Kashyyk
I’m disappointed that no one has called this out yet. For shame, SilverWook. For shame.
The original fairy tales are also a lot darker than the sanitized versions most people are familiar with today.
Most myths too of course, complete happy endings in those were a little elusive.
Not to mention, of course, Star Wars has never been just a fairy tale. That’s just one aspect of it. And it was never supposed to be just another myth. It was supposed to be the creation of a new modern myth. Deconstruction has been built into the franchise since the beginning.
The original fairy tales are also a lot darker than the sanitized versions most people are familiar with today.
Most myths too of course, complete happy endings in those were a little elusive.
Not to mention, of course, Star Wars has never been just a fairy tale. That’s just one aspect of it. And it was never supposed to be just another myth. It was supposed to be the creation of a new modern myth. Deconstruction has been built into the franchise since the beginning.
Yes, but it still strictly adheres to the hero’s journey, since Lucas was a great admirer of Joseph Campbell. Lucas created a modern myth, but that has now been broken to extend the story. The decisive victory was turned into a short lived one, and the hero of the story fell from his pedestal, foregoing all his beliefs.
I think it is perfectly fine to enjoy the ongoing story, but we should also be able to view the OT in it’s original context. I don’t think it is fair to just view the previous films through the retconned vision of the ST. This is what happens, when people argue, that the critics view Luke in the wrong way, wanting him to be this legendary hero. He was the legendary hero, as is consistent with the final stage of the hero’s journey, but that mythical status was stripped away in order to continue the story.
The original fairy tales are also a lot darker than the sanitized versions most people are familiar with today.
Most myths too of course, complete happy endings in those were a little elusive.
Not to mention, of course, Star Wars has never been just a fairy tale. That’s just one aspect of it. And it was never supposed to be just another myth. It was supposed to be the creation of a new modern myth. Deconstruction has been built into the franchise since the beginning.
Yes, but it still strictly adheres to the hero’s journey, since Lucas was a great admirer of Joseph Campbell. Lucas created a modern myth, but that has now been broken to extend the story. The decisive victory was turned into a short lived one, and the hero of the story fell from his pedestal, foregoing all his beliefs.
Couldn’t agree more, and that has been one of my main criticisms with the direction they have taken with the ST. Star Wars at its very core is modern mythology told with classic archetypal narratives and characters. Luke already overcame his inner struggles in Empire and Jedi, and the OT made the final, definitive statement on Luke’s character when he said “I am a Jedi, like my father before me.” Nothing more needs to be said on the matter after that, and any continuing stories should have just left his character alone and focus more attention on Rey.
Of course, I don’t solely blame RJ since he was just having to continue where TFA left off. Abrams and company kind of wrote themselves into a corner after they couldn’t figure out how to portray Luke as the mentor, so just decided to stick him on an Island and let the next director figure it out.
“In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.” - George Lucas
Of course, I don’t solely blame RJ since he was just having to continue where TFA left off. Abrams and company kind of wrote themselves into a corner after they couldn’t figure out how to portray Luke as the mentor, so just decided to stick him on an Island and let the next director figure it out.
Or they thought it would make for an interesting story and still be believable.
[shrug]
There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).
The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?
The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.
The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.
Yes, this whole “they’re ruining the OT” argument makes absolutely no sense. Rian Johnson isn’t scribbling a marker all over the negatives of Star Wars, folks.
Kashyyk
I’m disappointed that no one has called this out yet. For shame, SilverWook. For shame.
Big deal. How many times is Wookiee misspelled around here? 😛
Where were you in '77?
There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).
The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?
The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.
The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.
Yes, but as a critic I ask myself, did it have to completely break the myth of the OT in order to further the story? The ST is willing to deconstruct classic heroes, but it is inwilling to forgoe the underlying conflict of Empire versus rebels, and the OT aesthetic. Why were the classic heroes sacrificed in order to to be replaced by a new generation of heroes placed in an almost identical situation? That doesn’t feel like a natural story extension. It feels like a reboot. I think it’s fair to criticize those story choices.
Yes, this whole “they’re ruining the OT” argument makes absolutely no sense. Rian Johnson isn’t scribbling a marker all over the negatives of Star Wars, folks.
George arguably beat him to it anyway. 😉
Where were you in '77?
Yes, this whole “they’re ruining the OT” argument makes absolutely no sense. Rian Johnson isn’t scribbling a marker all over the negatives of Star Wars, folks.
It’s not about ruining the OT. Future generations are going to watch this story as a nine part saga. So, it seems fair to discuss, whether the nine part saga is a better or worse story than the six part saga, just like it is fair to discuss, whether the six part Lucas saga is better or worse than the original trilogy.
Future generations have just as much ability to choose how much of the saga they want as their canon. Probably more so, since they won’t be blinded by nostalgia for any of it.
Yes, this whole “they’re ruining the OT” argument makes absolutely no sense. Rian Johnson isn’t scribbling a marker all over the negatives of Star Wars, folks.
Yeah, that was George Lucas who did that, lest we forget what site we’re on.
Future generations have just as much ability to choose how much of the saga they want as their canon. Probably more so, since they won’t be blinded by nostalgia for any of it.
I suppose, but I for one am happy that Robert Zemeckis never gave into the pressure to create another BTTF film. Sometimes the story is just finished.
Well I do think the Jedi in the PT have too rigid a definition of the Force. Whether George did that on purpose, doesn’t matter, as I’m glad to see the ST expand it into so much more than just midichlorian counts.
I think it was a little more than that to George, and to me too. The Force is just The Force. Jediism is a 1,000 generations worth of knowledge about and understanding of The Force.
Frankly, if George actually felt that way he wouldn’t have introduced midichlorians in the first place.
Future generations have just as much ability to choose how much of the saga they want as their canon. Probably more so, since they won’t be blinded by nostalgia for any of it.
I suppose, but I for one am happy that Robert Zemeckis never gave into the pressure to create another BTTF film. Sometimes the story is just finished.
Lol nicely played.
Who was it who said that again?
There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).
The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?
The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.
The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.
Yes, but as a critic I ask myself, did it have to completely break the myth of the OT in order to further the story? The ST is willing to deconstruct classic heroes, but it is inwilling to forgoe the underlying conflict of Empire versus rebels, and the OT aesthetic. Why were the classic heroes sacrificed in order to to be replaced by a new generation of heroes placed in an almost identical situation? That doesn’t feel like a natural story extension. It feels like a reboot. I think it’s fair to criticize those story choices.
It’s definitely fair to dislike the direction they’ve taken. I don’t agree with all aspects of it myself. But in general I definitely think this was not only the right way to go, but the necessary way to go.
The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?
The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.
If the story must continue with all new characters, then Luke’s character should’ve just followed the natural progression that the OT set up and taken over the archetypal role as the wise mentor. That is exactly what they originally tried to do as Abrams and Michael Arndt have stated. According to Arndt though, they couldn’t figure out how to do this and not have Luke steal the show from the new “hero”:
“It just felt like every time Luke entered the movie, he just took it over. Suddenly you didn’t care about your main character anymore because, ‘Oh fuck, Luke Skywalker’s here. I want to see what he’s going to do’.” – Michael Arndt
I understand what he’s saying, but on a fundamental level I disagree with that. I don’t see any reason why Luke couldn’t have taken a “backseat” to Rey, during the course of the story. After all, they basically did the exact same thing with an equally popular character in Han Solo.
“In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.” - George Lucas
Future generations have just as much ability to choose how much of the saga they want as their canon. Probably more so, since they won’t be blinded by nostalgia for any of it.
I suppose, but I for one am happy that Robert Zemeckis never gave into the pressure to create another BTTF film. Sometimes the story is just finished.
Lol nicely played.
Who was it who said that again?
I actually don’t know.
If I were them I wouldn’t own up to it either. 😉
There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).
The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?
The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.
The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.
Yes, but as a critic I ask myself, did it have to completely break the myth of the OT in order to further the story? The ST is willing to deconstruct classic heroes, but it is inwilling to forgoe the underlying conflict of Empire versus rebels, and the OT aesthetic. Why were the classic heroes sacrificed in order to to be replaced by a new generation of heroes placed in an almost identical situation? That doesn’t feel like a natural story extension. It feels like a reboot. I think it’s fair to criticize those story choices.
It’s definitely fair to dislike the direction they’ve taken. I don’t agree with all aspects of it myself. But in general I definitely think this was not only the right way to go, but the necessary way to go.
I don’t know. I miss the days when there were just three movies, and 9 out of 10 people agreed, they were good. I would prefer Disney put their effort into creating original stories with original characters. Give me another Star Wars like experience, not another Star Wars experience. Been there, done that.
The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?
The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.
If the story must continue with all new characters, then Luke’s character should’ve just followed the natural progression that the OT set up and taken over the archetypal role as the wise mentor. That is exactly what they originally tried to do as Abrams and Michael Arndt have stated. According to Arndt though, they couldn’t figure out how to do this and not have Luke steal the show from the new “hero”:
“It just felt like every time Luke entered the movie, he just took it over. Suddenly you didn’t care about your main character anymore because, ‘Oh fuck, Luke Skywalker’s here. I want to see what he’s going to do’.” – Michael Arndt
I understand what he’s saying, but on a fundamental level I disagree with that. I don’t see any reason why Luke couldn’t have taken a “backseat” to Rey, during the course of the story. After all, they basically did the exact same thing with an equally popular character in Han Solo.
First, Luke can’t just be Obi-wan v2. Classic performance aside, Obi-wan in the OT was mainly a vehicle for exposition and an introduction for Luke to the way of the force. And that’s okay! And was necessary then. But we already know what the force is, we already know what the Jedi are and what happened in the OT and whatever. Plus, unlike the PT (which turned Obi-wan into a main character after the fact), it’s weird to have three movies with a main character (and not just any main character, basically the main character in modern cinema) and then for him to only be a tertiary character when he shows up again. Obi-wan didn’t need a story in the OT, but Luke needed one in the ST. And to give a character a compelling story, you need to strip away their perfection.
As for Arndt and Abrams thinking that Luke would steal the show, I pretty much agree, and I’d actually submit TLJ as exhibit #1. Even after a film and a half with Rey as our protagonist, once Luke shows up on Crait, it’s the Luke show. Which is awesome but I do think it robs Rey of the power of her climactic moment (lifting the rocks).
There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).
The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?
The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.
The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.
Yes, but as a critic I ask myself, did it have to completely break the myth of the OT in order to further the story? The ST is willing to deconstruct classic heroes, but it is inwilling to forgoe the underlying conflict of Empire versus rebels, and the OT aesthetic. Why were the classic heroes sacrificed in order to to be replaced by a new generation of heroes placed in an almost identical situation? That doesn’t feel like a natural story extension. It feels like a reboot. I think it’s fair to criticize those story choices.
It’s definitely fair to dislike the direction they’ve taken. I don’t agree with all aspects of it myself. But in general I definitely think this was not only the right way to go, but the necessary way to go.
I don’t know. I miss the days when there were just three movies, and 9 out of 10 people agreed, they were good.
I know I keep saying this, but that’s totally up to you. Just stop reading this thread!
I’m half-kidding, obviously you should continue to debate TLJ as long as you like, but the only one that can make the old days come back is you.
There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).
The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?
The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.
The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.
Yes, but as a critic I ask myself, did it have to completely break the myth of the OT in order to further the story? The ST is willing to deconstruct classic heroes, but it is inwilling to forgoe the underlying conflict of Empire versus rebels, and the OT aesthetic. Why were the classic heroes sacrificed in order to to be replaced by a new generation of heroes placed in an almost identical situation? That doesn’t feel like a natural story extension. It feels like a reboot. I think it’s fair to criticize those story choices.
It’s definitely fair to dislike the direction they’ve taken. I don’t agree with all aspects of it myself. But in general I definitely think this was not only the right way to go, but the necessary way to go.
I don’t know. I miss the days when there were just three movies, and 9 out of 10 people agreed, they were good. I would prefer Disney put their effort into creating original stories with original characters. Give me another Star Wars like experience, not another Star Wars experience. Been there, done that.
If nothing else, you have to admit that when all is said and done, this 9 episode Skywalker series, whatever it ends up looking like, has at least re-contextualized the saga in a way that’s easier to stomach than “The Tragedy of Darth Vader” that we got when the prequels were added to the mix.
There’s a difference between being a “legendary hero” in the context of our real life view of the OT as a story told on film and being a legendary hero in universe and all that comes with that meaning (though of course the two are metatextually related).
The ST doesn’t “retcon” the OT or make it wrong or whatever (ruin it, I guess?). The OT is still the OT and will always be the self contained story that it is and nothing that comes after can change that. But you admit Luke ended his hero’s journey there, so what is the ST supposed to do then? Just preserve Luke in a glass case of “perfect mythic hero”?
The ST does exactly what a sequel should do. In many ways this is very similar to the way Empire re-contextualizes the original Star Wars.
The original Star Wars is my all time favorite movie. But it’s not my favorite movie as the first film of a saga or as the fourth. It’s my favorite movie as a standalone, modern mythic adventure fairy tale. I can still watch it and love it in this way, even though Empire necessarily complicates the characters and the universe (and the myth) beyond what we see in the original. Empire can’t take anything away from Star Wars, it can only add to it. That’s what the ST does to the OT.
Yes, but as a critic I ask myself, did it have to completely break the myth of the OT in order to further the story? The ST is willing to deconstruct classic heroes, but it is inwilling to forgoe the underlying conflict of Empire versus rebels, and the OT aesthetic. Why were the classic heroes sacrificed in order to to be replaced by a new generation of heroes placed in an almost identical situation? That doesn’t feel like a natural story extension. It feels like a reboot. I think it’s fair to criticize those story choices.
Fall and redemption was Luke’s story in TLJ for me…much like Anakin’s in the OT. I see this as a quintessential hero story.