Shopping Maul

Channel72 said:

Mocata said:

These are minor details since Boba Fett isn’t a match for Luke.

Ehhh… maybe. Mandalorians have always been portrayed as challenging opponents for the Jedi. Even in the very earliest proto-incarnations of Mandalorians, back when they were just “Imperial Shocktroopers”, they were implied to at least be capable of giving the Jedi Knights a run for their money.

Not that Boba Fett is necessarily an actual Mandalorian, in 1983 or any time after (I can’t keep track of Boba Fett’s endless retconned origin stories), but Luke is also barely a Jedi. Maybe Boba Fett can just cheat by using some fancy tech to stun or incapacitate Luke, rather than best him in a fight.

Why is the Alliance letting their top fighters go off to save one man when such a big campaign is being fought? We never find out, and it’s odd.

One possible excuse is that Act 1 actually happened like months before Act 2 and 3. Not a great solution, but I guess it explains why the Rebels were freed up to go rescue Han.

But even worse is the fact that Luke inexplicably never returned to Yoda. He was definitely supposed to return to Dagobah to complete his training with Yoda originally. The Fourth Draft of Empire Strikes Back ends with Luke and Leia on board the medical frigate, staring out the window into space, and Luke says “I want to go with them, but I have a promise to keep. They’ll find Han. I know they will…”. This implies Luke intends to return to Yoda to finish his training. But in the actual film, Luke goes off with Lando to Tatooine, and apparently never returns to Dagobah to complete his training until ROTJ. So it’s never explained how Luke is suddenly a bad-ass Jedi with a stylish new outfit when he shows up at Jabba’s Palace. (And what were they doing on Tatooine for 3 years? I guess maybe it took 3 years for Lando to land a job in Jabba’s palace.)

I think it’s good that they didn’t go with Luke’s ‘promise to keep’ at the end of Empire because that wouldn’t really jive with his portrayed mental state at the time. At the end of Empire Luke was obviously distraught that Obi Wan (and by extension Yoda) had lied to him about his parentage, so it makes sense to me that Luke was focussed on rescuing his friend and concentrating on the present rather than going off to resume training.
Personally I think this should have carried over into RoTJ. I think Jedi’s opening crawl should’ve said something like ‘Luke Skywalker has forsaken his Jedi training and returned to Tatooine…’. This way there’s no disconnect between Empire and Jedi in terms of Luke suddenly being more or less fully trained without having returned. He could still be portrayed as a badass (choking Jabba’s guards and wearing snazzy black threads) but it would make sense because he’d still be disillusioned by the events in Empire. Better yet Luke’s actions in the finale - giving himself to the Empire and redeeming Vader in the process - could be a more organic consequential scenario rather than the (ethical suspect IMO) notion of him suddenly deciding that redeeming Anakin is the most important idea on the table.

I just wonder if the whole concept of ‘cute 9 year-old transitioning into evil warlord’ was too much for Star Wars to handle whilst keeping things family friendly. It’s one thing to have it all implied in the OT, but it’s another thing to actually attempt to depict it.
For example my other favourite movie, Conan the Barbarian, does it perfectly. Conan, as a 9 year-old, sees his parents and kin slaughtered by an evil cult, is thrown into slavery (real slavery, not the suburban TPM version!), then sold into gladiatorial combat before being freed as an adult. Throughout this experience he is entirely driven by vengeance. There’s your Anakin. There’s a guy who legitimately could become Darth Vader. If Obi Wan had met that guy on Tatooine and they’d established a friendship, and then Anakin had been forced to choose between revenge and Jedi pacifism (maybe the guy who had slaughtered his parents had seen the light and become a Jedi Master for example), right there you’d have the perfect catalyst for a clash of ideals between legitimate friends/allies. But it would be dark stuff…

Omni said:

Funny you say that when Paul did re-record several Beatles tracks in his Give My Regards to Broad Street (1984), which got pretty bad reviews and even amongst Beatles and Paul fans is seen as a pretty bad entry in his canon.

It can go the other way too. I’m a huge fan of a Finnish rock band called Hanoi Rocks. Their second album (released in '82) had a really bad mix (something I noticed even back in the day, although I still love the album) and they’ve recently unearthed the original tapes and done a remix that they’re calling 'the ‘real’ mix. I heard one track the other day, and it sounds technically better of course, but it’s not the track I grew up with. Ultimately I’m going to stick with the original because that’s where the feeling lies (or ‘nostalgia’ if you will). it’s a moment in time.
Of course, unlike Star Wars, both versions will always be available, so the band gets to exorcise this particular demon and the fans get the option of either version.

Okay, so let’s say it’s the 1980s and Paul McCartney has decided to remix and re-release the entire Beatles catalogue. To make it a big event he modernises the tracks to make them contemporary and closer to his ‘original vision’. He replaces Ringo with modern drum machines, remixes the guitar sounds to something more like Boston or Def Leppard, replaces some of the guitar solos with Eddie Van Halen and Mark Knopfler, and gets Thomas Dolby to add a bunch of Fairlight sound/samples to bring the whole thing ‘into the 80s’. He ditches some of the weirder tracks from the White Album and puts some of his solo material in their place (see ‘Wings’).

Then, when CDs take over as the modern format, only the ‘special edition’ versions of the albums are made available. “I’m sorry you fell in love with the unfinished versions” says Sir Paul “but you have them on cassette and vinyl. Eventually only the special editions will be what’s available…”.

Yes, that would be stupid. And Paul would be lynched.

The original Star Wars trilogy should be available on modern formats. To suggest otherwise is moronic.

There was a prequel edit called The Blackened Mantle (which edited all three prequels into one long movie with flashbacks) which had a great take on Anakin’s fall. It basically ditched the Chosen One stuff, as well as the ‘cheating death with Sith magic’ stuff, and hinged the entire premise on Anakin’s reliance on prophecy (against Jedi advice to the contrary). This meant that Anakin, in his desperation to unravel his vision of Padme’s demise at supposedly unknown hands, became the one who facilitated it. It was very powerful and basically showed what the prequels could have been.

For me personally? Well, I’ve become something of a Star Wars/Empire purist in my grumpy old age, and I envisage a hypothetical film in '83 called Revenge of the Jedi that follows the alleged Gary Kurtz model. In that film Luke, before wandering off into the sunset like Clint Eastwood, states that there is no ‘dark side’ - there is simply something called the Force and it’s up to us how we use it. It’s powerful and poignant and no prequels exist. The mystery of Vader’s descent into evil remains…forever…

erichf69 posted a good reply to this question on the ‘4K80 a WIP’ thread in the SW preservation discussions…(sorry, not sure how to do a proper direct link)…

That kind of arc works and produces a satisfying redemption. However, it sadly wasn’t what Lucas wanted to tell and the saga’s story suffers as a result. But hey, I buy Vader’s redemption infinitely more than I buy something like Snape’s redemption.

Really? What is it about Snape’s redemption you find unconvincing (bearing in mind I’m not the biggest Harry Potter connoisseur in the world, but I do like the series)?

BedeHistory731 said:

Shopping Maul said:

G&G-Fan said:

Yep. Definitely agree with Sparky.

From my perspective, it feels less like a deed of a good man and more like a serial killer repenting on their deathbed.

That’s kinda exactly what it is.

The entire point is that Vader is a monster. Nothing he does can change that. But it still wasn’t too late for him to do the right thing. To turn to the light, kill the Emperor and destroy what he helped create. And he does. Along with himself and the Emperor, he brings down the Empire.

His redemption isn’t making up for what he did. He’s only redeemed in the sense that he chose to act out of selfless compassion (the way of the Jedi) instead of selfishness (the way of the Sith). Changing the person he was on the inside and finally letting go of his selfishness, hatred, and even his primal fear of death, which as Yoda says, “is the way of things. The way of the Force”.

You’re still trying to turn it into the person in the physical world atoning for what they did. But that’s not what it is and it never could be. It’s like asking someone to write a story about Hitler making up for the bad things he did (maybe slightly different, because Vader wasn’t the top guy in charge of the Empire, that’d be Palpatine, but it’s still pretty close). He literally was the backbone of a facist Sith regime for 23 years that committed genocide. You can’t make up for that. But he does stop the horror and become the man he once was. It’s all just about Vader choosing to be Anakin again on the inside, to do the right thing, and to finally be selfless. To give his life for his son. The only way his redemption works is if he sacrifices himself. You can’t have Vader go to the rebellion after saving Luke and saying, “Sorry that I, you know, helped enslave the galaxy, wiped out the Jedi, was a Sith for decades and literally probably killed your friends and families, but I’d really like to help out.” Vader can’t be redeemed in the sense of taking action that makes up for what he did in the physical realm; Vader is redeemed in the fact that he changed the person he was on the inside back to the compassionate Anakin Skywalker (in a sense, spiritually). As Lucas said, he took that last ounce of good left in him and destroyed the Emperor.

Also Luke being the only one who actually forgives Vader is also kind of the point. Most people in the galaxy would never and wouldn’t be expected to. But Luke is different not just because of his personality and the fact that Vader’s his dad but also because he’s a Jedi, and Jedi love everybody including the Sith.

“The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth. They’re not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith."

There’s a reason Luke is the only one attending his funeral.

That’s all well and good, but what about Luke’s role? Luke sacrificed himself because the Empire could sense his presence (which is not a great endorsement for future Jedi but still a noble act) but then made his entire quest an attempt to achieve Vader’s bedside conversion. He literally sat idle while shiploads of innocent beings were being annihilated by the Death Star. Even at the last moment, with Vader defeated, Luke threw his weapon aside and declared his own enlightenment - again while a war continued to rage outside. So yeah, hooray for Vader saving his own flesh and blood at the last moment (is that really so unselfish?) but how is any of this remotely helpful to the rebel cause or even ethically sound? The fact that Vader finally caved and saved his own son, after the Emperor had basically written him off anyway (“take your father’s place at my side”), doesn’t strike me as particularly noble…or even helpful given Luke’s complete obliviousness to anything beyond his and Vader’s religious aspirations.

Well, what else was Luke going to do? I don’t want to defend Luke’s actions, but what use would he have been in the battle? He hasn’t been an active duty fighter pilot for some time and risks being shot by a random TIE pilot (of which there were dozens, if not hundreds). On the ground, what can he do beyond slicing down a few stormtroopers and maybe pulling the shield bunker doors open, which are all things the strike team and Ewoks could do?

Luke’s most useful place is on the Death Star, dealing with Vader and the Emperor. Also, if one wants to add the Legends EU idea of “battle meditation” into the mix, Luke’s actions led to the Emperor’s death. The Emperor’s death, through the force, cratered the morale and resolve of the Imperials at Endor. Luke did have an important role within the battle, even though he wasn’t directly involved in the fighting.

Well the EU thing is just a post-hoc rationalisation to kind of answer what I’m illustrating. TESB sets Luke up as the ‘only hope’ (and Star Wars was retroactively renamed ‘A New Hope’ with this in mind) and yet Luke does nothing to earn this narrative ranking in RoTJ. The death of Palpatine is merely a by-product of Luke’s desire to save Vader. And heck, if the whole thing had taken a few minutes longer then all three of them would’ve been blown up anyway and the galaxy would never again have to worry about space gurus who have a very selective moral sense when it comes to violence, and also turn irreversibly evil when they lose their temper.

I think the actual story, in essence at least, is a good one. I just wish that Luke had gone with the expressed intention of defeating Palpatine with Vader’s redemption as the by-product of Luke’s actions (not the other way around). I also wish Palpatine had actually used legitimate manipulation to sway Luke (ie use guile to win Luke’s empathy and convince him to join the Empire to help heal the fractured galaxy and save his friends in the bargain. The whole ‘get mad and you’ll turn evil’ thing is stupid, as was the notion that Luke would join the Emperor just because he was angry).

G&G-Fan said:

Yep. Definitely agree with Sparky.

From my perspective, it feels less like a deed of a good man and more like a serial killer repenting on their deathbed.

That’s kinda exactly what it is.

The entire point is that Vader is a monster. Nothing he does can change that. But it still wasn’t too late for him to do the right thing. To turn to the light, kill the Emperor and destroy what he helped create. And he does. Along with himself and the Emperor, he brings down the Empire.

His redemption isn’t making up for what he did. He’s only redeemed in the sense that he chose to act out of selfless compassion (the way of the Jedi) instead of selfishness (the way of the Sith). Changing the person he was on the inside and finally letting go of his selfishness, hatred, and even his primal fear of death, which as Yoda says, “is the way of things. The way of the Force”.

You’re still trying to turn it into the person in the physical world atoning for what they did. But that’s not what it is and it never could be. It’s like asking someone to write a story about Hitler making up for the bad things he did (maybe slightly different, because Vader wasn’t the top guy in charge of the Empire, that’d be Palpatine, but it’s still pretty close). He literally was the backbone of a facist Sith regime for 23 years that committed genocide. You can’t make up for that. But he does stop the horror and become the man he once was. It’s all just about Vader choosing to be Anakin again on the inside, to do the right thing, and to finally be selfless. To give his life for his son. The only way his redemption works is if he sacrifices himself. You can’t have Vader go to the rebellion after saving Luke and saying, “Sorry that I, you know, helped enslave the galaxy, wiped out the Jedi, was a Sith for decades and literally probably killed your friends and families, but I’d really like to help out.” Vader can’t be redeemed in the sense of taking action that makes up for what he did in the physical realm; Vader is redeemed in the fact that he changed the person he was on the inside back to the compassionate Anakin Skywalker (in a sense, spiritually). As Lucas said, he took that last ounce of good left in him and destroyed the Emperor.

Also Luke being the only one who actually forgives Vader is also kind of the point. Most people in the galaxy would never and wouldn’t be expected to. But Luke is different not just because of his personality and the fact that Vader’s his dad but also because he’s a Jedi, and Jedi love everybody including the Sith.

“The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth. They’re not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith."

There’s a reason Luke is the only one attending his funeral.

That’s all well and good, but what about Luke’s role? Luke sacrificed himself because the Empire could sense his presence (which is not a great endorsement for future Jedi but still a noble act) but then made his entire quest an attempt to achieve Vader’s bedside conversion. He literally sat idle while shiploads of innocent beings were being annihilated by the Death Star. Even at the last moment, with Vader defeated, Luke threw his weapon aside and declared his own enlightenment - again while a war continued to rage outside. So yeah, hooray for Vader saving his own flesh and blood at the last moment (is that really so unselfish?) but how is any of this remotely helpful to the rebel cause or even ethically sound? The fact that Vader finally caved and saved his own son, after the Emperor had basically written him off anyway (“take your father’s place at my side”), doesn’t strike me as particularly noble…or even helpful given Luke’s complete obliviousness to anything beyond his and Vader’s religious aspirations.

Yes. Han’s death could have been the catalyst for Luke’s wailing on Vader (ie Luke sensing Han sacrificing himself during the final battle) - this would eliminate the need for a) Leia being the sister (which was ridiculous) and b) Lucas introducing Jedi ‘mind-reading’ (which was also ridiculous).

BedeHistory731 said:

Sometimes I only want the 1977 original to be canon. Maybe I’ve soured on the long-term issues around Vader being Luke’s father, IDK.

If Empire wasn’t so damn good I would be in the same boat for sure. For me it’s Star Wars and Empire and a film called Revenge of the Jedi that was sadly never made…

Anchorhead said:

Timeline question for the gap between the prequels and originals for the board.

I’ve watched the Clone Wars series and Bad Batch. I know both are prequel adjacent in their timelines, possibly same-as in some areas. Because I’m not familiar with the prequel films, is there any time frame that isn’t covered by any of the three? Specifically, the time (obviously) before Anakin becomes Vader.

Judging from nearly all the comments here and on review sites, people seem to really be happy with Hayden’s work in this series. Being among the few unwashed, I don’t have anything to compare it to but I will say he seems fine in the role and fits age-wise. I hope we get one or two more scenes similar to what we got Wednesday.

My thought is really more of a question; Is there an unexplored timespan where Ewan and Hayden could do a short series that takes place before this show? I would be interested in that. I know he becomes Vader in the prequels so it would be within the greater prequel time space, but maybe an adventure. Maybe something along the lines of Outbound Flight.

Actually, at least the way I see it, the age thing didn’t work for the prequels but is somewhat rectified in this series if you just go by the actors’ ages. Obi Wan was supposedly late 30s in episode 3 with Anakin being 22 or so. I think the official timeline has Obi wan as 57 in Star Wars '77 with Vader being in his early 40s (which obviously clashes with his unmasked look in RoTJ). Now Ewan is 51 and Hayden is 41, so having them be 61 and 51 ten years from now in Star Wars '77 lines up somewhat better for me. Ditto Owen Lars with Joel’s current age lining up well with Phil Brown.

I’m really enjoying this show - and I’m pretty ruthless these days re Star Wars canon. To me it is (so far) bridging the gap between eps 3 and 4 in a way that makes the transition smoother. When I used to marathon the 6 films, it never felt like eps 3 and 4 were in the same universe, irrespective of the Tantive as a bookend. To me this series is just prequel-ish enough to emerge from ep 3 and just OT enough to slide into ep 4. It seems to me that such matters as the understated lightsaber duels, the measured pacing, and the not-as-eleborate-as-the-prequels environments are simply a stylistic choice to make this transition really work whilst also providing some of the emotional beats (ie a stronger tension between Obi Wan and Owen) that the prequels lacked. Of course the saga is a continuity shambles in general, so I’m curious as to how it will all hold up (at least in my mind) when this series is done…

I’m actually quite optimistic that this show will heal the breach between episodes 3 and 4. When I used to watch the 6 films in order, it never really felt like the OT was in the same universe as the PT (with the possible exception of RoTJ which does feel rather prequel-like). In this instance the actors are the right age to match their counterparts in ep 4, and the aesthetic mix of prequel-ness and OT-ness should make the transition to the OT much smoother. Plus I’m assuming the strengthening of the relationships between Obi Wan and Owen combined with some attention to known quotes (“Obi Wan once thought as you do” for instance) will make the saga more cohesive. Here’s hoping…

theprequelsrule said:

Interesting how a fair number of people see Vader being Luke’s father as, perhaps, not a great idea. Far fewer people thought this in the last century I would bet.

It was a great idea, but the follow-through was woeful. A certain point of view? No, I think Obi Wan should have revealed that he had promised Owen Lars he would run with the ‘Vader killed your father’ thing. The backstory should have been that it was Owen who had insisted on Luke being raised on Tatooine (Luke’s being supposedly ‘hidden’ there makes no sense) and retaining his brother’s surname. Then it would stand to reason that Obi Wan would retire nearby in order to keep an eye on Luke in the event that Vader might attempt to claim his son.

Eyepainter said:

If there’s one thing that bothers me about the OT (aside from what’s already been excluded from this topic), it would be how they handled Yoda’s line, “No, there is another.” It makes even less sense because Leia is already under threat when Yoda says it. Worse, he doesn’t know what the future holds on Cloud City, so why would this other person be Leia?

If you’re asking me, a new character should’ve been introduced to take the role. Yoda would meet up with him/her, Luke could run into this other person, they’d join forces, and if we’re gonna go with a rebel victory for the ending, this other person could lead the rebels while Luke confronts his father. I’m not saying that’s perfect, but it would be a better ending for ROTJ than what we got.

This has always bugged the heck out of me! Yes, Yoda and Ben had just told Luke to sacrifice Han and Leia for the greater good, and then Yoda followed with “now matters are worse”. Hardly sounds like a guy who had just sensed that Leia would be rescued and immediately groomed for Jedi-hood. interestingly she’s not “too old” to begin the training…

I always felt Boba Fett should’ve been the ‘other’. He could’ve been someone who had trained under Yoda, abandoned the training, and taken on the bounty hunter mantle in order to infiltrate the Empire by doing bounty gigs for Vader/Palpatine. Instead of killing his targets he would be sparing their lives and creating his own secret army somewhere (hence Vader’s “no disintegrations” line) - that would explain his determination to keep Han Solo alive. Ha could turn the tide of the final battle by bringing in his fleet of pals (kind of like Lando in TROS) while Luke confronts Vader…(of course I’m thinking of Fett circa 1980, not the modern version)…

Stardust1138 said:

Shopping Maul said:

I think the language/dialogue has a lot to do with it - particularly with Star Wars and Empire. Star Wars not only throws the audience into the middle of the adventure, it tosses around terms like ‘escape pods’ and ‘restraining bolts’ and ‘Bocce’…we’re hearing about the “binary language of Moisture Vaporators” like it’s completely normal/incidental. Tarkin speaks of the ‘Regional Governors’, Han owes money to someone called Jabba, power converters can be obtained at Tosche Station, and Dantooine is too remote to make an effective demonstration. The universe is full and alive. Only the Lightsaber seems to get an explanation - everything else is casually referenced as if everyone knows that losing the ‘lateral controls’ could be chancey during a dogfight.
I haven’t really thought about this in terms of the PT/ST though. Interesting…
Wonderful thread by the way!

I think the Prequels have it just as well as the Originals. Just in a slightly different way.

The Phantom Menace - We hear about the Angels on Iego from Anakin, we know the gungans don’t entirely like the surface dwellers on Naboo at first but we don’t know why, we learn about a race between Anakin and Sebulba before the one we see where Anakin crashed, and really if watched in sequence order we know R2-D2 is a R2 unit, we know C-3PO is a protocol droid meant to help out, and Anakin is destined to fulfill the prophecy talked about in lore the Jedi follow.

Attack of the Clones - We learn Qui-Gon’s master was Dooku, we learn Dooku left the Jedi Order, we learn Jango was recruited on the moons of Bogden, we learn Palpatine is staying in term long after it has expired but Padme contrasts this by giving up her position as queen to serve as a senator as shown, we hear a story of Clegg Lars and company going to look for Shimi, we learn about Jedi trials, and we have Anakin and Obi-Wan discuss falling into a nest of gundarks in their adventures together.

Revenge of the Sith - We hear about Anakin and Obi-Wan dealing with some kind of business on Cato Neimoidia, Yoda talks about having good relations with the wookiees, we learn about Darth Plagueis being able to potentially influence Midi-Chlorians to create life alluding to Anakin - which ended of being the Whills and Midi-Chlorians in reality, and we learn some character could cheat death.

There’s more of course but it’s been awhile since I’ve watched them.

George alluded to the subtle differences:

“I didn’t want to do the craziness or, as someone once described it, the ‘effervescent giddiness’, of the first film. I knew the story eventually had to go to a dark place, so I purposely darkened it down. I realised early on that the original trilogy was a plot driven, fable. The new trilogy is a history, a backstory, a personal dossier of all these characters.”

There’s a history and story that takes place alongside the confines of the stories we are shown on screen as there’s things going on that we only ever hear about or maybe see later in The Clone Wars series. However in sticking with just the films it adds a sense of realness and authenticity to the world building and characters. The Sequels have a couple of moments like this but not to the scale or scope of the first six films where there’s more going on and a real history to it. It really hurt things not having a time gap between the films. It really limited what could happen off screen and character motivations.

I agree. I think that’s Lucas’ strength really - building lore and worlds and context. For me the only thing that really detracted from this was making everyone related via the Luke/Leia/Vader thing. It kind of shrank the universe when initially Luke had been just one thread in a vast setting rather than the thread.

I agree with Rocknroll about the empty planets of TFA. Jakku should have been a true junkyard planet rather than Tatooine II, and the whole ‘Starkiller hyperspace laser that can be seen from all points in the Galaxy’ thing made the entire SW universe seem small and illogical. And who gives a damn about Hosnian Prime anyway?

TROS felt like the SW of old to me though. The references to Poe’s dodgy past and Lando’s account of post-ROTJ adventures with Luke gave the SW universe that ‘peripheral stuff happening’ vibe of the earlier movies IMO.

I think the language/dialogue has a lot to do with it - particularly with Star Wars and Empire. Star Wars not only throws the audience into the middle of the adventure, it tosses around terms like ‘escape pods’ and ‘restraining bolts’ and ‘Bocce’…we’re hearing about the “binary language of Moisture Vaporators” like it’s completely normal/incidental. Tarkin speaks of the ‘Regional Governors’, Han owes money to someone called Jabba, power converters can be obtained at Tosche Station, and Dantooine is too remote to make an effective demonstration. The universe is full and alive. Only the Lightsaber seems to get an explanation - everything else is casually referenced as if everyone knows that losing the ‘lateral controls’ could be chancey during a dogfight.
I haven’t really thought about this in terms of the PT/ST though. Interesting…
Wonderful thread by the way!

I always felt that Boba Fett should’ve been the ‘other’ Yoda was talking about. He could’ve been an ex-Jedi (or someone who’d abandoned traditional training) and taken on the bounty hunter mantle in order to win Vader’s good graces. The whole ‘no disintegrations’ thing would be because Boba had been doing jobs for Vader and secretly sparing the lives of his targets - thus creating an army of Empire dissenters and ‘criminals’ that would prove crucial in the conclusion of ROTJ (kind of like Lando at the end of TROS). This would account for his being so adamant that Han Solo be taken alive.
Best of all - no “Leia’s my sister”…

With regard to the Marcia Lucas thing, I’d say that no-one actually ‘gets’ Star Wars and that includes its creator. Lucas was famously ‘30% happy’ with the first film while we as fans were an obvious 100%. So arguably from the beginning Lucas himself didn’t get it. I’m not saying this to diss George, I’m just saying the whole thing is deeply subjective. I myself think Gary Kurtz is the one who ‘got’ it - but his vision for RoTJ and beyond rankles a lot of people.

Back to the ST, while I have my issues with TLJ I think Luke’s death (and the manner of his death) was one of the greatest moments in the saga.

Omni said:

I think once again it’s a lot more meta than anything. Mental gymnastics are required for Luke to be a legend in the galaxy - his story after Star Wars was very intimate and personal, not grand or anything. Lando, Han and Leia should rightfully become legends, but Luke? No one besides Leia and Han would even know he was on the Death Star anyway, the only people that saw him died…

Rian is playing up to Abrams’ fantasy of Luke being insanely powerful which was fed to him by over 30 years of Luke becoming the quintessential hero in pop culture - exactly because he’s not your common hero but much deeper than that, as Servii rightfully pointed - and of course the Legends stuff with Grand Master Luke Skywalker, single most powerful being ever to have been born.

Everyone expected Luke to be moving entire planets with his mind or something of the sort - he deserved it after going through such hardships in the OT. But life isn’t quite so good, and mistakes will haunt you until the end of time.

This right here is the problem - I’ve beaten this poor horse endlessly on these threads but to me the issue starts with RoTJ. Luke did not save the galaxy in RoTJ (beyond inadvertently preventing Palpatine’s escape from DSII). This sucks from the OT’s perspective because the whole ‘new hope’/‘only hope’ thing turned out to be BS - the Empire was defeated by basic war stuff. By extension the notion of the Galaxy (as expressed by TFA’s opening crawl) relying on Luke Skywalker to lead the charge against the First Order is immensely dumb. There is nothing in Luke’s actions (ie standing idly by while Palpatine destroys Rebel ships, refusing to fight Darth Vader, and finally throwing his weapon away for personal Zen reasons) that screams “yeah, let’s train a new order of pacifists to challenge this new threat”…

I see Star Wars in general as being a ‘band effort’ rather than the sole vision of one man. Yes, SW is/was Lucas’ creation, but the input of folks like Kurtz, Dykstra, MacQuarrie, Johnston, Burt, Marcia Lucas, Kershner, Kasdan etc etc really helped shape this universe significantly. If anything I see the PT as the equivalent of Mick Jagger reforming the Stones with an all-new lineup. So I don’t buy into the ‘George as canon’ thing at all. A Lucas-ST probably would’ve sucked.

Really cool thread and I’ve enjoyed reading all the posts - thank you all!

For me it’s a case of mostly agreeing with the general vibe - I liked TFA but the feeling kind of wore off, I didn’t like TLJ but it was very pretty to look at. Where I definitely part company with most folks is that I (to my genuine surprise) loved TROS and it remains my favourite SW movie since TESB. I just wish it had been called Revenge of the Jedi.

Bluto said:

Speaking of misheard lines, this one springs to mind from TESB:
“You truly belong here with us among the clouds,” said by Lando to Leia in Cloud City.

It wasn’t until relatively recently that I read the “among the clouds” on subtitles somewhere. For over 30 years, I thought he said, “You truly belong here with us modern class.”

Well when I was 9 I thought the Death Star was “orbiting the planet of maximum philosophy”…

Yes, it’s an alternate universe purely by virtue of being disendorsed by its creator. The way I see it, the original three films and any connected EU (Marvel Comics, Splinter, Zahn novels etc) are a completely separate canon that ends in 1997 at which point everything is rebooted.