DrDre

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

I feel the scene is just looks weird. From her frozen face to the way she suddenly opens her eyes, to her expression, to the way she sort of flies back to the ship with her hand stretched out in an extended shot. The scene was obviously meant to resonate with the audience, but if such a scene falls flat, it sort of feels like a comedian telling an unfunny joke with that awkward silence in the room.

I’ve heard this complaint before though. You’re not describing a tonal issue as far as I can tell.

You could call it a tonal issue, if you don’t know how you’re supposed to feel about the scene. I think it can sort of feel out of place to some.

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

I feel the scene is just looks weird. From her frozen face to the way she suddenly opens her eyes, to her expression, to the way she sort of flies back to the ship with her hand stretched out in an extended shot. The scene was obviously meant to resonate with the audience, but if such a scene falls flat, it sort of feels like a comedian telling an unfunny joke with that awkward silence in the room. I would define that as a jumping the shark moment, particulary when it becomes a moment of ridicule. The PT has plenty of issues, but I would characterize most of those as poor dialogue, or bad acting, or an obvious special effect, or something like that. I suppose Anakin destroying the droid control ship could have become a jumping the shark moment, but it was never ridiculed like the Leia in space scene.

I think it will be important here how the new generation percieves these Star Wars movies. The PT was derided mostly by older fans, but it seems to have been reevaluated recently, and those that grew up with them seem to still have fond memories of them. So, they currently stand as flawed, but entertaining pieces of cinema for many. I’m not sure how these new movies will age. Star Wars is becoming less of an event, and at least in my country only a very small section of toy stores are dedicated to them. I think Disney and Lucasfilm are in a difficult spot. They’ve mostly been retreading old ground, they’ve fractured the fanbase, and as was stated earlier, I’m not sure if a new set of films with new characters, and without John Williams score will ever be percieved as proper Star Wars by either the old fans or the new. These films would have to be pretty great to cross that barrier, and I don’t think the current creators have the vision to pull that off to be honest.

SilverWook said:

The latest bit of fansanity™ is a youtube video accusing Rian of plagiarizing John Carpenter’s Escape From L.A. I kid you not.

I also didn’t get the memo where EFLA is suddenly regarded as top tier Carpenter now.

Yeah, saw that one too. It’s quite similar, but even if RJ was inspired by EFLA (for all we know, it might be his favourite movie), I don’t really see the problem. The setting is obviously completely different, and if anything RJ improved on the EFLA version.

screams in the void said:

the throne room scene aboard General Grevious’ flagship at the start of ROTS could have the same argument made for it . Just an observation.

To an extend yes, but the circumstances surrounding Grievous’ flagship are very different, as is the characters’ motivations for being there. TLJ uses the same basic setup of ROTJ, where the hero lets himself/herself be captured by the villain in the hope, that she will be able to turn the villain to the good side, whilst a rebellion is in dire straits, a fact used by the villain’s master to taunt the hero.

DominicCobb said:
You’re complaining that TLJ didn’t rehash Empire enough now? Not every film requires the protagonist to “pay dearly” when they make a mistake. What’s important in a story of failure isn’t consequence, but learning. Luke was put on his ass because that was the lesson that he needed to learn at that moment - the importance of patience. Rey learned an important lesson too (that unspoken third lesson, especially obvious if one considers the deleted caretaker scene), which is that the person that she kept looking around for to put her faith into was actually herself all along. Her failure with Kylo served a narrative purpose to illustrate this (amongst other things). Rey losing a limb wouldn’t have (necessarily) done that.

No, I didn’t want TLJ to rehash TESB, but I did need there to be consequences. One of those consequences might have been her accepting Kylo’s outreached hand. That’s where the story was going when Kylo rescued her from Snoke, and they worked together to defeat Snoke’s guards, but RJ backed down, and so Kylo reverted back to his role as the villain, and Rey to being the hero. It’s great that she has to learn to put her faith into herself, but the problem here is that she’s already been shown to be fiercly independent, and so this lesson only reaffirms, what she was doing all along, namely trust in her own abilities. It’s not much of a character arc, if an independent strong character learns to have faith in himself or herself. The discovery of her parentage could have been interesting, but ultimately doesn’t affect her choices, or the trajectory of her character. She was going to be in time to rescue the rebellion in any event, and so the entire parentage subplot feels like treading water to me.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Men and women are equal, but not the same. To me continually forcing women into the role of a female Rambo, and calling it feminism or female empowerment is wrong. Men and women are different, and we should celebrate this gender diversity. To me Leia is a much better representation of female strength, and empowerment than most of what the current batch of movies have given us. It should not just be about beating up people, and being in places of power. It should be about having a moral compass, showing resilience, and being an inspirational leader. That’s what Leia was to me, more so than any of the other classic characters, or the new ones. Leia stood up to Darth Vader, despite the fact that he could break her in half. That is true strength.

Ehhhhhh men and women have biological differences that set them apart, sure… but I think these are often overstated, as the majority of the differences between the two genders are caused simply by cultural norms and mindsets.

Are women, on the whole, physically weaker than men? Sure! Do I think that Daisy Ridley could right now beat up literally any dude on this site? Not a doubt in my mind. Point being, it depends.

I can’t speak to “female Rambo” because I must have missed that reboot (or otherwise can’t seem to think of any characters that fit that description… except maybe Sarah Connor but I thought guys were cool with her). Even if the argument is that women should be less represented in the military ranks because of biological shortcomings or whatever, in terms of SW background roles we’re mostly talking about people in leadership roles or people sitting at desks. I can’t really think of a single good reason why there shouldn’t be a roughly equal amount of women in those roles in a fantasy film that is supposed to be divorced from the deep-rooted historical Earthly ideas of gender roles.

The issue here to me is, that Star Wars mostly represented just that even before Disney took over. In the OT women were at the top in the Rebel Alliance. There were also plenty of women in desk jobs. The PT featured female pilots, and Jedi Masters. Padme was both a queen and a senator. Then there’s Ahsoka Tano, and Asajj Ventress in Cloen Wars, who both became fan favourites.

The problem with what came before wasn’t that women were literally nowhere to be found. It was that the ones there were basically token females.

In my mind Rey perfectly embodies the idea of an empowering female character. Her character is not defined by her physical strength at all. What makes her strong is her inner strength: her resilience, her independence, her determination, her ability to strive to do the right thing even if she’s not always sure the best way to get there, her compassion for her friends, and her struggle to grow to believe in herself when all her life she’s been told she’s nothing. Those who focus on her “overpowered” abilities are, of course, looking at the wrong thing entirely.

I think her being overpowered is exactly what stands in the way of her being empowering. The creators were so obsessed with creating a female role model, that they made her too perfect. As such she doesn’t earn her great powers, but just recieves them apparently just because she’s a female protagonist. She had to be better at everything than anybody. God forbid, if she actually needed anyone’s help. Luke survived the Death Star run, because he was rescued by Han Solo. Not so for Rey, she can rescue herself, and I’m sure if Finn, Han and Chewie didn’t come to her rescue, she would have found a way to get of SKB herself. She doesn’t need Luke’s guidance. She will train herself, and become the greatest Jedi ever.

Of course she needs help, she learns important lessons from everyone along the way. Don’t forget, if it was all up to her, she’d still be on Jakku.

Ultimately the point of her strength in both films is that it is a power within her that she only need to believe in herself to tap. Which is of course the same way it was for Luke. But Rey’s filled with insecurities.

You can debate the tact with which her powers are utilized in the film (I’ll even concede there’s a couple minor fumbles in TFA in this regard), but you’re obviously misconstruing the intent. She doesn’t have powers just because she’s a female protagonist (it honestly seems like you’re just kinda making an argument to fit an agenda when you say that). Plenty of people have complained about JJ Abrams shortcutting his protagonists in other films to success so it’s probably pretty safe to say this isn’t done just because she’s a woman.

Okay, because I can’t sleep, here’s the three main pressure points of her skills in TFA (where I’ll argue if anything narrative shortcutting is more to blame than simply making Rey overpowered):

• She flies the Falcon to safety. Forget the fact the she almost crashed it when it first took off, and had more trouble with two TIEs than we’ve ever seen anyone have in any of these films, this apparently shows that she’s the best because they made it out alive. But isn’t that how movies work? If you think it should’ve been more challenging, is that really an issue of her being a Mary Sue or of the filmmakers not making a more complicated scene?
• She uses the mind trick to escape. This one annoys me, I’ll admit it, just because it comes out of nowhere with not much reasoning. But did they do this just because she’s a girl? I mean on the one hand kinda, if Lucas turned the damsel in distress trope on its head in 77 JJ had to push that to the next level here. And I appreciate that. But is her using the mind trick them trying to show that she’s the “best evar” is it them not being able to think of another quick way to escape that also shows she’s become awakened in the force?
• She uses “the Force” to beat Kylo. Now narratively this makes sense that she’d have this moment where she taps into this force within her that Maz told her about. Logically it makes sense that she should be able to beat a critically injured Kylo. Execution-wise, though, there’s an issue again where it kinda comes out of nowhere. So the issue is less the fact of the matter that Rey won, and more simply the way it was done. Does the apparent ease of her accessing the force in this moment make her a Mary Sue? Or is it again the writers not thinking of a more elegant way to include a “use the force” moment here? Then the planet breaks apart and the two are separated. Essentially a kind of Solo rescue-ish moment, though obviously without the emotional punch because it is an arbitrary and contrived bit where scenery has a big character changing moment rather than a human… and it happens after the fight is over.

My point ultimately being, the claimed ease of these moments does nothing to take away from the character’s main struggles in the film - finding her identity and self worth. If her journey was all about obtaining physical strength and becoming the most powerful Jedi, then I probably wouldn’t even be arguing with you. But that’s not what it is about at all.

To be fair, I didn’t have that many issues with Rey in TFA, partly because I imagined some of the less believable parts of her development would be explained or expanded upon in TLJ. Sadly, this did not happen. After seeing TLJ I feel she is a plot driven character. Rey acts as the catalyst for the development of Luke, and Ben Solo, but gets very little development herself. Despite my misgivings about Luke’s motivations for being on Ach-To, Luke has a good character arc in TLJ. Ben Solo has a good character arc. Rey doesn’t in my view. Why does Rey want to become a Jedi? Why does she suddenly trust Ben over Luke, after she witnessed Ben murder his father, and her mentor a few days earlier? Is she that naive? If so, why are there no consequences for the weaknesses in her character? Luke had weaknesses, and he payed for them dearly in TESB. Luke needed to be rescued at the end of TESB literally hanging on for life. Rey simply gets to escape the Supremacy unscathed using a conveniently placed shuttle to be in time to take the torch from Luke, rescue the entire rebellion, and to celebrate their symbolic victory.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Men and women are equal, but not the same. To me continually forcing women into the role of a female Rambo, and calling it feminism or female empowerment is wrong. Men and women are different, and we should celebrate this gender diversity. To me Leia is a much better representation of female strength, and empowerment than most of what the current batch of movies have given us. It should not just be about beating up people, and being in places of power. It should be about having a moral compass, showing resilience, and being an inspirational leader. That’s what Leia was to me, more so than any of the other classic characters, or the new ones. Leia stood up to Darth Vader, despite the fact that he could break her in half. That is true strength.

Ehhhhhh men and women have biological differences that set them apart, sure… but I think these are often overstated, as the majority of the differences between the two genders are caused simply by cultural norms and mindsets.

Are women, on the whole, physically weaker than men? Sure! Do I think that Daisy Ridley could right now beat up literally any dude on this site? Not a doubt in my mind. Point being, it depends.

I can’t speak to “female Rambo” because I must have missed that reboot (or otherwise can’t seem to think of any characters that fit that description… except maybe Sarah Connor but I thought guys were cool with her). Even if the argument is that women should be less represented in the military ranks because of biological shortcomings or whatever, in terms of SW background roles we’re mostly talking about people in leadership roles or people sitting at desks. I can’t really think of a single good reason why there shouldn’t be a roughly equal amount of women in those roles in a fantasy film that is supposed to be divorced from the deep-rooted historical Earthly ideas of gender roles.

The issue here to me is, that Star Wars mostly represented just that even before Disney took over. In the OT women were at the top in the Rebel Alliance. There were also plenty of women in desk jobs. The PT featured female pilots, and Jedi Masters. Padme was both a queen and a senator. Then there’s Ahsoka Tano, and Asajj Ventress in Cloen Wars, who both became fan favourites. Of course there’s always room for improvement, but the idea that Star Wars was excluding women , or sexist before Disney took over is just foreign to me.

In my mind Rey perfectly embodies the idea of an empowering female character. Her character is not defined by her physical strength at all. What makes her strong is her inner strength: her resilience, her independence, her determination, her ability to strive to do the right thing even if she’s not always sure the best way to get there, her compassion for her friends, and her struggle to grow to believe in herself when all her life she’s been told she’s nothing. Those who focus on her “overpowered” abilities are, of course, looking at the wrong thing entirely.

I think her being overpowered is exactly what stands in the way of her being empowering. The creators were so obsessed with creating a female role model, that they made her too perfect. As such she doesn’t earn her great powers, but just recieves them apparently just because she’s a female protagonist. She had to be better at everything than anybody. God forbid, if she actually needed anyone’s help, or failed. Luke survived the Death Star run, and the cold weather of Hoth, because he was rescued by Han Solo, twice. Not so for Rey, she can rescue herself, and I’m sure if Finn, Han and Chewie didn’t come to her rescue, she would have found a way to get of SKB herself. In fact she was already on her way out, when they got there. She doesn’t need Luke’s guidance in TLJ. She will train herself, and become the greatest Jedi ever, despite the fact that Luke teaches her nothing but failure. TLJ’s throne room sequence is a powerful moment for both Rey and Ben, but in the case of Rey it is undermined by much that preceeded it. Like Luke in ROTJ Ben Solo went through an emotional struggle, and a humiliating defeat to get to that place, to deserve that moment in the spot light, to become the main villain. What’s Rey’s reason for being there, aside from her innate goodness, and awesomeness? Real empowerment comes from the struggle, from starting at the bottom, and coming out on top against the odds, through failure, pain, and suffering. That’s what most of the protagonists, and antagonists in Star Wars represent. Rey is the exception in my view.

One other aspect that is often overlooked, is that the problem with sexism is not just with gender roles, and exclusion, it’s also with how we as a society value the gender role. You just have to look at the career fields typically chosen by men and women.

Men and women are equal, but not the same. To me continually forcing women into the role of a female Rambo, and calling it feminism or female empowerment is wrong. Men and women are different, and we should celebrate this gender diversity. To me Leia is a much better representation of female strength, and empowerment than most of what the current batch of movies have given us. It should not just be about beating up people, and being in places of power. It should be about having a moral compass, showing resilience, and being an inspirational leader. That’s what Leia was to me, more so than any of the other classic characters, or the new ones. Leia stood up to Darth Vader, despite the fact that he could break her in half. That is true strength.

yotsuya said:

Movies show us some things and tell us others to paint the picture of the galaxy. The crawl is part of that. You cant take what the movies show and ignore what they tell and you can’t take what they tell and ignore what they show. Both parts go together to give us the setting and setup. The TFA crawl sets up the situation, just like the ANH crawl setup that situation. Both make it clear which side is wide spread and which side is fighting. In ANH, there are but two sides, the Empire and the Rebellion. In TFA there is the new Republic, the First Order, and the Resistance. The FO decapitates the Republic but has taken no action to invade. When are they doing that? Well, that so called throw away line from Rey where she says weeks. The way you guys are describing it, the First Order, just by destroying the Republic capital and fleet has taken over every planet in the Republic and that is very silly.

As for Starkiller base, just how many people were there? We don’t know. It obviously wasn’t the heart of the First Order. Snoke wasn’t there. So yeah, a lot of investment was destroyed, but their fleet wasn’t nor was their home base. And we still don’t know where that is.

How you are reading this nonsense into two movies that very clearly are giving us as much data as the OT ever did and which OT fans have pulled out and poured over for decades is beyond me. I know you have issues with the movie(s), but you are going to extreme lengths to make points that are inaccurate and do not fit what we are shown and told. I was going to extreme lengths to show that there is a much different story from the one you think these movies are telling. You are only pointing out things that fit your point of view rather than taking everything into account. Stop blaming the story telling that is perfectly in line with the previous 6 films (and a lot of it seems to original with GL himself) and just admit you don’t like things about it. You don’t need long detailed reasons. My reasons for hating certain Star Trek movies are very plain, simple, and I don’t try to rip apart every aspect of the films. I know what I don’t like and what ruins it for me. Abrams bad editing and poor science (it is Star Wars, but GL was always pretty good about making things seem reasonable while Abrams just pulled a Bruckheimer as far as I’m concerned) are why I dislike TFA. Though to me honest, it might also have something to do with seeing it in 3D and hating the 3D effect that made it look so fake. I’m waiting until IX to really delve into it in detail. But saying this is a reset and rehash of the OT fails to account for the goal of a finale in the form of IX. You see a reset, I see a setup. I see things moving toward an ending. Frankly the idea that they reset it makes no sense with IX being the saga finale. No sense at all.

What are you talking about? I’ve admitted I don’t like things about the movie ad nauseum, as many here will profess. There are differences in the story, but you don’t have to be a genius to notice the obvious visual and narrative simularities between the the OT and the ST. TFA has been widely criticized for this. TFA is a hommage to ANH. TLJ appears to follow suit, but uses several story twists to keep the audience on their toes. Someone else noted this yesterday, but the problem with this is, that once the novelty of the twists wear off, the narrative similarities between TLJ, and TESB/ROTJ become more obvious, leading to a continuous sense of déja vu while watching the movie just like for TFA, even if the outcome of events is different. A perfect example for this is the throne room sequence, which delibirately recycles the throne room sequence of ROTJ, with Rey having the same motivations as Luke, and even repeats some of the same dialogue, but then introduces a big twist to change the dynamic of the story. TFA left RJ with the difficult job of continuing a highly derivative story. He decided to use our expectations against us, and created a story that seems to rehash large chunks of TESB and ROTJ, but uses twists and turns to get us to a very different conclusion. Episode IX may be totally unique and different. I certainly hope so, but even if that turns out to be the case, we had to watch two highly self-referential, and derivative films to get there, and that’s a shame from a certain point of view. In my view it should not take two highly derivative movies to setup what might become a mostly original story for episode IX.

DominicCobb said:

LexX said:

When I saw TLJ the second time it was all too clear when half of the resistance seemed to be women to the point it just didn’t feel believable, just transparent. The contrast is so stark compared to the OT it’s ridicilous. If you’re really at war and showed people inside battleships there wouldn’t be 50% women. It’s not wrong, it’s not right, that’s just the way it is.

That’s not “the way it is,” that’s just plain fucking dumb. This is a fantasy movie, what it’s like in the “real world” shouldn’t matter.

What doesn’t feel believable is (in a world where sexism supposedly doesn’t exist) 99% of the rebellion and empire are male. There’s no good explanation for that.

The top three of the FO are still male though. Apparently women, and people of color don’t make a good Supreme Leader of a fascist Empire, a raging general, or a fallen Jedi student…

yotsuya said:

The only thing I have to say is that I think the GOUT is the key to finding out what TESB is supposed to look like. When I found a nice color correction for ANH and applied those settings to ROTJ, it came out very close to the grindhouse ROTJ scan. So I’m assuming that if you have a correction for ANH that works for ROTJ, that using that on the GOUT for TESB will get you something close to the real colors. Enough to guide a shot by shot regrade and possibly provide a basic correction that works for most scenes.

We actually have a reasonable color reference for TESB in Puggo Strikes Back. Surprisingly the colors of the 1997 SE home video release is a pretty good match for these colors. As for the samples poita shows us, Hoth is quite a bit more blue than the GOUT would suggest, as are the interiors of the Super Stardestroyer. However, as NeverarGreat mentioned, we will hopefully soon be able to see the theatrical colors when poita scans the unfaded 1980 print he has bought.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

mfastx said:

DrDre said:
I agree. The PT ends where the OT begins, right down to the twin sunset on Tatooine. Going from ROTJ to TFA is far more jarring to me, where an obvious total victory is suddenly and without explanation completely reversed, while all the victors have become shadows of their former selves. General Solo has again become a smuggler in debt with everyone, who hides from his problems. Luke’s hiding from his problems on a rock, and has closed himself off from the Force. Even Leia has been demoted from princess, and senator to the general of an even smaller band of rebels, whilst Han and Leia have apparently won the worst parents of the year award.

This is my main issue with the ST. Despite the fact that they’re very good films, the story is just so nonsensical to me. What we’re told happened between VI and VII is far more interesting to me than what’s happening in VII and VIII. We’re right back where we started in the OT (if not worse, the rebels are down to a handful of folk on the falcon), with no real explanation as to how we got there after the triumphant victory in VI.

I would have much more enjoyed a story of how Ben got seduced by Snoke, how the First Order came to be, etc.

Many who don’t like it see things back where the OT began, but it isn’t. That is my point. While there are echoes of the OT in the ST (there were in the PT as well), the ST is telling a unique story that I don’t think we will totally see until the third story is out for us to follow the plots. In TLJ, the First Order has not yet taken over. Rey says it directly. While the Republic government and fleet have been wiped out, the First Order still has to actually seize power. They have only eliminated the other power that Snoke thought could stop him.

I disagree. The New Republic in TFA doesn’t play any role of significance, and by the start of TLJ it’s been written out of the story altogether. The destruction of Hosnian Prime is equivalent to the destruction of Alderaan, only bigger. The fact that the FO actually has to seize power also does not translate to the films, since the FO are behaving just like the Empire throughout both TFA and TLJ. There’s very little in the films, that suggest the FO are a rising power, a reality made all the more clear by the fact, that the destruction of the SKB doesn’t affect them in any way.

We are no in the same place at the end of TLJ that we were at the beginning of ANH. It is a must different landscape. For one thing, there were no Jedi on the Galactic stage in ANH. There is Luke and Rey in TLJ and Luke has just left a lasting impression to give power to the new rebellion. Please find that in the years leading up to ANH. Even Rebels doesn’t have such a public display of power, and definitely not one that spread like wildfire across the galaxy.

What public display of power? Luke made a symbolic act, only seen by a handful of rebels, and a legion of FO troops. The fact that people are inspired by this, is a good way to end the story on a note of hope, but considering that the rebels have been reduced to a dozen people on a single ship, I don’t see that as some great victory. I would consider the destruction of the first Death Star as being a far greater victory in both a military and symbolic sense. I would think the destruction of SKB, the FO’s home base, and their most powerful weapon should be much more important in a military, and symbolic sense, but RJ certainly turned that into a pretty hollow victory, considering TLJ’s events follow directly from TFA, and the fact that the FO were supposed to be a rising power. I predict, that the FO will have a firm grasp on the galaxy by the start of episode IX, whilst the rebels will still be struggling to survive. The fact that they survived at all, is to Luke’s credit, but considering he played a major role in getting the galaxy to this dark place, I again would not see it as a huge victory.

The mere existence of the Resistance and Leia’s role as its leader tells us that the new Republic is not what she had hoped and that she fears they do not take the First Order seriously. It paints a picture of a complacent Republic that is probably more worried about internal squabbles than a theoretical outside threat. That they had so few ships that the entire fleet was in orbit of the capital shows that it it was a very weak republic.

Yes, but in the service of rehashing the Empire versus rebels conflict of the OT. The only reason the New Republic is so complacent and weak, is because the writers of the ST desperately wanted to reset the Star Wars galaxy to a pre-BFE state, including a rebellion, stormtroopers, an Emperor figure, and a fallen Jedi student.

I seriously don’t get what some of you want. Do you want a sequel trilogy with a story or a pointless story set in a perfect Utopia? To get a story you have to have conflict and the easiest way to get it is for things to go wrong. In the ST we are getting, things went wrong about 15-20 years after ROTJ (and ROTJ wasn’t the last battle). That is 15-20 years when things went right. The Republic was flourishing and Han and Leia were together. And the worst part is you are blaming Kennedy, and Johnson and leaving out Lucas and Abrams. This whole ST is Lucas’s doing. He created a treatment, he sold his company, he turned it over to Kennedy. How much of his treatment they are using is unknown, but they are using his girl force sensitive hero and his exiled Luke and I bet there is a lot more they are using. But let’s sit tight and wait for IX before we write off the ST. We can’t even tell what the main story is, just like the redemption of Anakin/Vader didn’t become part of the story until ROTJ. In the PT, we all knew where it would end up so we knew the arc from the moment we heard the name Anakin.

I didn’t want two movies, that essentially remix the OT. I didn’t want Empire versus rebels 2.0 right down to the stormtroopers, x-wings, tie-fighters, and a Death Star. I didn’t want an another Jedi apprentice seduced by a Sith Lord wannabe. Been there, done that! What I wanted was an original story with original villains, and a completely different setup, that follows naturally from the events of ROTJ. I’m aware that’s a lot to ask for, but when it comes to Star Wars I have high expectations. I think TFA and TLJ are both pretty good films seen in a vaccuum, but as sequels to the OT, they’re a dissappointment to me.

But it is not a total rehash. Since you are focused on the Jedi/Sith part, in the PT you have Palpatine, a hidden sith lord, lose one apprentice, gain Dooku, all the while his aim is to turn Skywalker (the PT makes it very clear that Palpatine has been Anakin’s mentor from TPM on). In the OT, Palpatine has Vader. When they learn of Luke, they set the goal to turn him. When Luke finally comes before Palpatine, Palpatine no only tries to turn him, but tries to replace Vader. In the ST, Snoke has turned Ben/Kylo. Or has he. There is conflict an in order to end that conflict, Kylo kills his father only to find that conflict has grown not gone away. Snoke sees it and while Kylo tries to turn Rey, Snoke really doesn’t bother, instead having Kylo kill Rey. But that conflict has turned to resolve, not to destroy Rey, but to kill Snoke. And how the story plays out from there we don’t know. So from the Jedi/Sith/Whatever perspective, the three trilogies are completely different. In both the PT and the OT, the Jedi tale is much the same. Boy meets mentor, mentor dies, mentor arranges for another teacher. Boy is taught and becomes a Jedi. The third act for the PT and OT differ as one has the boy fall and the other has the boy redeem his father by sacrificing his life. The ST has a girl search for a mentor (the PT and OT didn’t have a search as the mentor just happened to find the boy), find him, have him refuse to teach her, relent and give some lessons. But then the girl leaves to learn on her own and the mentor dies and will train her from the grave. A couple of points are the same, but the rest is very very different in the ST.

And we don’t have an all powerful, galaxy wide empire. We have a power on the Rim invading the core. Their first strike was the PT equivalent of destroying the Coruscant system (not Alderaan) and decapitating the fledgling Republic. Nothing in TLJ says that the FO have actually conquered anything yet. Rey says it will happen in weeks. Only hours or days have passed since the end of TFA. So the FO is in the position of the invader, not the local power. They are more like the Separatists in the Clone Wars. They are not the nearly all powerful Empire of the OT. They are the aggressors where in the OT the Rebels are the aggressors trying to unseat the tyrannical power.

You keep focusing on some small points of similarity and saying it is the same, yet when you dig in to the details they are not. I am really finding the nature of this argument to be very much like the arguments against the PT (why is Anakin a boy, why all the politics, etc., etc., etc.), the only difference is the quality of the finished product - at least to some. I really can’t see the substance of all the TLJ hate. Most was setup in TFA and TLJ just carries on the story. And the story appears to be close to GL’s treatment (definitely the Luke arc), but with characters created by Abrams (one thing he is very good at).

It’s not details. Your focussing on some lines of throw away dialogue about how the FO will control all major systems in weeks. I’m focussing on what the ST shows us, and the movies consistently show us the Empire 2.0. The FO is shown to be an unstoppable force invading planets and systems at will. They’re using a super weapon to blow up planets like the Empire. Their troops, personel, and equipment look like the Empire. The destruction of SKB didn’t affect them at all, as they apparently have unlimited resources like the Empire. If the FO is supposed to be so different from the Empire then show us, that they are. Show a terrorist force fighting a guerilla war against the New Republic fleet, evading a direct confrontation. Create a new dynamic between the good guys, and the bad guys, rather than just replaying the Empire vs rebels narrative. This problem rears its ugly head throughout the ST on multiple occassions, Snoke and Kylo being another example. If Snoke and Kylo Ren are not supposed to be Sith, don’t tell us they are not, but show us. As with the FO Snoke and Kylo are Sith in all but name. The Resistance is the rebellion in all but name in TFA, and actually becomes the rebellion in TLJ. Another thing to consider is, that the FO is emulating the Empire, and the Resistance is emulating the rebellion is, because the writers wanted to reset the story to Empire vs rebels. This choice was not made to drive the story forward in new directions, or to be original, but because of brand recognition and nostalgia. Of course they had to come up with some sort of plausible backstory, but ultimately this just veneer. This is what I’m criticizing here.

DominicCobb said:

The truth is that the fandom has gotten toxic. Even beyond the bigotry stuff, the discourse in general recently has been far too heated.

In my mind the only way to push back isn’t to get angry when people rightfully point out toxicity, it is to try to make it clear that toxicity should have no place in the fanbase. Star Wars has more fans than possibly any other piece of media. It shouldn’t be hard for all the reasonable ones to push back against the harrasers and elevate the discourse and remember at the end of the day that these are just movies, and not worth getting so angry over (something that goes both ways). Passion is fine, but the outrage on either side could probably stand to take a break for a bit.

I agree. It’s not as simple as being toxic, and non-toxic imo. These extremes are part of a larger group dynamic, which applies to critics and fans alike. Ideally we would all like to have respectful discourse, but the moment emotions run high, things can spin quickly out of control. Personally I see the group mentality where a minority is excluded from the discussion, ignored, or mocked for their opinion as a mild form of toxicity. Similarly, not being part of the majority can devolve to a form of jealosy, where those part of the majority are accused by a minority of a sheep mentality, or being apologists. These are forms of intolerance, that can easily devolve to full blown toxicity.

yotsuya said:

mfastx said:

DrDre said:
I agree. The PT ends where the OT begins, right down to the twin sunset on Tatooine. Going from ROTJ to TFA is far more jarring to me, where an obvious total victory is suddenly and without explanation completely reversed, while all the victors have become shadows of their former selves. General Solo has again become a smuggler in debt with everyone, who hides from his problems. Luke’s hiding from his problems on a rock, and has closed himself off from the Force. Even Leia has been demoted from princess, and senator to the general of an even smaller band of rebels, whilst Han and Leia have apparently won the worst parents of the year award.

This is my main issue with the ST. Despite the fact that they’re very good films, the story is just so nonsensical to me. What we’re told happened between VI and VII is far more interesting to me than what’s happening in VII and VIII. We’re right back where we started in the OT (if not worse, the rebels are down to a handful of folk on the falcon), with no real explanation as to how we got there after the triumphant victory in VI.

I would have much more enjoyed a story of how Ben got seduced by Snoke, how the First Order came to be, etc.

Many who don’t like it see things back where the OT began, but it isn’t. That is my point. While there are echoes of the OT in the ST (there were in the PT as well), the ST is telling a unique story that I don’t think we will totally see until the third story is out for us to follow the plots. In TLJ, the First Order has not yet taken over. Rey says it directly. While the Republic government and fleet have been wiped out, the First Order still has to actually seize power. They have only eliminated the other power that Snoke thought could stop him.

I disagree. The New Republic in TFA doesn’t play any role of significance, and by the start of TLJ it’s been written out of the story altogether. The destruction of Hosnian Prime is equivalent to the destruction of Alderaan, only bigger. The fact that the FO actually has to seize power also does not translate to the films, since the FO are behaving just like the Empire throughout both TFA and TLJ. There’s very little in the films, that suggest the FO are a rising power, a reality made all the more clear by the fact, that the destruction of the SKB doesn’t affect them in any way.

We are no in the same place at the end of TLJ that we were at the beginning of ANH. It is a must different landscape. For one thing, there were no Jedi on the Galactic stage in ANH. There is Luke and Rey in TLJ and Luke has just left a lasting impression to give power to the new rebellion. Please find that in the years leading up to ANH. Even Rebels doesn’t have such a public display of power, and definitely not one that spread like wildfire across the galaxy.

What public display of power? Luke made a symbolic act, only seen by a handful of rebels, and a legion of FO troops. The fact that people are inspired by this, is a good way to end the story on a note of hope, but considering that the rebels have been reduced to a dozen people on a single ship, I don’t see that as some great victory. I would consider the destruction of the first Death Star as being a far greater victory in both a military and symbolic sense. I would think the destruction of SKB, the FO’s home base, and their most powerful weapon should be much more important in a military, and symbolic sense, but RJ certainly turned that into a pretty hollow victory, considering TLJ’s events follow directly from TFA, and the fact that the FO were supposed to be a rising power. I predict, that the FO will have a firm grasp on the galaxy by the start of episode IX, whilst the rebels will still be struggling to survive. The fact that they survived at all, is to Luke’s credit, but considering he played a major role in getting the galaxy to this dark place, I again would not see it as a huge victory.

The mere existence of the Resistance and Leia’s role as its leader tells us that the new Republic is not what she had hoped and that she fears they do not take the First Order seriously. It paints a picture of a complacent Republic that is probably more worried about internal squabbles than a theoretical outside threat. That they had so few ships that the entire fleet was in orbit of the capital shows that it it was a very weak republic.

Yes, but in the service of rehashing the Empire versus rebels conflict of the OT. The only reason the New Republic is so complacent and weak, is because the writers of the ST desperately wanted to reset the Star Wars galaxy to a pre-BFE state, including a rebellion, stormtroopers, an Emperor figure, and a fallen Jedi student.

I seriously don’t get what some of you want. Do you want a sequel trilogy with a story or a pointless story set in a perfect Utopia? To get a story you have to have conflict and the easiest way to get it is for things to go wrong. In the ST we are getting, things went wrong about 15-20 years after ROTJ (and ROTJ wasn’t the last battle). That is 15-20 years when things went right. The Republic was flourishing and Han and Leia were together. And the worst part is you are blaming Kennedy, and Johnson and leaving out Lucas and Abrams. This whole ST is Lucas’s doing. He created a treatment, he sold his company, he turned it over to Kennedy. How much of his treatment they are using is unknown, but they are using his girl force sensitive hero and his exiled Luke and I bet there is a lot more they are using. But let’s sit tight and wait for IX before we write off the ST. We can’t even tell what the main story is, just like the redemption of Anakin/Vader didn’t become part of the story until ROTJ. In the PT, we all knew where it would end up so we knew the arc from the moment we heard the name Anakin.

I didn’t want two movies, that essentially remix the OT. I didn’t want Empire versus rebels 2.0 right down to the stormtroopers, x-wings, tie-fighters, and a Death Star. I didn’t want an another Jedi apprentice seduced by a Sith Lord wannabe. Been there, done that! What I wanted was an original story with original villains, and a completely different setup, that follows naturally from the events of ROTJ. I’m aware that’s a lot to ask for, but when it comes to Star Wars I have high expectations. I think TFA and TLJ are both pretty good films seen in a vaccuum, but as sequels to the OT, they’re a dissappointment to me.

Stotchy said:

Just so I get an understanding of TESB, how was this originally color timed for the Bluray release? I realise its dark and has a blue cast consistently throughout, but was it also graded shot by shot?

I’m trying to understand if it needs a single pass correction for the whole film or a shot-by-shot correction.

It was color timed from a scan of the negative, and it’s almost certainly to have been shot by shot.

This thread is dedicated to the shot by shot color regrade of the TESB bluray based on my color grading for the future 4k80. Here’s the first set of sample frames.

Bluray:

Bluray regraded:

=======================================================================================================

Original OP:

Following a request from Hal 9000, I decided to try and create some scene by scene LUTs to get the TESB bluray to look half descent, using the 1997 SE telecine as the basis, while adding a few touches of my own. I will make these LUTs freely available, as he’s not the first member to make this request.

Here’s the first set of frames.

Bluray:

Bluray regraded:

Comparison:

http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/1E21NNNU

LUT:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qYfl68kDNGmoSIBhMmrM3UCZCr6hI6tT/view?usp=sharing

Here’s the scene, where Luke meets Yoda.

Bluray:

Bluray regraded:

LUT:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1isRV9nLrBJCzbloYhoFcicLXc-wexHXL/view?usp=sharing

Not sure if I’m ever going to get around to this, but since there are not that many regrades for The Empire Strikes Back bluray, as for Star Wars, and since I needed a little break from the latter, here are a few experimental regrades, using the 1997 SE as a base.

Bluray:

Regrade:

Bluray:

Regrade:

Bluray:

Regrade:

Bluray:

Regrade:

Bluray:

Regrade:

Bluray:

Regrade:

Bluray:

Regrade:

Bluray:

Regrade:

Bluray:

Regrade:

Bluray:

Regrade:

Tell me what you think?

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

As usual I’ll have to strongly disagree. IV, V, VI, VII, VIII is already far more emotionally satisfying than I, II, III, IV, V, VI ever was. Going from III to IV is much more jarring a shift than going from VI to VII (and I’m not talking about quality). Just because nothing important plot-wise happens in between the PT and the OT doesn’t make them a cohesive and continuous unit, far from it. Lucas’s conception of the six episode saga was incredibly faulty and unsatisfactory. Hard to say how the nine episode saga will look without having seen the last chapter, but it can’t be anymore slapdash than the six episode one (if anything it’s working to rectify the problems).

I’ll have to strongly disagree too. 😉 The PT is conceptually, and visually far more interesting to me than the ST, and that’s coming from someone who feels the PT is deeply flawed. I also don’t feel, it’s the current owners’ job to rectify percieved problems with Lucas’ story. Write your own story with your own characters, if you feel, you can do better. I prefer the OT as a three act story over Lucas’ six part saga, but I appreciate the creative vision he was going for while developing the PT. The ST feels like a postmodern take on the OT to me. It’s interesting as a sort of meta commentary on the story that preceeded it, but also in many ways the antithesis of what Star Wars used to be, and for many is supposed to be.

I’ll just say the ST feels far more in the spirit and heart of what Lucas originally conceived for the series than the PT ever did. Not antithesis at all, but a perfectly fitting continuation of what Star Wars is all about. Whereas I see the PT as being George trying to fundamentally realign the scope and drive of the series in a way that didn’t always completely fit with what came before.

I also think you misunderstood what I meant by “rectifying.” Honestly for the most part I meant solving the absurd idea of the films being all about “the tragedy of Darth Vader.” No matter who was in charge of these films (even if they were Lucas), they’d be fixing that.

I can see where you’re going, and in some respects probably even agree, but for me seeing Luke raise his lightsaber over the head of his sleeping nephew, and to hear Luke say, he cannot save Ben, whilst Leia says her son is gone, far more fundamentally alters the spirit of the series than Lucas’ prequels ever did.

Hard disagree. Doubt and imperfection was always a big part of the characters in the OT. What was important was that they came through in the end.

Giving up on your child is not doubt. Leia does not express doubt. She says “I know my son is gone”. That seems pretty final to me.

It sounds exactly like a moment of doubt and weakness, considering the context.

Considering Carrie Fisher is gone, and this is her last statement on the matter, it has a sense of finality to me. The last moment these iconic characters spend together is them giving up on Ben Solo. That’s my context for this scene.

The scene ends with Luke refuting her statement.

Luke is the first in the scene to say, he cannot save Ben, so his statement that nobody’s ever really gone feels pretty hollow to me.

Criticizing it based on Carrie’s passing is unfair to say the least.

Considering TLJ was edited and released after her passing, I think it’s very appropriate. RJ was perfectly aware, that this is the last scene these characters share together.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

As usual I’ll have to strongly disagree. IV, V, VI, VII, VIII is already far more emotionally satisfying than I, II, III, IV, V, VI ever was. Going from III to IV is much more jarring a shift than going from VI to VII (and I’m not talking about quality). Just because nothing important plot-wise happens in between the PT and the OT doesn’t make them a cohesive and continuous unit, far from it. Lucas’s conception of the six episode saga was incredibly faulty and unsatisfactory. Hard to say how the nine episode saga will look without having seen the last chapter, but it can’t be anymore slapdash than the six episode one (if anything it’s working to rectify the problems).

I’ll have to strongly disagree too. 😉 The PT is conceptually, and visually far more interesting to me than the ST, and that’s coming from someone who feels the PT is deeply flawed. I also don’t feel, it’s the current owners’ job to rectify percieved problems with Lucas’ story. Write your own story with your own characters, if you feel, you can do better. I prefer the OT as a three act story over Lucas’ six part saga, but I appreciate the creative vision he was going for while developing the PT. The ST feels like a postmodern take on the OT to me. It’s interesting as a sort of meta commentary on the story that preceeded it, but also in many ways the antithesis of what Star Wars used to be, and for many is supposed to be.

I’ll just say the ST feels far more in the spirit and heart of what Lucas originally conceived for the series than the PT ever did. Not antithesis at all, but a perfectly fitting continuation of what Star Wars is all about. Whereas I see the PT as being George trying to fundamentally realign the scope and drive of the series in a way that didn’t always completely fit with what came before.

I also think you misunderstood what I meant by “rectifying.” Honestly for the most part I meant solving the absurd idea of the films being all about “the tragedy of Darth Vader.” No matter who was in charge of these films (even if they were Lucas), they’d be fixing that.

I can see where you’re going, and in some respects probably even agree, but for me seeing Luke raise his lightsaber over the head of his sleeping nephew, and to hear Luke say, he cannot save Ben, whilst Leia says her son is gone, far more fundamentally alters the spirit of the series than Lucas’ prequels ever did.

Hard disagree. Doubt and imperfection was always a big part of the characters in the OT. What was important was that they came through in the end.

Giving up on your child is not doubt. Leia does not express doubt. She says “I know my son is gone”. That seems pretty final to me.

It sounds exactly like a moment of doubt and weakness, considering the context.

Considering Carrie Fisher is gone, and this is her last statement on the matter, it has a sense of finality to me. The last moment these iconic characters spend together is them giving up on Ben Solo. That’s my context for this scene.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

As usual I’ll have to strongly disagree. IV, V, VI, VII, VIII is already far more emotionally satisfying than I, II, III, IV, V, VI ever was. Going from III to IV is much more jarring a shift than going from VI to VII (and I’m not talking about quality). Just because nothing important plot-wise happens in between the PT and the OT doesn’t make them a cohesive and continuous unit, far from it. Lucas’s conception of the six episode saga was incredibly faulty and unsatisfactory. Hard to say how the nine episode saga will look without having seen the last chapter, but it can’t be anymore slapdash than the six episode one (if anything it’s working to rectify the problems).

I’ll have to strongly disagree too. 😉 The PT is conceptually, and visually far more interesting to me than the ST, and that’s coming from someone who feels the PT is deeply flawed. I also don’t feel, it’s the current owners’ job to rectify percieved problems with Lucas’ story. Write your own story with your own characters, if you feel, you can do better. I prefer the OT as a three act story over Lucas’ six part saga, but I appreciate the creative vision he was going for while developing the PT. The ST feels like a postmodern take on the OT to me. It’s interesting as a sort of meta commentary on the story that preceeded it, but also in many ways the antithesis of what Star Wars used to be, and for many is supposed to be.

I’ll just say the ST feels far more in the spirit and heart of what Lucas originally conceived for the series than the PT ever did. Not antithesis at all, but a perfectly fitting continuation of what Star Wars is all about. Whereas I see the PT as being George trying to fundamentally realign the scope and drive of the series in a way that didn’t always completely fit with what came before.

I also think you misunderstood what I meant by “rectifying.” Honestly for the most part I meant solving the absurd idea of the films being all about “the tragedy of Darth Vader.” No matter who was in charge of these films (even if they were Lucas), they’d be fixing that.

I can see where you’re going, and in some respects probably even agree, but for me seeing Luke raise his lightsaber over the head of his sleeping nephew, and to hear Luke say, he cannot save Ben, whilst Leia says her son is gone, far more fundamentally alters the spirit of the series than Lucas’ prequels ever did.

Hard disagree. Doubt and imperfection was always a big part of the characters in the OT. What was important was that they came through in the end.

Giving up on your child is not doubt. Leia does not express doubt. She says “I know my son is gone”. That seems pretty final to me.

TV’s Frink said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

As usual I’ll have to strongly disagree. IV, V, VI, VII, VIII is already far more emotionally satisfying than I, II, III, IV, V, VI ever was. Going from III to IV is much more jarring a shift than going from VI to VII (and I’m not talking about quality). Just because nothing important plot-wise happens in between the PT and the OT doesn’t make them a cohesive and continuous unit, far from it. Lucas’s conception of the six episode saga was incredibly faulty and unsatisfactory. Hard to say how the nine episode saga will look without having seen the last chapter, but it can’t be anymore slapdash than the six episode one (if anything it’s working to rectify the problems).

I’ll have to strongly disagree too. 😉 The PT is conceptually, and visually far more interesting to me than the ST, and that’s coming from someone who feels the PT is deeply flawed. I also don’t feel, it’s the current owners’ job to rectify percieved problems with Lucas’ story. Write your own story with your own characters, if you feel, you can do better. I prefer the OT as a three act story over Lucas’ six part saga, but I appreciate the creative vision he was going for while developing the PT. The ST feels like a postmodern take on the OT to me. It’s interesting as a sort of meta commentary on the story that preceeded it, but also in many ways the antithesis of what Star Wars used to be, and for many is supposed to be.

I’ll just say the ST feels far more in the spirit and heart of what Lucas originally conceived for the series than the PT ever did. Not antithesis at all, but a perfectly fitting continuation of what Star Wars is all about. Whereas I see the PT as being George trying to fundamentally realign the scope and drive of the series in a way that didn’t always completely fit with what came before.

I also think you misunderstood what I meant by “rectifying.” Honestly for the most part I meant solving the absurd idea of the films being all about “the tragedy of Darth Vader.” No matter who was in charge of these films (even if they were Lucas), they’d be fixing that.

I can see where you’re going, and in some respects probably even agree, but for me seeing Luke raise his lightsaber over the head of his sleeping nephew, and to hear Luke say, he cannot save Ben

Whilst ignoring what came next…

Ignoring what?

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

As usual I’ll have to strongly disagree. IV, V, VI, VII, VIII is already far more emotionally satisfying than I, II, III, IV, V, VI ever was. Going from III to IV is much more jarring a shift than going from VI to VII (and I’m not talking about quality). Just because nothing important plot-wise happens in between the PT and the OT doesn’t make them a cohesive and continuous unit, far from it. Lucas’s conception of the six episode saga was incredibly faulty and unsatisfactory. Hard to say how the nine episode saga will look without having seen the last chapter, but it can’t be anymore slapdash than the six episode one (if anything it’s working to rectify the problems).

I’ll have to strongly disagree too. 😉 The PT is conceptually, and visually far more interesting to me than the ST, and that’s coming from someone who feels the PT is deeply flawed. I also don’t feel, it’s the current owners’ job to rectify percieved problems with Lucas’ story. Write your own story with your own characters, if you feel, you can do better. I prefer the OT as a three act story over Lucas’ six part saga, but I appreciate the creative vision he was going for while developing the PT. The ST feels like a postmodern take on the OT to me. It’s interesting as a sort of meta commentary on the story that preceeded it, but also in many ways the antithesis of what Star Wars used to be, and for many is supposed to be.

I’ll just say the ST feels far more in the spirit and heart of what Lucas originally conceived for the series than the PT ever did. Not antithesis at all, but a perfectly fitting continuation of what Star Wars is all about. Whereas I see the PT as being George trying to fundamentally realign the scope and drive of the series in a way that didn’t always completely fit with what came before.

I also think you misunderstood what I meant by “rectifying.” Honestly for the most part I meant solving the absurd idea of the films being all about “the tragedy of Darth Vader.” No matter who was in charge of these films (even if they were Lucas), they’d be fixing that.

I can see where you’re going, and in some respects probably even agree, but for me seeing Luke raise his lightsaber over the head of his sleeping nephew, and to hear Luke say, he cannot save Ben, whilst Leia says her son is gone, far more fundamentally alters the spirit of the series than Lucas’ prequels ever did.

NeverarGreat said:

DominicCobb said:

As usual I’ll have to strongly disagree. IV, V, VI, VII, VIII is already far more emotionally satisfying than I, II, III, IV, V, VI ever was. Going from III to IV is much more jarring a shift than going from VI to VII (and I’m not talking about quality). Just because nothing important plot-wise happens in between the PT and the OT doesn’t make them a cohesive and continuous unit, far from it. Lucas’s conception of the six episode saga was incredibly faulty and unsatisfactory. Hard to say how the nine episode saga will look without having seen the last chapter, but it can’t be anymore slapdash than the six episode one (if anything it’s working to rectify the problems).

Um what?
Between 3 and 4 the Empire grows in power as does the Rebellion, Luke and Leia grow up, and the Death Star is finally completed after 20 years. All of these things were set up in 3, and in fact one of the issues people have with that movie is how much hand-holding it does to make the universe continue relatively unchanged for two decades.

Between 6 and 7 the civil war officially ends with the Imperial remnant being exiled to the unknown regions, a new First Order arises from this remnant, Han and Leia officially get married then have a kid and Luke starts to form a new Jedi order then the Solo kid goes bad and destroys the order and Han and Leia break up and Luke goes into exile. Oh and the First Order is being run by a totally new warlord who is strong in the Force but unrelated to the Sith, they’ve somehow found a way to build a weapon much larger than any built by the Empire at the height of their power, and they’ve infiltrated the Republic Senate so far as to cast Leia out and force her to start her own miniature Rebellion.

I agree. The PT ends where the OT begins, right down to the twin sunset on Tatooine. Going from ROTJ to TFA is far more jarring to me, where an obvious total victory is suddenly and without explanation completely reversed, while all the victors have become shadows of their former selves. General Solo has again become a smuggler in debt with everyone, who hides from his problems. Luke’s hiding from his problems on a rock, and has closed himself off from the Force. Even Leia has been demoted from princess, and senator to the general of an even smaller band of rebels, whilst Han and Leia have apparently won the worst parents of the year award.

DominicCobb said:

As usual I’ll have to strongly disagree. IV, V, VI, VII, VIII is already far more emotionally satisfying than I, II, III, IV, V, VI ever was. Going from III to IV is much more jarring a shift than going from VI to VII (and I’m not talking about quality). Just because nothing important plot-wise happens in between the PT and the OT doesn’t make them a cohesive and continuous unit, far from it. Lucas’s conception of the six episode saga was incredibly faulty and unsatisfactory. Hard to say how the nine episode saga will look without having seen the last chapter, but it can’t be anymore slapdash than the six episode one (if anything it’s working to rectify the problems).

I’ll have to strongly disagree too. 😉 The PT is conceptually, and visually far more interesting to me than the ST, and that’s coming from someone who feels the PT is deeply flawed. I also don’t feel, it’s the current owners’ job to rectify percieved problems with Lucas’ story. Write your own story with your own characters, if you feel, you can do better. I prefer the OT as a three act story over Lucas’ six part saga, but I appreciate the creative vision he was going for while developing the PT. The ST feels like a postmodern take on the OT to me. It’s interesting as a sort of meta commentary on the story that preceeded it, but also in many ways the antithesis of what Star Wars used to be, and for many is supposed to be.