deeper analysis or consideration, follows immediately after another; each simultaneously displacing and layering on the next like a stack of repetitive YouTube comments, or the imbecilic, self-satisfied rantings of religious preachers, or political pundits signalling their virtue and constantly gainsaying one another like pre-programmed robots on television. There is not one speck of original, daring, enrapturing, enamouring, or elevating thought in any of these sock-puppet effusions.

        Rather than reading these tripe confections and contributing to the carbon load of the Earth’s tenuously compromised atmosphere, I recommend more productive activities, like watching pornography, or buying a few hundred cartons of cigarettes and smoking yourself to death; or doing both and setting fire to your genitals at the same time. Now, that’s not an insult or an attack on anyone in particular; just me trying to be a bit funny. But those activities would probably be more pleasurable and less trite than ever visiting Screen Rant again in this or a thousand other lifetimes. If anything could ever justify Chinese-style Internet censorship, it’s that website and its inane, boilerplate ramblings.

      • archdukeofnaboo


        Chinese internet censorship, eh? Well, would you speak of the devil, that’s a heated topic right now with the NBA, which has got itself in very hot waters over a little pro-Hong Kong tweet from a general manager in Houston. They’re now effectively censoring people in the free United States in order to satisfy their foreign paymasters. Worrying trend, isn’t it?

        What may be worse is the glaring double standard. In their own country, players and coaches have been known to speak out about Trump’s policies, and the league has earned a reputation for being “woke”. In 2018, Lebron James, the NBA’s biggest star, tweeted:


        However, just the other day on the subject of the HK protestors, the same man told us people need to be “more educated” and that “I do not believe there was any consideration for the consequences and ramifications of the tweet. I’m not discussing the substance. Others can talk About that.”

        I guess the concentration camps in Xinjang or the ethnic cleansing of Tibetans, or even the pro-democracy marches in HK don’t mean anything, because you know, as long as my own minority and my multi-million dollar shoe deal is intact, there is justice in the world.

      • Cryogenic

        @ Arch Duke:

        There are a lot of worrying trends and all manner of wretched hypocrisy where the notion of dissent and the principle of free speech are concerned. Why does he even call himself “KingJames”? A touch conceited. Many celebrities and wealthy individuals are materialistic, greedy hypocrites, for sure. But it really starts to read ugly when a person is hand-waving away enormous human rights abuses committed by a powerful superstate, especially after engaging in safe, easy condemnation of a sitting President and earning liberal brownie points for it, agreed.

      • archdukeofnaboo


        Ah, Cryo, I was expecting you to go to town on that one! I guess you’ve engaged so much on the free speech debate that you’ve become a bit weary at this stage. I suppose you’ve seen it all.

        It would appear that South Park is one of the few American enterprises that bravely refuses to bend over to China. A recent episode took the p*ss out of both the NBA and Disney for acquiescing to the demands of the regime, and it’s worth watching. China has since ended up banning the show, erasing it entirely from its interweb, and the animators responded with a hilarious mocking apology.

        I’m not an expert on what a Hollywood studio has to do to get its films shown over there, but I do know that one called “Dr Strange” (Marvel/Disney) had to get rid of a Tibetan monk character. Really shameful when one thinks of it, but I guess there was too much money to make.

        Oh, well, I suppose we can keep deluding ourselves with TLJ that Disney is a progressive force for good. If we see it enough on our liberal Twitter echo chambers, maybe we’ll start believing it?

        I mean why stand up to a real-life First Order and its Supreme Leader Xi, when you can pontificate about toxic masculinity or animal rights in your movies instead? You can even wear a pair of Gucci sunglasses while you’re doing so.

      • Cryogenic

        @ Arch Duke:

        “Ah, Cryo, I was expecting you to go to town on that one! I guess you’ve engaged so much on the free speech debate that you’ve become a bit weary at this stage. I suppose you’ve seen it all.”

        You’re not wrong. Everyone has their limits.

        People that cheer on the “woke” themes of TLJ, and pat themselves on the back for doing so, are also overlooking abuses from Disney itself. Bob Iger is a billionaire, and like most/all billionaires, he got that wealth from exploiting others. The world can’t really be free — per Marx — until workers own the means of production. Iger is a shining example of how greedy capitalists (that people applaud TLJ for criticising) parasite on the labour of others, depriving them of their fair share of the profits.

        I mean, things have gotten better, of course. In Marx’s time, the working class (the majority of the population) generally worked 12 or 14 hours per day, six or seven days a week, often in harsh and profoundly unsafe conditions, with less than a week’s (unpaid) holiday all year. This is no longer the reality for most people in the West. In the developing world, of course, it’s a whole other story — and our (relative) luxury is predicated on their suffering. Nevertheless, the working class are still being exploited under state capitalism in the West, and even the middle class is shrivelling up.

        Park workers at Disney, for example, have long been paid the federal minimum wage, and some have had to resort to sleeping in their cars, since they can’t afford rent. A survey published last year found that three-quarters of Los Angeles workers don’t earn enough to cover basic expenses, and one in ten has experienced homelessness, in one of the wealthiest nations on Earth. How is this possible? Because wealthy capitalists game the system to their advantage and bilk everyone else. Even the ecological and geopolitical stability of our planet is now directly threatened by their tyrannical selfishness and unbridled greed.

        Before anyone corrects me: Disney recently hiked the wage up, but the reality is that corporations always diddle things and continue to deprive workers of just earnings. Increases in wages, for instance, are normally accompanied by employers slashing hours and reducing or removing benefits and perks for their employees. The golden rule in capitalism is that you never screw yourself over for anyone or anything. You are obligated to look for continual workarounds (including bribing politicians and paying for special interest groups to manipulate laws in your favour). The “good news” of capitalism is that these workarounds are always in easy reach. Therefore, as long as you’re sufficiently diligent, your bottom line is never affected — your labour force (and the planet) be damned.

        There is much historical precedent for these tactics within Disney. The company’s founder, dear ol’ Walt himself, was famously hostile to labour unions, after his animation department went on strike in May 1941, protesting for better pay and conditions. He later sneered in a letter that he was glad to be rid of “the chip-on-the-shoulder boys and the-world-owes-me-a-living lads”, even alleging to the House Un-American Activities Committee that communism had played a role in the strike:


        Rich capitalists are always the first to point the finger at low-paid employees (who are forced to rent themselves to a capitalist slave-master for their existence within a grossly unequal capitalist society), accusing them of being greedy and entitled, as they live comfortably on the spoils of offshore bank accounts, while their workforce is fleeced and exploited for everything they’ve got. Under state capitalism, most people barely get by; all they need to surrender to their wealthy, greedy slave masters, for a barely-guaranteed minimum standard of living, is their body, mind, and soul.

        You may notice that Lucas wove many slavery motifs into his films — and with good reason. Lucas himself was a slave-master, but something of a fairer one than average. Slavery and a slave mentality are more or less ubiquitous among human beings, as far as I can see. And our society, as Lucas himself recently said, is based on the caveman concept of “the guy with the biggest hammer wins”. Unfortunately, most can’t see how enslaved and exploited they really are. I can’t take someone like Lebron James too seriously. I’m not much of a sports fan, and I certainly don’t follow American sports, but he’s obviously a lot better paid than most people in the world, even other Americans. Yet look how he behaves. Even he is afraid of losing his spoils; or access to future spoils. Capitalism in action.

        “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” — Rousseau

        See what you did, AD? You got me started!

      • Slicer87

        Marx had a few valid criticisms, but many of his solutions turned out worse than the problems he was trying to fix. Stalin was at least an equal monster to Hitler, perhaps even worse. I believe capitalism is the best system we have come up with so far, despite its flaws. It generally responds to market demand pretty well and avoids shortages. Perhaps because humans are imperfect, it is not possible for us to develop a perfict system.

        High rankers in every human socity that has existed tend to be major A holes. Nice guys finish last climbing the social ladder. The elites at the top get there by brown nosing, back stabbing, and stepping on people on every rung up.

        When it comes to many large companies, its the shareholders who are the owners of production. CEOs and executives are merely agents employed by the shareholders.. There main job is to increase shareholder wealth by growing stock value through productive business. There is the agency problem were CEOs and executives do not act in the best interests of the shareholders, instead they act on their own self interests. This is why they are often given company shares, to tie their wealth into their job performance as an incentive to increase shareholder wealth. Stocks are a product whose main expected function is to increase in value.

        No matter what, there is always an incentive for people to cheat, and elites often get away with it because of their influence, money, resources, and power. It is not an issue only found in capitalism. Cheating is what leads to market failures. Many say that capitalism no longer exists, it has long been replaced by consumerism, a perversion of capitalism. Its consume, consume consume, and spend it even if you don’t got it.

        Another issue too is that there is always a trade off between efficientcy and equality, you can’t have both. Some inequality is required by socities to serve as a drive for people to work in order to improve themselves. Government regulation in the free market is necessary, but both under and over regulation are very bad, the happy medium is murkey and vague and probably always in flux. Government involvement such as regulations always hurts somebody, it can’t be avoided.

      • Cryogenic

        @ Slicer:

        I hear what you’re saying, but none of that really addresses the enormous, dreadful, system-wide abuses of the capitalist superstructure that we have landed ourselves with. You should always be suspicious of capitalist ideologues and capitalist apologists. They’re everywhere. History is written by the victors. So what we have is people blindly — and sometimes, very deliberately (i.e., they’re paid off or have much to gain by defending it) — explaining away the very system that has dominated their lives since birth. Human beings have a way of defending the status quo, especially when it’s all they’ve ever known; and of fearing change.

        How the hell do we have a good system when:

        – wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals (the world’s 26 richest individuals now have as much wealth as the poorest 3.8 billion people on the planet)?

        – a handful of tech companies have nearly-unshakeable monopolies and control people’s access to information on an unprecedented scale?

        – the planet is catastrophically heating up due primarily to the unremitting use of fossil fuels and woefully inadequate industry and environmental regulations (remember who the President of the United States currently is), including taxes and fines levied against people pursuing renewable energy sources, and most politicians being in the pocket of the fossil fuel giants?

        – staggering, out-of-control, horribly-blatant, government-sanctioned trillion-dollar-level corporate tax dodging, which directly impacts on social welfare, with women, minorities, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups (e.g., those with mental health problems) suffering disproportionately due to obscene greed at the highest levels of societal organisation?

        – a total lack of labour laws — which corporations cynically exploit by getting their products assembled there — in Third World countries; and their abridgement in recent decades in the West, leading to increasing feelings of isolation, despair, mental health issues, and civil unrest?

        – most people in the West, in otherwise wealthy countries, living from one pay-cheque to the next, barely able to afford the cost of sky-high property rents, and using a significant chunk of their salaries (often from working long hours or having to work at multiple jobs) to prop up an outmoded property-ownership (lord-serf) system?

        – a pernicious, outrageous, vicious, unworkable, and totally counter-productive austerity regime that has deliberately punished the poorest people in society for the high crimes of the rich, who caused a serious, world-wide financial collapse in 2008 (one of several major financial crises capitalism has put its serf populations through over the past 100 years), pushing millions into poverty while they increased their wealth by a considerable margin (basically: the rich believe in socialism — but only for themselves)?

        Capitalism is a crooked, rotten system that has grown beyond all reason. A pox on the Earth which has now been exposed for the serious threat it presently poses to the continuance of human civilisation.

        Capitalism and democracy are fundamentally at odds. Most people spend a significant chunk of their lives either at school (preparing to go to college or enter the workplace) or at a place of employment. And guess what? You don’t get to vote when you go to school or work. You are told what to do, how to dress, how to behave, when to come in, when to leave. You have no freedom at school or work. These places are not democratic.

        Similarly, politicians are essentially wealthy oligarchs — often with ties to the legal, financial, and commercial sectors, including the fossil fuel industry — that do the bidding of their real paymasters, and do not execute the will of the people. Better yet, through the propaganda mechanism of the mass media, they have convinced millions of citizens to repeatedly vote against their own interests, hammering in hatred of the “other”, fear of alternatives, and cynically distracting them with content-empty programmes and consumerist garbage of various kinds.

        So by what measure, under capitalism, do we actually have a democratic society? Capitalism actively interferes with, erodes, reduces, and mocks the very idea of a democratic society.

        The perverse promulgation of climate change denialism is merely one symptom of the pathological condition called capitalism. The wealthiest and most influential people in society have every means at their disposal to address the crisis that capitalism itself has caused, but the majority of them do nothing. If that alone isn’t a serious indictment of capitalism, I don’t know what is.

        Want another example? Look how the tobacco companies behaved in the 20th Century. They actively lied about the toxicity of their products, using many front groups to normalise smoking to keep their profits up. It took decades to begin to turn the tide on their black propaganda and reduce the ubiquity of smoking advertisements, smoking in the workplace, smoking on public transport, smoking at train stations, smoking at pubs, bars, etc., and the uptake of smoking by juveniles, usually leading to a life-long addiction, and deleterious health effects, including early mortality, because of their sinister actions. The developing world is now blighted by these companies and their death-inducing products.

        The example of the tobacco companies and the pushback against them lends hope. Like the divine right of kings, slavery, the workhouse, and debtors’ prisons, it may have once seemed impossible to be without certain paradigms and manacles within so-called “civilised” society, but they were all overcome.

        Mark my words: Capitalism is a dying system. It has had its day in the sun. A new future is rapidly dawning. The poison of capitalism has seeped into everything, but we’re good at washing things clean when we’ve had enough of the funk. People are slowly realising there’s more to life, and a better way to do things, than being forced to be a mindless office drone (substitute 100 other meaningless occupations here), and having their time and talents sucked up by an impersonal corporation or indifferent employer, for most of their adult lives — all the while being increasingly suckered out of decent pay and other benefits that would allow them to acquire assets, build happier, more prosperous lives, and to truly liberate themselves from the chain of wage-labour.

        Then you have more and more people waking up to the menace of climate change and agitating to do something about it. They’re sick of the lies, the corruption, and the grotesque inaction of their elected officials. People are beginning to demand something better. Eventually, lies become obvious, and fallacious notions reach the end of their sell-by date. We have an incredibly toxic system that has made the Earth its prison-camp. And some are finally saying: “No more.” All empires need their rebel alliances. Just because something seems insurmountable (“Look at the size of that thing”), that doesn’t make it so.

      • jpieper668

        and Now Jackson has fallen from Grace The Hobbit Trilogy The Lovely Bones Mortal Engines (i know he didn’t Direct it but you get the point)

      • Cryogenic

        @ Slicer:

        Just another reminder of how repugnant Late-stage capitalism is and the horrors and abuses it perpetuates:


        Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO, is not only a filthy-rich multi-billionaire, but the richest man in the world.

        See what I mean? Capitalists don’t give a damn about their workers or the conditions they endure.

        Don’t tell me that socialism is “eeeeevil”. We can do better than this as human beings. We must.

      • Cryogenic

        @ maychild:

        Of course. It was just a little off-topic (not to say mine haven’t been), and territory we’ve gone over before. I got a thrill from reading your comments, though. It’s just easy to become side-tracked, as I was embroiled in other discussions bars at that time. Let me see what I can say…

      • Cryogenic

        @ maychild:

        Okay. It’s funny you mentioned “The Hobbit”. I was just re-watching Lindsay Ellis’ three-part critique of that series of films on YouTube the other day. The third part, which delves into the political skulduggery of Warner Bros., is fascinating. You even get to glimpse a pissed-off Peter Jackson — a break from his normal (and somewhat tedious) affable and agreeable persona:


        On the other hand, watching critiques like that one serves as a reminder that, while it’s important to be informed in worldly matters (and one should never stop learning), too much knowledge of behind-the-scenes shenanigans (even important-to-know shenanigans that bear directly on democracy and expose the mutagenic aggressiveness of capitalistic enterprise) can irrevocably taint one’s perception of a given work of art, making it difficult to suspend one’s critical faculties — once what you’re experiencing (as is so often the case with blockbuster art) becomes associated with compromise, scheming, and outright malevolence.

        Anyway, I guess that’s a detour. It is really funny, however, not to mention galling, that the LOTR movies — and even “The Hobbit” movies, for a while — were feted and hoisted up as examples of supreme fantasy cinema, getting showered with accolades and awards (well, in the case of LOTR, at least). And there were many who would point to Peter Jackson (or “St. Peter ‘The Great’ Jackson”) as an “infinitely superior” filmmaker to George Lucas, decrying the prequels as miserable failures and “excuses to make money”, while endless superlatives were lavished on the LOTR movies as “stunning achievements” in the annals of cinema. And all the while, with such mindless laudation of Jackson and the LOTR movies commonplace, there was outright ignoring, mocking, besmirching, and shame-tactics deployed on anyone who tried to raise uncomfortable facts or articulate views to the contrary.

        There is this sickness in humanity that has a reverence for gigantitude; and who are you, a puny runt, to *dare* run your mouth and suggest anything bad or untoward about such reverence or the objects it is directed at; much less to apostatise from the crowd and commit treason against the majority by suggesting the emperor has no clothes? Stay silent, wench, or we will petition for your destruction and your mutilation with fire. Didn’t you know? While there’s a Constitution guaranteeing free speech and the free exercising of religion, some things are unofficially state doctrine, binding countrymen and women in a united purpose, and saying mean things about them is a bad idea. So watch your step.

        That was where things were at a decade ago with the prequels and LOTR — and I hope people don’t forget it or act like it was never the case. Of course, popular film art is hardly the only area where people suspend their critical faculties and act in a close-minded, mob-like fashion to dissenting views. Hence the paragraph above. Unfortunately, no area of life, and certainly no realm of discourse, is entirely immune to the phenomenon of close-mindedness and the tyranny of the majority. It’s a continual fight to be heard when you’re pushing back against a majority on anything; and often a threat to one’s existence: be it socially, financially, or corporeally. Views that do not conform or pay tribute to some loose consensus or oppressive group norm aren’t usually tolerated too well.

        The sick thing with all the PT vs. LOTR nonsense is: Unlike LOTR, the prequels had (and continue to have) a good deal to say (in a direct, no-holds-barred way) about our contemporary political systems and how prostituted they’ve become to corporate interests, big business, and the destructive gears of capitalism as a whole. And they outline with considerable intelligence how fear and greed both create and maintain the existing system, empowering it to new heights, as people are distracted with “bread and circus” (podracing) spectacles, not noticing how enslaved they are (Amidala, Anakin, the Jedi, the clones) as a wealthy elite control and manipulate everything to their own advantage — this very same short-term, me-me-me thinking now placing in great peril the ecological stability of the entire planet; the only home we’ve ever known.

        So a story with great relevance is shunned. Shunned in favour of one that almost seems to glorify war and strife, equating a martial mindset with honour and glory, and the running-away-from and denial of war as selfishness and cowardice. One is mired in an ugly jingoism redolent of The Second World War. The other sees war through the lens of Nixon and United States imperialism, correctly understanding that war is an outcome of several vectors, predominantly greed and political malfeasance. People still aren’t ready for that message. I think Armond White was right to call the LOTR movies “shapeless and unresonant”. Mind you, he also thinks Star Wars is juvenile entertainment, so most people who write about items of pop culture, even smart critics, have their biases and blindspots.

        There are certainly people who don’t care for Star Wars — any of it — and have a distaste for it as a whole. Even many Star Wars fans can rank amongst their number. The Original Trilogy may have been embraced to a greater extent than the prequels; but, for me, in terms of artistic brilliance, their popularity and artistic depth have an inverse relationship. That said, as you rightly touched upon, we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking the prequels are universally reviled. There is clearly a good deal of positive buzz that has begun to manifest in the last two or three years — since Disney, in many people’s eyes, truly began ransacking and destroying Lucas’ creation. I’m a bit more mixed on how the sequels have turned out (it is tough for me to buy into the staunch hatred of Generation YouTube), but Disney’s choices have clearly had an impact on some people’s attitudes toward the prequels, and what Star Wars once was versus what it has become (or is being turned into).

        Befitting the iconic status of Star Wars and Lucas’ immense impact on mainstream culture, I agree it was the prequels — these prequels, our prequels — that seem to have brought the term and the concept to wider consciousness. Unfortunately, the term has also become something of a cliche, traduced by an exploitative Hollywood studio system that has gleefully and unimaginatively seized on the concept, producing a slew of prequels, remakes, and reboots (which even Star Wars is no longer untouched by), clogging the arteries of modern-day blockbuster cinema with any number of hack installments, degrading the landscape of cinema (and much of the discourse on these items) with it. Still, when people talk about “the prequels”, they nearly always mean a particular set of prequels: these prequels, our prequels. And that surely speaks to their continued omnipresence within the force field of modern-day human consciousness (in the West, for those who participate in the watching/consumption of mainstream cinema, anyway).

        As you said, it’s not just cinema where the prequels have made their existence known (at least in some notional sense), either — but TV shows, games, books, comics, etc. Quite an impact for one man. Lucas is the sort of pioneering genius who lays out the track, then everyone else wants to ride down the road. That’s huge. The irony is that his own prequels — these prequels, our prequels — are stacked to overflowing with themes, ideas, visceral action sequences, dramatic essences, and esoteric pleasantries, but there remain few celebrants and many detractors. The prequels are far more infamous than they are revered. But at least it’s a start.

      • maychild

        I know that my post was old territory and repetitive, but I was just being a little petulant because I haven’t spoken to you in a while and I WANTED MY CRYO!!! 😉

      • maychild

        @ Cryo

        Thank you for the reply; thorough and insightful as always. I’ve got some important tasks (like a test for a class) to do at the moment, so I’ll post this brief reply for now.

        A truncated quote from you:

        Quite an impact for one man. Lucas is the sort of pioneering genius who lays out the track, then everyone else wants to ride down the road. That’s huge. The irony is that his own prequels….are stacked to overflowing with themes…but there remain few celebrants and many detractors.

        Put less eloquently and more idiomatically (and this contains a racist stereotype — ironically, one of the many “crimes” which has been falsely used to bash the prequels, and Lucas): “You can always tell who the pioneers are by the arrows in their backs.”

        Also, and I’m repeating myself from one of our Facebook convos, Lucas broke the ground that others got credit for, when they didn’t even slightly disturb said ground. St. Peter got the credit for breaking ground with Gollum that Lucas deserved for Jar Jar. But who was going to have the guts to stand up for Jar Jar when the bashers and their representatives in the press kissed St. Peter’s ass, practically daring any of we delusional, no taste prequel fans (“all four of us,” and that’s a quote) to protest? If they mentioned Jar Jar at all, it was only to disqualify him because he was “racist,” and of course “lame.”

      • Cryogenic

        @ maychild:

        My Cryo, my Cryo, my kingdom for my Cryo.

        Awww. 🙂 But what did you think of my post? :p

        At least file it away and put it in your anti-PJ piggy bank!

      • Cryogenic

        @ maychild:

        “Put less eloquently and more idiomatically (and this contains a racist stereotype — ironically, one of the many “crimes” which has been falsely used to bash the prequels, and Lucas): “You can always tell who the pioneers are by the arrows in their backs.””

        Ouch. Interesting epigram. Bereft of its racist connotations, it’s actually quite the useful quote. It echoes one I have shared several times:

        “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” From an essay by Jonathan Swift.

        Here’s another solid quote on genius that somewhat ties into the one you provided:

        “Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.” That one is from Arthur Schopenhauer.

        The resistance to the prequels, and the failure to acknowledge the pioneering aspects of this trilogy, have been defined by idiocy, invective, and ignorance. That a pseudo-Lucas figure like Peter Jackson, rather than George Lucas himself, took virtually all of the credit and none of the arrows, speaks rather loudly to the hivemind nature of the Internet and popular culture as a whole. No other filmmaker has done as much to take filmmaking into the 21st Century as George Lucas. Maybe the 20th Century Fox logo at the start just confused everyone.

        It’s funny, really. Jar Jar is the obvious precursor to Gollum. You could call him Gollum’s daddy. “No, no, Gollum, mesa your fatha!” He’s also reminiscent, in some ways, of Tom Bombadil (even down to the “meta” use of the term “bombad”). But Jackson, either not understanding the Bombadil character or fearing audience alienation, or both, chose not to incorporate him in his grim, heavy-handed translation of Tolkien’s work. A great shame; not least because Tolkien referred to him as the most important character. Rather like Lucas calling Jar Jar “the key to all this”.

        The extirpation of Bombadil makes a good case for the originators of grand tales like Star Wars and LOTR being in control of their creations whenever possible; because lesser minds don’t understand them and capitulate to the vulgar sentiments of the masses. There may be some wisdom in crowds, but not too much. It is obvious that men like Lucas and Tolkien necessarily stand apart from a good deal of civil society, remaining in touch with more child-like and primal impulses. You cannot rely on lesser men to share or embrace the same sense of intellectual cunning or life-expanding whimsy.

        So critics lavishly cheered LOTR and were much more pallid and lukewarm on the prequels; with many online seemingly continuing to sing the praises of the former and turning against the latter entirely. However, they were all praising a table with one of its legs crudely sawn off; while shunning a more open, honest, and integrated artistic craftwork. I mean, really, I think Jar Jar *is* the key to everything: a Dadaist drop of gorgeous chaos in the middle of an Eleusinian Mystery. Shame people don’t really seek to understand anything or consider a piece from new angles.

        Poor Jar Jar. It’s like he has never been allowed to develop his wings and truly fly. I’ll close with William Blake — because why not?

        A robin redbreast in a cage
        Puts all heaven in a rage.

      • maychild

        @ Cryo

        ***My Cryo, my Cryo, my kingdom for my Cryo.***

        Richard III, eh? 😀 You brainiac!

        Since I’m a smartass, Ricky Three’s last words were actually more along the lines of “Treason, treason, treason!” (Which, in all honesty, it was. Henry Tudor had no legal right to the throne at all: he was a usurper.) But of course Shakespeare’s patroness was Queen Elizabeth I, the last Tudor monarch, which was the reason for the villainization of Richard III. He was the Tudors’ opponent, so of course he killed those poor little Princes in the Tower and just about everyone and everything he touched.

        Oh, and since my mind is like flypaper for trivia, the Scots consider Elizabeth Windsor to be Queen Elizabeth I. There was no United Kingdom when Elizabeth Tudor was on the English throne. It was her first cousin once removed, James I, aka Scottish Jimmy, aka Queen James, who squished all those countries together into the UK.

        ***Awww. 🙂 But what did you think of my post? :p***

        I loved it of course, you poodoo head! I just have to gather my wits about me so I can give it the reply it deserves.

        ***At least file it away and put it in your anti-PJ piggy bank!***

        Will do! The irony is that I don’t really dislike PJ himself. My snide nickname, as you know because we’ve discussed it before, is a dig not at the man himself but the fans who worship the ground he walks on. On the other hand, their use of “Luca$” and “Lucass” and “Luca$$” and all the other variants are clearly digs at the man himself, yet they clutch their pearls at my nickname for Mr. Jackson.

      • archdukeofnaboo


        And here’s another bit of trivia from you: under Elizabeth I, Ireland became England’s first colonial experiment. She’s responsible for quite a many atrocities on this island. It may be over 4 centuries ago, but the repercussions are still with us in the current debacle known as “Brexit”.

      • Cryogenic

        @ maychild:

        I’m not that much of a brainiac. As you imply, that’s a fairly well-known quote, and General Grievous loosely evokes Richard III — and he’s in the third prequel, which shadows the third of the original films, which was directed by a “Richard”.

        I’ve never been able to get into the royals very much. In history lessons at school, that stuff was boring as hell. I was more interested in learning about the Ancient Romans and Native Americans and the colonising of America. The royals just disgust me with their in-bred, illegitimate aristocracy, their absurd pomp, the capricious nature of their rule (especially in by-gone periods), and how certain people in this country (the UK) remain obsessed with them; when they have long outlived any usefulness they may have once had.

        That said, so help me, I kind of like some of their personalities, and it’s quite amazing how our current queen has lasted so long. I also understand they have a good deal of appeal to some Americans, such as yourself. They’re not all bad, but I’m much more of a Republican than a Monarchist. At a time of crippling austerity, you’d think more people might be pushing to dissolve the whole system outright, but no — many unfortunately remain as brainwashed and as docile as ever.

      • Cryogenic

        @ Arch Duke:

        Exactly. Most people don’t stop to think how many calamities have been done — notice I say “done”, not merely “caused” — under the tyrannical obduracy and self-interested venality of the British Crown. Here’s a brilliant opinion piece from Pankaj Mishra who pontificates on how Brexit is really the ruling classes’ own goal — or what one columnist, whom the author cites, pointedly states as the British “chumocracy” finally meeting “its Waterloo”:


        I’ll quote the final paragraphs here:

        The many crimes of the empire’s bumptious adventurers were enabled by Britain’s great geopolitical power and then obscured by its cultural prestige. This is why images cherished by the British elite of itself as valiant, wise and benevolent could survive, until recently, much damning historical evidence about these masters of disaster from Cyprus to Malaysia, Palestine to South Africa. In recent years, such privately educated and smooth-tongued men as Niall Ferguson and Tony Blair could even present the British as saviors of suffering and benighted humanity, urging American neoconservatives to take up the white man’s burden globally.

        Humiliations in neo-imperialist ventures abroad, followed by the rolling calamity of Brexit at home, have cruelly exposed the bluff of what Hannah Arendt called the “quixotic fools of imperialism.” As partition comes home, threatening bloodshed in Ireland and secession in Scotland, and an unimaginable chaos of no-deal Brexit looms, ordinary British people stand to suffer from the untreatable exit wounds once inflicted by Britain’s bumbling chumocrats on millions of Asians and Africans. More ugly historical ironies may yet waylay Britain on its treacherous road to Brexit. But it is safe to say that a long-cosseted British ruling class has finally come to the end of itself as it was.

      • maychild

        @ Cryo

        ***I’m not that much of a brainiac. ***

        You are to me.

        Yes, Americans do have a fascination for royals, particularly those of Mother England. Never mind that breaking from said royals was the (putative) reason for the American Revolution. The closest we Yanks have to royals are the Kennedy family, and/or movie stars. The top tier of which, like the British royals, are grossly overpaid and overprivileged. Though it’s not our tax dollars going to support their upkeep, as is the case for the Brits and the royal family.

        (Maybe that’s why we Yanks like them, or at least are interested in them: we don’t have to finance their unearned posh lifestyles. Of course, we also take some pleasure in it when they embarrass themselves; the gleeful coverage of Randy Andy’s association with Jeffrey Epstein. Whew, and people said Andy’s ex Sarah was bad.)

        I admit, I like some individual members of the royal family. I find the Queen rather endearing in her tireless, stubborn dignity, and of course it’s hard not to admire her longevity just a little bit. She always drank rather heavily, but unlike her father and sister, both of whom died comparatively young, she never smoked. She’s also maintained a fairly active lifestyle, even now in her 90s. And I like William. He’s a good egg. I am not, however, part of the cult of Diana.

        The history of the royals is interesting to me, because at one point they wielded genuine power, with little or no justification (an accident of birth). There were “good” kings and “bad” kings, but all did terribly nasty things. “Bloody” Mary Tudor gets a lot of flack for burning 300 Protestants at the stake, but people tend to overlook that her “great” father and “glorious” half-sister killed quite a few people too, in equally horrible ways. Monarchy was until relatively recently a very bloody business. Hanging, drawing and quartering was the mode of execution for treason up until the reign of Queen Victoria. She was the one who put a stop to it.

        You summed up capitalism quite well in your post, as well as pointing out how the wealthy got their money: by exploitation. There’s also an irony in the way Lucas has been painted in the press and by the bashers as an unmerciful tyrant, a greedy corporatist monster, when he’s actually a fairer “slavemaster” than most. I’ve never spoken to anyone who’s worked with him, but the efforts to cast him as some abusive beast are rather laughable, like (and yes, I must go here, again) the know-it-all Red Letter Moron’s “takedown” of TPM, where he proclaims that in the concept meeting, Lucas’s employees are clearly terrified of him, you can see it in their faces. Actually, none of them look in the least terrified. Their expressions are largely neutral…maybe a bit bored. I can’t account for all of them, nor can I read minds, but those we see don’t seem to be seething with hatred for their boss.

        I’ll go to another place I’ve been to before: the claim by another know-it-all, on (you guessed it) TF.N, who declared that Frank Oz was furious that Lucas took Yoda away from him by digitizing the character in AOTC. When presented with ample proof to the contrary — for instance, that Lucas, far from “taking Yoda away from” Mr. Oz, put him in charge of the digitization process, specifically telling the animation team (or whatever their actual title is) to “do everything Frank said,” no ifs, ands or buts. Mr. Oz later wrote a letter to the team thanking them for doing such a great job — the know-it-all still stubbornly insisted that he could tell Mr. Oz was furious and disappointed. I believe that is called cognitive dissonance, or perhaps slanting all evidence in favor of the conclusion one wants to produce. Not that I’m innocent of such behavior myself; I think we all have done it, or a lesser version of it called rationalization.

  • maychild

    By the by, my initial post was copied and pasted from a post I made on a blog concerning…yes, an upcoming prequel, to the “Hunger Games” book series. Unfortunately, this particular interface doesn’t allow for editing of comments after non-members have posted them — I don’t know if it’s allowed for members. Anyway, that’s the reason for the cryptic “as is the case here” comment.

    • Cryogenic

      @ maychild:

      Ah, no worries. I hate that. The inflexibility of this comments section.

      So, yes… I just noticed your additional post above and will respond in kind. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.