In other worlds I would gladly take a search for Ben Solo
lol, nah for me. The empty, meaningless, black hole of a character, to me, can stay where he is.
I only think two shots in the PT look legit not good to me off the top of my head. Obi, Mace and Yoda walking together in AOTC, and some bits of Mace and Anakin walking as Anakin tells Mace that Palpatine is a sith in ROTS. Most else fluctuates or doesn’t really bother me. Not everything may look fully real, but most of it doesn’t look too out of step to me for me to be taken out of it really much.
I think that was about making the force more democratic as it were, Rey being a nobody and not having to have magic mutant blood or be the scion of demigods.
That would be the the ‘oooh ahhh idea’ that I mentioned. To me, a meaningless gesture at an idea that you don’t have to be from a special bloodline to be a protagonist in Star Wars. Meaningless, I think, because, well, every single Jedi/force sensitive in every Star Wars move other than the Skywalker family don’t come from a special bloodline. Obi-Wan, as far as I think, is the main heroic protagonist of ROTS and he’s never developed to have anything unique about him other than being a generally stalwart heroic Jedi.
As is, Rey is no different than any other Jedi in regards to being born with force potential and the movie itself argues she is specially chosen, “Darkness rises and light to meet it.”
The issue is for me that I think TLJ is bunk because it doesn’t care about Rey as a character places her in a basically entirely passive role, which I think RJ did to himself (if the whole idea of him being the one to decide Rey’s role is the case) and he didn’t, I think it looks to me, want to put in the effort to do any that much else other than make Rey a passive bystander in the Skywalker family drama, where her only real role is to be a doll for Kylo to use to kill Snoke and for him and Luke to talk at about their pointless dumb nonsense all movie while Rey is motivated by Star Wars fan knowledge and a, to me, cheap and dumb bad boy good girl romance nonsense that is reylo, and then at the very end does some heroic stuff while the movie holds the Skywalker drama getting the central larger dramatic focus.
So, no matter what the movie thinks it may be trying to claim, I think it doesn’t care about Rey as a character or about her as a nobody in any real way as a character and would rather spend the whole movie using her as a sounding board and device for the other male Skywalker characters, who I think the movie offers no real value to as having that focus, them whining about nothing to me while Rey just… sits there and makes vague protests or affirmations while not really having that much of a voice as a character of her own and having no real actual stake in the nonsense.
Which, no matter how dumb I think it is from a writing perspective, I think TROS actually avoided in it’s… choice here:
JJ on the other hand would have been fine with making her Luke’s daughter or Kenobi’s, and settled on Palpatine as the answer.
Not because it explained anything about Rey’s abilities in any way, as it doesn’t actually explain how she was trained to do anything it did. But that it actually placed Rey back into the central focus of the main story in having Palpatine be the big bad and tied to her specifically more than anyone else. Giving her some actual personal stake in this story to me. Not a very well written or meaningful personal stake to me, but it’s something.
As far as I’ve read, even Colin Trevarrow’s Duel Of The Fates script, if it was legit, I think may have seemed to have perceived a similar issue, as it, to my memory, had had a reveal that Kylo had killed Rey’s parents, maybe I think it being used to give Rey a personal engagement in this whole story.
It is amusing, because, for all the talk about TROS not being a continuation of TLJ, I think DOTF does it’s best to soft reboot almost everything it can in trying to make the story and themes have some weight to it. Rey has like a voice all of a sudden, opinions, an engagement in things. The nonsense to me reylo thing is basically stripped away entirely to my memory from what little I’ve read, replaced by a random out of nearly thin air Poe and Rey romance. The first order’s rule is shown and given stakes of some sort. Kylo is mainly pulled away from his supreme leader role to go on a whole side quest, where he’s given his own new mask I think. The Finn and Rose stuff is a bit more vague, as far as I remember though.
I think both versions of Ep 9 soft rebooted its narrative in ways, differently and such though.
Because people complained and said where does she get all these overpowered abilities, like she has god mode, a cheat code within a video game. How does she get the better of Kylo Ren when he was trained by Luke and Snoke, etc. and they will bring up how Luke was just a farmboy who had little or no training, when he rushed to face Vader on Cloud City. And lost a hand. A Young Rebel in the Rebellion, who somehow could just abandon his post as a commander in the military, to go to Dagobah. that makes no sense. Han leaving to pay off a death mark makes sense. Those are complaints about the original trilogy and not the sequels.
I can’t tell what the last part of this post is saying. What does the whole thing about Luke being able to go to Dagobah and Han’s death mark making sense have to do with everything else in regards to Rey having random skill levels?
A critical as I am of George Lucas he might have a point, and Mark Hamill had a point. The Saga has a beginning, a middle and an end. The original is about Luke. The prequel is about the downfall of Anakin Skywalker, as poorly as it was done, regardless. that was Lucas intention. Unless you do a sequel where you have a period of rebuilding and democracy restored, I don’t see a point.
I think things like this also became an issue for the ST, from a character perspective, when TLJ confirmed that Rey was a nobody. Yes, on paper I think there’s really not much wrong with the idea and I think there’s plenty of engaging story and character work to cover with Rey using that (that I think TLJ does almost none of basically, I think mostly using it mostly to pull a ‘gotcha’ and meaningless to me attempt at some kind of oooh ahhh idea). The issue is, I think, that by making Rey a nobody, Rey has no legitimate personal stake in the main story of Star Wars and it’s central characters, beyond being an observer, like she’s an audience member, a fan.
I think it’s not out of the question that RJ may have perceived this as well and rather than use that to try and work her in (if that would have been given an okay by Lucasfilm), RJ just sits her down and has her react to the family soap opera stuff, and maybe RJ decided to use reylo to try and coerce Rey to be involved in it all.
Yoda was testing Luke in TESB. His being a curmudgeon and strange character was an act. That whole ill tempered gnome thing, Luke was expecting a Jedi Master to not be a little Muppet. Judge me by my size do you, well you should not. For my ally is the force and a powerful ally it is.
The boy has no patience. Much anger in him like his father.
Yoda’s reluctance is in knowing Luke’s nature he is like Anakin. And He says he is too old to begin the training.
Luke is giving a stern warning about the dark side. It did consume his father.
All your life have you looked away, to the future to the horizon. Never your mind on where you were. What you were doing. Adventure. Excitement. A Jedi craves not these things. You a reckless.
And Yoda was right Luke abandons his training, and rushes to face Darth Vader to save Han and Leia and saves no one. He has to be saved by Chewie, Leia and Lando. Vader toys with him like cat with a mouse in that duel on Bespin, Vader could have slain him at any moment. That was not a duel of equals not really, Vader held back. Luke was impelled by his rage and got his butt whooped. Lukes anger and hatred of Vader was based on lie told by Kenobi. Vader betrayed and murdered your father.
So Rey is not Luke in TESB and Luke is not Yoda. Though Disney wanted Kylo to be a wannabe Vader. And you get Imperial Walkers again.
Huh? That’s what I said. In TESB Yoda not training Luke was about Luke, while in TLJ Luke not training Rey was about Luke.
The story structure and basic outline of the situation is mostly the same I think, difference is the characterization.
Luke’s summon to the call to adventure in Star Wars 1977 was Leia’s message from Artoo. What was Rey’s I’m not even certain. Other than Beach Ball 8 having the map to Luke Skywalker. Which they act like was important or something, like Luke was on a search or something to help defeat Kylo and the first order. And he just went to the furthest away planet to die.
Luke’s throwing Anakin’s lightsaber over his shoulder and denying Artoos pleas with Leia’s old message is refusal of the call in the Last Jedi.
What do you think I’m going to do, face down the entire first order with a laser sword. Go Away.
I think you’re speaking more on characterization, not the story and outline structures the characters in.
This has nothing to do with the roles and basic structure of the story that the characters are in. Luke is in a mentor role, doesn’t want to train Rey, is convinced to by an old ally, gives what I think the movie considers training of some sort, Rey goes into a dark side cave and then gets a vision that Luke warns against but she follows into a trap anyway. Like TESB, where Luke comes to Yoda, Yoda doesn’t want to train Luke, is convinced to by an old ally, is working at training Luke, Luke goes into a dark side cave and then after that gets a vision that Yoda warns against but he follows into a trap anyway. Only real difference I think in story structure outline is that what follows is the last act of ROTJ at the end of TLJ.
Kylo killing Snoke was a bad decision IMO. Though Snoke was a Palpatine ripoff in TFA, he had so much potential to be made into a more unique character given how TFA revealed almost nothing about who he is and what his backstory and motivations were, and Rian Johnson threw all that potential away solely because he saw the interrogation scene and thought it’d be cool to focus on Kylo.
A weak writing decision moreso to me based on how I think Kylo not being anything of value as a character or villain rather than Snoke having much of a point. As is, at least Snoke had presence to him. Kylo taking over neither adds to him as a character neither does it change the first order as far as TLJ shows us I think, he just seems to keep on doing what he was doing before and FO does as well to me, only difference is that Kylo’s dumber to me and more petulant, so who cares and what’s the point? Another empty RJ attempt at doing something kinda different and then just not actually doing anything different with it to me.
Like Rey nobody. Not as different as I think the movie thinks considering every single Jedi in the PT, barring Anakin, was never developed to come from a special bloodline, but still, I think there’s room to expand on the character within that idea, yet RJ just seems to use it as a vague way to have Rey be kinda insecure and force reylo to happen for no real much character or story reason for me. Rey has to be told by Kylo that her parents sold her, and she’s sad for about a minute and in the scene after when she’s flying she’s all hunky dory.
I only accept Last Jedi as a standalone and not an extension or Sequel to Return of the Jedi and certainly not a part of a trilogy. But there are actual story beats within it, even if disagree with some of them. JJ did Star Wars greatest hits and tried to make fanfilms. Nostalgia pieces. Without taking any risks. Without any narrative heft, no worldbuilding. No exposition as to why our heroes fell and failed. You just have to accept they were replaced by new Disney heroes.
I think that TLJ is not that much more than a remix of TESB with a little ROTJ thrown in. Only really two new concepts are at play in it, and even then it’s riding on TESB/ROTJ concepts. Luke being a despondent, bitter Jedi is one of the new things, but the mentor who doesn’t want to train the mentee is from TESB, Yoda resists training Luke, the only difference is that it’s about Luke why Yoda resists (while in TLJ Luke is the reason Luke doesn’t want to train Rey, I think another part of the movie, among a few others maybe more, that works in stripping Rey of much of any voice or agency as a character within the movie), even then they’re both still encouraged to mentor their new apprentice by old ally’s from their past. Kylo killing Snoke and taking over is another difference, though that’s more at the end and still basically what Vader did in ROTJ, only real distinction is that this is a swerve away from Vader wanting to overthrow but when he does so he turns away from villainy, Kylo still staying a villain.
The Poe plot is technically newer, but it and Finn and Rose’s plot I think is mostly the Han and Leia plot from TESB split in two, with more people, and to me, dumber. Rebels are on the run from the empire, seek out assistance from someone, who betrays them and turns them over to the empire. Some details are different, but it’s more similar than not I think.
Though, I do think that story is, at least, more consistent than TFA’s story of “find Luke/map to Luke… wait no, rescue Rey and destroy suddenly appearing starkiller base”.
SparkySywer said:
I think it’s interesting that you’ve brought this up in a small handful of different threads in the past month or so, on top of having a longer conversation about this subject on the PT gen discussion thread.
Vladius said:
It’s always relevant because that’s what everyone talks about
The Jedi ain’t even that serious about the no attachments thing if we take the text(s) seriously and really look at how the Jedi treat it. What are the consequences, really, of a Jedi having attachments? It’s having a 100 rules knowing everyone will break at least 1, and everyone will have their 1. Where it breaks for the few, you can massage with extra discipline and targeted tutelage, but the rule keeps the others in line. And ultimately, there’s really nothing the council can do either way. It’s really an aspirational standard, not requisite. Something to seek, lifelong, not attain. That’s a pretty reasonable takeaway from what is intended with the depiction IMO.
In canon and EU lore, prequel era Jedi are breaking the rule all the time to little or no consequence. You become a librarian or farmer Jedi, I guess? They don’t even want people leaving really – though even that is allowed to happen.
And outside the realm of breaking rules, it’s also just true that the Jedi have comradery with one another - bonds and friendships. Amongst themselves, but then even with senators, or people they serve. Yoda and Mace can have a soft spot for even a former Jedi like Dooku as a friend at the start of AOTC, and never flinch in discussions of Obi-Wan and Anakin’s own bond. They’re surely aware of their own. It’s not hypocrisy under the lens presented above.
Servii said:
In my experience, there are two stances you’ll see among prequel stans. Either “Yes, the Jedi are meant to be emotionally repressive, and that’s intentional and part of the point,” or “No, the Jedi aren’t repressive. They’re only against selfish emotions. You just didn’t understand what George was going for.”
I actually fall into neither, but a middle ground, one I think TCW series operates in: The Jedi rules against attachment make sense, the Jedi don’t forbid connection and caring about other or love, as I think attachment and connection/love are different things. Also, the Jedi are flawed individuals who allowed their disconnection from others in pursuit of detachment to blind them to what was happening around them with Anakin. The scene between Anakin and Yoda isn’t showing Yoda as flawed, to me, because Yoda telling Luke to let people go is bad, but because Yoda is so out of touch with connections he doesn’t understand that what he’s telling Anakin won’t get through to him, nor does he understand Anakin’s emotions about this. To use TCW as an example of this, in season 6, Obi-Wan says to Anakin, “It’s not that we’re not allowed to have these feelings. It’s natural.”
To me, the Jedi were flawed, not necessarily because of their no attachment rule, but because of their arrogance, fear, disconnection from the people, their attachment to the Republic and their engagement in war and violence, them compromising in pursuit of stopping something. Their arrogance and compromising and fear is what I think more directly implied in the movies. I think TCW plays on those things, as well as more into the engagement in war and attachment to the Republic angle.
Compromising is what I think Luke ultimately chooses not to do in ROTJ, not compromise and not allow his connections to be used to manipulate him, not making the mistakes of the older Jedi, as exemplified in Mace Windu to me and also not allow his connections and fear to be used to manipulate him.
I finally got around to a read through of George’s belated ~2012 Sequel Trilogy outlines again (it had been a long time since last going though them)… yeah, I think we dodged a bullet there.
It does sound like a ‘Prequel 2.0’, as you say. I can happily re-watch TFA, TLJ, and DOTF - though couldn’t and can’t watch the official PT yet again (or anything like that)… I’d just be bored… and life is too short. Thankfully we have a whole catalogue of quality and engaging fan edits to choose from instead if ever wanting a better, more enjoyable PT and ST experience. 😃
Quality choices and options - always welcome to have. 👍 Atom-88’s PT & ST Edits look to be intriguing and shaping up quite well.
Empty, uncreative regurgitation is empty uncreative regurgitation I think, so how is it dodging a bullet to get that? You can rewatch movies that are that, but get bored at the PT? Really? Seems like a not deep reaction to me?
What about these outlines is anything like the PT? Please tell me it’s not something that I think is an empty comparison. Is it the same story? The same character dynamics? Same acting? Same comedy? Same structure? From what I read, I didn’t see things pointing to that.
Yeah, Lucas even re-shot/re-edited the Darth Maul death scene as to split the character in two to make sure fans realised Maul was dead in TPM. I think I remember Lucas describing Maul as something along the lines of a being a henchman, a ‘pawn’, not a main villain etc… at the time when he was being criticised by fans for killing Maul off with little screen time in TPM - given the heavy marketing, PR, and merchandising of Maul as a character.
Of course it makes perfect sense that would bring Maul back to be the main villain in his Sequel Trilogy… 😉
So? Retcons have existed in Star Wars since TESB.
I think it makes more sense than introducing a random new villain whose just Palpatine again and then just bringing back Palpatine. That, plus, to me, the empty, irrelevant, black hole of a character that is Kylo Ren.
More revisionism and retcons, I think; a quick example would be George making Leia ‘The Chosen One’ in his ST instead.
So?
It would have been intriguing to see how he executed that, for sure. Though for me, TFA, TLJ and DOTF made for, or would have made for, a better ST than what we know of George’s belated ~2012 ST outline (and better than what we got with TROS).
How would just empire vs rebels, which is what even DOTF continues on, be better written? How can any trilogy with TFA and TLJ, which have not much of any I think creativity or story to them equal better?
Indeed - and especially so for an official book titled: ‘The Making of Star Wars - The Definitive Story Behind The Original Film’.
That Rinzler himself felt he needed to try and clarify the issue - due to fans noticing and highlighting George’s failed attempt at re-writing history - (on the official website) is lost on some of those… who wish to downplay or brush aside such topics - and yet are seemingly focused on little else.
Though thankfully not on here…
A brief overview of the OriginalTrilogy•com down the years… | Posting on the OriginalTrilogy•com…
👍
The when changes nothing about the story or characters I think. Why does it matter to those things or make them bad? You haven’t answered that.
Well Lucas said for decades that Luke and Leia were always meant to be twins and Vader was always intended to be Luke Skywalker’s father. Is that lying or mythologizing, it’s hard to say. He might have said it so often and so many times since Return of the Jedi wrapped production that he actually believes it.
Its a big turn from not caring about Vader in the Splinter of the Mind’s Eye story conference, to after The Empire Strikes Back rejiggering the entire Saga to be about his downfall and redemption, instead of Star Wars from the Adventures of Luke Skywalker.
I do know Lucas originally thought of Leia ending up with Luke, Luke is more devoted to her he said in the making of Star Wars, and he also said let her run off with the Wookiee at one point. In the Splinter conference. Does that sound like he thought Leia was of cosmic importance or Anakin’s daughter. Or how about wanting to kill Vader off.
The idea that he had all 6 episodes planned out from one big script is laughable.
Even the prequels as we have them have many discontinuities and retcons form the original films. and plot holes. And are not at all the prequels he was going to make or envisioned in the 1980s.
Reading that he saw Yoda as spiritual guru and Yoga master does not scream Lucas wanted a cartoon Yoda jumping around with a lightsaber. I do accept the view now Of his being ashamed of having been in and leading the Clone Wars. And why he thinks wars not make one great. Its the only way I can forgive those awful scenes in the prequels, if I make up a headcanon. Like I like the idea of Palpatine using a lightsaber as mockery of the Jedi religion and their traditions, but I also doubt Lucas ever intended him to have one at all.
What does it matter what Lucas may have initially wanted, if he changed his mind? How does it make a story point or character decision terrible? And how are these plot holes or discontinuities?
Most people that I’ve seen in movie reactions who watch these movies for the first time now seemingly, as adults seem to like Yoda’s fighting more than not, so they don’t think they’re awful. Whose more right?
Leia remembering her mom and her dying right after Leia was born makes no sense. Her mom should have survived into her early childhood on Alderaan. And where was the great starpilot or good friend, Anakin was none of those things in the prequel. He wasn’t a cunning warrior. The dude lost every lightsaber fight he ever was in, except the one where he murdered Dooku. Oh, I get people will say the Clone Wars cartoon the Filoni one, filled in some of these things. But you shouldn’t need outside media.
We see both Anakin being what is seen in the movies as a good pilot and friend and cunning warrior in the movies I think, just not all the time. You admitted that we see him do it against Dooku, so the main issue that I see is that you wanted more of it, but that doesn’t really add to the character I think, we see that he was. These complaints never make sense to me in regards to the good friend part. How could Anakin be that good friend but also want to murder Obi-Wan and turn evil and assist the empire in massacring all the Jedi that he was a member of? People seem to want a character that was Obi telling Luke about his dad, when the next two movies revealed not only that Obi shades his honesty, but also I think Anakin simply didn’t work to be all the time. All of Anakin and Obi’s scenes in ROTS are friendly. They’re antagonistic more in AOTC, but saying someone was a good friend doesn’t mean they never got on your nerves or talked back to you. How do the movies contradict what Obi said?
TCW didn’t add anything in that’s needed for Anakin, just showed more of what the movies already showed. Anakin being a cunning warrior is shown at the beginning of ROTS. His pilot skills are shown in TPM and ROTS. And we see Anakin and Obi being friends in all but 2 of their scenes in ROTS. How is there a contradiction or a plot hole there, rather than just something you think we didn’t see enough of?
I want to preface this next part by saying that I do think the Leia remembering Padme thing is an actual contradiction, as it’s something that is actually contradicted by the movies and not just something that the movies didn’t show all the time, but I don’t see it as any larger of a discontinuity than Leia being Luke’s sister in the first place, or more of an issue than things like Luke and Leia kiss or Luke having more of a reaction to the death of a guy he just met than the people who raised him, or how Leia’s reaction to her planet’s destruction being almost entirely glossed over. So, to me, focusing on the Leia remembering Padme so much, I think is kinda not that important overall.
And for me personally I think Padme dying in childbirth makes more sense for everything else, because if Padme lived and only kept Leia I think that opens a whole different can of worms:
Why her and not Luke, why is one given away and the other stays with the mom?
How is staying with her mother being “safely anonymous”, which is what Obi says Leia is in ROTJ?
How does it make sense for Leia to be randomly given to someone in the political arena after her mother dies?
Or, if Padme got with Bail before she died, why would she do that and not go into hiding instead?
If she wasn’t in hiding, then how was Leia hidden from the Emperor and Vader?
That’s not to say that these angles couldn’t possibly be explained, but I think the issue is that the story becomes a house of cards where characters actions either become kinda contrived, don’t make sense and/or other things that they say don’t compute if you abide by one line from Leia in ROTJ. I think it doesn’t even really make sense that Leia’s a princess in the OT, if she was supposed to be hidden from the empire. To me, ROTS patched that as simple and straighforward, Bail was the only one there besides Obi and Yoda who knew who Leia was and offered to take her.
The Padme dying of a broken heart giving birth to the twins, as suited Vader is born on an operating table is powerful, but it broke the OT canon of Leia remembering her mom as a child. I only sort of can forgive it because it creates a poetic scene and has visual symmetry, but Lucas should have adhered to the OT. Like Vader creating Threepio may be interesting because he becomes more machine than man, but that was not originally Threepio’s backstory.
What does it matter what the original backstory was when it wasn’t in the movies? Why should he have adhered to the OT specifically, when the OT doesn’t always adhere to itself?
Threepio’s backstory in the movies isn’t contradicted by Anakin building him.
The question of “when” is paramount when we’re dealing with real film history versus a bunch of phoney “my original vision” claims that keep changing.
But what does that change about what makes the ideas good or bad or a problem or not? How does Lucas’ perceived honesty or lack thereof on when he developed the idea make a writing idea better or worse? How does the “when” make it any more or less of value, or perceived “nowhere”? What’s the difference between ideas from the 70’s/80’s and ideas from the 90’s/2000’s?
Aye, like Broom Kid’s post above - that is pretty much spot on for me, mate.
And like that, it doesn’t address what the problem is with it or what makes it poor.
Yeah, 100%. Along with the infamous lie and woeful attempt at re-writing history / time-travel from Lucas himself - an inane and bizarre attempt to give his then-new midichlorians idea some credibility (for want of a better word)… it certainly didn’t come from when Lucas attempted to claimed it to be - so ‘nowhere’ fits quite aptly.
How is it problematic, based on EU material doing something else? All of Star Wars is made up, just like the eu stuff about them having families was made up. Why is this a problem with these things or when they were developed?
You nailed it.
I think they are neither emotionally stunted, nor are they weird, as all the main Jedi show emotions and are never treated as bad for showing emotions. What does it matter when it existed? I think Padme is the main character of TPM, but why should she be the main character of the PT, when the plot about the fall of the Jedi has about nothing to do with her?
What’s terrible about Anakin being a child? And aging down? Anakin was never established in any movie before TPM to have been any age, so how is he aged down? You gave no reasons I think for what’s terrible about any of this, just resorted to claims about Lucas’ ideas of himself it seems to me.
And you didn’t give any reasoning for what’s stunted or more emotionally sensible about any of this.
Did you not percieve the idea of people indulging in their own selfish wants and fears and how that can lead to self destruction and the harm of those you care about and fascism? How is the PT, I think, saying that not something interesting about our own world and lives?
Lucas’ conception of the Jedi being weird emotionally stunted monks (which did not exist until he really started writing Episode I, either) was one of the worst decisions he made in the 90s, honestly. Along with aging Anakin down to 8, and not making Padme the main character of the Prequel trilogy.
he made a ton of absolutely terrible calls in his mythology as he made it up, and because so much of his own self-mythologizing is built around the grandiosity of his own creativity, he basically couldn’t retcon his own bad storytelling instinct to arrive at any of the interesting endpoints his bad setup COULD be saved by.
That Trevorrow wound up looking at the ingredients Lucas laid out for his mythology and arrived at an answer that makes SOME kind of emotional/philosophical sense (vs the dogmatic adherence to what “Balance of the Force has to mean”) kinda speaks to how stunted and forced every aspect of Jedi dogma, both textually AND metatextually.
It’s like Lucas (and Lucasfilm) forgot all this shit is made up, and the only real use any of it has is for allegorical storytelling, and for figuring out a way to use those elements in the pursuit of saying SOMETHING interesting about our own world and lives.
I think they are neither emotionally stunted, nor are they weird, as all the main Jedi show emotions and are never treated as bad for showing emotions. What does it matter when it existed? I think Padme is the main character of TPM, but why should she be the main character of the PT, when the plot about the fall of the Jedi has about nothing to do with her?
What’s terrible about Anakin being a child? And aging down? Anakin was never established in any movie before TPM to have been any age, so how is he aged down? You gave no reasons I think for what’s terrible about any of this, just resorted to claims about Lucas’ ideas of himself it seems to me.
And you didn’t give any reasoning for what’s stunted or more emotionally sensible about any of this.
Did you not percieve the idea of people indulging in their own selfish wants and fears and how that can lead to self destruction and the harm of those you care about and fascism? How is the PT, I think, saying that not something interesting about our own world and lives?
For me it would be the prequel doctrine on attachment I disagree with. Because Jedi had families and children in Star Wars lore before the prequels. Just like how the chosen one thing was made up and so was midichlorians.
To get the Jedi celibacy thing you have to go all the way back to discarded script drafts for the original film, the son of the suns prophecy for the chosen one thing. Midichlorians came from nowhere.
How is it problematic, based on EU material doing something else? All of Star Wars is made up, just like the eu stuff about them having families was made up.
Some of his sequel ideas have also been repurposed. If Mando and Gorgo holds to be true they will be facing warlords running the remnants of the Empire. And Dave Filoni is using George’s ideas in Darth Maul Shadow lord with Darth Talon.
Wasn’t Luke as a colonel Kurtz like character allegedly in George’s treatment. That sort of ended up in the Last Jedi if not in the way George would have handled it. The astral projection/ Luke is a legend stuff. and not a straightforward redemption arc. That does not sound like George at all. I also don’t picture Lucas making the prequel Jedi failures and Luke’s meta narrative. Chuck the lightsaber it’s time for the Jedi to end. Burn the tree with the Jedi texts, oh that is right Rey stole them.
I do like the idea that the force is bigger than the light side and the dark side and its vanity that the force dies if the jedi religion dies. The balance being bigger than the jedi and Sith conflict is interesting and then its abandoned.
But not in the story context they were pitched, with the characters they were connected to.
I don’t care about Luke being in exile. I care that Luke sucks. Would Luke have been a petty man child, who discards his sister and his friends life and blames the Jedi for all his problems, even though they had nothing to do with him pulling a weapon on his sleeping nephew with intent to murder him? If not, Luke being in exile doesn’t annoy me that much.
I gave the DOTF script another read through last night (I’d forgotten how enjoyable and engaging it was) - and there is certainly that aspect of the Force being addressed throughout the script (especially with Rey; and meshing / riffing with themes on Luke and Vader in ROTJ).
For me, the finale was quite intriguing on the subject _(and also breaking that problematic
Problematic? How? Having self control is problematic? Or is this the whole interpretation that the Jedi aren’t allowed to have feelings, even though all the main Jedi are shown to have feelings and feel emotions?
George wasn’t going to make sequels he was going to make Star Wars underworld and that never got made.
Disney’s priority was to make a commercial for a theme park. And to sell toys. Other ancillary merchandise. Storytelling was never as important as corporate planning was. They have shareholder calls and meetings, corporate boards and governance. Quarterly quotas.
I called them outline ideas, not scripts. I do still think there’s more creativity in them than the ST though.
[Spartacus01 said:]
Anakin never went to see his mother before Attack of the Clones because the films heavily imply that the Jedi weren’t allowing him to. You can say whatever you want about Anakin, but one thing we know for sure is that he’s impulsive, rebellious, and doesn’t hesitate to take risks or rush to save the people he cares about. That’s his core trait and also his biggest flaw. If he had been physically able to visit his mother whenever he wanted, and if the Jedi really weren’t stopping him, then you’d expect him to go see her every chance he got. And as soon as he started having those nightmares, he would have immediately run to check on her. The fact that he didn’t, even while being haunted by those visions, means that something was holding him back. And since he was part of the Jedi Order, it makes sense to conclude that it was the Jedi themselves who were preventing him from going.
Stop him? The Jedi stopping anyone from doing anything by coercion is neither something the Jedi are shown to do in the movies, nor are they said to do it. What would they do to stop him? How would they stop him? I don’t think that lines up. Moreso, I’d think they’d advise against it.
Anakin was told by his mother to not look back and that her future was there. Anakin trying to be committed I think can have other reasons, trying to be a proper Jedi, trying to make his separation from his mother worth it, trying to justify a feeling of guilt in him potentially feeling like he abandoned her. Especially considering the Jedi aren’t shown to have any ability or attempt to force any Jedi to do anything in the movies.
Yes, it’s true that Anakin could technically have walked away from the Jedi Order whenever he wanted. But it’s not that simple. If he’d left before Attack of the Clones, he’d basically be on the streets. Everything he owned belonged to the Order, so leaving would mean giving all of that up. He’d end up wandering the lower levels of Coruscant, trying to scrape together some crappy job just to survive. And if he’d left after marrying Padmé, sure, he could’ve lived with her, but Anakin wasn’t the kind of guy to sit around doing nothing all day. He’d still need a purpose, something meaningful to do, a goal to chase, and that’s not something you just figure out overnight. After spending over a decade in an institution that gave him structure and something to focus on, walking away wasn’t exactly simple.
First, it’s never said in the movies that people just are tossed out with no assistance and no oversight if they quit. Second, Anakin wasn’t a lone kid. He had Palpatine behind him as an ally. If he quit the Jedi, I don’t see why Anakin would expect that his friend in political high places Palps wouldn’t back him.
The rest is in regards to Anakin’s emotions on the situation, not what the Jedi make him do, which was my issue.
It’s so hilarious to me to see some people here so overly touchy about Lucas that they’re getting annoyed at outline ideas that I think do pitch distinct enough ideas comparably to Disney’s ST. It’s like a grasping of defenses for Disney’s lack of creativity to me.
I think it’s merely a design preference. But I preferred the used universe of Star Wars 1977 over the bright and clean cgi esthetic of the prequels. It lent a sense of authenticity and realism that the prequels lacked. And that also the sequel trilogy lacked.
I’d suggest it’s also a totally different part of the galaxy mostly, at a different time. Why would it be the same if the place, time and structure of things is different?
The dinged up and dirty and dingy look of things. Landspeeders, the Millennium Falcon. X-Wings of the rebel alliance. Lightsaber hilts etc, blasters. Kenobi’s Robes. The detail work on Threepio and Artoo. And on Vader’s suit and all its parts and pieces including the cape.
Being older things, I think makes sense they’d be that way. New things owned by politicians and newer Jedi with more resources, I think it works that it’s not that really.
And how the Rebels were much more utilitarian. the Empire more clean and antiseptic and austere in design. How the rebels could just be farmers or privateers or whatever port of call they hailed from. Some of them might even be criminals like Han Solo. Or people out on the fringe. Luke being a former moisture farmer and all of that. Kenobi being able to pass as a Tatooine local wearing the garb of a farmer. Of course, they made those Jedi Robes.
Who said it was the garb of a farmer? There’s similarities I think (robe and neck thing mainly), but Obi-Wan’s clothes aren’t what I see as aggressively similar. Obi even has a clasp on his belt for his saber. Also, ROTJ is the movie that showed Anakin wearing the exact same clothes as Obi I think, in his post Vader form.
I think each world and culture should have varied more in the prequels. You would only get bright and Shiny on Coruscant but not on the lower levels.
I think there’s more of grungy kinda vibe in the lower levels when we see it in AOTC. And the Gungan city I think looks neither like Coruscant or Naboo. Similar with Geonosis and Utapau not looking like any of them.
Vader does say in the OT the Emperor is not as forgiving as I am. Don’t you remember. Apology accepted Captain Needa. Admiral Ozzel is as clumsy as he is stupid, You’ve failed me for the last time admiral.
I don’t see any of those as puns, more dry remarks or insults.
Prequely is flashy twirly lightsaber moves. Style over substance. Not fitting the tone of SW 77 where Vader enters Leia’s ship. Lightsabers are to be held with both hands as if they have weight and heft to them.
Who says how lightsabers should be held? Because some characters did it that way in a couple movies? What’s style over substance about either of these things? Tension, weariness, conflict are all still explored in the PT fights.
Suited Vader is imposing and moves exactly as he does in SW and TESB. The lightsaber combat style in the OT is completely different than the prequels.
Vader isn’t trying to fight Luke to the death in TESB I think, so I don’t see a contradiction in behavior or actions. And Luke isn’t nearly skilled enough.
Vader’s design looking like Star Wars 1977 or closer than the prequel is completely what I meant as well as how James Earl Jones sounded. Still not the imposing figure of David Prowse though. I don’t like Episode III Vader at all.
I prefer the cleaner look. Seems more a preference thing per person to me.
I’d like everything to hew and adhere to the OT esthetic.
I don’t think that changes much, especially considering in the PT we are seeing a totally different side of the galaxy for the most part. I don’t think it counters anything in the OT really much.
I know someone mentioned Mustafar, I could do without a prequel reference there but not a dealbreaker.
What does a prequel reference harm?
Eh, idk about that. If anything you can argue its depiction in TLJ alone lands on being didactic against it. That stuff isn’t politics though, nor has that necessarily been a conversation re: woke in Star Wars
It’s depiction is used still, I think, to present Rey in a passive role that serves Kylo and Luke’s story. By making it that way, I still think it’s not against it. That the romance angle is there at all, I think suggests a random favoritism for the concept, that doesn’t take Rey’s character and emotions about everything she’s experienced by Kylo’s actions into account.
I was suggesting that runs counter to some of those who argue it’s political or woke.
To me that was the worst part of Rogue One Vader far too prequelly. In fact every appearance of him since the prequel except in Rogue One before the hallway scene has been prequely.I also found the Darth Maul scene in Solo to be lame.
What’s prequelly?
I liked Vader with the red lenses and don’t choke on your aspirations, that was very OT Vader.
What do the red lenses add, other than bearing a resemblance to OT? And Vader in the OT never makes a pun that I remember. Also, why would Vader in everything else that takes place years before the OT not be closer to the prequel version?
As for Finn I felt like Force Awakens was setting up him and Rey to be a thing, and then last Jedi all of sudden Reylo happens. Which reminds me of Hayden Skywalker/Padme from the prequel. The bad boy psycho romance. Rey is all I can save him I can fix him. There is still good in him.
Not really I think. Because Anakin and Padme:
A. Has a personal relationship before the romance that isn’t hatred and violence.
B. Padme isn’t written to break away from any relationship for Anakin.
C. Padme’s romance with Anakin isn’t developed to be when Anakin is already a monstrous villain.
Even TLJ doesn’t clear the very low bar that AOTC actually put some effort into as a romance. Hilarious.
Does woke mean anything these days? I use to think it was something do do with common sense being replaced by box ticking and messaging but it’s hard to say any more. Overall I still like TLJ but it’s odd if you break it down in any detail. Grifters complaining about Hollywood will say the Rose side-plot is forced but fail to say how beyond the basics of a lame non-romance. Would they be complaining less if Finn and Poe Dameron did this mission or is that too gay for them (or Disney)? Does it make sense Finn gets talked down to about how evil the First Order is when he’s witness to a massacre?
Elsewhere things like Luke being in hiding to avoid the circular nature of the conflict makes some sense. Some people say he shouldn’t be shown as an old grouch. But can the same old heroics go on forever, can these characters be simplistic and static? Which to me is the problem with Rogue One… it’s just so bland and has more fan service and CG action than personality. The sequels might not have much to say but RO is just ‘here’s Darth Vader, please clap’, and then people do.
Woke is one of the more fun reappropriations of language to mean absolutely nothing that’s happened in quite awhile.
I was suggesting how I think it’s nonsense to claim it’s woke or progressive.
But at least I think the Rogue One does have something going on in it’s story and character structure concepts, other than the fan service of Vader. And Vader being involved in some way makes some sense I think because of the lead in to ANH, even if I think it’s not strongly done.
Complete side-tangent: I know it’s a bit of a tiny kerfluffle regarding “the red lenses” on Vader (and he did have sort of darker amber/tinted lenses in Star Wars that often had a bit of a red hue when the lights hit them) and how Rogue One supposedly overdid it to some degree; but as someone who has cut a version of that movie and pixel-peeped QUITE a bit, a lot of the “red lenses” stuff is literally just red light IN the shot reflecting off the lenses, which otherwise still look mostly dark/black. The meeting with Krennic on Mustafar seems to be a scene that gets complained about heavily, but you can actually see the set lights casting a red glow on the scene and reflecting off the mask. It’s not that the lenses are red, it’s that there are orange/yellow/red lights bouncing off that plastic.
I don’t really get why some people make a thing out of little visual things like red lenses. What does not having them like hurt about the character, that makes them so gasp prequelly in a way that is poor?