Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
I'm sorry to mention it, but... I find it really disappointing that the fandom bring up Mara's death or Jaina's disempowerment or the Mandalorian material as being the problems with LotF, and let this pass. All those things are problems - Jaina in Revelation is probably the worst of them - but it seems like the fandom just glided over the torture-and-sexual-abuse scene. Ugh.
I will stick to vicariously enjoying Expanded Universe material through the hilarious Expounded Universe podcast's epic-length takedowns of it. They're working their way through The Crystal Star right now and it's delightfully goofybubbles.
You are saying there's Star Wars experiences more unpleasant than watching Itchy getting off to his VR holoporn?
I was thinking of the bit in Invincible where a 28 year old woman sexually abuses a 14 year old, and the incredibly tasteless way in which it's presented. I don't care which Star Wars movies you prefer, that's not okay.
As with Luke in The Last Jedi, I found myself much more comfortable with the film if I stopped trying to pretend that Hamill’s or Fisher’s characters were the same people as their OT characters.
Well... in a very real sense they're not. They're 30 years older and a lot of shit happens in that span.
30 years ago I was grasping basic reading and numeracy. 30 years from now and I could end up with adult offspring having kids of their own. If people don't change radically in 30 years that would be a sign of incredible personal stagnation.
(At least in human beings. C3P0 seems to be the same as ever, probably because they've never bothered reprogramming him. R2-D2 the same, though we don't see much of him because presumably he's a bit like that creaky old Amiga you're a bit careful about booting up because you can't get the parts any more to repair it. Chewbacca remains Chewbacca, but if I remember right wookies have an absurd lifespan anyway so 30 years might not be such a big deal to him. Yoda a force ghost he is.)
For me, at least, that series is the worst and most unpleasant piece of Star Wars material ever published. Even the likes of The Crystal Star, The Glove of Darth Vader, or the much-maligned Holiday Special are merely goofy and stupid.
You are saying there's Star Wars experiences more unpleasant than watching Itchy getting off to his VR holoporn?
Well, as I’ve said, I don’t think there’s any defending Legacy of the Force. For me, at least, that series is the worst and most unpleasant piece of Star Wars material ever published. Even the likes of The Crystal Star, The Glove of Darth Vader, or the much-maligned Holiday Special are merely goofy and stupid. LotF genuinely feels quite misanthropic and awful, and I don’t like to be reminded of its existence if at all possible.
So I would have supported a retcon of LotF. I would, I suppose, support a retcon trimming of the EU down to The Unifying Force as the cut-off point, because once you cut the NJO I think you’ve probably lost too much that’s worthwhile. Still, as it is, I would rather have the EU plus the awful black mark of LotF than have the post-Disney canon, since even with LotF I feel there is more there that’s worth building on.
I understand why you might feel the opposite, so I’d be happy to leave it there, I guess?
But a few more comments just for the hell of it. ;)
Regarding the Empire in the Legacy comics, I’m actually not sure whether you mean the One Sith or the Galactic Empire under the Fels. I tend to treat them separately, although the One Sith do take over a significant proportion of the Empire. One of the most striking differences for me between the new and old continuities is the direction they’ve taken the Empire. The Empire in the films was always at least quasi-fascist. In the sequel films, it seems as though the Empire has fallen apart except for its most radical elements, who double down and become a genuinely fascist cult. In the EU, the Empire goes through several rounds of civil war, most of the extremists get themselves killed off, leaving moderates with the reins, and they end up reforming the Empire into a less fascist, perhaps even moderately respectable government. It’s like seeing both a ‘bad ending’ and a ‘good ending’ for the Empire: really interesting stuff. I love it from a roleplaying perspective, as it gives me more resources to build the Empire into anything I need it to be, including both ‘dark’ and ‘light’ versions.
Regarding using the old continuity in the new canon… ah, I might sound hypocritical here, but I’m actually not a fan of that. The First Order is a good example: I prefer for the new canon to do something entirely new, rather than retread old plots. I don’t need a new canon version of Thrawn if he’s just going to do the same thing as the old Thrawn, for example. So my preference would actually be for a quicker divergence. The same for a character like Mara Jade. I’m obviously a big fan of Mara, but to me it would feel hollow to have a new, pseudo-Mara separate from any of the stories in which Mara originally featured. I’d rather the new material do something genuinely new. If they were just going to do characters like Thrawn or Mara again, why jettison the EU in the first place?
Regarding the OT cast: I’m not sure I follow you here, because I felt their appearances here were not as robust as they were in the past, and sometimes do approach cameo status. Leia, for instance, feels to me like she appears mainly in order to baptise the new leadership of the Rebellion. I suspect I am also in the minority in not being very impressed by Carrie Fisher’s performance, but perhaps the less said about that the better. As with Luke in The Last Jedi, I found myself much more comfortable with the film if I stopped trying to pretend that Hamill’s or Fisher’s characters were the same people as their OT characters. For whatever reason, I can’t quite make that connection.
As to nihilism again… I guess it comes back to what I said at the start. Yes, there are parts of the EU that I ignore, and LotF is among them. I suspect most EU fans get into the habit of picking and choosing the material they like and ignoring the rest. For me, the sequel trilogy so far is better than LotF… but not actually by very much, and it comes at the cost of potentially building on a lot of material that I did enjoy. So for me personally, it was not worth it. If it was to you, though, well, I’m glad that you’re enjoying the films!
And in general, I've always had a bit of a looser interpretation of star wars cannon then a lot of people. By the time I really started getting into star wars there were already conflicting books. The original trilogy had their "improvements" added to them. A ton of games of varying levels of cannon which also contrasted each other. I don't feel bad about losing the expanded universe because I could never get into it.
I care more about this trilogy standing on its own. I'm still going to dock it if it moves away from what I consider star wars. But my closest tie to anything that came before was the clone war trilogy, which is pretty dark, and the old battelfront games.
I also know that differnt people will view this differently. And thats a good thing. It would be a pretty boring world of everyone shared aesthetic taste. And I'm sure as they make more movies the chanve of one being in the vein you want it too, and that I don't, will only go up.
Yeah, I think I said already that I thought The Last Jedi was a lot less derivative than The Force Awakens. Most of the stuff which feels like a rehashing rather than reconfiguation, as you put it, revolves around Kylo Ren, Snoke, and the First Order, which were already established in the previous movie, so Johnson and co.'s hands were somewhat tied. They could've tried to make Snoke a well-defined character distinct from the Palpatine archetype, but I don't really mind that they didn't. Likewise, while the Primary Climax in Snoke's Throne Room was painfully obvious due to how closely it paralleled the climax of Return of the Jedi, I've already explained why, in my mind, it still worked really well. The only other thing is that the Secondary Climax on Crait leaned a little heavily on Battle of Hoth imagery, but that's a trivial point.
I guess what worries me going forward is that because Kylo Ren plays so closely into the Darth Vader archetype, I find it difficult to imagine a conclusion to his storyline in IX that's 1) satisfying and 2) surprising. And because so much of the plot is bound up in defeating the villain, that means I have a hard time imagining a climax to the trilogy (and therefore the nine-movie cycle) that's satisfying and surprising.
Daniel F: I recognise that you can’t argue someone into changing an emotional reaction
Absolutely. And I'm not trying to change your mind on this - just trying to explain why, in my mind, swapping out the sequel trilogy for the old Expanded Universe is preferable.
I find it a bit difficult to parse your position on Legacy here.
Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. I disliked the Legacy comics for several reasons, but they're not my main source of ire.
The point I was trying to make was mainly about the Legacy era novels, especially Legacy of the Force and Crucible, which between them managed to irrevocably wreck pretty much every single one of my favorite Star Wars characters in one way or another, sometimes killing them off in the process*. Those books did so many things I dislike which are either absent from the sequel trilogy or much less annoyingly executed (which is not to say that it isn't still very annoying). About the only thing the books didn't do which the sequels sorta did, is have the Sith and Empire win and take over the galaxy again so that the heroes would be forced to retread the Rebellion Against the Empire plot from the original trilogy all over again. Except that's exactly what happened in the Legacy comics (and again, even more annoyingly in my highly biased and subjective opinion).
*Said wrecking being my main reason for happily bidding farewell to the EU. Before the 2014 announcement, the canonical ending to all my favorite characters' storylines was pretty much universally miserable and awful, which to me made all their earlier adventures feel like at best worthless, and at worst a sick joke at my expense.
So while my main contempt is reserved for Legacy of the Force, the set up of the Legacy comics solidified the Legacy era (and hence, very sadly, the Expanded Universe as a whole), as a much less desirable ultimate fate for the Star Wars universe and my favorite Star Wars characters than the sequel trilogy from my perspective. Does that explain it any better?
(Another nice thing for me about the sequels as opposed to the Legacy comics is that at least the original trilogy heroes get to play an active role in fighting back against the Sith 2.0 and Empire 2.0, rather than, at most, playing Force Ghost mentors to arguably the least likable protagonist in any Star Wars product ever.)
My counterpoint responses:
1) Sorry, I meant the Sith Empire's total victory at the start of the Legacy comics, in contrast to the First Order's partial victory at the start of the sequel trilogy. I realize it's not the most rational distinction and likely doesn't hold up under close scrutiny; but again, I never meant to imply these reasons are anything but subjective, and they work for me.
2) A large part of my annoyance is that in the case of both the sequel trilogy and the Legacy comics, it's not an unrelated threat they're facing - it's the same Empire and the same Sith (or near enough), sometimes without even the serial numbers filed off. Granted, the Legacy comics did slightly better than the sequels in not having one of the main antagonists be yet another Skywalker descendant who fell to the dark side - it just had utterly bland, by-the-numbers villains with often silly names and silly costumes, with the big twist being that their leader used to be a minor supporting character in the Republic comics. *Yawn*. And, again, LotF dipped into the Fallen Skywalker well (totally rewriting several established characters in the process), so the Legacy era and EU as a whole don't get a point over the sequels in that regard.
3) Fair enough. Personally, I love Rey, Finn, and Poe, and I really like Rose, so I find the sequel trilogy much more enjoyable on the strength of that alone. And on the flipside, while I kinda liked some of the supporting characters in the Legacy comics, none of them stood out for me to a sufficient extent to make up for the walking black hole of personality that served as the series protagonist.
I think that while Legacy has its problems, it was not nearly as… well, I hate to say it, but spiteful towards the OT’s legacy as the sequel trilogy feels so far, at least to me.
If you mean juts the Legacy comics then, well, I don't share your opinion, but I suppose I can see where you're coming from. I'm sorry the sequels don't work as well for you as they do for me. (If we're talking about the Legacy Era as a whole, then I don't know about spiteful, but I would definitely argue it was more cruel and mean-spirited towards them. By, like, a factor of 80. Trillion.)
Even if we say hypothetically that Legacy and the ST are equally as bad, I can at least ignore Legacy and enjoy decades of more interesting post-RotJ material
I guess that's the main difference in our outlooks, and one that's never going to go away. I couldn't ignore Legacy before the Disney deal, because canonically, that was the fate of all the good post-Jedi stories. Didn't matter how good they were, because I knew it all came to shit in the end. If you can view those stories differently, then more power to you, and I'm sorry the Disney canon isn't working as well for you.
it’s a bit sad that I’m not going to see any more material that uses the wealth of resources that was in the EU
I absolutely agree. I think that even with the old continuity jettisoned, there are still so many pieces which could have easily been incorporated into the new canon. And other pieces which would've taken more finesse, but still would've been possible and worth doing (I'm still sore they aren't including Mara Jade - she wouldn't have to be Luke's wife, and the rest of her story would fit in the new continuity okay). Planets, species, and cultures seem to be having an easier way finding their way in, and that'll probably continue, with the exception of specific, obviously problematic examples such as the Yuuzhan Vong or ysalamiri. While I personally count it a net gain, I acknowledge that the loss was profound.
Even if you’re absolutely committed to reusing the OT cast, there’s nothing stopping you from, say, setting the sequels two hundred years after RotJ and having Luke appear as a Force ghost, or including a few flashbacks where relevant
Looking at it from a marketer's viewpoint, though, casual fans who go to the theater to see a Star Wars movie aren't going to see nothing but cameos by the original trilogy cast. They're there to see at least some of the original trilogy folks in prominent roles. (And from my highly subjective viewpoint of a hardcore fan, if it means keeping the Legacy Era in continuity, then Fuck that noise.)
Thanks for sharing that article: there's some things I disagree with in it, but the analysis is uniformly excellent, and it raises many terrific points. I particularly like the discussion of the character arcs and how they carry the themes. The cool dismissal both of sexist and racist complaints against the movie, and of claims that it's some sort of revolutionary addition to the saga, are also highly appreciated.
The alternative is an infinite variety of OTHER options which aren’t destructively nihilistic to the Star Wars legacy: Palpatine Loyalists rebelling against the New Republic. A cold war in a galaxy divided between the Imperial remnant and the New Republic. Droid War. Extra-galactic invasion. Cryogenically frozen Sith army from 10,000 years ago waking up.
The sequel trilogy simply lacks ambition.
Strongly agree with this - except the cryogenically frozen Sith army, give them a rest, already. Again, though, the Expanded Universe did the exact same thing, so we're stuck with this asinine option either way.
As for the point about the characters:
Arthur: They are for me.
In particular, Leia in The Last Jedi gets to be bigger and better and more convincingly a badass rebel leader than she was at any point in the original trilogy.
I heartily agree, especially about Leia. With notable exceptions, much of the Expanded Universe (not even just the Legacy Era) didn't really do the character of Leia justice. Whereas not only did I think The Last Jedi serve her well, but also supplemental material like the Moving Target middle grade novel, and Claudia Gray's Bloodline and Leia: A Princess of Alderaan*.
*As an EU fan, I'm still mad at her writing Winter out of continuity in the latter, even though Winter isn't a particular favorite character of mine, because I think she makes a fantastic foil for Leia, and I like the idea of Leia having actual friends growing up. On the other hand, I give Ms. Gray major props for taking Breha, Leia's adopted mom, a literal placeholder character in every previous appearance - which were damn few to begin with - and turning her into an incredibly badass leader and mother figure in her own right. I also love her interpretation of Mon Mothma, even if she only appears briefly.
I can't see where that article is coming from, insinuating the sequel trilogy makes out the original cast to be abject failures. While I dislike that their victory over the Empire and the Sith was largely walked back, that's largely not because of their personal failures. They did their part, and it wasn't enough - which is still pretty pessimistic, but doesn't reflect back on them.
Leia, in particular, is clearly depicted in both movies as an incredible leaders: granted her side is mostly losing, but not for any failures of leadership on her part. Just because the galaxy went to shit doesn't mean Leia personally screwed up. Hell, she's the primary augur holding the whole damn Resistance together in the movies.
She's also shown to have good relationships with friends and co-workers, for the most part. Her only personal "failure" is in her relationships with her husband and her son. Well, political leaders often have imperfect home lives; she doesn't have to be competent at absolutely everything. And from what we see, it doesn't look like Kylo Ren's fall was any fault of hers, either.
Han, for his part, is obviously going through a bad patch when we see him in The Force Awakens, and has devolved to somewhere before he was at the end of Jedi - but not so far back as he was at the beginning of A New Hope. It's not a complete character reboot - he's not indifferent to the plight of others, it's more like he's given up on his own ability to act heroically and do good. But when there's an immediate, pressing need, he leaps into action without hesitation.
In the movie's climax he 1) succeeds along with the other heroes in facilitating Rey's escape from Starkiller Base; 2) successfully helps the Resistance destroy Starkiller Base by bringing down the shields and blowing up the core; 3) overcomes all the fear and regret weighing him down and confronts his son. Kylo's redemption, or lack thereof, was never in Han's hands, so its failure can't be put on him - he stepped up and did the best he could, which is the most anyone can do.
He and Leia are estranged, but they're still on amicable terms, and readily agree they had a good run.
Just because the guy has made some major mistakes and has lost a fair bit of ground doesn't make him categorically a failure. Anymore than the failure of the Empire to stay dead after he helped kill it makes him a failure.
Luke is a harder one to argue. I really wish Johnson and his collaborators had come up with a better reason for Luke to go into hiding than "he was running away." (Like that he was learning ancient wisdom to bring back at some later point, or hiding and training some survivors of the massacre, or gathering up mystical energy or something.) I don't quite buy him giving up and running away from it all after he failed in training Ben.
The failure itself, though - I could just about believe that. Sure, the tragic misunderstanding at the heart of it was melodramatic as all get out, but to me it seemed fitting with Luke's character. I couldn't see him actually trying to murder young Ben in his sleep, but I could absolutely see him succumbing to a moment of weakness. Don't forget, he was on the brink of murdering Vader at the end of Jedi before he came to his senses.
Sure, he doesn't seem to have accomplished much else before his confrontation with Kylo Ren at the end of the film, and like Han, he's clearly made a lot of huge mistakes. But, oh, I dunno, for whatever reason, he doesn't read to me as an abject failure, even before his dramatic comeback.
And, not caring one little jot if I slip into being a broken record here: the complaint of destructive nihilism, and rendering the heroes' accomplishments rendered ultimately meaningless, applies seventy-fold to the old Expanded Universe (and specifically the Legacy Era). At least in this canon they weren't transformed into complete assholes whom we're inexplicably still expected to root for by the end. I really, really wouldn't want to see a movie set in that continuity.
Maybe you don’t think that would be satisfying for fans of those characters, but I have to ask… are the sequel films that they made satisfying for fans of those characters?
They are for me.
In particular, Leia in The Last Jedi gets to be bigger and better and more convincingly a badass rebel leader than she was at any point in the original trilogy.
I find it a bit difficult to parse your position on Legacy here. As you recognise, all your criticisms of Legacy can be levelled at the sequel trilogy, and from where I’m standing, I think they actually apply far more relevantly to the sequel trilogy than to Legacy. Legacy is set over a century after RotJ, and there is still a successful living legacy of the OT characters: the surviving Jedi Order, the Galactic Alliance, even the existence of a sympathetic Empire faction is bound up with the actions of the OT characters post-Endor.
I can understand not liking Legacy - for what it’s worth, I don’t like it very much myself – but I have a hard time seeing it as so bad that it’s necessary to wipe the entire EU to get rid of it, especially if the only thing that you’re going to put in its place, the sequel trilogy, repeats all of Legacy’s ostensible sins in a more extreme form.
To the specific counterpoints you made… 1) the Sith in Legacy were in fact defeated, by an Imperial-GA alliance, and they didn’t exactly reign very long, so I’m not sure this follows, 2) I don’t think the rise of an unrelated threat and then that threat’s defeat necessarily invalidates the actions of previous heroes, and 3) while I agree with you that Cade Skywalker in particular is a pillock, all I can say is that I didn’t really fall in love with any of the sequel trilogy’s characters. I liked Finn and Rose, but most of the others I either felt neutral and uninspired towards (Rey) or actively disliked (Poe). I would take Marasiah Fel or Antares Draco over the sequel trilogy characters, I think. That’s not to say that I loved them, but I was a bit more enthusiastic about them.
Still, I recognise that you can’t argue someone into changing an emotional reaction, and the characters in particular are such a deeply subjective matter that there’s little more to say.
I suppose I think that while Legacy has its problems, it was not nearly as… well, I hate to say it, but spiteful towards the OT’s legacy as the sequel trilogy feels so far, at least to me. Even if we say hypothetically that Legacy and the ST are equally as bad, I can at least ignore Legacy and enjoy decades of more interesting post-RotJ material, whereas it seems like the ST is intended to serve as a foundation stone.
Of course, I still have those decades of material available, so that’s all good… but it’s a bit sad that I’m not going to see any more material that uses the wealth of resources that was in the EU.
So for me, that’s a net loss. That is a massive net loss, and even if I really loved the sequel films, it would not probably not be worth it to me. As it is? I don’t particularly like the sequel films.
Finally, as regards how to make new films… I think there are other options there? Even if you’re absolutely committed to reusing the OT cast, there’s nothing stopping you from, say, setting the sequels two hundred years after RotJ and having Luke appear as a Force ghost, or including a few flashbacks where relevant. Maybe you don’t think that would be satisfying for fans of those characters, but I have to ask… are the sequel films that they made satisfying for fans of those characters?
It’s the “Jake Skywalker” criticism. When it comes to the use of the OT characters, I think I mostly side with Justin Alexander's review: a lot of the sequel films works well on its own merits, but works best if you mentally divorce it from any continuity with the OT.
Fair points. As a matter of fact, you've touched upon one of my biggest criticisms of the sequel trilogy: the fact that so much of it is regurgitating plot points and archetypes from the original trilogy. Indeed, that's a central component of criticism of the sequel trilogy (and goes thirty-fold for my criticism of the Legacy era). Part of it is, indeed, that it's a violation of what as I see as the storytelling spirit of the saga (which I admit is a somewhat subjective viewpoint), and the other part is that it's done in the service of recycling large honking swathes of previous stories - mostly the original trilogy. I find this an incredibly lazy and creatively stunted approach to take. My attitude is: I've already seen this story done once, and probably liked it, now can you give me something new, please? The fact that it also maybe offends some of my sensibilities about the underlying spirit and sensibility of the franchise is just added insult.
For example: I dislike the idea of having one of Anakin Skywalker's descendants turn to the dark side and lead the heavily fascist-inspired villains against the heroes because to me it undermines the optimistic ending to the original trilogy (and by extension, the prequel trilogy), which is something I care about very deeply. But mostly, I object to it because I find it massively derivative and creatively vacuous. "Instead of coming up with an imaginative new villain who fits the Star Wars feel, let's repurpose the Vader, Palpatine, and Empire archetypes so we can run through the same basic scenario as the original trilogy, with some major or minor adjustments."
Granted, they're doing a lot of new and interesting things with Kylo Ren, at least - or they would if they'd gotten an actor who could make all that convincing - but they're still using the Vader archetype as a touchstone for their villain, and constantly invoking the surface trappings of the iconic stories in this way makes the universe of the films feel smaller to me, not larger.
And even then, it's not as if such storytelling laziness (as I see it) is necessarily a dealbreaker: I think that I'm not nearly so inflexible as I've obviously come across in my previous posts. I really, really liked The Force Awakens and thought it was a good Star Wars movie, despite my qualms with how it all wound up for the original trilogy, and how derivative it all was, because it still delivered a fun and engaging story with enjoyable, likable characters. I thought The Last Jedi was a good movie, perhaps a great movie, and I've tried to make clear that most of my complaints against it are entirely personal and subjective, and not something I feel the filmmakers absolutely ought to have done differently.
And as for my remaining drawbacks, all I've said is that I'm not sure if The Last Jedi is a good Star Wars movie. As we've established, every franchise has to explore new territory in some direction or other, or else it will become stagnant very quickly. And because every franchise is composed of a vast plethora of elements, people are going to have differing opinions about which elements are intrinsic to it and which are superfluous, so any new property is, indeed, going to tread on someone's toes. You need to expand your parameters, and you're never going to please absolutely everyone.
At the same time there is what in marketing terms they call "brand recognition." You can mess around with the surface details quite a lot, but you don't want to stray too far away from the core ideals of your brand. There's a reason we have the term "off-brand," and why it's generally not a complimentary term.
I would tentatively identify "an optimistic outlook," "thrilling adventure," "heroes who for the most part are unambiguously heroic" (instead of, say, anti-heroes), "a largely black and white moral framework," and "a very happy ending" as some of the core ideals of the Star Wars brand. If my notion about what constitutes the core of the Star Wars brand is correct - and it easily might not be - then I think it would be fair to criticize a flagship Star Wars product as being off-brand, even if it's fantastic in every other way, if it strays too far away from those ideals. If, to take an extreme hypothetical example, Episode IX were to end with the villains winning and taking over the galaxy and all the heroes either dead or co-opted to the dark side, then it be a movie which blows frickin' Citizen Kane out of the water in terms of film quality, and I'd still defend fans for denouncing it as a bad Star Wars movie. (I'm also uneasy about the prospect of not getting a redemption story for Kylo Ren in the movie, but not having seen it, I can't say categorically that it wouldn't work within the Star Wars brand.)
Yes, being "on-brand" constrains the franchise, but there are still an infinite number of stories you can tell within those constraints. Just as there are an infinite number of stories you can tell within the constraints of, say, the Tolkenian Middle-Earth brand, but stray too far from the core ideals and you get, well, Shadow of War.
In terms of Last Jedi, my sticking point is whether the somber, brooding nature of the film is too far removed from the adventure story nature of the movies which preceded it, including its original trilogy analogue Empire. I could believe that it goes too far, but I could just as easily believe that it doesn't. In fact, my expectation is that most probably, Episode IX will deliver a story so on-brand (and will also be overly derivative) that in hindsight, the more sober attitude of Last Jedi will work neatly as part of the greater whole, and most - though by no means all - fans will regard it in a more favorable light.
(I should also emphasize that, as I alluded in previous posts, I think the Star Wars franchise has room to mess around even with some of its core ideals outside of the flagship products without necessarily going off-brand. I think Rogue One succeeded at this, as did many old Expanded Universe stories which had more cynical attitudes, complex morality, downbeat endings, downright grimdark sensibilities, or similar deviations, but weren't directly attached to the original trilogy cast or the fate of the galaxy post-Jedi.)
tl;dr: there are many things about the sequel trilogy which I complain about because I dislike personally, but don't necessarily affect their quality as movies in general or Star Wars movies specifically. There's a much smaller subset of things where my personal dislike overlaps with a profound exasperation at what I see as a serious failure of creativity and imagination on the filmmakers part - but which I still think fall far short of ruining them either as movies in general or Star Wars movies specifically. There's also a tiny, tiny subset of actual or potential elements which I think could potentially undermine Episodes VIII and IX as good Star Wars movies - regardless of their qualities in general - but even there, I'm not convinced at this stage and I ultimately come down on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt.
There's a lot of things I want and expect out of Star Wars ...
That could pretty much be the motto of any given discussion of Star Wars, to be honest.
It's pretty evident from your posts on the subject that you have an extremely tightly defined personal vision of what Star Wars should be, which if it brings you joy then great but at the same time seems to be a recipe for disappointment. Ultimately, the only way the franchise can continue at all without treading on one person or another's investment is by simply ceasing to produce new product, because you can't get away with regurgitating literally the same thing over and over indefinitely; anything which does anything genuinely new with a fictional setting is intrinsically going to end up changing the parameters of that setting by doing so.
If there's one thing which the reactionary backlash to The Last Jedi has confirmed in my mind, it's that yoking a significant portion of your emotional well-being to a particular fictional franchise perpetuated as a business is a dangerous game. For me the only way to stay sane in fandom is to retain a clear understanding that other people's IP isn't your ballpark, and as welcome and comfortable as you may feel in it you're never going to be as secure or able to declare the parameters as you would be with your own creative work.
People keep making that point and I keep thinking "the galaxy just had some 30ish decades of comparative peace. That's frankly rare even on our one little planet."
It would be surprising if it came out that the real reason for all the discord and troubles on our nice planet is because it is actually the setting for a popular franchise owned by a large for-profit corporation that will keep on making more and more sequels as long as someone is interested, no matter how many times zombie Hitler needs to implausibly ride again.
This is not a commentary for the new film, which I haven't seen, but mean to and feel cautiously optimistic about. Although I guess at this stage of the hypewave and backlashes it will be hard to be super psyched and excited at the movies.
My reading of the original trilogy is that the defeat of the Palpatine and the Emperor in Return of the Jedi is that this is supposed to be a major game-changer. After this, it's never going to get as bad as it was before. Star Wars has always been a fantasy, so why not give the heroes a permanent victory? When it comes to Star Wars especially, I have higher standards for fiction than I do for real life.
That doesn't preclude new challenges and struggle (as the early Expanded Universe proved). You don't have to face the characters with the exact same problems and circumstances over and over and over again.
Hey, if it works for you, wonderful, but not me.
I keep thinking "the galaxy just had some 30ish decades of comparative peace.
I think I might have more sympathy for this argument if we'd been shown some evidence of how the galaxy benefited from those 3ish decades of peace (30 I might have been more mollified by), so that it felt more real to me. But yeah, on the whole, I still don't see why permanent victories shouldn't be possible in Star Wars. Who's to say the cycle can't be broken eventually?
This trilogy has already done several things that made me ask “What was the point of the original trilogy, then?” but that seems like much too much.
People keep making that point and I keep thinking "the galaxy just had some 30ish decades of comparative peace. That's frankly rare even on our one little planet."
Literally the entire point of the new movies is that you don't get to sit back and rest on your laurels when it comes to opposing fascism. Otherwise you get, well, 2017. The fact that they're having to refight the fight their parents' generation thought doesn't mean their generation accomplished nothing any more than the rise of the extreme right today renders WWII a retroactive Allied loss.
My inability to read Kylo Ren is anything other than a complete joke of a character isn't a complaint about the movie, exactly - it's far too entertaining - just an observation that it sabotages the effect they're going for.
I don't feel like Finn is with anyone, Rose kissed him, not the other way around. I personally ship Finn and Poe.
Sadly, I don't think Lucasfilm is bold enough to have a canon gay main couple in a saga film. And I'll note that it wasn't just Rose kissing him - at the very end when they're all on the Falcon together, there's that scene where Rey looks over at Finn laying a blanket over Rose, which by itself is an innocuous gesture, but it's very much framed as him having chosen her over Rey. Also, I can't see the narrative point of introducing a new character in this movie to have unrequited love for one of the established main characters unless (it would be to kill her off tragically, which Last Jedi thankfully failed to do). Whereas I can see the narrative point of introducing a new character to be a mutual love interest for an established main character if for some unfathomable reason you wanted to eschew the already established potential love interests from the last movie.
I don't read Finn leaving as cowardly because it seems like the smart thing to do. Rey is presented as the best hope for the rebellion, she is going to be the big hero and everyone knows they need her to have any chance. Espcially of she brought back Like, which would of been a hope of the other chracters in the movie. Of he hadn't taken the transponder off the ship she would of walked into a trap.
You could make that argument, but Finn doesn't try to, and that kind of tactical thinking doesn't seem in character for him. Whereas running away from the First Order - and trying to get Rey away from them, too - and disregarding the wellbeing of the rest of the Resistance is very in character for him from Force Awakens. Trying to steal the escape pod seemed perfectly in keeping with that characterization.
The "joke" with him and Rose in that first scene together didn't read to me like she was mistaking his actions for cowardly when they were really strategic, but that he really was being cowardly, ha-ha.
And just like with The Force Awakens, I don't think Finn acting cowardly precludes him being courageous and taking risks. My read of Finn is that he can be brave, but he sometimes has to be pushed into it by people like Rose and Poe.
The force awakes had a number of Nazi parallels and the opening battle was very grim. But those are still pretty much fantasy tropes too.
More particularly, like so much of Force Awakens, they were lifted directly from the original trilogy - specifically, A New Hope. Last Jedi and Rogue One as military sci-fi I can totally see, though.
Also I'm not thinking about these as a final trilogy.
Oh no, I didn't mean to suggest this is the end of the franchise. Even before they announced a new Rian Johnson trilogy, I knew they were going to keep cranking out more movies.
But as I understand it, Episode IX is supposed to be the finale to the numbered films. I'm sure I read it announced somewhere that it's intended to be the end of the Skywalker family saga. So my assumption is that it's going to serve as an ending to the story begun in the original trilogy, and continued in the prequels and the sequel trilogy. Even if it's not the end of the franchise, that still makes it a grand finale, which is how my expectations for it are set.
(It kind of has to be a grand finale for the original trilogy's main three, considering two of their characters are dead, and the remaining characters' actor is sadly dead as well.)
Oh I want to be clear, I hope Billy Dee is brought into the next movie. I like Lando.
I don't feel like Finn is with anyone, Rose kissed him, not the other way around. I personally ship Finn and Poe.
I did like how Lukes story played out. I feel like if the whole universe is placed on one person again and again they either have to break or become a super Marry Sue, in order for me to see him as a hero he kind of had to fail, maybe not in that exact way, but withdrawing from everything is how I would of written it.
By these movies I mean all three of the new ones, but more rouge one and the last jedi. The force awakes had a number of Nazi parallels and the opening battle was very grim. But those are still pretty much fantasy tropes too.
Rouge one and the last jedi both make me think of war movies, especially ww2 ones. Rogue one pits me in mind of movies which take place in the French resistance or something similar, while the last jedi is a story of a small military force trying to escape a larger force after a battle goes badly, and slowly being worn down by attrition. The space battles are referred to in nautical terms, the bombers are ww2 eat super bombers. The tone is darker and more desperate, and some of the characters actions make sense in a military movie, but not a fantasy. Such as not telling a recently demoted soldier information they would normally revive, but now don't hold the rank too. I guess a lot of these are asthetic choices. And the large part played by the force of course draws in more into fantasy with magic and wise mentors and stuff. But even if they aren't straight mil-sci fi they are alot closer then the original trilogy.
I don't read Finn leaving as cowardly because it seems like the smart thing to do. Rey is presented as the best hope for the rebellion, she is going to be the big hero and everyone knows they need her to have any chance. Espcially of she brought back Like, which would of been a hope of the other chracters in the movie. Of he hadn't taken the transponder off the ship she would of walked into a trap. And someone had to take it away from the escape pod to prevent it simply being picked up after. That's how I read that scene. And I know it's alot of personal interpretation, but I feel its how the characters were presented. Finn volunteers for a very dangerous mission give minutes later in the film, which I feel is also a point against him acting cowardly.
Also I'm not thinking about these as a final trilogy. There were ealier whispers of at least 3 more numbered movies. And its made over a billion dollars. Disney is going to keep making movies as long as it makes money.
I figure we will get an old republic series or something similar to the Yuuzhan Vong war at some point.
For sure, there were a number of old Expanded Universe books which were better than either the sequel films or any of the books in the new canon (though several of the latter are quite good, particularly Claudia Gray’s contributions). And even the not so good ones that retained the spirit of upbeat adventure from the original trilogy I still have a soft spot for. As for the X-wing books, it’s been a while, but I think Starfighters of Adumar may have been genuinely excellent.
I actually even mostly enjoyed New Jedi Order, except for 1) killing off Anakin Solo, and 2) the massively sexist double standard between the Solo twins’ storylines. Sure NJO was grimdark at times, but not to excessive degrees (unlike the Legacy era), and it genuinely brought something new and semi-interesting to the table (unlike the Legacy era and the sequel trilogy).
But my favorite characters and stories always revolved around the Skywalker-Solo clan and the other original trilogy characters like Chewie, Lando, and the droids. And I’m so much of a continuity thinker that I can’t separate the early stories which I love from the later stories where they all get mucked up. The Last Command and Vision of the Future have happy endings … except not, because canonically, Mara gets killed off in an incredibly asinine way a decade or so later, Luke becomes a murderer, and then, eventually, a dictator (at least when it comes to other Jedi).
The Solo children are pretty cute … but one of them gets killed off in his late teens, another has his character entirely rewritten so the writers can beat the Fall of Anakin Skywalkerd horse some more, and winds up getting killed by the third (who, as I’ve already mentioned, is treated as a second stringer for no good goddamn reason for the longest time, and when Crucible rolls along, seems quite happy with her uncle’s aforesaid Jedi dictator shtick).
But at least they saved the galaxy from the Sith and the Empire in Return of the Jedi, right? Nope! It makes no real difference in the end, because by the time of the Legacy comics, a mere 140 years later, the Sith are back, have once again taken over the galaxy, and hit a giant fucking cosmic reset button to put the galaxy back into the exact same fucking position it was in at the beginning of A New Hope; because, again, rehashing the original trilogy. The actual story itself was kinda good, I guess, but the premise drove me up the wall because it means that not only did all of my favorite characters canonically live incredibly shitty lives, but all their accomplishments were ultimately pointless because the galaxy wound up in exactly the same place anyway.*
*Admittedly, one could level similar criticisms against the sequel trilogy—and that is one of my biggest complaints against it. However, the sequel trilogy has a leg up over the Legacy comics for me because 1) I can tell myself the First Order’s victory over the good guys isn’t as total as the Sith Empire’s in the comics, so maybe the heroes did accomplish something lasting after all, even if we haven’t seen it; 2) it doesn’t invalidate as many victories on the heroes’ side anyway (since all the intervening EU books aren’t canon); and 3) the sequel trilogy at least has the decency to give me heroes who are actually likable and worth rooting for. Also, it doesn’t shit all over the the original series cast to anywhere near the same extent the Legacy novels did. And hey, it’s nice to see Chewie back in action.
The bottom line for me personally is that having the Legacy era as the endpoint for my favorite characters and their stories is a fate much worse than having all the stuff I loved jettisoned from canon entirely.
I would’ve been horrified if the new movies had taken place within the EU canon—because that would validate the Legacy era as the endpoint of the Skywalker-Solo family’s stories, and again, in my view that’s a fate worse than oblivion. But from an industry perspective, I can see the point that with a new trilogy, you want to revisit the original trilogy cast, and that’s what audiences—most of whom haven’t read the Expanded Universe at all, let alone extensively—are going to want as well. So you either get your movie hopelessly bogged down in decades of continuity which limits your story telling room and only serves a fraction of your audience; or you throw out the Expanded Universe altogether; or you try to do this weird hybrid thing and get yourself hopelessly bogged down in the details.
I can totally understand the logic behind trashing the Expanded Universe. I would doubtlessly have been outraged over it … except, as I’ve mentioned, I view the Legacy era as a polluting influence which sucked the joy out of literally all the stories which came before it. So yes, the price of expunging it from canon was very high, but as far as I’m concerned, the net gain was more than worth the loss. I miss the good stories, but in my mind, they’re in a better place now.
Robjec: I think it may of been my favorite star wars movie, and almost explusivly for the reasons Robinson listed for not liking it.
Really? Interesting. I have two reservations about all the Heavy Drama in the movie, the first aesthetic and the second storytelling based. My aesthetic qualm is that I don’t know if that level of seriousness and bleakness is appropriate for a Star Wars saga movie (I could see it working in an anthology film, but even Rogue One didn’t feel half so bleak, despite
My storytelling complaint is that those lingering shots right before the Big Dramatic Moment sap tension and excitement rather than enhancing them. Such shots can work to heighten the drama, but only if used very sparingly and very judiciously. Otherwise, you’re telegraphing what’s about to happen and how I should feel about it, rather than just letting it happen and allowing me to work out for myself how to feel about it.
As far as my other complaints: well, maybe you like how they handled Luke—fair enough. And maybe you prefer Finn with Rose rather than with Rey or with Rey and Poe—fine. And maybe you don’t care about the lack of Billy Dee Williams or are just as happy not to have him included—if so, then I’m greatly puzzled, but okay, whatever.
We’ve already established that you are able to take the character of Kylo Ren as portrayed by Adam Driver seriously. I’ll probably never understand how, but all right. Those were my biggest reasons for disliking it—I must say that, tone aside, they seem like rather odd reasons for you to like it, but okay.
As for the tone:
these movies feel more military sci-fi then the old ones, with less fantasy tropes being used, even if they are still using fantasy trappings. For me that's more of what I want, and what I feel both the cartoon series worked with.
By “these movies” do you mean Last Jedi and Force Awakens, or Last Jedi and Rogue One? Because if you’re arguing the former, can you explain a little more how Force Awakens seems more like military sci-fi?
Either way, I guess I see what you mean about the movies and the cartoons, and I’m not inherently opposed to a military sci-fi spin on Star Wars—hell, the Timothy Zahn novels were my introduction to the franchise, and they were military sci-fi with spellcasting. But his books were also adventure stories first and foremost, as are Clone Wars and Rebels (the latter of which also had the decency to bring in Billy Dee Williams a couple times). So were The Force Awakens and even Rogue One. (And apart from That One Scene in Force Awakens, when they did dramatic moments they never felt the need to hit me over the head with how dramatic they were being.) The Last Jedi feels different to me in that it’s a serious, brooding story with occasional adventure elements. Which, again, I don’t even necessarily dislike; I’m just not sure if it’s a fitting tone for a main saga film.
I also honestly didn't see any of Fin's actions in this film as cowardly, and an not sure where that reading comes from
Interesting. I think the scene where he first meets Rose—where he tases him for trying to nick an escape pod—was obviously intended to be read as Finn behaving cowardly. Yeah, he’s trying to find Rey, as well, but mostly he’s trying to save his own skin and never mind what happens to all the other members of the Resistance; which in American cinema parlance, at least, reads as cowardly. Can you break down a little more how your interpretation differs?
Oh, also, congratulations on first post. Welcome to the site.
Arthur: Perhaps the downfall of the Sith is that they go to the Dark Side looking for cool powerz when in fact it's a thing for revelatory self-knowledge.
I really like this interpretation, because there’s no place in my worldview for Evil as a force of nature. I much prefer the interpretation of the light side and dark side as two opposing forces, both of which have positive and negative aspects (thus the prophecy of restoring balance between the two). The short lived EU comic series Dawn of the Jedi took this approach, and was one of the many things I loved about it.
I disagree about Kylo Ren. I mean, yeah, he’s supposed to be an emo dweeb fanboy; but both this movie and the last also try to sell him as a serious dramatic character, who’s tragic and dangerous and full of pathos and genuine internal conflict that goes beyond just over-the-top angst. It wants me to view him as all these things despite being an emo dweeb fanboy, which is a difficult balance to achieve—and for me, Adam Driver fails to strike that balance. He comes across the whole movie as a walking joke, which undermines the scenes of his which are supposed to be dramatic and emotional.
I read an article about a week after seeing the film, where the author praised the fact that with Kylo Ren, the Star Wars franchise—for the first time in its film history, and in glaring contrast to the other big budget blockbusters currently dominating the box offices—had finally delivered a complex villain. I read through that whole piece thinking, ‘interesting points, but no, no, he absolutely isn’t a complex villain; he’s written as one, but his portrayal is that of a laughable pushover, simple as that.’
Actually, I also said last time around that Hayden Christensen would’ve been an excellent Kylo Ren, and I stand behind that statement, too. He wasn’t a very good Darth Vader or Anakin Skywalker (except when he’s playing off Ewan McGregor), but those qualities which dragged down his performance in the prequels are exactly the traits which the Kylo Ren character needs to work. Okay, so his tragic side and internal conflict didn’t come out so well in the prequels, but I think that with better direction he could pull that part off—better than Adam Driver, certainly.
Arthur: I also have a sneaking suspicion that there isn't going to be a redemption narrative for him. It is not an ironclad rule of storytelling that there must be one, and the entire thrust of his stuff in The Last Jedi seems to have hinged around the idea that actually, sometimes, even if someone seems to have better qualities somewhere deep within them and are a bit conflicted about what they've been doing, you are not necessarily going to be able to reach them and constantly looking for ways to "redeem" them means you end up losing the opportunity to defeat their agenda.
Oh, wow, I hadn’t even considered that possibility. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a good message, but maybe not a good message for Star Wars. It works in The Last Jedi because the middle chapter is the one where everything goes wrong—and because the filmmakers aren’t going to redeem the villain they’ve deluded themselves into thinking audiences will go wild over in the second movie. But failing to redeem the tragic villain at the end of the series—in direct contrast to the ending of the original trilogy—seems much too cynical a move for the final act of the saga. This trilogy has already done several things that made me ask “What was the point of the original trilogy, then?” but that seems like much too much. It’s the kind of bullshit they’d pull in the old Legacy era, but so far, the Disney canon seems thankfully above that nonsense. (Not that I give a damn about the character of Kylo Ren, you understand, because, again, walking joke, but I find this possibility pretty disquieting in a discursive level.)
I think that's where a lot of the split comes down to, these movies feel more military sci-fi then the old ones, with less fantasy tropes being used, even if they are still ussing fantasy trappings.
Yes, I can sort of see that. One of the things I noticed is that for the purposes of Empire Strikes Back the wider Rebellion isn't especially relevant after the Hoth sequence - it's all about Leia and Han's getaway and Luke's Jedi training after that. Whereas the action of The Last Jedi effectively takes place against the backdrop of a single long, rolling battle in which the fate of the Resistance military forces hangs in the balance.
As far as Rey's parents being an irrelevance, I will point out that it's not just Kylo Ren who says that. When Rey goes into the Dark Side cave on Jedi Island and looks into the Mirror of Erised and asks to see her parents, she sees herself. That's crucial: it's an absolutely explicit statement that for all intents and purposes she herself is the author of her own existence, and her parents are not actually important there.
Which leads on to the important stuff we learned about the Force this time: the Dark Side not only exists in perpetual equilibrium with the Light Side, but it also is a viable source of self-knowledge. The Dark Side pit on Jedi Island is extremely reminiscent of the cave Luke has his Vader vision in on Dagobah. Perhaps the downfall of the Sith is that they go to the Dark Side looking for cool powerz when in fact it's a thing for revelatory self-knowledge.
That leads us on to what's actually kind of brilliant about the movie: the one fighting hardest for peace is Kylo Ren. His whole agenda for the movie is to wipe out the Resistance and Snoke alike, for the sake of ending the cycle of galactic wars and attaining equilibrium via stagnation and stasis, whilst Rey goes for equilibrium via dynamism and takes actions that ensures that the wars will continue - and is heroic for doing so because Kylo's offering an unacceptable peace.
I have to say, the reaction to star wars by the fans seems to be pretty heavily split down the middle. I think it may of been my favorite star wars movie, and almost explusivly for the reasons Robinson listed for not liking it.
I also have to say I agree with Arthur about Adam Driver. With the addition that Kylo feels more real to me then the old star wars villains. He is someone who has a lot of power which he doesn't quite know what to do with, who is in a position of power due to the actions of earlier family members, and seems to care more aboit preserving that power then anything else. He reads to me like a second or third generation dictator in real life would, and that grounding makes Kylo much more intimidating to me.
I think that's where a lot of the split comes down to, these movies feel more military sci-fi then the old ones, with less fantasy tropes being used, even if they are still ussing fantasy trappings. For me that's more of what I want, and what I feel both the cartoon series worked with. But I can see why this would seem to split the fandom so much.
I will agree that the Lea scene had horrible cgi. And that Rey's family history as related by Kylo can't be trusted, and while I want her to be a nobody, that still hasn't been supported by any of the movies in either direction.
I also honestly didn't see any of Fin's actions in this film as cowardly, and an not sure where that reading comes from, although I've seen them several times now online.
Sorry if any of this feels like beating a dead horse, I'm sure all of this has been argued to death in every other forum out there.