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

I’m not arguing against expansion. I’m saying that Palpatine’s secret yarn in ROTS is not comparable with the clone wars which is a established event in history which Luke is already aware of when Obi Wan brings it up and which is also independently acknowledged by Leia. Nor is it comparable with Han’s claim to fame, which he genuinely expects people to be familiar with. I just don’t think Plagueis is an obvious candidate for expansion unless you are looking at it as someone who has already decided that they would like it to be significant and projected how significant they would like it to be.

It’s not the obvious choice that Plagueis enthusiasts seem to think it is.

 

I think you just want a different trilogy than another Skywalker entry.

The cyclical nature, for example, was stamped into the saga when the PT hit and did it.

As soon as Lucas instructed everyone on how to make things titfortat and refrain exact lines of dialogue even, it was locked into the saga.

You can, and anyone can, say it didn't need to be, but that doesn't change that it was. There's no alternate timeline here. I don't own a Doc Brown DeLorean special.

That was set. Once the ST came up - even before Disney, it was already off to being cyclical.

When it got handed off, it became adjusted, but still cyclical because every one of the story creatives got that idea loud and clear as part of the saga's bone marrow.

It's not part of Rogue One, Mando, or Solo.
It probably won't be part of nearly anything anymore because it's a giant pain in the arse to create under that contraint.

You want Plagueis, rock on. Hopefully you get a show on him that makes you happy.

You would not have been happy with Plagueis in Johnson or Abrams' hands.
They wouldn't have gone where you think of going with it.

And it's not like they didn't know of him.
They have every note ever written by anyone, including Lucas, for Star Wars.
And that line, that Plagueis story...it's Abrams' favorite part of the prequel trilogy.

And he chose Palps over Plagueis with all of that in mind. After spending weeks on end pouring over how this all goes - who that dark shadow is to bounce off of, digging through every story in the saga and lining up every thematic logic and trying different conceptual fits...
He landed on Palps because it fits right.

The difference is you didn't likely want a cyclical story. You likely wanted a deviation.

And the PT isn't thematically summarized as redemption is needed.

The PT's theme is The Fall to Evil.
OT is The Redemption from Evil.
The ST is The Resistance of Evil.

And it's the resistance of evil so to show that the redemption from evil did absolve the 'children of their Father's sins' - that though the trials are cyclical, the mistakes are not.

The whole saga was never only about redemption.

It was about how we handle making choices in the face of our evils.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

I never said it was. So I’m not sure why that’s what you’re hearing. I’m saying that it was about challenging that cyclicity in order to grow and evolve in new ways. Not to end it (like what Luke wants at first), not to kill it (like what Kylo wants), but to change it. To advance it. To shift it beyond mere repetition. I see a clear corollary between the presentation of the story’s action and its characters’ motivations. And the story’s conclusion is a resolution for both. Don’t keep doing what’s been done out of habit, but don’t simply discard it either. Understand its value, recognize its faults, and “grow beyond”.

I never said that either. I said his approach was a “reaction”. Not an admonishment. Not a chastisement. Not a “slap” in anyone’s face, but a commentary. A rebuttal, not a rebuke. TFA was safe and predictable - by design. That’s what it was aiming for. It was ‘Warm Blanket: The Movie’. TLJ was not - also by design. Where TFA relied heavily on convention for broad appeal, TLJ intentionally subverted those conventions in order to provoke. Both were successful on their respective terms.

I don’t know why you think I’m saying what you’re presenting. I’m not asserting that RJ burned the cyclical bridge behind him to force the next filmmaker to follow his new radical renegade road. I’m saying that he laid the ground work for separating from the preciousness of tradition and taking the story in previously unexplored directions. And JJ himself publicly acknowledged that it did indeed have that influence to some respect.

“On this one, I let myself be, at least in the way I was approaching the thing, freer...In Episode 7, I was adhering to a kind of approach that felt right for Star Wars in my head...but I also found myself doing things that I’m not sure I would have been as daring to do on Episode 7...Rian helped remind me that that’s why we’re on these movies - not to just do something that you’ve seen before...I won’t say that I felt constrained or limited on 7, but I found myself wanting to do something that felt more consistent with the original trilogy than not. And on 9, I found myself feeling like I’m just gonna go for it a bit more.” source

Right, but not simply because personal challenges are dramatic, but because it forces them to grow beyond their previous selves. To evolve. To advance. To improve. To become better. And where he left those characters at was on the precipice of that evolution. To find a new way forward, because the old one hasn’t been working.

Isn’t that effectively what does happen in TROS though? Rey certainly isn’t pursuing Kylo on a mission to force salvation. She shut the door in TLJ and kept it shut in TROS. The only exchanges that exist between them are the ones he initiates out of confrontation - out of desire to sway her. Until he makes the effort to change, she has nothing to do with him.

Unless you’re watching the Branagh version anyhow. The live action remake invests special effort to communicate that the Cinderalla character, considering all the abuse and indignity she’s endured, has no hate in her heart for them and sincerely forgives. It’s a moment of unbridled grace and virtue and I f***ing love it. No, it wasn't there originally. But it is there now and really should always have been. I'm so pleased my daughter will likely grow up with this version in her head.

But that’s never been the message though. It isn’t about some grand altruistic gesture that magically balances the nonexistent scales of moral equivalency. It’s simply about the choice to be better. Anakin and Ben didn’t believe they deserved forgiveness. They didn’t think they could ever come back.

They were too far gone and no amount of good deeds could ever make up for their staggering degree of crimes. "It is too late for me, son." "You can't go back to her now. Like I can't." If that’s truly what someone believes, then what reason would they ever have to change? It all comes down to choice. Every day, a different choice. Which way am I going today? That’s a message that’s evergreen as far as I’m concerned.

 

I'm having trouble with growing beyond the cyclical form but not being rid of the cyclical form.

You lost me there.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Probably because we’re talking about two different things. Or appear to be anyway.

Seems to me, and correct me if I’m wrong (probably you’d correct me even if I was right ), your avenue to access is deeply centered on the assemblage of the narrative. The constructional elements of the narrative are like the internal components of a large mechanism. Each part has its purpose and its place. If you mindlessly rearrange the intricate pieces of the network then you foul the innerworkings and the mechanism won’t function as it should. ‘Cyclicity’ for you then is an analytical process of complimentary pattern recognition of theme and arc. Based off the source template, there’s very few acceptable configurations. Way the hell off base? Sorry, I tried

The way I engage with story is chiefly emotional and my entry point is character perspective. My investment is predicated on interpersonal connections that are either affirmed or betrayed through principles such as identity, belief, conviction and determinism. How the circumstances of each player, outwardly and inwardly, affect one another positively or negatively. How their experiences are reflective and relatable to my own practical or conceptual experiences. That’s what I respond to. That’s what I’m interested in.

‘Cyclicity’ for me is a personal process of identifying repeated patterns in behavior. How those patterns are constructive or destructive and how they can be passed on to others by choice or by course. Because of my own particular background, I’m enormously sensitive toward the ‘cycle of addiction’ and the dangerous perpetual loop of recovery and relapse. Simply put: if you exist in a persistent state of vacillating between recovery and relapse, then you’re doing something wrong. You aren’t getting better. You need to figure out the ‘why’ of the matter and determine the source of your inclination to fall back on harmful self-destructive tendencies. Until you do that, you’re doomed to repeat that slavish cycle of inevitable torment that harms both you and the people around you.

I believe Rian Johnson was speaking my language in TLJ by questioning the purpose and longevity of the Jedi. And while JJ doesn’t outright abandon that thread in TROS, it’s not really brought to any meaningful crescendo. The dance goes on. I guess . . . forever. That’s a terrific pseudo-resolution for an ongoing franchise, but not terribly satisfying or encouraging for me personally and I expect for others as well.

Again, these are just my opinions formed from desperate stabs at verbalizing my intuitive reactions to the material. Pay me no mind

 

Ah, I see. And you did a pretty bang up job summarizing.

But I think there's an angle where, maybe? (I could be mistaken), the confusion is arising from that I don't see in your write up that ties your understanding of my cyclical view to your understanding of the "character perspective", because the two aren't separate.

That larger cyclical narrative mechanism isn't just mechanical for an arbitrary purpose.
It serves a larger metaphorical narrative purpose. Lucas, for example, didn't just toss Anakin through the same trials as Luke when making the PT just to give someone a reason to write their college thesis on the narrative symmetry of Star Wars.

It was because it was serving the metaphorical point of generations having to face the same problems of evil, and exploring how the same evils can be approached differently by the different generations. That just because the previous generation failed to not succumb to those evils, the newer generation is not bound to the same fate, and in spite of all predictions and pressures, they can not only resist those same evils, but redeem the wrongs of the prior generation's failures.

That's the PT to OT.

The ST followed suit, carrying that same cyclical narrative - even before it was in the hands of anyone other than Lucas. He was already set to talk about the grandchildren's generation and how they handle their burden when the same evils rise up.
Now, in his spin, the "same evils" were (at least in draft outline) going to be represented by the resurrection of the Sith through Darth Maul coming back with Darth Talon by his side, and he was going to switch it around to Leia being "The One" everything revolved around in importance of spiritually setting everything right again after it goes off the rails once again - meanwhile Luke deals with being a crotchety old guy whom a young apprentice kind of kicks in the pants back into action in some kind of (unclear) stir up with rebuilding the Jedi and Republic.

A lot of those parts clearly moved around, and probably would have even moved around if Lucas had moved forward (we know he has a habit of doing that), but the main point was that it was still going to be this cyclical narrative about handling the same evils once again, and focus on how the older generation influences the younger generation with lessons learned on handling evil.

And that's pretty much what we got. The details are different, but the main thrust is still pretty much the same. A new generation comes around and gets helped by the older generation with advice on how to cope with the same kinds of trials of evil they also faced.

Now I don't think TLJ really went to where you saw it. I'm not saying you shouldn't take it that way - god knows this is a fairytale - value of allegorical lessons is a deeply personal thing, so whatever anyone takes from it is worth its weight in what value they get from it.

But I don't think TLJ only addressed the issue of the Jedi's longevity in that tangent.
That wasn't really the entire point.
One of the principle themes of TLJ was realizing that your idols are not where you get your goodness from. Your strengths don't come from them.
That if you do that, draw your strength from your idols, you are doomed to fall because you will inevitably realize that your idols are fallible. And if you hold your convictions because of those idols, your convictions will fall apart and you will be left in existential ruin.

Rose's idol is Finn - he lets her down.
Finn's idol is the Resistance - they let him down.
Rey's idol is Luke - he lets her down.
Poe's idol is Leia - she lets him down.
Luke's idol is the Jedi - they let him down.

In every case, they all destroy their idols and become bitter or depressed because of it.
And all of them learn to hold their convictions for their own merit of their own value of them - not because some idol proved them to be of value.

That transfers directly over to TROS where every character has to now stand on their own convictions by their own merit entirely, having learned that such is the reality in the past movie. In TLJ, they all discover it, but in TROS they have to deal with it.

It is then that the previous generation steps forward and becomes a reminder to the new generation to stick with it. To hang on to those convictions of their own for their own merit even when they are all alone.

The new generation all become scared. The older generation pops up and gives them comfort to push on and not lose faith - to go ahead and face that evil and resist it.

That is the difference. The Jedi of the PT weren't ever the point, really.
That they fell because of hubris was an allegory, but not the primary point. That Luke faltered because the Jedi were fallible didn't make the whole saga about besting the Jedi's failure in the PT.

The whole saga is fundamentally about coping with evil.
One of the incredibly important messages the saga does is point out that we are never done seeing the same evils, ever.
All we can do is choose how to cope with it. We can never surpass it.

And that's how the cyclical mechanism folds into the character perspective directly.
TLJ leads directly into TROS because TROS takes the tangent about self reliance over idol worship and puts its feet to the coals and tests its integrity as a conviction, and ultimately finds that it holds steady - that conviction out of self reliance takes incredible bravery, more than one inspired by idols, and is absolutely terrifying because you realize just how fallible YOU are, but that it does work - you can inspire OTHERS to change and stand for good by standing on your own convictions over convictions from your idols.

That's what everyone did in TROS. After having lost all of their idols before, having their convictions knocked out from under them because of it, they now stood on their own convictions and inspired others to change for good.

That is a direct tangential relationship to TLJ's message.

But at no point was anyone going to surpass anything to do with evil - that would never happen, because this saga doesn't see an allegorical universe as being one where anyone can surpass anything. You simply cope with things and inspire others to struggle as well.

I've said it before, Star Wars is very Calvinist in that it's default position is that it is very easy to just drop to evil and it takes a lot of work to struggle against doing that. You are never free from that possibility in this saga - and its cyclical narrative is a direct articulation of that point. It's the Star Wars Samsara.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Wow, that’s a pretty exceptional and well thought out dissertation on your wholistic view. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you invested in detailing your process and rationale here. It’s not in any way compatible with my world view or what I believe is intended to be communicated by George or his successors, but it’s a fascinating alternate take. I really value every opportunity I have to glimpse the world as it exists through others and broaden my larger understanding.

As a parent, I believe my role is to do everything I can to guide my child to thrive in life and not simply to cope with it. I most definitely want her to surpass me - to be and do better. To build on my successes. To learn from my failures. To grow and flourish and make the world around her that much better.

And that’s the message I see in Star Wars: each successive generation learning from the strengths and weaknesses of the former and surpassing what was achieved prior. It’s a hopeful message meant to inspire people to be and do better. Not by defeating ‘darkness’, but by defeating the inherited self-destructive behaviors that allow that darkness to take hold and dominate to begin with. To lead by example and raise everyone up that much higher as a result.

I really do enjoy these back-and-forths. I love being challenged on my beliefs and perceptions, reevaluating them, and then rediscovering why I believe them in the first place. Thanks

 

Ditto.

I only really built it out of what the creators have discussed, and by then going back and observing the shows from that lens.
One thing that stuck hard very early on was Lucas and Kasdan's fixation on "sins of the Father", and subsequently Lucas' absolute focus on repetition and, more specifically, cycles (dude REALLY loves circles - it's hilarious, actually - everyone has their thing...but if you didn't know that, it's really amusing to go back through and just look at how many circles are in the first 6 films after you know that bit).

Anyway, point is, if you pick up the Rinzler books and start cracking into the motives behind things, and you listen to them talk endlessly over time about what subjects they are fascinated by, and what they wanted to discuss about life (Lucas and Kasdan, I'm referring to here), then you end up with this picture of a sort of seesaw relationship to life that's about struggling to do good, and also how easy it is to not do good.

Further, neither were exactly looking (yet) at their children. They were still (you see this in all of their interviews) thinking of themselves as "the child" in the relationship with "the Father", and the conversations seemed to repeatedly be involved around the idea of whether or not you were effectively stuck with what you were dealt, or whether you could break from that preset path handed to you by your Father or not.

I think that's why Lucas was now interested in the ST from the perspective of the children to come. He calls them the "grandchildren", but that's the grandchildren of "the Father", keeping in mind that to everyone who isn't blind (as Hamill even noted) "Luke" is "Lucas" (to the point that Hamill started to understand how to approach the character better once he had that realization). So it's not from the perspective of "Grandfather", but "Father" - that is, the story you are interested in in tangent about the lineage we pass on to our children, that was now where Lucas was finally getting to in his approach to ST.

It's unclear if this would be when the Whills would break through, present themselves like a god showing up, sweep up the dirt, combine everything together in a sort of end of The Dark Crystal sort of way (which he loved the idea of), and the world moved on. Doubtful - he's rarely that straight forward.
We know that he was interested in making it more about the Whills and how they are the actual drivers and all of the force users are just vehicles the Whills travel around in - how he was going to attempt to keep that from being an incredibly deterministic message that seemingly strips nearly any free will out of anything we've seen, I'm not sure - if he even was going to bother to address it at all. There is certainly a side of Lucas, in his more general talks about life outside of Star Wars, that gives the impression of someone who is, at least at some level, deterministic while at the same time a believer in trying to do good - how he personally holds these concepts together is unclear.

Further, this cyclical rubber band type effect between good and evil where we only get to repeatedly push against evil, but never vanquish it, comes from a wider lens of looking at Lucas' other works as well. For instance, he very notably ends Look at Life with "END" followed by "?".
This little film is making a remarkably powerful point in that brief bit in rhetorically asking if there is indeed no end to this horrific and chaotic cycle of events presented within the film's 1 minute length. It's up to choice. What do you choose?

Then there's THX. THX does not present any solution to evil. It presents the evil of sterility of a technocracy from which the people escape, and the world they escape to is one full of nature. That would, on the face of it, seem to be the end point, but then at once you have to realize that the very way the world ended up in that technocracy was by thriving inside of nature before, which eventually lead to the world we know - one that consumes nature, stomps over it, and eventually has to bubble itself from it to survive because of all of the damage that's been done...and then...enough time passes, and the technocracy leads to ...etc...

You can virtually hear the "END" and "?" from the end of Look at Life refrained at the end of THX.

Then there's my personal favorite of his early works, 1:42.08, which on the face of it is just a guy racing around a track to get the best time.
But it's also exactly that - a guy, racing around a track, to get the best time. There's almost nothing I could think of as being more representative of cyclical existence than the double entendre of that objective summary.

As Lucas said about American Graffiti once, "I spent three years of my life driving around in circles and didn’t get anything accomplished but I don’t consider the time wasted."

And then there's Lucas' general dystopic view of the future.
Take American Graffiti, which spirits us away into the wide eyed wonder of youth at the sunrise of life and whirls us through the wild world of figuring out what you're going to do with your life - being a kid sitting on the edge poised to set out and make a mark and live up life along the way, while being uncertain about yourself just yet. And it ends with an epilogue - that tells us that John gets killed by a drunk driver 2 years later, Terry dies in the war 3 years later, and Steve stays put and becomes an insurance agent, while Curt goes on to be a writer in Canada. (Keep in mind that one of the things that Lucas says about this time was that he hated writing and afraid he wouldn't get to make it to being a director...so being a writer isn't a win here.)

Then there's the repeated disillusionment Lucas throws in, well before Star Wars came along.
In THX, there's the god/father figure who turns out to be a fake in a studio, and then again in American Graffiti, same thing - the Wolfman, the icon of all of these kids that they feel a kinship with, is a bunch of tapes being played - a complete fake.

Then you look at one of Lucas major influences, 21-87 by Arthur Lipsett. This film is dark while at the same time talking about a piercing bit of holiness buried inside of the darkness. The darkness is modernity. Pavement. Consumerism. Career life. The pursuit of money, the interest of being valued by society. Being appraised. It puts forward the idea that mankind is easily entertained by cheap entertainment and is hardly more than a monkey in a suit in it common day to day life, but that under it all "in the contemplation of nature and in communication with other living things, [some people] become aware of some kind of force or something behind this apparent mask which we see in front of us. - to me, [this] is not the same thing as a world full of human beings, there's something gone, there's something missing - and then the people say, 'Well this is good, let's have more of it', and someone walks up and you say, 'You're number is 21-87 isn't it?' Boy does that person really smile. - I find it terribly warm here. Doctor. Have mercy upon my soul. If you can. Doctor. Doctor. No. It's too late. It's too late."

There's this duality in Lucas of optimism, and a sad depressed pessimism it almost feels he is forever trying to battle against.
If you watch all of his material, it's REALLY dark stuff. And inside of all of this dark stuff, he repeatedly comes back with a light - a push to keep going anyway. To strive in spite of the seeming futility of it all.

That's a really common thread through all of his work. It's not just in Star Wars - this idea of never being free of evil, that it is so easily found and sucked into, that destruction is right next to you at all times, but that you have to fight hard to push against it at all times and to shine bright and hand that baton off and spark it anew over and over to keep the world from going totally dark forever.

It's almost more the impression, when you look at it all, that we're talking about torch bearers in a cave than a fair fight between light and dark - good and evil.
This incredibly oppressive environment that seems impossible to thrive within, but can be made better with a little light that we can struggle to keep going.

It's a really dark idea. But it's one you see when you take everything Lucas made and really accept all of the darkness presented in it, and the constant refraining in all of it. He's almost only every been saying one thing as an artist pretty much ever: "Hang on".

And one of the best representations of this view of things from Lucas is him in an interview on Good and Evil, where he outlines that a person is perpetually questioning whether they are good or not - daily. It's not set, ever. It's a constant struggle to determine and you have to do it every day anew.

"I try to be a good person. But of course, that's a very complicated question. And it's something you have to ponder because you're doing it every day. You're saying, 'Should I do this, or shouldn't I do this'. Now, through mythology we're taught certain things are good and certain things are bad, but a thinking person questions all that. 'Is this really good? Am I really doing the right thing? Am I really being a kind, compassionate person?' Because, to me, it's really about a compassionate person as opposed to a person that is consumed with self interest - or a selfish person. Those are the two things. We all have good and evil in us. Because we have the selfish side of us, and we have the compassionate side of us. The idea is how do you keep those things in balance? And by keeping those things in balance, you can do a lot of good things."

And there you have this fundamental struggle laid out. It's perpetual, daily. The battle between good and evil in all of us is a daily exercise. You're never done. It never ends. You don't surpass it. You only repeatedly strive for good with evil being right there in you just ready for it to be accepted.

And if there's one thing that Star Wars preaches very loudly, it's that evil is easy and fast. That is to say, it's a very Calvinist vantage point. You don't have to try to do evil. You have to try to do good. Evil is very easy to accomplish, and it's always right there every day.

I think that's wonderful. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that you are wrong to hold your beliefs.

Heck, none of these ontological views I'm outlining are really my views on life.
They are, instead, my read of Lucas' views he's expressing from.

When it comes to the ST, it's very similar, but it's more looking at others' interpretation, or reply, to Lucas' expression.
For the most part, they seem to quite openly accepted the position and carried that same message forward with only minor alterations.

I think Johnson made the largest variation to it by taking the entire mythology of Star Wars that is filled with idols, and people accepting goodness from an external source, to being one that converted that and shoved it inside of the person and saying that the determination of good, the convictions of such, comes from your own self and not from the idols you have accepted.

Had he not done that, I don't think TROS would have come out as being about the same thing. Where everyone found their strengths from within and pushed forward from just that force within them alone - not because of an interest that causes compassion, or an idea of what is good that was taught to them.

For example, whereas Luke's compassion can be argued to be easy since that is his Father, Rey's compassion only comes after she fails to have any and then sees the horror (to her) of her failure to fight against evil - that her belief of fighting evil (Kylo) lead to an action that was itself (to her view) evil and horrifying.
And upon that moment, she immediately flips and acts from compassion to save him for really no other reason than a regret for the harm she had done in her attempt to fight evil. Completely befuddling Kylo in the process, and leads him to a similar moment standing and asking for strength to choose good instead of evil - not because of any other reason than he now wants to - there's nothing present in that moment except for his own existence. He is deciding alone.

I think it's great if you get that from it, but I don't think that's really in Lucas' way of seeing things. Striving for good, yeah. Always.
But it never stops being the same struggle - it never gets easier, or better. That's impossible because every person has to pick between good and evil every day, to Lucas. Explicitly. There's no inherited one-up's on that choice to him. He never speaks that way.

You do. And I think that's great if you hold that view that goodness is capable of being compounded and not a perpetual toggle for every person daily with no alleviation from easily sliding to the evil inherent within everyone. That we can surpass certain evils from being present, and perpetually increase inherent goodness over evil over time.

That's a great view, and if you get that, then rock that all the way!
Again, I'm only speaking from a position of understanding Star Wars based on my understanding of Lucas' ontological views - which, I don't personally agree with.

My views are vastly different and don't even involve good and evil constructs - but...that's not what Star Wars was written from. It was openly written from a point of view that embraces the construct of good and evil.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

To me it absolutely is, and I wouldn't consider myself a Plagueis enthusiast...or at least not as big of one as others. (I like the character, but he's far from the coolest Sith or best mastermind or anything like that.) It's something that exists in-world that fans had created their own view of, that was later explored. Nothing more, nothing less. Plagueis could have been a retrospective version of that. But again, these things wouldn't mean that people would have to know Plagueis to be in on the reveal. The fact that it would have been Plagueis doesn't matter, no more than Saw Gerrera being in Rogue One matters. The character was convenient and made sense, so they used him. That's all I'm saying about Plagueis. If Revan fit better, I'd be arguing or him. (But I have other plans for Revan...hehehe...)

No, I just wanted a different message and possibly a revised story, not an entirely different trilogy. Many of the ideas in TROS are actually good ones, but the execution, pacing (and yes, I've seen your thread about it), and characterization leave so much to be desired that it corrupts those ideas. Because it's not about the idea itself, but the execution.
My favorite author has a quote in his books. A part often quoted is - Journey Before Destination. This means that how we do something is more important than what we do. The whole "ends doesn't justify the means" thing. It can also mean to continue through the journey because the destination will be worth it.
But in storytelling, that's ABSOLUTELY NOT the case. The ending defines the journey. The message isn't set in stone until that final piece is put in place. It defines whether or not we can recommend something, or in pieces or its entirety. We as Star Wars fans should know that better than anyone. In Avatar: The Last Airbender, Aang had to kill the Fire Lord, the message would have been about how we sometimes have to sacrifice our personal ideals or hopes for the greater good. (A message acceptable in some cultures.)
If Luke had killed Vader, despite knowing what Palpatine wanted and who Vader was, Star Wars would have been a story about evil should never be allowed to live, no matter the personal attachment.
Rey "Nobody" wasn't set in stone because the final movie in the trilogy had yet to be released (...or filmed at that time). Thus, we got Rey Palpatine/Skywalker.
The ending shapes our perspective of the journey, whether or not there was value or meaning or purpose in it. Whether or not it was worth it.

An Episode IX by another author might have a different story, which would shape how we view it:
Guillermo Del Toro may have done a movie on the nature of humanity and monsters and war, not unlike The Devil's Backbone, Pan's Laberynth, or The Shape of Water. (Or maybe he'd do something fun, like the Hellboy movies or Pacific Rim. Or maybe a mix.) Kylo may have ended up as monstrous on the outside as he looked on the inside. He may have been killed out of pity for the monster he became.
Zack Snyder may have done a film with more samurai aesthetics or more war scenes, with a larger focus on Leia's relationships with Poe, Rey, and Kylo. (Snyder's movies focus a lot on motherhood and womanhood, surprisingly.)
A Christopher Nolan movie may have tried to ground the war and give us a retrospective look at its lens through something else. (And probably would have used the World Between Worlds, because playing with time and perception is what Nolan loves to do.)

If any of the above happened to be Episode IX, then maybe the shoe would be on the other foot, where you would say that it ruined the ending of ROTJ, while we would be saying how it had to be this way. (No offense meant, if any is interpreted.)

Lucas' Piffer-for-tat was mostly retrospective foreshadowing of events to come in many cases. It's pulling double duty, foreshadowing what will come, while referencing what had come. (Which, humorously, actually helps the Plagueis idea - a line about what Plagueis did, knowing that he would return, would not only add an extra layer of irony onto Palpatine's story due to it's false nature, it would also tell us the depth of how Palpatine's schemes fail in the long-run: Vader betrayed him, the Empire fell, and the man he thought he killed turned out to be alive.)

But the context in many cases is different. To quote the man himself, "it's like poetry, it rhymes." But rhyming doesn't always mean repeating, something fans (and JJ) really struggle with at times. I don't think Lucas meant for things to be so cyclical that nothing ever changes. Like rhyming or refrains, there should be small differences that mark their own identity on the proverbial song. I think TFA and TLJ did this excellently, but then TROS didn't, because it didn't bring enough new to the table or do enough well to be recognized on it's own. We have the same villain as before, the same internal struggles as before, and less characterization than before. We see the same sights under a different name, and go around doing things that don't feel meaningful. (That isn't to say they aren't, simply they don't feel that way.)
An idea for a "refrain" for Star Wars would have been recognizing how to take what is good, cast aside what didn't work, and learn from the past. Like for the OT to the ST it would have been something along the lines of: The Jedi will return, but they will do so with the valuable lesson of redemption and believing in the goodness of those thought long-lost. The Republic will be reforged, but it will be decentralized in order to prevent another grab at power. (And idea that wasn't explored nearly enough in the new Canon material.)
The ST then would add further wrinkles to the idea by exploring the idea that looking for evil in oneself doesn't mean ignoring the evil in another, that evil can rise in the light just as well as the dark so long as no one does anything to cut it down. The First Order and Kylo Ren rose because the Republic and Luke were so focused on their own internal battles. It'd call back to Palpatine's rise in the PT, but instead of being about darkness rising because of necessity and ignorance, it'd be about darkness rising due to our own self preservation. The ST could ultimately end on the theme of accountability within oneself and with others, as a variation on the theme of love of family. One riffs off the other, but each is separate in the end. One can be explored without the other, but having both brings a clarity that neither can alone. Stuff like that.
TROS didn't do anything like that, or frankly anything that would make the next cycle seem better than the last in either originality or quality.

I can rhyme fan with man or ran, and both would be appropriate. ...or I could rhyme fan with fan, so long as the context has changed enough to let people know I'm not simply being repetitive due to a lack in creativity.

And then TROS retconned it into forcing them to talk, which was against the will of the character and the canon of the previous movie. And while Kylo may have initiated the talks, did Rey do anything to stop them? I'm not trying to victim-blame Rey here in any way, but given the kiss (and it's multiple retcons), the hand-touch, and Rey's words to Kylo in TLJ and TROS, I don't think Rey was as opposed to the idea in TROS as the end of TLJ made it seem.

I've watched Branagh's version, the live action version, the Brandy version; I've read Cinder, watched Once Upon a Time, and am planning on watching the Amazon version. I'm aware of multiple interpretations of the character. And I understand the idea of just a purely good character. I'm not against that at all. But the message is something that matters here, and I just want something a little more mature. One can try to be a light in someone's life out of the goodness of my heart - the Lord knows I'm truly trying with multiple people even to this day - but that doesn't mean there isn't struggle, or pain, or a time where they need to step away. I'm just not one for showing an incomplete message that can ultimately do more harm than good.

Hah! May kids will grow up with the BrandY version. You've got a black mom, white dad, and an Asian kid and no one raises an eyebrow? I'll give them musicals and multi-cultured families over what Disney gave any day of the week.

Exactly. And when you offer someone a choice after they say that, and they say "no," it is okay to let go. And yes, I'm aware of the self-fulfilling prophecy that brings for the one hurting. But it can also bring pain for the one reaching out. When is okay to say "I can't try to save you" anymore? When is it okay to acknowledge the pain of trying? I don't think that breaks the fairytale/fantasy aspect of Star Wars to do so.

I just want Star Wars to at least try to understand both, go beyond the "redemption equals death," or give a new message. It's trite, not entirely true, and quite frankly far less helpful in the real world than Star Wars would like to think.

 

I know. That's unfortunate. That all worked for me.

Eh. To a degree I agree there, but not fully.
There are absolutely scores of movies and books out there that have a crap ending that I yet still enjoy quite well in spite of that.
The ending to Monty Python's Holy Grail is quite possibly one of the worst endings ever printed, and they'll even admit that themselves, yet the film itself is an amazingly wild ride that is wonderful in spite of it.
If that is perhaps a bit too much of a comedy, then easily I can pick The French Connection. That movie is full of amazing cinematic moments, but that ending is just garbage. It's so incredibly lackluster of an ending and pathetic. It cuts to epilogues and dumps everyone into an absolute crap ending.
Same with American Graffiti, for that matter. Fantastic movie. Watch it any time. Ending is just crap.
And then there's the winner of the cake for this, Capricorn One - holy cow that's a hot mess of a movie in terms of the ending, but the ride getting there is an amazing tour de force of visual storytelling.

The ride style of a movie, however, can absolutely grate hard against me.

I don't care how wonderful your ending is, if I had to sit through an hour and twenty minutes of frustration, degenerative treatments of your characters, and derogatory shticks just for the purpose of the taboo of the derogation, then your movie - to me - is utter crap.

In fact, there are a grand wealth of movies out there right now that have wonderful endings that I can't stand to sit through because of how frustrating and personally offensive I find their plots along the way. They're called romantic dramas.

This problem, for example, the entire reason I'm not watching Star Trek Discovery. It's not because I have any problems with their messages, nor their characters, nor their endings of anything. It's quite simply that I have no interest in watching frustrated interpersonal melodrama when I want to watch Star Trek...and to be honest, I rarely want to watch frustrated interpersonal melodrama in the first place.

And I'm also quite fed up with the current trend of just making everything as terrible as possible by dialing up the degree of suffering more and more for the protagonist. It's dull, sickening, and unenjoyable - to me. And slapping a happy ending on the end of it doesn't make it fine.

Eh, honestly. Probably not. I honestly went into the ST expecting it to be horrible and to walk out complete. Finally done with Star Wars. Once and for all, no longer having to keep up with it - it being done for me.

I expected them to screw it hard, very hard, and to basically do what Star Trek did to Rodenberry and go way off script after his departure.

Then I read, Abrams, Kasdan, Kennedy, Williams and I really got excited.
Then I read Johnson and thought that everyone was in for a wild ride with that and that a ton of people would get seriously pissed off with whatever he does because the man does darkness in the daylight to the beat of his own drum like no one else.
Then I read Trevorrow and all I could think was a sort of Marquand Mark II in this decision.

So I figured I'd get at least one sound romp that I enjoyed, one that I would think was queerly interesting, and the last one - eh, oh well. ESB was that for the OT for me, so hey, why not have a bit of a flub in the ST - two out of three ain't bad.

I wouldn't've cared all that much. I actually don't care that much when something doesn't work. I care more when it does.

As to ROTJ...nah. I see each trilogy as separate entries.
Nothing changes ROTJ to me. ROTJ is what ROTJ meant when ROTJ came out and that's the end of it.
I see each trilogy like a holy book written by a different people at different times about the same related religion.
ANH is the original story. Then its expansion grew into ESB and ROTJ.
Then the PT was written by the same relative culture, but at a much later time.
And then there's the ST which was written by a different culture who had received the religion from the first culture and added to it.

So it doesn't harm anything regardless. I was really quite thrilled that the ST turned out as well as it did. There's a few things I would have liked to have seen differently, but that's easily in the 1% range of quantity. I got lucky.

But I didn't expect to. I expected it to fall flat very easily, and for me to be done with paying attention to Star Wars.
I still am waiting for that moment - I feel like it's really close. Because once Star Wars just starts going Encyclopedia Star Warsica with its reasons for doing anything, that's basically when I stop caring at all about why they're doing anything. I don't care one bit about the lore of Star Wars. Folks start up on that and I tune out.

I do. See reasons above in my previous post.

However, I do believe that what Lucas saw as the deviation and difference was the aesthetic. I know this because he has said it.
His main contention with TFA when it came out was that it looked the same. He was disappointed with the lack of new ships and planets.

And rightly so. That's HUGE to Lucas. He changed the Falcon to what we know today simply because another movie just came out before with a similar ship to what they had already modeled.
That's it.

He scrapped an entirely complete and ready to go ship that was already getting shot because another film had a similar-ish model in it.
This is what we're talking about him reacting to.


That's how devoted he is to originality in aesthetics.
It's extremely important to him (and I, to a large extent, agree).

You know what the distinct visual aesthetic of the ST is?
Effectively nothing. It's all fine, but it's not radically distinct and iconically stamped in the mind as its own self like the PT is from the OT, and that's what Lucas was looking for. Even with each movie on its own he was doing that.

The ST just sort of gave that extreme endeavor a pass.

But as for the cycle that never changes? I absolutely think he meant for that - again, look above at my write up to Eeprom.
There's a lot of material to indicate that spin, including Lucas' own ontological views.

Yeah, that's extremely unlikely to have ever been in the cards.
Lucas would have definitely done some stuff about rebuilding the Jedi through Luke, but it was definitely a struggle situation as he had Luke in 7 starting off being a disillusioned old man angry at the world - pretty much what we got in 8, more or less.
And he wanted Leia to be "The One" who everything had been about all along, and she was going to be struggling to hold the republic together while fighting against some alliance of thugs and, essentially, terrorists all helmed by Darth Maul.

All fine as well. But I don't for a moment think he would be putting out an idea that anything was all good and 2.0. He doesn't talk that way. I've never heard him talk about learning from the past, and that allowing you to prevent something in the future.

Quite to the opposite, he seems to speak extensively about perpetually having to go through the same choices and struggles in our lives, daily, forever.

It's honestly very Hippy in that it's a very Western mind's understanding and adoption of Eastern spiritual ideas. I think it's worth taking him at his word when he says that he's really a hippy at his core. That is, hopefully you can maintain balance between compassion and selfishness and do some good in the world.

He has spoken about the parallels he sees between Vietnam and Iraq - I don't think this is a guy who sees a world that moves beyond things.
It's a guy who definitely sees us repeatedly doing the same thing, and a guy who sees our daily life as a perpetual choice between good and evil.
Again, see above for details beyond this as I wrote it at length to Eeprom.

And I don't think it was so cyclical that it was saying the exact same message. They are different messages wrapped up in the same kinds of events stuck in a loop.

Just because the same type of events occur, doesn't mean the same message is being said. The PT has the same events as the OT, but the message is different.
The ST has the same events as both the PT and the OT, but its message is different.

The PT's theme is The Fall to Evil.
OT is The Redemption from Evil.
The ST is The Resistance of Evil.

If that's not distinct enough of a message, then I could see how that would be frustrating for you.
Works for me, and that they all go through the same types of events is part of what I think is brilliantly wonderful about the whole thing.

Seriously - no one else has the balls to do that. Exactly because people throw a wild upset over it.

As much as people say that it's playing it safe - I radically beg to differ.
Lucas heard it the entire time on ROTJ from everyone around him and got flack from it from fans and critics alike.
And then he got it again with the PT, while simultaneously getting yelled at for being too different (if you can figure that out).

And the ST got yelled at for it all over again. For both being too much the same, and for being too different - and not "Star Wars" enough because they didn't understand Star Wars (or logic along those lines has been thrown at them, variously).

I hardly think it's safe to hit the refrain button and try to figure out how to write within that constraint.
Have you tried it?
I have.

It's INSANELY hard to do.
And it takes some serious bold braveness to step up and put out there the same types of event encounters again and again like that while earnestly creating a story OUT of doing those repetitions.

Find me another story anywhere in movie history that does that.
Where is the other series of films that purposefully tells the same events over and over as taking place with different characters experiencing those same kinds of events and producing slightly different messages in how they metaphorically respond to those same events?

I don't know of a single other film series anywhere that does that.

I can't really be all that upset over a few things I would have liked to have seen, but didn't seen in the presence of a 9 film series pulling off the most unique expression of narrative art in all of film.

There is literally nothing on the planet like these 9 films as a set, and there never likely will be again.
It takes far too much for them to happen the way they did.

So, yeah, there's a few things off, but I'm far too amazed and awestruck to even care. At all.
It's one hell of a human achievement, these films. Not just one person's. Scores of people.

As Frank Darabont said, "The amazing thing about any movie is not whether it's good, but that it got made at all."

And when I look at these 9 films and how tightly interwoven they are, how many people have been involved, how many thousands upon thousands of point of failure have repeatedly been there for them to just horribly go off the rails in a Howard the Duck or Star Trek level of manner...man.

It's truly staggering. Adding the bravery to stick to the cycle because of its meaning at the core of this story in spite of knowing full well that you're going to get you chewed up for it all over.

It's really just amazing. Now it's done. That does not need to exist anymore.
Now they'll go on to do whatever. The balloon has been let go and it will flit off any a bunch of unrelated directions.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

can I ask what you don't like about the ending of monty python's holy grail

 

The same thing they don't like. It just ... ends. They didn't know what to do, so they just sort of stopped.
They were much more pleased with Life of Brian, which they considered to be a "proper story". I agree.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Your basing that on materials written by people who were enthusiastic about making Palgeius more than just a name dropped by Sidious in order to seduce/trick Anakin (i.e. next to nothing). Star Wars fans need to get real about stuff that's not in the movies. "In world" stuff that is not in the movies and only appears in spin off materials might as well be fan fiction. I know some fans of the Plagueis stuff who are well aware that it is sort of a grey area whether that material is meant to be taken as "fact" even in its non-movie "canon" status. It's as if its been written by someone who overheard Palpatine telling Anakin about Plagueis and decided to tell themselves a story about what this Plagueis's story might have been.

Plagueis is not a character until he's in a Star Wars movie. That goes for everything; characters, events, objects, places etc. They do not exist (and therefore aren't the perfect fit for anything) until they appear or are unambiguously acknowledged by more than one character independently.

 

Except Plagueis IS a movie character. He's mentioned in the movies more than the Whills, more than the Mandalorians, more than many of the things we now hold at the center of Star Wars. He's more canon than Revan, than Bane, and Darth Talon. He's more canon than a LOT of things.
Plagueis IS a canon character. He's mentioned in canon movies, comics, and books. Plagueis is canon.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Darth_Plagueis

Plagueis would have worked because he fit the pattern Star Wars has always established:
A throwaway line about hyperspace tracking in Rogue One foreshadowed the plot of The Last Jedi.
A cool person in armor to a "super trooper, almost wiped out," to a Mandalorian.
Luke and Obi-Wan's mention of the Clone War expanded into the prequel trilogy setting and two shows. Or three, if you count The Bad Batch.
The name Darth Vader - which had no indication it was a Sith name - brought forth the entirety of the Sith naming system.
Quinlan Vos' first appearance as an extra in TPM had George curious enough about the character to make him a larger part in the Legends universe, and to survive Order 66. (Although now it's left ambiguous - still, he had his own arc in TCW and his own book based on an unfinished arc.)
In ROTS, the throwaway (and now often memed) exchange about the "Droid Attack On the Wookiees" and Yoda going to lead it due to his good relationship with the Wookiees segued into an entire arc in The Clone Wars.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/The_Clone_Wars_Legacy#Kashyyyk

Plagueis would have worked because it would have been rewarding to those who know about his character while also not necessary to know about his character. Let's look at two comparable examples:

In Avengers Endgame, the two of the three or four most cheer-worthy, fist-pumping, out of your seat moments in the entire movie are when Cap uses Mjolnir, and when Cap says "Avengers, Assemble" and everyone charges. These moments were foreshadowed in throwaway moments in Avengers: Age of Ultron. The first moment was a in the middle of a bonding moment for the Avengers, and the second had to do with the final lines of the movie and how they were cut off. Viewers could have easily missed these scenes or the entire AoU movie and still cheered at the Endgame moments simply because the moment was awesome. But for fans who knew those scenes or knew those lines, it felt like something years in the making.***

Or look at the 2012 Avengers movie. Go back to Black Widow and Loki's talk - Loki mentions things and characters in that talk from the past that are pertinent to Natasha's solo movie nearly ten years (four in-universe) later. Viewers of the Black Widow movie don't need to remember the conversation with Loki. Many, myself included, honestly didn't. But those that do remember it - or those that go back and watch it - can go "aha!" and it feels rewarding.

Star Wars does not reward it's fans for watching in the same way. There's no "thank you for watching/reading/exploring these parts outside of the movie." It teases, like the compass, or the plans to the dreadnaughts in TLJ, or the mysterious man in Lost Stars and the Aftermath trilogy and the entire origins of the First Order. It taunts with things like the napkin warning Leia in Bloodline, or the never followed-up-to sequel to Lost Stars, or anything with Inferno Squadron or like the Inquisitors and Zare Leonis and his sister*, and then ultimately drops it all.

There's no larger experience or worthwhile reason for enjoying these other pieces of media outside of their own sake**, and that's NOT what the new Canon continuity was built on. Saw and Ahsoka's cameos are weird examples. They're great in that they exemplify the crux of the issue, that viewers don't need to know these characters' past to understand the importance of the character in whatever medium they show up in. You don't need to see Saw in The Clone Wars to understand him in The Bad Batch, Jedi: Fallen Order, Rebels, or Rogue One. But it helps. You don't need to watch The Clone Wars and Rebels to understand Ahsoka in The Mandalorian. But it helps, because it's rewarding.

Plagueis could have easily operated on the same level, especially as Saw in Rogue One:
You have a role to be filled, and a character that needs to fill it - so you get a character who makes sense.
The character may be dead or in a different place in life, but that hasn't stopped you in the past - look at Maul and Boba Fett (who at the time was "dead" in Canon, but was almost immediately hinted at being alive in Aftermath), look at how Anakin was framed in the OT to how he was shown in the PT. Look at the Jedi themselves.
You can use earlier moments that had nothing to do with the moment to foreshadow his return, making viewers who go back to those moments admire the layers.
Those who know the characters will feel rewarded, while those who don't know the character won't really need to, because the past of that character isn't the point of their present presence.****

Plagueis appearing wouldn't have been gate-keeping (because it's not saying you can or will only understand something if you've done/read/seen XYZ), impossible (because bringing back the dead is something Star Wars does for those who get preferential treatment), or "loony." Replace "Snoke" with "Plagueis" and people would have gone "that makes sense" or "I knew it," neither of which are wrong reactions.

I know, and I'm always glad it did. I always want to like Star Wars stuff, but that can't be the case - not everything works for everybody. And despite all of the vitriol and bile I give the movie, I'm always happy and love the fact that there are people out there that love it and will fight for it.

I'd argue that the ending worked within the genre and story. You could see hints of the anachronistic style of the movie throughout the entire run, such as with the Holy Hand Grenade and other pieces. So the movie played it out to its logical conclusion. Disappointing to be sure, but understandable and fitting with the entirety of everything being a joke.

The other movies I can't speak on, but I'll take your word for them. But still, some of those movies won't be recommended because of their ending. It framed the journey in a negative light with the ending not being worth it, and thus they won't be seen as favorably as those whose destination matched up with the journey.

And doesn't that shape how you feel about it? Whether or not you can recommend it or fully enjoy the journey because you know how the ending makes you feel? Or that you have to warn people because the ending is problematic?
If the answer to any of the questions is "yes," then that's the point I'm trying to make. The ending sculpted the journey for you.

I agree with Lucas here too, honestly. It's understandable why that is the case, but it definitely hurt more than it helped in the long run.

Oh I have no problem with Angry Luke. I think it's brilliant.

Yeah, I have. It's hard, but my goal is to never end in those constraints. I start with the refrain, with the restriction, and then manipulate it to break free. I start somewhere familiar to end someplace different that's thematically appropriate. Those refrains are a legacy - think of it like a house someone who loved you once left you. It may be a great place to start a family in - and indeed, your family has been there for a few generations! But if your family is getting too big, or the house doesn't have what you need and finding what you need may ruin the house itself, then maybe it's time to leave the house and build a new one that gives you the same feeling - that can serve the same purpose, but with a few more extra things. Or maybe you just build a separate house.

In the same vein, but not exactly the same, are superhero stories do this ALL THE TIME. You have a core myth, a standard look, and a set volume of stories to tell. You then bring in a new character, and tell the story a little differently, but with the enough beats to feel similar...and then you deconstruct it with the new character. You ask, "what does it mean to be XYZ?" And each character will give you a different twist on it, settling into a different addendum to the answer.

May "Mayday" Parker aka Spider-Girl in the late 1990s, and more recently, Otto's "Superior Spider-Man," Spider-Gwen and Miles Morales have done this with Spider-Man. (And definitely check out Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse for some fun TLJ comparisons.)
Terry McGinnis (and to lesser degrees, all of the Robins, Duke Thomas, and a few other Bat-family characters) did this to Bruce Wayne.
The titular character in the show Star Girl is actively rebuilding what was destroyed before.
This has happened with the X-Men multiple times as well.

But all of these characters, while ultimately pick up the mantle of their predecessors, are driven to different places and bring their own unique flair to the role:
Terry doesn't work with the Justice League nearly as much as Bruce did. He's also far more snarky, and willing to laugh at the Joker.
Miles always brings his flair for arts (be it music, design, or street painting) with him, along with a far more sociable personality than what Peter has - Miles has a support system Peter actively avoids.

Terry may end up as Batman and doing the same thing as Batman, but his city, his tools, and his demeanor are different - he's a different version of Batman.
Miles may end up as Spider-Man and doing the same thing as Spider-Man, but his personality, look, and network are all different - he's a different version of Spider-Man.
Rey may end up as a Skywalker and doing the same thing as previous Skywalkers, but her world, walk, and journey all feel the same. I don't feel like this iteration will be different, and that makes the character (in the micro, the story in the macro) a bit pointless to me. You see this as the point, whereas I see this as the flaw.

But that's the ultimate (beautiful, tragic, yet perfectly acceptable) difference between us. You see the circle as beautiful and resonant. I see it as a solid starting place but dissonant if continued, inverting the sound so that it even cancels out the original.


*Does ANYONE but me here even remember Zare Leonis? You know, Ezra's one good friend from the Imperial Academy in Rebels? Like, the one who actually was cool and helped him? And then got a series of spin-off children's books? Zare, whose sister was Force Sensitive, and was in the process of becoming an Inquisitor before she was saved? You know, him? Or do people even remember Dante Basco's redheaded character who showed up in Season 4 of Rebels, who they saved in Season 1 because he actually WAS Force Sensitive? No? Just me? Carry on.
**Let me clarify - there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH ENJOYING THINGS FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. I played Jedi: Fallen Order because it looked like a fun Star Wars game, not because I was seeking out any extra Star Wars connections. Any and all other connections in the game are icing on the cake. But I also vividly remember a time when Star Wars would go out of their way to make those connections feel intertwined and more like a story than the glorified cameos and setting placement characters we have now, like Saw Gerrera. There were people who cared for more than just the movies, but wanted to see the bigger picture the property was telling outside of that. It was like a treasure hunt, looking for clues to the future things and connections; or like a puzzle, trying to find how the specific piece held fit into the larger picture told. Lucasfilm doesn't really focus on that anymore, falling back into old habits of levels of canon and importance. It's not surprising, but it is disappointing.
***The MCU is far from perfect. When AoS came out, they had their whole "everything is connected!" phase too, and utterly blew it with all of the Netflix and Hulu shows, cancelled spin-offs, and even AoS itself after Season 2. And yes, the Disney Plus shows are doing better, but they were on their third strike, and I don't know how long those D+ shows can keep it up.
****And, as I keep saying, IN A VACUUM THIS CHANGES NOTHING ABOUT TROS. PLAGUEIS STILL PRESENTS VOLUMES OF PROBLEMS OUTSIDE OF WHETHER OR NOT HE FITS. IF IT WAS JUST IN EPISODE IX, WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL CRUX OF THE ISSUE IIRC, THEN PLAGUEIS' RETURN WOULD NOT WORK ANY BETTER THAN PALPATINE'S RETURN. HOWEVER, IF PLAGUEIS WAS IN EPISODE VII AS SNOKE, THEN THINGS MAY HAVE WORKED BETTER. MAYBE. I SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS WAS "IMPOSSIBLE" AS FANS SUCH AS YOURSELF CLAIM IT TO BE.

 

No.

The articulation of the movie is the most important element for my judgement of whether the movie is good or not to me. Everything else is extra.
I have never picked up a movie to rewatch it based on its ending, and I have never walked out of a movie and said that it would have been good if it hadn't been for the ending.

The number one measure of a bad movie for me is whether I was frustrated WHILE watching it.
The Searchers, for example, pisses me off to no end in spite of being a classic, because it's a f###### mess of a movie that made absolutely no sense to me as to why they were ever doing anything in the narrative focus that they were doing - it was quite possibly the most aimless movie I've ever seen.

The ending didn't save that at all.

No ending can alter an hour+ of my emotional experience of frustration and/or impatience.

Meanwhile, as I said, no movie's ending had ever been the reason for my disposition over the movie emotionally. Ever.
I don't dislike The Sixth Sense because of the ending. I dislike the Sixth Sense because it was tedious to sit through.

I think that's one of about 3 primary problems the ST has. The others are the camera language, and the narrative focus on intimate character melodrama rather than putting distance.

OK, but you just broke the rule. Of course you can do anything you want, but if you want to follow the construct as it was laid out, then you can't break the cyclical format. It's an inherited form of the saga just as much as Back to the Future's cycling through effectively the same events in all three films is.

No they don't.
Refraining motifs is not the same as a parallelism narrative of cyclical repetitions through which the motifs are refrained.
There is a vast difference between simple narrative refraining and the very old mythological chiastic parallelism that is contained within Star Wars and used as a narrative tool to make a thematic ontological point.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

It's canon in the sense that C-3P0 becoming angry and using his magic is canon.

 

And that's fair too. But the ending can absolutely shape the journey for others. If TROS had a good ending, then while I may have been frustrated while watching, I could still recommend it. It had neither. If the Legend of Korra had a good ending, then I could still recommend it, despite its ups and downs. But I can't fully do that.

That's the thing though - if the rule is preventing me from telling the story that needs to be told, I WILL ABSOLUTELY BREAK THAT RULE. NOTHING is more sacred than telling the right and best story. If that means killing my "darlings," such as the traditional inherited format, the characters, or even my original plans, then I will scrap them with minimal hesitation. (Characters of course I'll hold onto more than anything else, but even they will go, if need be.)

But even outside of that, I've done what you say I haven't, and it's fine.

I'm a HUGE fan of Arthurian lore. I've read multiple versions of it, from modern translations to earlier stuff. I've seen it show up in cartoons, allegory and parables, live action shows, and even anime. From David Lowry's latest movie The Green Knight to Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Trilogy (which I still need to finish) - I. LOVE. Arthurian lore. Many of my own original projects center around Arthurian lore.

One thing that always shows up is the inevitable fall of Camelot. Arthur's kingdom must fall, and his reign must end. But who Arthur is (vs who he views himself as), and the context behind the fall are all up to interpretation. So in one of my stories, the fall is a tragedy; in another, it's a symbolic end for an outdated era that gives rise to democracy, with Arthur's antagonists actually being the good guys. In a third story, the fall is old history, despite the bones of that old story forming the body of this new one. I could create a fourth one where the fall of Camelot (or rather, it's inevitable fall) is a background setting for the real story. But each is a different context, meaning, flare, and feeling. All of the stories are loosely interconnected, but none feel the same. In one story, Guinevere feels guilt over the fall of Camelot and Arthur. In another, she feels resigned to the role, but wants to fight it in her own way.

I can easily use the pieces of Arthurian lore to shape stories that feel original and different from each other.

So too can be done with Star Wars.

Except, again, superhero stories do this all the time.


It's not just a narrative refrain, it's a deconstruction and reconstruction of the character and themes themselves. It does more than just say "this is a new person in the same situation." The new character's presence changes the situation, expanding what it means to be the character. Even then, the structure, the point ends in the same place as the beginning, but the feel is different, and the story is free to do its own thing.

Chiastic parallelism exists in superhero stories as well - again, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. (And The Dark Knight trilogy and Superman, as discovered by someone else linked below - YMMV on how effective the ones down below are, but the point is that someone HAS thought of this for superhero movies, and that it's not something unique to Star Wars.)

The original point of Spider-Man was that he was the Everyman of superheroes, just a kid who happened to get bit by a radioactive spider and went on to do his thing after tragedy struck. Into the Spider-Verse (and Miles Morales: Spider-Man) repeats that process with Miles. Both Peter go through extreme learning curves with their powers, have romantic troubles and doubts, and lose their uncles in ways that shape who they are to become. Miles' ultimate message of "anyone can wear the mask" (which really means anyone can be a hero) is a refrain of the main themes, made possible by the narrative. Miles is a reinvention of what it means to be Spider-Man in the modern day, with many of the same pieces. But Miles feels wholly original because he isn't Peter. T

hematic chiastic parallelism doesn't need to mean narrative sterility. I can end my story in the exact same place it began as and still have it be a different ending. (In fact, any time I try to do something that has bookends - which is a lot because I LOVE book ends and the "end at the beginning" stuff - I always try to make the journey, characters, and emotions feel complete while still ending at the beginning.)

https://dejareviewer.com/2014/06/24...-symmetry-of-the-original-superman-the-movie/
https://dejareviewer.com/2015/01/08/the-subtle-symmetry-of-the-entire-dark-knight-trilogy/

From a certain point of view - in this case your own definition - that's exactly the case. Two or more beings in the Star Wars universe acknowledged that C-3P0 became angry and used his magic. They referenced it, acknowledged it, and were influenced by it. To those Ewoks, and to their world, it was certainly true.
At least for Plagueis, not only do we have an external lore bit, but we have blatant internal thoughts about him, and that is very hard to fake without giving away that something is amiss.

 

No they didn't. And we are talking about people acknowledging shared pre-knowledge. Not people reacting at the same time and in the same way to something they've never seen before.

Plus. We can only consider the viewer's point of view when considering "canon".

 

Which makes looking into someone's head and listening to their thoughts all the more valuable. Which is what the book did.

BTW, we consider what Lucasfilm considers canon, canon. If we only considered the films canon, then Rey is the last Jedi we know of, Mandalorian's don't exist (since no one has ever spoken of Mandalorians on-screen in a movie), Ahsoka doesn't exist, and Rebels never really happened, since all we know is that there's a general Syndulla, and the stories of the ships that came to the aide in Rogue One and in TROS are untold.
I'm fine with all of that, but are you?

Pre-knowledge, like what wizardry is, how to recognize it, and how to respond to it, all of which the Ewoks demonstrated? Or pre-knowledge, like telling a story to another person, informing them of what the story is? Or pre-knowledge, like what Midi-chlorians are, and that they need to be tested for Jedi? Or pre-knowledge, like the dozens of other examples of something being introduced, and then taken at face value?

Or pre-knowledge, like one character mentioning Plagueis in a movie, and then a separate character - a Jedi, in fact - finding out about him in a canonical comic?
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Darth_Plagueis#cite_note-Dark_Lord_14-12

 

No. You are really reaching there.

Canon isn't a point of view. It's what you see and hear in the movies.