Does anyone else feel that the new films ruined the ending of ROTJ?

Sounds like your a Quentin Tarantino fan....

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 4, 2020, Original Post Date: Oct 4, 2020 ---

In all fairness most films don't go deep into any characters past as most films and standalones and dont require it to tell the story.
Super hero, fantasy or science fiction genre seem to be the exception for character backgrounds.... (SW, Star Trek, Alien..etc ) given their popularity for sequels and spin-offs.
We all know the background of Luke, Captain Kirk, Captain America, Jason (), Freddy....but would anyone really care for a Michael Corleone, Doc Brown or Wyatt Earp origin story...

 

No, I don't enjoy Tarantino films.
Mostly because they come off to me as trying to be provocative or different too much.

Be a weird unicorn, go for it, but I want to feel that it's natural and not contrived - the film can feel contrived all you want, that's fine - just not your "youiness", and his "youiness" feels fake as hell and contrived...whether it is or not.

I have the same issue with Burton.
No issue at all with Anderson or Hitchcock.

As to backstories. That wasn't really the point.
Indy's backstory wasn't the point. It was that Ark kicks up very much like ANH. Like we are jumping into a story that has another film before it that put this one into motion and motivated everything, but you didn't see it.

If it were up to me, as you asked, I would kick off at 4 because that is a part of the art of this Saga cinematically. It's absolutely famous for that bold move that Ladd had to fight for at Fox which, among many things, confused the crap out of them.

It's part of Star Wars' curation of paying homage to cinematic history, and I find that incredibly wonderful as a part of it.

You can watch Star Wars (1 - 6) and study them and as a result be waltzed through a sort of museum of film.

Tarantino does this as well, and I would love to love his films because in between the pointless provocations, he shines and does similar things. It's very clear he loves film.

Same with Anderson.

Some artists tuck a tour of other films and ideas from the past into their work, and it's lovely.
It doesn't matter that 90+% won't spot it without being told.

What matters is that it informs the creation of the art.

It's terribly important to Star Wars, and it's one very critical aspect that is for the most part missing from the ST that I wish wasn't (also missing from R1 and about half of Mando).

The only film I saw just hit it hard of the new ones was Solo, but...Ron Howard. Come on. The man isn't of the new generation and full well knows film history backwards and forwards and dove straight into the form. The new troupe mostly seems to, for whatever reason, missed this aspect.

We get a bit in TROS (and I mean a bit - hardly any), TLJ went about it interestingly - more "essence of" than usual, but TFA was just blank on it.

I friggen love Abrams, but I think Johnson gets the art of Star Wars better than Abrams in spades.

But, again, no one in the new films nails it like Howard. He just stuck to it with a solid lock.
It walks through so many films almost quoting scenes exactly, but recontextualizing them which changes the meaning and creates a new and interesting narration.

"Films in a blender" was one of the first criticisms of Star Wars in 77, and I see that as a badge of honor.

So yes, jumping in like we're mid-story is critical to me as a part of its artistic prose. It's one of the cinematic fruits that was thrown into its blender.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

I generally don't put a lot of stock in articles from ScreenRant, but in this particular instance, they're 100% right:
Star Wars: Rey Fulfilled Anakin's Mission In Disney's Sequel Trilogy

 

That Mission was already fulfilled by Anakin himself in ROTJ. JJ and Terrio confirmed this as well.

 

^ Anakin fulfilled the Prophecy and Rey re-fulfilled it after its effects were undone.

 

Yeah...that was kind of one of the central points of the ST, though.

That evil is never gone forever, and every generation has to pick up the torch.

It's even in Anakin's words.
"Bring back the balance, Rey, as I did."

This idea of mutual exclusivity of balance restorarion to only one person in all of history is exactly the topic which the ST strikes out against, and repeatedly asserts is what permits the passivity which lets evil sew new roots.

It asserts that specific one-time heroes are not good enough to save the universe from the recurrence of evil.

You can't just go get Luke to put evil back where it came from just because he did it before. You can't just deny evil's existence just because it was vanquished and now someone's just being hyperbolic and paranoid for pointing out its return. New generations can't just rely on the definitions and choices of the past to tell them what to do now.

Each generation has to go through their own vigilance against evil and realize their own identity in that struggle. They cannot adopt an identity of the past to solve their problems. They have to realize it first hand to grasp the meaning of those inherited identities and make new choices for their own self.

So...yeah. That was kind of the point.

It's a good point. Much better, in my opinion, than the sanctity of the pedantry of terms over Anakin's religious prophecy, which the arguments of come off like Pharisees and Saducees arguing over doctrine.

Even Christians think the world needs three major sacrificial restorations. It isn't like they think Noah did the whole flood gig and everything is all square for all eternity.

Even Jesus comes around twice in their myths.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

That ScreenRant article I linked to goes very in-depth as to how and why the Sequel Trilogy syncs up with and builds upon Anakin's story, which is why I linked to it.

 

*Walks into thread after leaving it for several weeks
...
*Sees a blurp about Anakin fulfilling the prophecy through his death
*Walks back out

Okay, just kidding. But seriously I think how Vader's sacrifice was set-up was farcical enough from a logical perspective and contradicts Vader's character in TESB. I understand that Lucas wanted to do a redemption arc in Return. However, I think he handled it poorly by not addressing Vader's motivation and instead going with "my son has faith in me, so I will try to be good because of it" and "Oh yeah, I should have killed Palpatine years ago. He was a bad dude who corrupted me." Both of those reasons ignore Vader's drive to "end this destructive conflict"- the rebels. Vader wants the destruction to end- the trouble in the galaxy, and to have complete control, so I think addressing the role of the rebels would have been beneficial to Vader unless I'm incorrect.

 

By today's standards Lucas handled everything terribly.

But this is where it's good to recall that Lucas is a showman.
Lucas, above everything else he is, is a true - blue showman. Like David Lynch.

Unlike David Lynch, however, Lucas will talk about his intentions in terms of meaning, but like Lynch he doesn't bother letting the busy details get in the way of an overall trick.

Hate it, love it, do whatever you want with it, but there's no getting around it.

Lucas does what he does because he looks at what's in front of him at that moment and decides that would be the better trick for what he's looking to do.
He doesn't care if it make a huge amount of logical, or rational sense.

Think back to everything you've read him say, or heard him say. Rational, logical...not words he's readily conjuring up for why things happen in his films.

And then there's the real big one that I repeatedly see people miss that loops back into the showman bit.

Lucas is not a character driven narrative writer or creator. He does not create stories that are productions from the character's psyche.

He makes choices like deciding that Ben should die, not because it would be more character driven fuel for Vader and Luke, but because "You know, he just stands around for the last 25% of the film watching this air battle go on. And he has no real function. And it would probably be satisfying, powerful, interesting, if Darth Vader were to kill him, or he were to go into a different form."

Which ultimately lead to needing to create Yoda because previously, he had written Ben to train Luke continuing onward in Acts 2 and 3, but since he up and decided Ben was more interesting dead than alive, he just up and created Yoda.

That's not character driven narrative writing style of working through problems.
That's straight and pure showmanship style creation of work.

There's loads of such examples all through his conversations. Yes, he goes on about what Anakin this, or that, etc... is thinking - especially during the PT era - but that's not how he wrote the OT at all, at the very least (and I would argue that the PT isn't much different in that respect).

All of Lucas' earlier films are written this way as well. They're all concept works. And THAT is the key word to how he is like David Lynch, and how their works exist.

CONCEPT.

The IDEA of something is what leads Lucas, not the CHARACTER of something.
The truth of film to Lucas is far more in the expression of it than in the adherence it has to any character within it.

You can see this plain as day in all of his early work.

So, I mean - if you don't like the way Vader does something because it's bad for his character drive...well...oh well. That's not how this guy creates things.

We're talking about the guy who tortured every stage of the production to keep Ewoks.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

As somewhat to highlight the point @The Birdwatcher, here's Lucas being solidly flat out up front over his priorities.

Notice three things: 1) When discussing pacing, he doesn't discuss the pacing being lead by character, but by an abstract concept regarding cinema as a medium. 2) He openly acknowledges his priorities get in the way of a fully intelligible story. 3) He doesn't consider this to hurt the film for the way he's thinking.

“Each movie moves a little bit faster. Each one has been taken to the brink; it’s as fast as you can make it and still be able to tell a comprehensible story.

Jedi is almost incomprehensible in certain areas.

It’s natural to the way I feel about things.

I’ve always been extremely interested in the cinematic side of motion pictures, and one of the key elements of cinema is editorial pace, just storytelling pace.

I have constantly been experimenting with trying to get the story told as quickly as possible while adding in as many entertainment values as one can possibly have, to express an idea as swiftly as possible.

It’s a form of minimalism.”

- Lucas
​

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Nope the hatred from some of his fans over the prequels caused that.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 22, 2020, Original Post Date: Nov 22, 2020 ---

I think the best way to make to sequel trilogy. And I know George Lucas likes to complete his trilogy before moving on to the next movie but as George Lucas had plans for Darth maul it would have made more sense to make episode one and then make the sequel trilogy and then go back and make the making of Darth Vader movies. Because episode 7 in the books was supposed to be 13 years after return of the jedi. Regardless we got that trilogy way to late to make it matter. In Hollywood 5 years is nothing make up can't solve but 19 is much more difficult.

 

Yeah what he said.

 

No, because I don't count the ST as part of my head-canon, despite trying so hard to love it. The sequels, especially 8 & 9 completely contradict a lot of the lore established by George Lucas himself and make Anakin's redemption and overall arc feel pointless IMO.

Edit: there's no need to be toxic or dish out negative ratings simply because someone doesn't enjoy the films you like, if they're being civil about it then we should have no problems at all. Thanks.

 

I don’t feel that it did. I never figured they’d have a happily ever after (and even in Legends, the Empire continued in some form, and the Sith did return again), and that something later might come up. I didn’t know what form, but something would rise. In some ways, it’s a classic “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

For me, Anakin’s sacrifice did bring balance, but more importantly, it was a moment that redeemed himself and saved Luke. His redemption really didn’t have an impact on the greater galaxy, cause the Death Star was going to blow up, regardless. Palpatine’s body was still destroyed and he couldn’t get a suitable host for enough time. The thing with balance in the Force is..so long as some Force Sensitive gets a little dark side-y, and/or finds Sith teachings, things will be thrown out of whack anyway. If Anakin brought permanent balance, then we couldn’t get any more stories about Jedi fighting the Sith, and I’d probably be bummed if the stories continued and we couldn’t have that.

With the New Republic/Resistance vs FO, well, I can’t help but look at our own world. The span between WWI and WWII, and how even today we’re still dealing with things that wars were fought over back in the day.

maybe doesn’t land the same way for everyone, but that’s just how I see it.

 

My answer to this thread is “no.”

 

But even Lucas had planned to bring back the Sith, so if (and I'm not sure you do) we're saying the Sith returning invalidates Anakin's balancing act, then it seems it would have been a problem regardless what version came out.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Ding ding ding! Exactly! I really, truly think no matter how Ep 7-8-9 were done, this fandom would not be happy. Or maybe, a vocal element of the fandom would not be happy.

 

I know, but we never got George's trilogy so it's very hard to judge. Either way, I don't like the Trilogy that we got, for a lot of reasons, but if you enjoy it then good for you! I Don't want to turn this thread into me ranting about why I dislike the ST, because there's enough of that going on already and to be honest I find it quite tiring. Go and enjoy those films, but not everyone has to like them, same goes for the OT & PT or any other part of Star Wars. If you want an in depth essay critiquing the sequels, there are loads of YouTube videos and articles that explain it far better than I ever could! All I'm doing is giving my opinion, I'm not here for debates.

Now I'm off, to discuss the Star Wars that I enjoy.

I have spoken.

 

I think it's an indication of quality, though. There's been writing issues in Star Wars since the beginning.
Also, I do not like the word "fandom" if it means something- a select group of people whose key identity is to get excited over something or someone- they can easily become happy or agitated. I used to believe that a fandom was a positive thing- back when I was studying (and I still am) Final Fantasy VII, and some of the Final Fantasy series in general. The "fans" there seemed dedicated to analyzing and combing through nearly every detail and compiling interviews and information in a constructive way (although the state of the fans seems to have changed). Now, it seems to me that the fandom is a group of individuals that primarily focuses on what is "canon", rather than "what" or "how this was like". It focuses on Star Wars' ever-changing identity, rather than its historical significance, or what it was.

I'd never think that those video recordings of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi on the Sy-Fy channel years back could become so valuable, despite their grainy texture and sheer amount of Bowflex commercials, since they revealed their films in full, in letterbox format.

So, I don't have a great opinion of fans- they also have a tendency to judge, rather than sitting down with a piece of paper and paying attention to the actual script of a Star Wars film carefully. I feel that there's a lot of missed information (especially from Jedi!) that fans are missing out on or deliberately miss by focusing on "the most significant part/s" of a Star Wars film. Reminds me of the effect that fans seem to get when they gloss over The Temple of the Ancients scenes in FFVII- they're some of the most significant in the game, even explain the antagonist's motivation and plan, but most fans blink them out over other "important" or "exciting" scenes.

 

Oh, no...don't get me wrong there. I'm not aiming to hit you upside the head into liking anything.
I was just reading along and the bit about the Anakin Prophecy caught me.

I know the ST doesn't work for everyone, and I have no issues with that.

Personally, I kind of look at Lucas' ideas for the trilogy a bit like...


Because he goes off on some muddy "woo-woo" tangents in there that I don't know if I'd be able to follow. Keep in mind, as an artist, Lucas is held in my top tier of esteem. What he does in a production (specifically during production) is awe inspiring, and his ways of thinking about cinema always inspire me.
Hell, I reread documentation of his productions and his talks just because it kicks me in the pants and excites me in ways like no other creator.

I just love how he challenges so much in every project with such deep consideration and articulation.

But that doesn't mean I think every production's result is my cup of tea. Also, unfortunately, most of his works that we can directly judge him on are decades old and heavily weighted to the beginning of his career before he even "popped".

But yeah, fair enough if it's just a clean cut lack of enjoyment as a ride. Can't do anything about that.
I find the entire Avengers series boring, and clearly that's quite a hit.

Cheers,
Jayson