I saw the Fall of Skywalker...

A long time ago in cinemas across this once virtuous land, "Star Wars" made a cultural impact by presenting basic, good-vs-evil narratives. A few years back, a revival (to kick off "the final trilogy") commenced with a decent enough entry called "The Force Awakens", but the film proved a ruse. It was a sneaky set-up for "The Last Jedi", a diabolical chapter that would stomp the former's finer qualities, while trampling on all that came before: the Ewok adventures; "Rogue One"; comics; novels; radio plays; that recent, you-gotta-subscribe-to-see-it "Mandalorian"; and any number of backyard re-enactments. 

Why the sabotage? Well, the answer is simple. The new filmmakers in their Nazi-like "woke" misconceptions saw fault with what they once loved and set forth to cloak the good-vs-evil concepts with "progressive" shades of gray. They were crafty in how they planted their demon seeds, but old-schoolers saw through their intent and let their dark-side disapproval be known: case in point, the boycott of "Solo". (Well, actually, they paid to see "Deadpool 2" a second time to ensure their money was better spent, while creeping in to see "Solo", only then to decide once was enough.)

"The Rise of Skywalker: Episode IX" acts as an extension of what purists despised about "Last Jedi", but that's not the worst of it. The new chapter is blander than "Solo" and much more nonsensical than the former. With every desperate step, "Rise" takes sluggish delight in defying purists (and that also means those who dig Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, John Carter, Tom Corbett and Stella Starr), layering on more shine than one can take, while reminding us that though the garnish looks right, the heart and soul of the saga's past (what once made it resonate) is defunct, even when it dares to right an occasional Rian Johnson's wrong. 

I won't pick apart "Rise'"s choppy plot or connect-the-dots lineage, who directed, wrote and did this, that or the other, to make the film fall short, opting instead to keep my analysis character-based, for characters comprise plot, and therefore a story's quality: 

Finn, the once heir-apparent Luke, is again relegated to sidebars, along with Poe Dameron, the gay Han Solo never-was. Granted, they get more to do in this chapter than the last, but they're still overshadowed (surprise!) by little Rey, who is as Mary Sue perfect as when we last saw her. At the same time, Kylo Ren is as unworthy of empathy as his slender rival, albeit from the opposite end: a mere pawn who might have claimed the hateful perch of Darth Vader, except that the filmmakers decided to make him "confused", because what's truly "bad" in this world, let alone the goddamn galaxy? 

Oh, yeah, Billy Dee Williams' Lando Calrissian does surface: far too little, far too late for an icon of his stature (and per accept-it-or-else publicity, "gender fluid", whatever the hell that means), but why bother installing him at all if he's not elbowing Luke, Leia and Han? (And don't even get me started on the Leia and Palpatine resurgences. At this stage, the insertions feel more forced {no pun intended} than flattering or essential.)

Sadly (though without surprise) the "leads" are nowhere near as interesting as the brief Richard E. Grant's General Pryde, a next-generation Grand Moff Tarkin, but even this exceptional actor can't pump enough First Order blood into the tired mythology to make it float. Shoot, even if Grant had been granted more scenes, it's doubtful he could've saved this ponderous, puzzling, clone-laden, canon-negating tack-on.  

I hate the upside-down way this series has turned with every flustered fiber of my soul. I sure as hell can't call the people who reinvented Lucas' saga worthy of my thanks, let alone my friends. (Though they've never met me, they sure don't like me and that goes for the rest of my "deplorable" ilk.)

I don't know if "Rise of" will prove profitable or a flop. I shouldn't care either way; I'm now too distanced from the saga to have it affect me over the long run. If it fails, though, that would initiate a gracious end to the present, twisted dynamic, and the series does deserve that. Perhaps after several, mournful years, the concept could be revived in the spirit of  '77. That sure would be nice, and yet I wonder if "Star Wars" can recover from its "the force is female"/let's double-think-everything rape. 

I mean, really, who'd have ever thought "Star Wars" could crash and burn in such a screw-the-loyalists way? The once thought impossible is now reality. Hope those who did it are ashamed of themselves, but the better part of wisdom tells me they'll stand by their blasphemous crimes, just as all great villains do.

SO LONG, PETER MAYHEW...

You stood tall, strong and furry as the mighty and lovable Chewbacca, accentuating the "Star Wars" franchise during its heyday and greeting appreciative fans along the decades-spanning way.

That appreciation was reciprocal and visited varied venues, such as "The Muppet Show"; "Slice of SciFi"; "Donny and Marie"; "Dark Towers"; "The Kenny Everett Television Show"; "Identity"; and "Glee".  

You also found your way into the '78 horror film, "Terror" and the offbeat fantasy, "Yesterday Was a Lie"; and shared your talents with "Dragon Ball G.T." and Mark Hamill's wry mockumentary, "Comic Book: the Movie". However, to Ray Harryhausen fans, you're best and most admired for your stand-in work as the illustrious Minoton in "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger".

With that said, it wasn't only on the screen where you excelled, Mr. Mayhew. Your children's books, "Growing Up Giant" and "My Favorite Giant", have taught young readers to hold their heads high and relish the fact that being unique is a pretty darn neat. 

You'll always be as a giant of pop-cultural and galactic stature: a historic, iconic figure whose aura will continue to inspire, even though your noble spirit has moved on...

BILLY DEE'S RETURN: GOOD OR BAD FOR LANDO?

It's official: Billy Dee Williams will reprise Lando Calrissian in J.J. Abrams' "Star Wars: Episode IX". 

I had expected Lando/Williams' re-entry in “Force Awakens”, but as we all discovered, "Episode VII" wasn’t the sentimental reunion we desired, even if some of us may have liked it on the whole. All the same, I thought the charming swashbuckler would at least guest star in "Last Jedi", but now I'm glad that he didn't, after having long pondered the chapter's insolent direction.  

I suspect we'll now find Lando a pervert, coward or who knows what in Lucasfilm's current, anything-goes mode. I also suspect, based on the company's blind eye to the "Solo" boycott, that "Episode IX" will be but another misguided venture in both characterization and plot, where mythological tradition will be once more stomped.  

It will be painful to see the ship go down this way, especially if Lando delivers the final blow. Still, after the disastrous dust settles, I imagine some ambitious whippersnapper will rejuvenate the franchise (much like Christopher Nolan did for Batman), and in so doing, all will be as right as rain. Still, what of Luke, Leia, Han and (if the dreadful track record does, indeed, prevail) Lando? It seems that the sting of their ignominy could last forever. 

So be it. Life goes on, in spite of blasphemy's residue. Besides, there's plenty of other franchises to relish and revisit. For example, I recently re-watched the original "Star Trek", "Mad Max" and "Planet of the Apes" movies and without any qualms, felt safe enough to revisit some of their recent offshoots: some good, some so-so, but none so discourteous to employ complete, ideological redesign. The bottom line: There's much to enjoy beyond "Star Wars". 

Reinterpretation is fine, but only if old-school qualities accompany it. In other words, old favorites are welcome to return, but if they're not what we've come to admire, it's better to relegate them to the past, where we're at least assured their actions and philosophies remain pure and loyal.  

Solo: The Media's Stupid Spin And Remediation Advice (An Editorial)

We all know why "Solo: A Star Wars Story" flopped, with a box-office total that's catastrophically more abysmal than thought. The mainstream media may not wish to admit it, offering "Star Wars" fatigue as the reason (i.e., one film simply coming too soon on the heels of another to garner interest), but the truth is, "Solo" failed because many chose to sidestep it after "Last Jedi" soiled the intergalactic dream. 

Lucasfilm and nurturing Disney didn't help matters, either, by allowing Jonathan Kasdan; Kathleen Kennedy, Rian Johnson (remember when he called Mark Hamill a "mofo"?); and even once-could-do-no-wrong J.J. Abrams to scold fans, labeling them something they're not.

With that said, "Star Wars'" traditional base isn't adverse to diversity--never has been, never will be. Its members are, however, adverse to any form of prejudice, particularly reverse discrimination, whether regarding gender (males) or mystical notions. ("Last Jedi'"s dreadful destruction of a sacred temple by a respected puppet couldn't help but upset.) That the new handlers of George Lucas' creation have chosen this wayward, abrasive and unapologetic course is what baffles and offends so many. 

Diversity in storytelling can, in fact, be administered in a number of ways. Gene Roddenberry; George A. Romero; Ray Bradbury; Rod Serling; and Glen A. Larson have handled it via a variety of voices. The various producers of "The Walking Dead"; "Planet of the Apes"; "Alien Nation"; "X-Men" and the recent "Bright" offer such in a way that gains acceptance even from people of opposing, political views. But you know what? Lucas dealt the diversity card, too, and all through a throwback style that rode on pure fun and never once did he bash a soul. He did weave some embellishing philosophy into his fun, but fun was the primary goal and mission attained, provided I might add, by host of eclectic characters.

Male bashing, therefore, was never part of "Star Wars", any more than female bashing. Contrary to what SJWs claim, the "Star Wars" wheel wasn't broken prior to "Last Jedi" (or for that matter, "Force Awakens"), even in light of the prequel trilogy stumbling here and there. A radical purging of the saga's good-vs-evil themes needn't have occurred through this unsystematic process. "Star Wars'" purpose was pure, clear and effective--and embraced unconditionally from the start. 

In all fairness, "Solo" isn't way off base in its reflection of this. Even with the conspicuous recasting of Alden Ehrenreich and Donald Glover in iconic roles, "Solo" is superior (more open-minded) than "Last Jedi" in its presentation of the old ways. If not for the dreadful "Episode VIII", the smuggler's pre-story may have struck lightning at the box office. However, many fans feared that if they had supported it, there was a strong chance that Lucasfilm would continue its "Last Jedi" vibe, not only into "Episode IX", but the possible "Solo II". (For the record, "Solo" does have a SJW smattering about it, but it's nowhere near as bad as many feared. The film slips by avoiding a rough edge: something that its anthology companion, "Rogue One", at least keeps.)

Again, "Solo" dropped the ball because the peasants chose to chastise the ruling class, and truly, that's all. (Keep in mind, "Infinity War" hit theaters only a few weeks after "Black Panther", and "Deadpool 2" a few weeks after "Infinity War": each a blockbuster and with the same adventurous pledge as "Star Wars". People flock to this sort of stuff, unless they've been betrayed.) Anyway, most of the peasants will eventually see "Solo" (and probably find it bland, but on the whole, okay), but whether good or bad, the core fans had staunch reason to postpone their allegiance, though I suppose their boycotting was also an ironic (and shrewd) way of acknowledging the film (ha, ha). 

Because of the fans' stance, Lucasfilm and Disney must get their houses in order. That requires an acceptance of the truth and a change of command, perhaps even getting good, old George back into the chair, if only in a consultant capacity. Maybe having him team with the "Infinity War" group would be an ideal way to go. 

At the same time, it's understandable to keep the franchise fresh and growing with new characters and circumstances, but they must project the original "Star Wars" spin: that means sticking to the white hat/black hat, chapter-play format.

To help with this, why not cast Scott Eastwood as a protagonist? (Heck, he'd make a nifty Flash Gordon, come to think of it.) And before you snowflakes condemn the idea of casting another guy in a lead, one could just as well recruit a tough-as-nails lady to pull in the reins: an Ellen Ripley or Michonne type, if you please. She could be flawed, but strong, wise and easy to applaud, instead of some flavorless wannabe or hardheaded nag. 

New characters can also express diverse dispositions and tendencies, without fear of screwing with the saga's canon. They don't even have to be human. They only need to emote some degree of depth and get audiences to care about them, just like folks did with Lucas' ensemble in '77. But when it comes to villainy, keep it standard, vicious and long lasting: Enough of this hit-and-miss, guest-starring silliness.

Even if the bigwigs won't admit it, there's much riding on how Lucasfilm now proceeds and how Disney reacts to its satellite's plans. It'll be interesting to see what develops in the upcoming months and what manipulative or honorable scraps on "Episode IX" and the Boba Fett film are shared. Thanks to "Solo'"s misfortune, there's again hope that things might turn around. If not, the franchise is destined to enter a long and unceremonious hiatus by decade's end; and oh, what an unforgivable disgrace that would be the present producers. 

I saw Bland Solo...

There was much that could go right or wrong with "Solo: A Star Wars Story". Many have said that its success or failure would determine Disney and Lucasfilm's long-term plans for the space-opera franchise. 

The signs haven't been promising. "Lego Movie" guys Phil Lord and Chris Miller were fired for allegedly lampooning Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan's script. Talented and faithful Ron Howard then hopped aboard to save the day, but some questioned whether the Kasdans' vision was salvageable after so much material had been shot. (It ended up that Howard re-shot most of the footage.) For that matter, had the cast been up to task, particularly Alden "Twixt" Ehrenreich? He didn't necessarily look or sound like Harrison Ford, i.e. Han Solo, and was it true that an acting coach had been hired to help him improve his characterization? And what about Donald Glover's Lando Calrissian being bi/pansexual? If true, what a surprising turn, considering what's been long established for the icon, not only in film, but in comics and novels. 

With the deck seemingly stacked against it, most have been sitting on pins and needles speculating on "Solo'"s outcome, wondering whether it might be as polarizing as "Last Jedi". Most will be surprised to find that, in addition to the film being far from a failure, its prime shortcoming isn't a matter of radical departure, but rather blandness. 

The directorial pace is at least competent (as Howard was destined to provide), but Kasdans' script seems like a tamed, is-it-or-isn't-it? western, plagued by G-rated boundaries (despite its PG-13 classification), with pivotal, action scenes softened to a point that would make even the unerring Rey prickle. 

It's so damn frustrating, because the plot's premise implies raucous promise: Woody Harrelson's crafty Tobias Beckett sets forth to steal from the big-time, corporate Empire, in a galactic allegory of a train robbery. Young Solo grasps the chance to join the heist, not only due to his inherent recklessness, but then to reunite with a lost love named Qui'ra (Emila "Game of Thrones"/"Terminator Genisys"), who's destined to become an integral part of an even greater undertaking. 

In addition to the smitten couple, Beckett's adventurous tangents include (at various points throughout) the aforementioned Calrissian; sharp-shootin' Val (Thandie "Westworld" Newton); robotic, equal-rights advocate, L3-37 (Phoebe "The Cafe" Waller-Bridge); and honorable wing-Wookie, Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo). The Millennium Falcon acts as much as character as in other "Star Wars" adventures; and Marvel Avengers veterans Paul Bettany, as Dryden Vos (originally portrayed by Michael K. Williams prior to Lord/Miller's departure) and Jon Favreau, as Rio Durant (Beckett's loyal, multi-hand man), bridge the jaunts for some crossover oomph. On the surface, one might consider the combination as eclectic and purposeful as "Rogue One'"s. 

Though it may have once seemed odd for "Cheers" favorite, Harrelson to costar in a "Star Wars" feature, his associations with "Zombieland", "The Hunger Games" and "War for the Planet of the Apes" (for which his Colonel Kurtz should have clinched an Oscar nod) make him an ideal imagi-movie fit. Beckett emerges as a plebeian, if not questionable Obi-Wan: his slippery shadiness guiding and enforcing events, which eventually lead to Solo's famed Kessel Run. His interaction with the young smuggler, as well as the other personalities, is smooth and credible, even if Ford's absence stays conspicuous throughout. (Ehrenreich is a swell actor, but his style is much different than Ford's, though why would it have been otherwise? This goes, as well, for Glover when compared to Billy Dee Williams.) 

In addition to Beckett's flavorful inclusion, the pre-Han/Leia romance and budding Solo/Chewy dynamic add some levity to the plot (and man, does Chewy ever shine in the best "I am Groot" way). However, these relationships reflect much of the supporting-character interplay, which is buffered by obligatory squabbles that never become as intense as they could or should. That's a shame, because the ongoing circumstances require realistic, contentious tension (even of a quasi comical kind) to fortify the story's foreboding passage.  

Blasters may be fired, but "Solo" never once gets down and dirty during its two-hour-plus running time. There's no long-term, stand-out villain (Bettany's Vos is effective, but in dire need of extension); no loathsome bloodshed or grandiloquent sacrifices for the causes displayed. (Death in "Solo" is generally fast and hollow.) This distances the prequel from what old Lucasfilm would have produced (the Ewok movies included) and becomes ever more obvious when one dares to link the film to a certain man accused of shooting first. 

As for Solo's roguish competition (a candidate for his own solo film and from whom some occasional, snappy chatter does enter), Calrissian faithfully deploys the charm, or is it the con? No matter. We've come to expect both from the character, but how 'bout that reputed, mythology-changing, sexual-fluidity slant? Does it rise in Glover's version, and if so, how much does it tangle the tale?

Ultimately, that controversial component thrives no more than it does in the film's second trailer. People can debate the vague interlude as much as they want, but really, folks, it doesn't become what many feared. For the record, I'm glad the alleged novelty is a dud (though, per the Kasdans' insinuations, it could yet invade a different prequel/sequel--dear lord), but to play devil's advocate, what's at best implied is but another example of the film's exasperating restraint: a blunting stunt to keep the playing field safe, so as not to offend varying viewers. 

This need for compromise prevents "Solo" from progressing in either direction. That's good in one sense, since we damn well didn't need another SJW reinvention, but the approach also reduces the story into consistent, mamby-pamby ambivalence. To instigate this drawback, there's just enough cowboy residue in parts to make one wonder why it never matches the smuggling scoundrel we met (or will meet) in "A New Hope".  

"New Hope'"s western influence once led its intrepid competitors to install a dusty flavor into their own allegorical tales. The proof prevails in Glen A. Larson's "Battlestar Galactica"; Luigi Cozzi's "Starcrash"; William Sax's "Galaxina"; Roger Corman/Jimmy T. Murakami's "Battle Beyond the Stars"; Peter Hyams' "Outland"; and John Carpenter's "Escape from New York". These science-fiction efforts are proud to exploit the cowboy concept to the max. (Now, that I think of it, so does George Miller's Mad Max quartet.)  "Solo" could have taken the formula even higher, enough to have made it "The Good, the Bad and the Wookie".  Instead, the film remains spasmodic with its western roots, not to mention the broad, fantastic foundation from which its titular hero sprang.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: To succeed, "Star Wars" must get back to the basics. It gained mass appeal in '77 because it recalled the legacies of John Carter, Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, in addition to those of Gene Autry, Roy Rogers and Hopalong Cassidy. It didn't play it safe or take a pre-politically correct stance. It told a solid story of good vs evil, with charred death, doleful annihilation and euphoric triumph as reasonable parts of its landscape. 

In all honesty, it doesn't matter who stars in these films (a shaky, high-school portrayal of Hamlet is still Hamlet); who directs them (whether upcoming satirists or respected veterans); who emulates John Williams' cues...if CGI or old-school techniques are used. If the characters and their stories stray from what they're meant to be, by being too bold or reserved, no one will stay loyal to the cause. New fans won't latch on; old ones will fall to the wayside. Many already have.  

I dunno. Perhaps there's still a chance to salvage this once admired-across-the-board franchise, to keep it in good graces with those who've loved it from the start, while attracting new followers. I mean, gee whiz, "Solo" can't be the end of the line, can it? After all, Disney intends to enchant folks with Favreau's small-screen series (although SJWs have already denounced it sight unseen) and of course, "Episode IX" hovers on the horizon. 

Then again, if one considers J.J. Abrams' recent, stupid-ass, social-justice declaration and Kathleen Kennedy's dictatorial craving to produce a Rian Johnson "Star Loves" trilogy, is there any real, new hope of reinstating the basics? Shucks, blandness might be the least of our concerns...