What's the point of this trilogy?

Then take your issue up with Nike.

 

Someone might not be up to speed on their Lucasian catalog.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Oh yeah sorry the 4th Indy movie well let's just say I was doing a fine job of forgetting that movie till you came around.

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

I would but they would probably give me the old runaround.

 

That's OK. I'll be around to remind you of Lucas' full catalog.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

to make money

 

I don't believe it because in one of the lightsaber battles one of the of combatants has to obviously miss Rey on purpose to avoid hitting her and in a another they make a combatants weapon disappears so it doesn't look like she got killed when she would have been stabbed in the back and probably died. How would those two things have been possible if Kathleen Kennedy wasn't trying to portray Rey as the bestest Jedi evar. Plus all the changes she made to the sequels that the cast said ruined the movies including putting her version of episode 9 instead of George Lucas's which got her stripped her of all her power when the Disney big wigs saw how much better lucas's version was they flipped out at how much more money they could have made with lucas's version and the budget went over cause she kept changing everything. And how she disrespected the original characters. If you like those movies your free to but I was not impressed. There is a YouTube video that is called Rey's terrible lightsaber skills: star wars that has the two scenes I was talking about but I can't put a link here because I have dyslexia and have trouble making links.

 

Great can you name all the Lucas arts video games in alphabetical order for me thanks.

 

Video games aren't my bag anymore, but if you want some deep dives on film history or Lucas' film history, I'll be around.

However, this should get you started.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LucasArts_games

My personal favorites were the Monkey Island series, followed by The DIG, and Fate of Atlantis.
After that, probably X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter.

Old games because I'm a middle-age guy who now only plays maybe a game a year at best.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Did they make the electronic Star Wars Battleship? That was my game

 

I have no idea. I never saw one...but then again, that wasn't the kind of games folks were screaming my ear off about in the 90s so who knows?

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Thank you my favorite was outlaws. They were going to remake it on Xbox 360 when Lucas tragically sold his company and then Disney fired all his video game people making sure that would never happen.

 

Sheesh, a lot of hate without giving Star Wars perspective in these comments.

Well, here goes my opinion:

Prequel Trilogy: Fall of the Republic, Anakin, and the Jedi
Original Trilogy: Fall of the Empire, Sith, and the rise of the Jedi
Sequel Trilogy: ?

I'll preface this post with by saying I like the new trilogy and I realize that Lucasfilm had to start back up by making a sequel trilogy.

Yes, a trilogy was their intent, but most trilogies (except for LOTR, I guess) are generally disjointed and unsatisfying, imo. It's super hard to coordinate properly, and it's better if done or shot all at once.

That said...

What is the point of this story?

I would have said, in relation to The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, to see TESB Vader's legacy finally fulfilled through a version of Jacen Solo (Kylo Ren) finally ruling the galaxy on his own, with a proper and serious finish in respect to the rebels- a darker ending in some respects.

At least that idea was present, but I honestly wish fans would appreciate TESB's dark legacy a bit more, instead of drooling over warm, fuzzy feelings in parts of A New Hope and Return. And to be honest, parts of ANH were dark as can be, with Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen graphically burning and X-Wing fighters being blasted out of the sky, including Biggs, Luke's friend.

There's TROS, which goes straight to ROTJ because it's super embedded in our culture; we can't escape it any more. On a side note, though, if Palpatine was actually TESB Vader (and he acts a bit like him with the "family" discussion), I believe that he raises an interesting point. However, the point was with Luke in TESB was that he was willing to give up that connection for the greater good of the rebels (take the jump). Palpatine says that if Rey kills him that she may somehow save her friends by inheriting Palpatine's legacy? The film attempts to disprove Palpatine as Rey's only legacy by positing "Kylo" as her "family" now, I suppose, but it makes Rey seem stupid (in like fashion as ROTS Anakin and Return's Luke).

At the end of The Last Jedi there's technically no Jedi left. Obviously Rey is on the path, but Luke has passed on and he never rebuilt the Jedi Order. Another Skywalker (this time Ben Solo) has followed in his grandfather's foot steps and destroyed the Jedi and New Republic.

That's fine- the Jedi don't need to be the focal point, unless the PT must be emphasized. The Jedi were always in a state of near-extinction in the OT, so it's fine, I think.

This trilogy starts very confusing. Who is the Resistance? What is their relationship to the New Republic.

The novelization of TFA and Bloodline explains it. If you aren't comfortable with multimedia connections, then it's a valid point. Also, a deleted scene from TFA explains at least some of it.

Who is the First Order. They came from the Empire, but has there been a civil war for 30 years?

The Empire hid, re-grouped, amassed resources, and then retaliated.

If you only watch the films none of this is explained. The First Order blows up the New Republic with a weapon stronger than the Death Star. How they paid for this master weapons construction is never explained.

Mined for resources in the outer rim/unknown regions, where the remnants of the Empire were hiding out, I'd assume.

The Force Awakens first priority was fan service and it succeeded. I love the film and I love The Last Jedi, but I'll be the first to tell you that TFA didn't concern itself with telling a story as much as making a thrill ride. The film didn't answer any question it created and simply passed it off at the end. In fact the way it ends means the next film has to start where it left off.

Depends how it handles itself with the pacing and its explaining. Luke (presumably) stayed in a desert cave on Tatooine for 1 year and increased his Force abilities and training through it without needing to go to Yoda in ROTJ. Yoda states that "no more training do you require" or something to that extent, despite that very point being a BIG issue in TESB. There's a point where self-training wouldn't have propelled Luke forward in TESB, which is why he had to go to Yoda in the first place. So, it's how the plot handles these characters. Also, Luke strangely asking Yoda in ROTJ if Vader's his father when he was disturbed enough to believe it to cry out "Father" and to make the jump with a concerned face in TESB. Apparently, Lucas had modeled the scene after an earlier draft of Star Wars and also wanted to explain it to filmgoers who didn't understand the scenes in TESB?

Why did Luke abandon his friends?

Because he literally took Leia's advice to run far away . All kidding aside, Luke has abandoned his friends before in ROTJ over saving Vader from the dark side and believing that staying there was a threat, without thinking that staying with rebels might be a better idea if Vader already knew that Luke was on Endor-, since neither the Imperial commander whom Luke turned himself in to nor Vader is dissuaded from trying to find the rebels after Luke is captured, which isn't going to be easy for Star Wars fans to swallow.

He thought that he was escalating and causing the cycle of destruction, so Luke stopped being a Jedi.

In this case, however, he didn't realize the extremity of the situation until he connected through the Force with Leia in a coma.

Why didn't he come save them before Han needlessly died?

He thought that he was escalating and causing the cycle of destruction, so he thought that cutting himself off from the Force was best solution. Also, midlife-crisis.

I'm satisfied with how RJ answered the Luke question, but he's in a no win situation with some of the fans. JJ simply punted it to RJ.

JJ: "Here's a bunch of characters you'll have to juggle, please explain Luke, and you have to start right after my film ends, good luck!"

Star Wars in a nutshell. It's actually nothing new. I was reading The Making of Return again, and Lucas mentioned the plot/characters being equated to having puzzle pieces and moving them into the right spots, which I think isn't the best sign of an organic plot, which requires innovative or slow thinking to figure out if everything fits. Even then, I think that ROTJ is still more nuanced than fans will give it, because Kasdan and Lucas were cycling and revising their scripts a lot.

I jest, but TFA is kind of frustrating in that regard.

I'm sure JJ will make another fan service film, but it's going to be a tall task to answer my question. Why does this trilogy matter?

I ask myself the same question when Luke suddenly decides to save Vader's soul in ROTJ- it comes out of almost nowhere, and the execution is questionable at times (the first draft was somewhat better with redeeming Vader). Also, Luke's sudden fraternal feelings for Leia- I don't understand it.

The trilogy matters because it was Star Wars's last chance at being more of a serious drama as ANH and TESB than the light-hearted ROTJ and most of the PT (despite trying to be more serious, they were hammy (like when Palpatine shows off his evil side in ROTS, unfortunately- I like his character better in TPM and AOTC), in the end.), and some of the ST succeeded in this respect.

Even TROS is still more mature than Return in certain areas, I think.

The Force is Female isn't a theory, it's a statement. And... believe it or not, didn't actually have anything to do with Star Wars.

There has been a lean towards female characters in films in general and in the ST in general. But I don't think that's what's been causing poor writing in most causes in Star Wars itself. Often, imo, it's Lucas putting his foot down on something he really wanted, which may have not have been the better decision for the films (and their plot narratives) themselves. Also, Lucas had a penchant for advertising to make more cash with kids' toys to pay off Return (and before), which is likely a reason for keeping Han alive. I find it weird that people criticize Disney (Abrams, Johnson) for killing off Han and Luke because they believe that it was a poor choice for making less money with selling action figure toys when it, in general, benefits the narrative by raising the stakes and giving emotional gravitas to the plot. In ROTJ, letting much of the characters live makes a more bland, hollow depiction of victory, imo, if I am not going too far (I don't mean to be harsh to people who love the film, but I'd like to point it out.).

 

Just came across a brilliant post on Reddit, and thought I would post it here:


The Sequels were the Trilogy that most emphasized the theme of anti-determinism. Despite the narrative inconsistencies (both J.J. and Rian had different ways to execute the same massage), the Sequels are very thematic consistent. Rey being from nowhere and/or granddaughter of Palpatine didn't determine her destiny, she became the heroine. Finn being raised as a Stormtrooper didn't determine his future, he run away from the First Order and became a Resistance hero. Poe having a shady past of spice runner didn't determine his future of Resistance pilot/fighter and later a military leader. Kylo/Ben being the son of Han and Leia, Luke's nephew, son of war heroes, a Solo, a Skywalker, a Organa and a Amidala, didn't stop him from being the villain of the story.

Also, there's no other film in the franchise with more thematic weight than The Last Jedi (2017). Being the second installment in the trilogy, it's the movie that determines what this trilogy is truly about. Not only it respects the main themes of the overall saga (don't matter how its detractors say otherwise), it has its own themes that can only be attributed to it (at least talking about only the movies): failure, our relationship with the past and our past mistakes and how our failure is the best thing that we can teach the younger generation, our relationship with our idols/heroes (Rey with Luke, Kylo with Vader, Rose with Finn, Poe and Holdo with Leia etc), the importance of myths and legends and how the legend of Luke Skywalker is bigger than the actual flawed human being behind it, destruction vs preservation and how preserving lives is more important than destroying lives, cynicism vs hope (Luke at the beginning of the film, Kylo and DJ vs Luke at the end, Rey, Finn, Rose, Poe, Leia and Holdo), perspective (Luke and Ben perspectives of the same fact, Rey and Kylo perspectives of what they saw when they touched hands and how their expectations of one another were subverted), expections (that most of the time reality is not what you expect it to be), heroism is pointless and imprudent without parsimony and maturity, the relationship between the older generation with the younger generation, how bloodline and heroism are not related etc.

 

The Sequels were the Trilogy that most emphasized the theme of anti-determinism.

Indeed. In fact, when we take a better look at the theme of 'determinism' in the saga, we might say that Star Wars is not about fatalism at all ('fatalism' derived from the Latin word 'fatum', meaning 'destiny'). Mostly the bad guys are the most fatalist: "Luke, it is your destiny." (The only exception being Shmi Skywalker: "He is destined to help you.") The Emperor, Vader, Snoke, they all try to talk the good guys into the darkside by making them believe it is their destiny, there's nothing they can do about it. Fatalism kills all possibilities, it leads to cynicism and nihilism (DJ being an example of this, for him there's nothing worth fighting for, just lead your life and take the chances you get, but never join sides.).

At the beginning of TROS we are confronted with another 'fatality' imposed by the darkside: Emperor Palpatine will start the Final Order and his whole fleet will conquer the Galaxy. Nothing to do about it, the planets that don't comply will be destroyed. Eventually, the "Galaxy" makes a different choice. Ordinary people decide they will not let this happen. They stand up against 'the final destiny' determined by Palpatine and take destiny in their own hands. The fact that this is a collective decision doesn't make it determined, it still is a decision of free will.

In fact, this theme is already introduced in TFA when Finn does something no stormtrooper in the whole saga did before. The clone troopers just followed Order 66, they didn't rebel their destiny which was set by the cloners under the command of the Sith. Finn however refuses the order given, takes off his helmet and starts the search for his own personal destiny. In TROS he realizes he is not the only stormtrooper taking matters in his own hand.

I believe this is the true meaning of the Awakening of the Force. The real awakening, the real will of the Force is the moment people return to have faith in the Galaxy, people standing up against the evil flow of events, not being indifferent anymore but joining the cause and doing what must be done, having interest in the common importance. This 'Awakening', this collective consciousness was lacking in the PT era. The Republic didn't function anymore, Palpatine could just fold out his evil plan. This was already illustrated by the immobility of the Senate when the Trade Federation invaded Naboo, but also the impossibility to stop the creating of the Clone Army and the full powers given to the Emperor.

If the PT is about determinism (in fact, the outcome of this trilogy was already 'determined' before), the ST is about anti-determinism.

 

*Puts fingers on typewriter

Mostly the bad guys are the most fatalist: "Luke, it is your destiny." (The only exception being Shmi Skywalker: "He is destined to help you.") The Emperor, Vader, Snoke, they all try to talk the good guys into the darkside by making them believe it is their destiny, there's nothing they can do about it.

The LCD (least common denominator) here stems from TESB Vader. The Emperor is not fatalistic until Return. Interestingly, he appears to imitate or repeat Vader's fatalistic dialogue from Empire.

I can't say if Vader's dialogue is entirely fatalistic- he just sees Luke as one who can destroy the Emperor and join him. Hence, the destiny lines Vader repeats; it's an opportunity for Vader- he desires it very badly. He's also saying it with a bit of a manipulative streak, I suppose, as well as believing in it. This is his chance. The fatalistic edge comes from Luke's perspective- that he will become like Vader- i.e. a person of evil. Also, all of the fatalistic dialogue and warnings that Obi-Wan and Yoda give him. In Vader's perspective, Luke is destined to help him up the food chain and to give him a greater sense of purpose (being with Luke) in the Empire.

Fatalism kills all possibilities, it leads to cynicism and nihilism (DJ being an example of this, for him there's nothing worth fighting for, just lead your life and take the chances you get, but never join sides.).

Again, fatalism also seems to be repeated by Obi-Wan and Yoda to a specific degree, and is very well emphasized in Return by both Vader and the Emperor. The Emperor seems to believe that Luke will turn no matter what; seems oblivious to the fact that Luke could say no, because he's his father's son.

At the beginning of TROS we are confronted with another 'fatality' imposed by the darkside: Emperor Palpatine will start the Final Order and his whole fleet will conquer the Galaxy. Nothing to do about it, the planets that don't comply will be destroyed. Eventually, the "Galaxy" makes a different choice. Ordinary people decide they will not let this happen. They stand up against 'the final destiny' determined by Palpatine and take destiny in their own hands. The fact that this is a collective decision doesn't make it determined, it still is a decision of free will.

In fact, this theme is already introduced in TFA when Finn does something no stormtrooper in the whole saga did before. The clone troopers just followed Order 66, they didn't rebel their destiny which was set by the cloners under the command of the Sith. Finn however refuses the order given, takes off his helmet and starts the search for his own personal destiny. In TROS he realizes he is not the only stormtrooper taking matters in his own hand.

I believe this is the true meaning of the Awakening of the Force. The real awakening, the real will of the Force is the moment people return to have faith in the Galaxy, people standing up against the evil flow of events, not being indifferent anymore but joining the cause and doing what must be done, having interest in the common importance. This 'Awakening', this collective consciousness was lacking in the PT era. The Republic didn't function anymore, Palpatine could just fold out his evil plan. This was already illustrated by the immobility of the Senate when the Trade Federation invaded Naboo, but also the impossibility to stop the creating of the Clone Army and the full powers given to the Emperor.
If the PT is about determinism (in fact, the outcome of this trilogy was already 'determined' before), the ST is about anti-determinism.

Interesting.

 

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 29, 2021, Original Post Date: Mar 29, 2021 ---

There was absolutely no point to this sequel trilogy except to throw the name Star Wars on a new trilogy and make Disney a lot of money...That strategy backfired somewhat as by the time TROS of debuted fans saw through the series and generally disliked TLJ and TROS...TROS literally made half of what TFA made.

Also, why is this trilogy based on a character (Rey) who has NOTHING to do with the Skywalker's? It was the equivalent of doing Godfather IV and basing it on some women named Smith and not Corleone...Wouldn't it have been far more logical to have the star of the sequel trilogy be an actual Skywalker? Isn't the Star Wars saga the story of the Skywalker's?

I would argue that this sequel trilogy severely damaged the original trilogy and it's iconic characters. With the Emperor being alive and well and the Empire essentially surviving under a new name, the conclusion of ROTJ means literally nothing...The sequel trilogy also did an excellent job of destroying the iconic original characters and killing them off for somewhat questionable reasons (see Luke)

All and all the sequels are a pointless mess that damaged the franchise both commercially and artistically. There was absolutely no rhyme or reason to the very convoluted sequel trilogy.

 

Well, that kind of ignores that the ST was also about Ben Solo, who is as much a Skywalker as Luke was.

But also there's no rule that says it has to be about the Skywalker family lineage. That's like saying Star Trek: The Next Generation has to be about Kirk's kids.

Star Wars can be about anybody. It's a new era of Star Wars, for a new generation of viewers, as much as it's for the old fans, and who the new central character is related to is ultimately irrelevant to the quality of the story.

Before Disney started trying to position the ST as the Skywalker Saga in the run up to TROS, I thought of it all as the Star Wars saga. No Skywalker required!

 

I would say that the purpose of the ST is really to show people what was next to come after the empire. What was the New Republic became the Resistance against what was the old empire, which was the First Order. I think the purpose was really to establish a balance in the force as we get at the end of ROS.

--- Double Post Merged, Mar 29, 2021, Original Post Date: Mar 29, 2021 ---

Also it showed us the next “Skywalker” who was Rey