I can see this point pretty clearly, as when taken on its own The Last Jedi certainly brings up more questions than it answers (just like a certain Square/Disney collaboration game series does all the time) and the connections to TFA are arguably
weaker than between previous films despite there being no time skip this time.
Fleshing out the "how we got there"-reasons and explanations are nowadays mostly relegated to supplementary material like comics, novels, TV series, Video games and reference books like "The Visual Dictionary" or "Incredible Cross Sections" with the blockbuster movies only addressing the "core" stuff.
Like i.e. for TFA, do you know the names and position of all those shown in the scene who perished in the Starkiller's attack on the New Republic's capital (which is Hosnian Prime btw, not Coruscant, Coruscant is still unscathed)? TFA: The Visual Dictionary gives the answer to that.
This can also be seen with the prequels as many of the interesting information and background events (including more character development for Anakin) are shown in the TV Series "The Clone Wars" or novels like "Dark Disciple" which fleshes out characters like Quinlan Vos, Count Dooku and Asajj Ventress considerably (and has a gem of a scene where
Obi-Wan out of all people dares to talk back to Mace Windu and calls the Jedi Council out for some of the general shit they're pulling), not in the "main films" which show only the big events
resulting out of the situations and decisions happening in side material.
The main movies show only the start and the finale of the Clone Wars, a conflict that lasted three full years. Order 66 with the extermination of the Jedi (not only the younglings) gains quite a bit more of a gut punch when one has watched the Clone Wars TV series and got to know many of the Jedi in a bit more detail, showing that they
individually are mostly good people who want to do the right thing, but are entangled in the inflexibility and stale dogmas of the Order itself.
I also remember TPM doing quite a lot of exposition and people not reacting well to that, so apparently the filmmakers in general can't find the correct middle ground.
The First Order already took over most of the galaxy? Did I miss something in the film?
As far as I've read in the Visual Dictionary there is the
danger of the First Order overrunning many sectors in mere weeks due to the New Republic being in total disarray and needing time to regroup (which the Resistance is trying to buy), but not that they already have done so.
The First Order is much more powerful than believed by the "known" galaxy because they have conquered nearly the whole unknown regions (which is basically the entire "west" side of the galaxy), so maybe that's a misunderstanding?
Yeah, I figured the OT being a rather shaky example and the valid criticism of the sequel trilogy not even rudimentarily giving an overview on the current status of the galaxy compared to when they left off with Ep. VI was already there when TFA released.
There exists a Republic, but the audience knows nothing about it nor why Leia is suddenly leading a "Resistance" instead of working with the military of the Republic itself.
Looking back at both movies of the sequel trilogy and the entirety of the prequels, I get the vibe that they both stand on the opposite end of an issue with both not doing it exactly right: The Prequels have almost too much exposition that eventually bores the audience and fundamentally lack in the dialogue and character development department (one of the strongest points of the OT) while the the sequels have too little exposition and leave the audience in a WTF-situation because they are lacking too much context.
In what may be an overly conscious effort to avoid the pitfalls of the prequels the writers of the sequels now fall into other pitfalls instead.
I'm suspecting this as well, despite Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams probably interacting beforehand. This is something which happens when there is no continuous creative oversight and no long-term plan as to where the story should go, giving the director's creative freedom is all fine and dandy, but it can backfire.
George Lucas may be a lousy script/dialogue writer (I'll always remember how Harrison Ford chewed him out once because "you can maybe write this shit, but certainly not
say it out loud."), but being a very creative head he had always an overarching vision in mind.
In the sequels, this overall vision seems a little lacking.
I always separate the characters and their actions from the actor, that's also why I like Jack Gleeson's performance as Joffrey or Lena Headey as Cersei in Game of Thrones despite their characters being absolute scumbags.
Adam really manages to give Kylo a sort of two-faced portrayal as while he's certainly a deranged, dangerous villain (even more so now that he elevated himself to Big Bad status by slaying Darth Gollum...err I mean Snooze, uh no, what was the name again?) in some scenes he also comes over as a lost child despite his imposing appearance.
I also loved the subtext about him slaying Snooze and then offering Rey to join him, apparently thinking that "slaying your evil master" is already all that's needed to be "redeemed" and accepted again and Rey having nothing of that.
It is certainly a good action to take the tyrant out of the equation and a right step, but that's not the end of it, which Rey apparently knows but Kylo doesn't.
Since we have another movie left it may be a nice contrast to/continuation from Vader's "redemption" to see if Kylo falls further and truly becomes a lost cause or if he realizes that "redemption" (or atonement) is more than just a single action and that being genuinely mistreated does NOT justify becoming an abusive, murderous dickhead yourself.
Or as Leia so rightly assessed in one of the novels of the old EU:
Princess Leia said:
"Maybe Vader had died heroically, but ten minutes of contrition did not make up for years of atrocities."
I can relate to that sentiment. My first contact with Star Wars ever was in 1997 (I was twelve) when they broadcasted the OT on television and Leia was one of the characters who immediately catched my attention, especially since she refused to be intimidated by that "weird black-suited Samurai" and that "slimy evil governor dude". Leia was always someone of action and while many deride her "Mary Poppins" scene in the Last Jedi I primarily found it thrilling to finally see
her using the force even when it was admittedly done in a little cheesy way.
Also, did you know that some of the dialogue pieces Leia says in the film were included by Carrie Fisher herself, notably almost all of her conversation with Luke and her final words?
I agree that Leia feels quite underused and "sidelined" for lack of a better word in the sequels and if they had planned to change that with IX we will now never know.
Furthermore, I am likely not the only one who is a little miffed at the selection of chosen support characters from the OT to return, am I?
I mean, they bring back Admiral Ackbar (to kill him off in this movie without much fanfare no less, what an end for one of the good guy's most effective Admirals), but not Wedge Antilles and Lando Calrissian? Please.
Hopefully at least Lando will appear in Episode IX, preferably at the head of a powerful fleet scrambled from Remnant Republic forces to kick some First Order asses.
Once there was a rumor they would cast Dame Judi Dench as an elderly version of Mon Mothma, the civilian leader of the Rebel Alliance and first Chancellor of the New Republic (according to the novels), who would likely tremble with shame when she would witness how much of a joke the New Republic has become after her chancellery ended, I would have liked seeing that as well. Continuity porn is not always a bad trope.
Spoiler Show
