Sign In


User Group
Join date
Last activity

Post History

What do you think of the <strong>Sequel Trilogy</strong>? - a general discussion thread

thebluefrog said:

7 and 8 do not link together. The characters from 7 are not the characters from 8,

Rey was someone in TFA,

Snoke was a mysterious new emperor in TFA, TLJ said he was a joke nobody

This is just, literally factually false

Kylo was Vader obsessed in TFA, 4 minutes later in TLJ (in universe time) he isn’t

This is character development

When people defend 8, they are defending their love of the movie and their parasocial love of Rian, not its cohesiveness in the trilogy or how well it meshes with the other 2 films.

This is probably true but doesn’t actually mean anything. TLJ fans would probably still like TLJ even if it didn’t link up well with TFA, but it doesn’t change the facts.

and ROS he is back to Vader obsessed.

There is no way that Rian thought she was a secret Palpatine when he made 8.

ROS then said he was back to being a mysterious new emperor (clone thing). This is on record that JJ did not expect Rian to kill off the big bad unceremoniously.

These are true but have nothing to do with how 7 and 8 link up whatsoever.

For the record, I don’t really buy that the contradictions between 8 and 9 have anything to do with this feud between JJ and Rian. Especially given JJ’s reaction to TLJ, his Rian’s involvement in TFA and JJ’s involvement in TLJ, and JJ’s… entire mentality and behavior during the production. I think it’s more likely that JJ doesn’t care enough about or have enough of a concrete idea of where he wanted to take the characters and story of the ST to really agree or disagree with Rian’s decisions in TLJ.

I mean, if JJ always wanted Rey to be a Palpatine or a Kenobi or whatever, or Snoke to be Mace Windu or Plagueis, you’d think he’d put literally any of that in TFA. Or at least say something about it to Rian during the production of TLJ.

Servii said:

The Rebellion didn’t treat Luke that way. They didn’t hinge all their hopes on whether or not he showed up to help. Despite his abilities, he was still just one man, and one small part of a larger faction.

This is a good point, but given that there’s more than a generation between RotJ and TFA, and given the in-universe circumstances of the ST compared to the OT, it’s not like it’s unbelievable they’d put that much fixation on Luke in TFA but not in ESB or RotJ.

TFA puts in a lot more effort setting this up than setting up any other alternative. They spend a lot of time going on about how the galaxy views Luke as this legendary badass, whose mere presence would turn the tide of the war. Compared to the complete lack of time they spend on why Luke coming back would be a big deal, like if he was making some secret weapon on the island or looking for some ancient Jedi artifact.

Prediction for Star Wars X, XI, and XII

Actually, I used to think Episodes 10-12 were inevitable, but now I don’t. Lucasfilm is definitely going to be putting more time into Disney+ shows from here on out, and while both spinoff movies were outperformed by all three ST movies, I don’t think that has anything to do with them being spinoffs. It just doesn’t look like they have a reason to make an Episode 10.

What do you think of the <strong>Sequel Trilogy</strong>? - a general discussion thread

Thinking Luke’s return would be a big deal makes sense in-universe. I mean, of course it does. Luke is the last Jedi. It’s a pretty normal reaction for the characters to have to Luke being gone. Luke not really wanting to return is also the most logical conclusion of what was set up in TFA: “Do you think that I came to the most unfindable place in the galaxy for no reason at all?”

This weird internet mythology that Rian Johnson’s prime motivation in making TLJ was to completely subvert expectations is just not true. He just said that phrase once behind the scenes and it got plastered all over the marketing. Rian constantly spoke about the exact opposite: TLJ was made as a straight line continuation from TFA.

What do you think of the <strong>Sequel Trilogy</strong>? - a general discussion thread

JadedSkywalker said:

some weird non commercial midichlorian movie.

That’s not the sequel trilogy that Lucas pitched. He’s had four entirely separate ideas for STs (that we know about, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many more we don’t know about), and chronologically, it seems like that’s the second one of the four.

Shopping Maul said:

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.

I 100% agree, and that’s probably the best explanation why I prefer the sequels to the prequels. The ST was made by fans, and while the fans have some pretty crazy ideas of what Star Wars is, they have a more holistic view. The prequels were just George Lucas putting in his own contribution, lacking everyone else’s vision which made Star Wars what it is.

If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place

Spuffure said:

I really hate it when people think the 1980s was the pinnacle of music and that 2010s/2020s music is the nadir of music.

It’s really the opposite. The 80s were probably the worst (modern) decade for music, but the 2010s were probably the best. Because in the mid 2010s, that’s when the mainstream started to fade away and artists which would’ve been stuck underground or with a super niche audience have been popular. In fact, probably because of this, music has definitely gotten smarter and more complex lately. Especially comparing it to the music from my grandparents’ generation, which sounds like it was written by five year olds. Not like that stops them from saying music has gotten dumber.

The only real reason someone can think that is a lack of familiarity. Like, yeah, the industry plants of today are probably worse than the industry plants of the 80s, but nobody on Earth listens to Billie Eilish.

I abhor the &quot;X undoes Y's accomplishments&quot; criticism so much.

Wanderer_ said:

TestingOutTheTest said:

What people don’t understand is that everything is temporary. What people think is that the victory of the OT only matters if it lasts forever.

That is true now for blockbusters where coherent … world building isn’t a thing

I mean, not saying that the victory of the OT should or shouldn’t have lasted forever, but the victory of the OT not lasting forever is undeniably far more coherent worldbuilding.

Favorite Episode title?

The Empire Strikes Back. There’s no screwing around, you know exactly what this movie is going to be about. It’s not that I think more interpretive titles or more vague titles are bad, but I just think it’s kind of funny how absolutely straight to the point it is. If you count “Star Wars” instead of “A New Hope”, this is why I’d also say “Star Wars” has the second best title.

George Lucas: Star Wars Creator, Unreliable Narrator &amp; Time Travelling Revisionist...

wocke said:

Interesting. Please post the link here. It’s the perfect topic to have such documentation for examination.

It’s… really not worth watching. He put it on back in, like, March, and the thread’s still up if you wanna see us talking about how awful of a video it is. He keeps posting it everywhere though and keeps getting a similar response, IDK why he’s so attached to it.

I would recommend though that OOJason remove the RocketJump video from this post. Despite the Nerdonymous video “debunking” it being pretty bad, the RocketJump video has some critical errors. Plus, RocketJump’s video really does not argue that Lucas deserves less credit for making the OT, and this post including this video to try to argue that point drags the post down. One bad point is enough to ruin a whole argument.

Also worth mentioning that trying to lessen the credit for George Lucas in the creation of the OT is just not really accurate. The editors deserve a lot of credit and the auteur theory conception of Lucas as the sole visionary behind Star Wars is wrong (as it always seems to be with creatives who try to lessen the contribution of their collaborators). But Lucas still was the director, he still wrote the story, and he was still the leader of the group that made the OT, and he still deserves to be credited as the creator of Star Wars.

If this post is meant to set the record straight, point #3 should be removed. It gives the wrong impression and goes too far in the other direction.


Similarly with number 39, it should probably also be removed, or at least very modified. I get the point that’s trying to be made: Lucas isn’t the only one who can claim authorship over ESB and RotJ, and so the “They’re his films” approach to the SEs doesn’t apply here. But it’s something that’s wishy-woshy and close enough to the realm of opinion that I don’t think it should be included. On top of the title being “Who made the Original Trilogy films…?”, that’s way too close to discrediting Lucas for me to be comfortable with.

Maybe it should be refocused to something about how Lucas once said he considered ESB and RotJ to be Kershner and Marquand’s movies, not his movies, but now he’s gone back on that.

wocke said:

He further opined that he felt Star Wars “wasn’t his film” because of all the others’ ideas and skills and talent that went into the movie it was becoming.

Also, I’d really like to see this quote if you know where it came from.