Why is backstory so important?

It's brilliant when someone actually addresses the points clearly rather than saying "no amount of insisting" at the end of some anecdotal tale.

Once again, backstory not important to the Disney trilogy.
Backstory massively important to a major player introduced late in the game.

Lor San Tekka was killed within minutes of his introduction - he served his purpose for the Disney trilogy and the overall story (and he got all the backstory he needed - he's an old friend).

 

There is actually a backstory for Lor San Tekka in the Poe Dameron comic. At this point, Snoke is probably the only noticeble ST character without a detailed backstory. Heck, even Korr Sella, who was in TFA for 3 seconds, has a backstory.
So, what does this mean? This means that Snoke, without a doubt, is getting a backstory at somepoint. Either as part of "Journey to Episode IX" or sometime after the movie's release.

 

as opposed to Snoke, who was a hologram for one movie and then showed up for two scenes and was quickly dispatched?
Snoke was never a major player. he's a dead catalyst.

maybe he'll turn out to be important in ix (even dead) and we'll get some backstory then. or, again, somewhere in the eu.
but at this moment, for the forward action of the ST, he has zero importance. Kylo Ren is Supreme Leader now.

look, i know you think he's gotta somehow tie together all nine movies, and so long as you think that's the only way this story can be told, you're going to think Snoke is critical and needs a backstory. but that's not the only way it can go.

 

i assume that if the movie is made to be followed by a child, then i'm pretty sure we'll get what we need from it (and we did).

for anyone who has never seen this series from How to Be a Dad, it's priceless:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLroFJcsX8oXBMp6Uc32N0GSPYl427eV2l​

 

Yeah but we still love ya mate

 

The importance of backstory is to expand upon a premise or idea to a central story. A well-told backstory enhances and enriches the authenticity and credibility of an overall story, whereas a poorly-told one diminishes and discredits it, but what is deemed authentic and credible ultimately contains a great deal of subjectivity.

My two biggest issues with the Sequel’s story are the lack of cogency to its premise (Ben’s turn to the Dark side) and Snoke’s lack of authenticity and credibility.

I find this new trilogy frustrating because it is not prepared to fully delve into the basic motivations to the premise of its own story and it's only been explained superficially. As Disney have based their new trilogy on the same basic foundation that drove the conflict of the first 6 movies, I had hoped they would've devoted proper attention into explaining exactly why this new story is something just as authentic, just as believable and just as creative as the one that came before it. Unfortunately, all we have to go on are the briefest of flashbacks raising more questions than answers I doubt this trilogy will ever fully resolve.

To buy into this trilogy, I really needed to be convinced by Ben’s turn to the Dark Side. Luke’s idea that Ben was already committed to Snoke and the Dark path just isn't convincing to me. The context of it all just seems completely lacking.

For example, Luke tells us he wanted to kill Ben because, “Snoke had already turned his heart. He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.” It seemed Ben’s heart turned the moment he realised he was soon to be ripped apart by a maniacal, back-stabbing uncle and not before it.

But here's what I really don't understand about Luke's thinking--How did he come to the conclusion that Ben had to die (someone he cared deeply for) rather than Snoke? Why didn’t Luke, you know, try to kill the guy actually responsible? Are we even told at what point Luke became aware that Snoke was grooming Ben? That’s pretty crucial information to know. Are we shown anything of what Ben or Snoke did to get a real sense of Luke's fatalistic mind-set in the face of such potential evil?

By the way, fatalism is the last thing I would've associated with Luke's character. This is a guy who adamantly disagreed with Yoda and Obi-Wan that the Dark Side had destroyed his father and nothing could be done to prevent it. He simply refused to believe any of it. Luke rebelled against the fate and destiny imposed upon others.

 

I think the reason we are not getting details to help in our understanding is that Rian Johnson didn't care. His theme in TLJ is that given a second opportunity, one should learn from one's past mistake and not repeat it. That is the important thing. It's not important why one made the past mistake in the first place. So it doesn't matter why Ben had turned to the dark side - what's important was that he refused to turn back to the light side when given the chance after Snoke's death. Similarly, it doesn't matter why Luke had isolated himself on Ahch-To - what's important was that he ultimately decided to help the Resistance on Crait.

Now this bare-bone, existential approach may work for a stand-alone movie, but I am not sure it works for the middle movie in a trilogy (or for episode 8 in a nine-episodes saga).

 

A Backstory isn't always necessary and important, it depends how the story is told.

Take Finn and Rey: The story doesn't ask whose Finns parents, how he became to be a stormtrooper, so audiences, for the most part, are fine with him just been Finn.
The story did, however, ask who Rey is, constantly, for two films running! The filmmakers made a massive song and dance about it on screen. So it becomes important. So when they reveal she is no one and even that she knew all along, it feels anticlimactic because there was such a big buildup. It's the whole here's a mystery box(force awakens) turns out it's empty (last Jedi) that is how these films have been made and have annoyed a lot of people. If they had not built up Rey's backstory into a mystery and set her up as just a no-one from the start then her backstory would not have been important. But that isn't the way the writers presented Rey, they made her backstory important.

Or now take Snoke and Palpatine:
I can't count how many times I've heard we didn't know the Emporers backstory. Palpatine worked in the original trilogy without a backstory because of the setup, back when he was introduced we didn't know the galaxy we didn't know how anyone had got to be where they were, So you have an Evil Empire with an Evil Emporer and it doesn't feel out of place.
Now when you flash forward to Snoke and you try and repeat the trick, well first off we have seen stories in this galaxy for 40 years now so we know it alot better, we saw the Palpatine and the Empire defeated. So when you introduce a new character who basically seems like a new version/rip off of the Emporer right down to the disfigured face who seems to basically be in charge of something that looks identical to the Empire and don't explain it it feels cheap. On top of that the writers have told us he is incredibly old, had a hand in turning Ben Solo and going by the the Last Jedi seems to be the strongest force user we have ever seen in the films. So people are naturally gonna ask who is this guy where did he come from, so when you kill him off without explaining anything it leaves the audience feeling unfulfilled. Plus it just comes accross that they went well lets shove in a guy who looks like the Emporer we will work out who he is later, and that for many fans feels dishearting that the writers are putting in so little effort.
If they had just created a Dark force user said gave him a quick backstory of The Empire met him in the unknown regions where he had grown up and taken control of his planet and he seized control of the new First Order and made him look nothing like the Emperor, then people wouldn't be feeling let down with the feeling of what they thought was a mystery turning out to be nothing more than disjointed writing.

Really with backstory, it comes down to how you tell the story and the world in which the story takes place.