I'm trying to follow this logic and failing, but I do appreciate its general spirit of unity. We might not agree entirely as to why RoS is a terrible film, but at least we can agree that it is, so I think we're getting somewhere here, lol.

I think you're missing the heart and soul of The Last Jedi. Besides the fact that I thought it kind of clever that the main twist of the film is that there is no actual plot twist in the end, the point of it being that way is to convey that the mental-emotional progress of the Resistance is more basic than, and a prerequisite for, their physical progress on the battlefield. To get somewhere in their fight against the First Order, they require spiritual progress, each major character in their own way. It's that progress that is made and centered in the film. Internal progress has to come first. Mind over matter. It's about the growth of the characters as people; their internal wars more than their external conflicts. I really liked that exploration!

The Rise of Skywalker seems like very much the opposite kind of film nearly all of the time. It's all about just simply fighting and winning as far as I can tell. In that way, it seems to revert to a much simpler, less reflective, and more specifically Western type of outlook on life. Which inevitably does indeed remind one of director J.J. Abrams for those who have followed his work.

You give that film WAY too much credit.  None of those things were in the film.  There was no character growth, only regression.  Rey goes from a powerful Mary Sue to a much more powerful Mary Sue.  Poe learns he is to obey orders without question, just like a Stormtrooper.  Finn goes from a potentially interesting character, to the bumbling comic relief.  He does learn that animal cruelty is wrong, and is more important an issue than child slavery.  Kylo went from an troubled villain who loses his cool sometimes, to a whiny emo.  Snoke goes from the big bad, who could have been a great character who could rival Palpatine in power, to a moron who doesn't even know what his ship is capable of doing and dies from an easily seen betrayal from Kylo.  Leia became Mary Poppins.  And Luke's character was completely raped for the sake of some jokes and subversion.

In my observation, the term "Mary Sue" is a misogynist term that functionally just means "strong female character, and that intimidates me and therefore deserves stigma because she should be a damsel in distress, preferably without pants, or else not present at all so that I don't feel emasculated and cry 'male tears' all the way home from the theater". Disprove me. Seriously, THERE IS NO MALE ANALOGY TO THAT TERM!! Nobody stigmatizes male fiction characters simply for being strong, even in ways that are 100% superficial and arbitrary (e.g. Superman). Why is personal competence and strength only intrinsically bad when it's female? Why do women have to always be crying in a corner somewhere to be sympathetic or semi-nude or better yet both to be worth seeing?

Sorry for going off on that, it just pisses me off.

Speaking of Rey, I do feel that her being drawn to the Dark Side was something that merited fleshing out fully in the Rise of Skywalker for sure. But I definitely don't feel that the explanation should have been that she's Palpatine's granddaughter somehow (and RoS notably does not explain how she is, so full of it is the suggestion). I feel that way for the sort of reasons that L.D. Nolan laid out in his article for CRB negatively comparing the story in The Rise of Skywalker to that in The Last Jedi. Among other things, he makes this point:

"Originally choosing to have Rey be outside of those bloodlines hammered home The Last Jedi's theme -- as emphasized in its final shot of a young slave using the Force to pull a broom towards him -- that one's origins don't matter. That's not what makes someone a powerful Jedi Master or a Sith Lord. Kylo sees Rey as an equal in strength not because of her bloodline, but because of her power and who she is. This communicates to viewers that their origins don't matter. What matters is the path one chooses and the will with which they pursue their ultimate aims. The Force definitely plays a role in this, but the mystical entity does not particularly care about family names."

Being powerful in the Force simply because she was born in the lineage of Palpatine completely undermines that whole message, which I liked a lot better. Much of the reason I liked it better that way is...well, to be frank, there are whooooooooooooooooole lot of people in this world who "come from nothing" in one sense or another, and in the financial and social senses, I'm one of those people myself. I related to Rey as a character like that who struggled with darkness seemingly as a result. That her background and struggles didn't make her a weak or evil person was, I felt, a more uplifting a suggestion. It's much tougher for me to relate to her as instead a royal of sorts who is apparently only strong and important because she's a kind of princess.

Anyway, I don't really agree with much else that you wrote above except in the case of Finn's character, who I do agree was reduced in significance in The Last Jedi in a way that was unfair to the character. For example, I always perceived Kylo as something of an overgrown baby who was intended to be that way, even in The Force Awakens. If one hasn't noticed, the more authoritarian tyrannical figures of history and world are quite often sort of that way. They're disproportionately composed of big babies with fragile egos. (I could cite a certain American president that you appear to admire as an example, but the examples are really endless.) The important thing about that for Kylo is that he's not portrayed in a one-dimensional fashion as a result. He's not simply a punch line, but an often legitimately sympathetic character who resists doing the wrong thing because it's too hard on him, who really is bullied and mistreated (which is why he's as touchy as he is). This was true before his portrayal in The Rise of Skywalker, wherein his conversion to the Light Side feels what I'd call less than fully developed. I felt that he deserved a more convincing and heartfelt transition.

I could offer a much longer response running through the movie in some detail, but honestly I simply don't feel like it. I feel like any old crack against The Last Jedi will get lots of up-votes and any defense will just get me even more isolated and despised than I already am.

The male version of "Mary Sue" is called a "Gary Stu" and the term came from some fanfic about a character named Mary Sue who met the Star Trek crew, everyone instantly fell in love with, and was great at everything. She dies heroically at the end of the story (I think it was self sacrifice) and everyone mourned her death. There was no depth to her comically bad character aside being perfect.

Males can also be called "Mary Sue" instead of Gary Stu. It had nothing to do with women. Just the name of the character.

-I haven't read the rest of your post. Gonna do that now.

*Edit* Read the rest of the post. I respect your opinion and I don't think we despise you. In fact, I think you're pretty awesome. We're just having a discussion and, while I can't speak for anyone else, I don't mean to come off as abrasive.

Name one use of the term Gary Stu you have seen before. Use a link.

I request as much because, so common is this apparent male version in usage that I have never heard of it before in my life.

Name one use of the term Gary Stu you have seen before. Use a link.

I request as much because, so common is this apparent male version in usage that I have never heard of it before in my life.

In my observation, the term "Mary Sue" is a misogynist term that functionally just means "strong female character, and that intimidates me and therefore deserves stigma because she should be a damsel in distress, preferably without pants, or else not present at all so that I don't feel emasculated and cry 'male tears' all the way home from the theater". Disprove me. Seriously, THERE IS NO MALE ANALOGY TO THAT TERM!! Nobody stigmatizes male fiction characters simply for being strong, even in ways that are 100% superficial and arbitrary (e.g. Superman). Why is personal competence and strength only intrinsically bad when it's female? Why do women have to always be crying in a corner somewhere to be sympathetic or semi-nude or better yet both to be worth seeing?

Sorry for going off on that, it just pisses me off.

Speaking of Rey, I do feel that her being drawn to the Dark Side was something that merited fleshing out fully in the Rise of Skywalker for sure. But I definitely don't feel that the explanation should have been that she's Palpatine's granddaughter somehow (and RoS notably does not explain how she is, so full of it is the suggestion). I feel that way for the sort of reasons that L.D. Nolan laid out in his article for CRB negatively comparing the story in The Rise of Skywalker to that in The Last Jedi. Among other things, he makes this point:

"Originally choosing to have Rey be outside of those bloodlines hammered home The Last Jedi's theme -- as emphasized in its final shot of a young slave using the Force to pull a broom towards him -- that one's origins don't matter. That's not what makes someone a powerful Jedi Master or a Sith Lord. Kylo sees Rey as an equal in strength not because of her bloodline, but because of her power and who she is. This communicates to viewers that their origins don't matter. What matters is the path one chooses and the will with which they pursue their ultimate aims. The Force definitely plays a role in this, but the mystical entity does not particularly care about family names."

Being powerful in the Force simply because she was born in the lineage of Palpatine completely undermines that whole message, which I liked a lot better. Much of the reason I liked it better that way is...well, to be frank, there are whooooooooooooooooole lot of people in this world who "come from nothing" in one sense or another, and in the financial and social senses, I'm one of those people myself. I related to Rey as a character like that who struggled with darkness seemingly as a result. That her background and struggles didn't make her a weak or evil person was, I felt, a more uplifting a suggestion. It's much tougher for me to relate to her as instead a royal of sorts who is apparently only strong and important because she's a kind of princess.

Anyway, I don't really agree with much else that you wrote above except in the case of Finn's character, who I do agree was reduced in significance in The Last Jedi in a way that was unfair to the character. For example, I always perceived Kylo as something of an overgrown baby who was intended to be that way, even in The Force Awakens. If one hasn't noticed, the more authoritarian tyrannical figures of history and world are quite often sort of that way. They're disproportionately composed of big babies with fragile egos. (I could cite a certain American president that you appear to admire as an example, but the examples are really endless.) The important thing about that for Kylo is that he's not portrayed in a one-dimensional fashion as a result. He's not simply a punch line, but an often legitimately sympathetic character who resists doing the wrong thing because it's too hard on him, who really is bullied and mistreated (which is why he's as touchy as he is). This was true before his portrayal in The Rise of Skywalker, wherein his conversion to the Light Side feels what I'd call less than fully developed. I felt that he deserved a more convincing and heartfelt transition.

I could offer a much longer response running through the movie in some detail, but honestly I simply don't feel like it. I feel like any old crack against The Last Jedi will get lots of up-votes and any defense will just get me even more isolated and despised than I already am.

In my observation, the term "Mary Sue" is a misogynist term that functionally just means "strong female character, and that intimidates me and therefore deserves stigma because she should be a damsel in distress, preferably without pants, or else not present at all so that I don't feel emasculated and cry 'male tears' all the way home from the theater". Disprove me. Seriously, THERE IS NO MALE ANALOGY TO THAT TERM!! Nobody stigmatizes male fiction characters simply for being strong, even in ways that are 100% superficial and arbitrary (e.g. Superman). Why is personal competence and strength only intrinsically bad when it's female? Why do women have to always be crying in a corner somewhere to be sympathetic or semi-nude or better yet both to be worth seeing?

Sorry for going off on that, it just pisses me off.

Speaking of Rey, I do feel that her being drawn to the Dark Side was something that merited fleshing out fully in the Rise of Skywalker for sure. But I definitely don't feel that the explanation should have been that she's Palpatine's granddaughter somehow (and RoS notably does not explain how she is, so full of it is the suggestion). I feel that way for the sort of reasons that L.D. Nolan laid out in his article for CRB negatively comparing the story in The Rise of Skywalker to that in The Last Jedi. Among other things, he makes this point:

"Originally choosing to have Rey be outside of those bloodlines hammered home The Last Jedi's theme -- as emphasized in its final shot of a young slave using the Force to pull a broom towards him -- that one's origins don't matter. That's not what makes someone a powerful Jedi Master or a Sith Lord. Kylo sees Rey as an equal in strength not because of her bloodline, but because of her power and who she is. This communicates to viewers that their origins don't matter. What matters is the path one chooses and the will with which they pursue their ultimate aims. The Force definitely plays a role in this, but the mystical entity does not particularly care about family names."

Being powerful in the Force simply because she was born in the lineage of Palpatine completely undermines that whole message, which I liked a lot better. Much of the reason I liked it better that way is...well, to be frank, there are whooooooooooooooooole lot of people in this world who "come from nothing" in one sense or another, and in the financial and social senses, I'm one of those people myself. I related to Rey as a character like that who struggled with darkness seemingly as a result. That her background and struggles didn't make her a weak or evil person was, I felt, a more uplifting a suggestion. It's much tougher for me to relate to her as instead a royal of sorts who is apparently only strong and important because she's a kind of princess.

Anyway, I don't really agree with much else that you wrote above except in the case of Finn's character, who I do agree was reduced in significance in The Last Jedi in a way that was unfair to the character. For example, I always perceived Kylo as something of an overgrown baby who was intended to be that way, even in The Force Awakens. If one hasn't noticed, the more authoritarian tyrannical figures of history and world are quite often sort of that way. They're disproportionately composed of big babies with fragile egos. (I could cite a certain American president that you appear to admire as an example, but the examples are really endless.) The important thing about that for Kylo is that he's not portrayed in a one-dimensional fashion as a result. He's not simply a punch line, but an often legitimately sympathetic character who resists doing the wrong thing because it's too hard on him, who really is bullied and mistreated (which is why he's as touchy as he is). This was true before his portrayal in The Rise of Skywalker, wherein his conversion to the Light Side feels what I'd call less than fully developed. I felt that he deserved a more convincing and heartfelt transition.

I could offer a much longer response running through the movie in some detail, but honestly I simply don't feel like it. I feel like any old crack against The Last Jedi will get lots of up-votes and any defense will just get me even more isolated and despised than I already am.