Can Episode VII ignore the prequels? — Page 3

There's nothing inherently wrong with the gradual progression from good to evil you mentioned. But that's never actually how it's played in DE.

Han is skeptical of Luke's intentions, but Leia vouches for him. She senses his "sacrifice" in the Force, and believes him to still be a Jedi at heart. They end up taking down the Devastators on Calamari (a major blow to the Empire), which wins the reader's trust. Luke is only really tempted by the dark side near the tail end.

I'll set aside my criticisms of ROTJ for a minute to say that the dark side, in my opinion, is scarier when it dominates suddenly. Luke came damn close there to taking his father's place at Palpatine's side, because he lashed out in anger. If he'd wanted for a molecule less of self control, he would have gone from hero to villain in seconds. That's more disturbing to me than the other method.

Think of the dark side like a potent drug. One hit and your consciousness is altered.

darklordoftech said:

Here's why I hate Thrawn: I feel that the Empire should die with Palpatine. 

I don't "hate" Thrawn or some of the EU, but YES I totaly agree. I'd prefer Episode 7 to NOT have imperials (as we know them) included in the story. Plus the movie taking place like 30 years later i don't see how there would still be "imperials" around here anyway. Unless the New Republic is a New Empire.

TMBTM said:

darklordoftech said:

Here's why I hate Thrawn: I feel that the Empire should die with Palpatine. 

I don't "hate" Thrawn or some of the EU, but YES I totaly agree. I'd prefer Episode 7 to NOT have imperials (as we know them) included in the story. Plus the movie taking place like 30 years later i don't see how there would still be "imperials" around here anyway. Unless the New Republic is a New Empire.

:)

darklordoftech said:

Here's why I hate Thrawn: I feel that the Empire should die with Palpatine. To have the Sith and/or the Empire outlive Palpatine undermines Palpatine's death and all that the heroes of the original trilogy fought for.

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

darklordoftech said:

Here's why I hate Thrawn: I feel that the Empire should die with Palpatine. To have the Sith and/or the Empire outlive Palpatine undermines Palpatine's death and all that the heroes of the original trilogy fought for.

Yeah, and all those Neo-Nazis goose-stepping around today really negate the sacrifice all those Allied soldiers who fought in WWII made and render the deaths of the ones who died totally meaningless.

 

They do negate the sacrifice of the allied soldiers and make their deaths much less meaningful, and if those neo-nazis took over the territory once ruled by nazi germany, the deaths of the allied soldiers would be totally meaningless. 

SilverWook said:

Now I'm wondering if there's the SW equivalent of South America, where lots of former Imperial officers are laying low dreaming of restoring their beloved Empire.

There has to be one deranged former Imp somewhere who has penned a little musical love letter titled Springtime For Palpatine. ;)

I've wondered about that too.

darklordoftech said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

darklordoftech said:

Here's why I hate Thrawn: I feel that the Empire should die with Palpatine. To have the Sith and/or the Empire outlive Palpatine undermines Palpatine's death and all that the heroes of the original trilogy fought for.

Yeah, and all those Neo-Nazis goose-stepping around today really negate the sacrifice all those Allied soldiers who fought in WWII made and render the deaths of the ones who died totally meaningless.

 

They do negate the sacrifice of the allied soldiers and make their deaths much less meaningful, and if those neo-nazis took over the territory once ruled by nazi germany, the deaths of the allied soldiers would be totally meaningless.

I have found some EU that I like (provided future movies feel free to ignore it): Dawn of the Jedi. It doesn't copy the movies and I'm curious to see how the Jedi come to be.

They do negate the sacrifice of the allied soldiers and make their deaths much less meaningful, and if those neo-nazis took over the territory once ruled by nazi germany, the deaths of the allied soldiers would be totally meaningless.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, and I've lived with people who think Fox News is actually a credible source of information about the world.

hairy_hen said:

They do negate the sacrifice of the allied soldiers and make their deaths much less meaningful, and if those neo-nazis took over the territory once ruled by nazi germany, the deaths of the allied soldiers would be totally meaningless.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, and I've lived with people who think Fox News is actually a credible source of information about the world.

That is what Fox News told me you would say.

Look at it this way. . . the soldiers who died in WWII saved thousands of civilian lives in the decades to come (Jews, Roma, Gays, Jehovah Witnesses, etc). If Nazi Germany returned, those lives would still have been spared those prior decades of evil.

Reegar said:

Look at it this way. . . the soldiers who died in WWII saved thousands of civilian lives in the decades to come (Jews, Roma, Gays, Jehovah Witnesses, etc). If Nazi Germany returned, those lives would still have been spared those prior decades of evil.

I'll give you that.

Ignoring the prequels is a nice thought, but I think it's a pipe dream. Episode VII will be taking place in the future of Episode VI, where it's already been established that Yoda, Obi Wan Kenobi, and Anakin Skywalker have retained their personalities as Force spirits. We know that the original characters (Luke, Han, Leia, etc.) are going to be in Episode VII, so it stands to reason that we're going to see Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen (and CGI Yoda) or else the movie's going to have some explaining to do as to why their spirits just suddenly stopped appearing. Those of you who want Episode VII to ignore the prequels: have fun with that part of the movie.

Since I've never believed that Luke would have been able to recognize Hayden's face at the end of Return of the Jedi (which is a problem I've always had with inserting Hayden there), I think it would be hilarious if Episode VII had a running joke about it: whenever Luke sees Hayden, his reaction is like "who are you and why do you keep appearing to me??" Kind of like the guy spraying the kid with the hose in "Billy Madison." I suppose Luke wouldn't recognize Ewan McGregor either. And how weird is it for Obi Wan to change from McGregor to Guiness and then BACK to McGregor again? But it's going to happen, because the ghosts wouldn't arbitrarily stop appearing after Episode VI.

In all seriousness though, there's a bigger issue that the prequels created for this sequel trilogy. Instead of making the prequels as a standalone trilogy with some elements that connect them to episodes 4-6, George Lucas chose to make it so that all 6 episodes form one story focused on one guy (Anakin/Vader). Everybody distinguishes between the "Sequel Trilogy" and the "Original Trilogy" as though we have two separate and distinct trilogies, but that's really not what they are. They are one 6 part story (hexalogy??).

1-3 don't stand alone as a complete trilogy story. Revenge of the Sith is no more resolved at the end than The Empire Strikes Back. I understand three movies were released during a different generation from the other three, with many different cast members. And I distinguish between "trilogies" because I love 4-6 and hate 1-3. But from a story perspective, we don't have 2 trilogies.

The issue this creates is: the sequel trilogy has to take up different subject matter now, because Vader is dead. This would be fine if Abrams' movies were a separate standalone series in the same universe and they left the numbering system of "1-6" alone to be a saga about the rise and fall and redemption of Darth Vader, but he's not doing that. He's calling these "VII, VIII, IX, etc."

This means that Star Wars is about to start becoming a very lopsided saga, where one long saga about Darth Vader unfolds across six episodes, followed by a trilogy at the end about something different (but with some familiar faces included). This is going to make the sequel story feel "tacked on" to the larger story about Vader, but only because Abrams is joining the two together as part of the same number sequence.

The only way to remedy this and restore "balance" to the saga (pun intended) would be if J.J. Abrams purposefully gives his Episode IX a very unresolved ending, and doesn't wrap up the story/character arc that he begins in Episode VII until his Episode XII. But I don't think that's what's being planned (I'm sure Disney will eventually go all the way to XII, but I think they're planning on making VII-IX a complete story that can stand on its own, rather than having one singular subject that starts with VII and ends with XII; I may be wrong). Lucas changed the Star Wars format from trilogy to hexalogy; and Abrams is acknowledging this with his Episode numbering but then contradicting himself with his intention to make a "trilogy" anyway.

deepanddark20 said:

Everybody distinguishes between the "Sequel Trilogy" and the "Original Trilogy" as though we have two separate and distinct trilogies, but that's really not what they are. They are one 6 part story (hexalogy??).

I'm not saying 1-6 fit together well, or are internally consistent. I'm on the team that hates the prequels! I personally keep 1-3 in a separate place away from 4-6. When 4-6 have changes inserted into them to make them more "consistent" with the prequels (such as Hayden's insertion into RoTJ), I agree with you that 4-6 are being made into Frankenstein creations. So I like your analogy.

However, by purposeful design, 1-6 is not structurally two trilogies. Structurally, you can either consider 4-6 a "trilogy" by ignoring the prequels (which is what I do, and probably what you do as well), or consider the whole thing to be a hexalogy by including the prequels. But two complete trilogies they are not.

Episodes 1-3 are referred to as a "trilogy" for conversational convenience. A true trilogy has a beginning, middle, and end. Episodes 1-3 have a beginning, middle, and middle. Without 4-6, 1-3 would be a fragment. That wouldn't be true if it were a real "trilogy." And this isn't by accident; it's because George Lucas chose to make them that way. He chose to make 1-3 in such a way that they change 4-6 from a trilogy into a 6-parter. He didn't have to go that route (and I tend to think it wasn't the best route). Episodes 1-3 could have had their own story distinct from 4-6, which ends up resolved at the end of 3 (in the same way that 6 ends resolved) but which included Anakin, Padme, the Emperor/Empire, Luke, Leia, etc. as elements of the larger separate story.

An example of this approach is The Hobbit, which has all the necessary story elements to set up The Lord of the Rings (Bilbo encountering Gollum and acquiring the ring for example) but tells its own separate story that gets fully resolved at the end. In this way, "The Hobbit" justifies having its own separate existence alongside Lord of the Rings. The story of the Star Wars prequels is information we mostly already had from watching 4-6, without offering additional story information of enough value to justify making another three movies instead of just letting us imagine it (which was better).

However I do hope my whole post doesn't get dismissed because of a hangup on the definition of a "trilogy."

Your points really don't convince me that the six movies are one saga. If anything, it convinces me that the OT is a trilogy and the PT is some parasitic pseudo-trilogy.

BTW, your points won't be dismissed because of how you define a trilogy =)

I appreciate your interaction with my post, but have you heard the expression, "missing the forest for the trees"? I think that's what you're doing with my post. Convincing you that 1-6 comfortably belong together in one saga isn't my point.

At the risk of sounding like I can read your thoughts... I can't help but sense that your hatred for the prequels is motivating you to respond to my post the way you are, which I find odd because I probably hate the prequels more than you do! Going along with my post doesn't require you to set aside any of your hatred for 1-3, if you truly understand where I'm coming from. When you read my post, keep in mind that I think the prequels are atrocities.

You're getting hung up on the part of my post about how episodes 1-3 require the ending of episode 6 for their plot to be resolved (which really isn't debatable). This is not the same thing as saying that 4-6 need 1-3, or saying that 1-3 are legitimate, which is what you seem to be railing against. Since that part of my post was only building up to the main points, you're missing those points.

I think you're having a slightly different conversation than the one I'm trying to have. In the one you're having, you and I are on the same side.

Anchorhead said:

darklordoftech said:

if those neo-nazis took over the territory once ruled by nazi germany, the deaths of the allied soldiers would be totally meaningless. 

What about the past 70 years without Nazi rule?  Millions of people have lived their entire lives free and without worry.  That's far from meaningless.

*edit*

Sorry, didn't realize Reegar had already addressed this.

No problem, it needs to be addressed multiple times, given how insane it is.

This thread should be retitled "Can forum members ignore history?"

Tack said:

The bigger question is "can I stand idly by while these discussions carry on?"

Yes. Yes I can.

Thank you!!!!

An alternate retitle could be "Can forum members ignore deepanddark20's post?"

deepanddark20 said:

I appreciate your interaction with my post, but have you heard the expression, "missing the forest for the trees"? I think that's what you're doing with my post. Convincing you that 1-6 comfortably belong together in one saga isn't my point.

At the risk of sounding like I can read your thoughts... I can't help but sense that your hatred for the prequels is motivating you to respond to my post the way you are, which I find odd because I probably hate the prequels more than you do! Going along with my post doesn't require you to set aside any of your hatred for 1-3, if you truly understand where I'm coming from. When you read my post, keep in mind that I think the prequels are atrocities.

You're getting hung up on the part of my post about how episodes 1-3 require the ending of episode 6 for their plot to be resolved (which really isn't debatable). This is not the same thing as saying that 4-6 need 1-3, or saying that 1-3 are legitimate, which is what you seem to be railing against. Since that part of my post was only building up to the main points, you're missing those points.

I think you're having a slightly different conversation than the one I'm trying to have. In the one you're having, you and I are on the same side.