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

I don’t think the keystone to the position at hand is ‘plausibility’ though. *Could* a war, with almost identical circumstances as another generation prior, really happen? Sure. That’s plausible. The issue here though isn’t so much possibility, but ‘pertinence’. WHY is it happening? What’s the point of it exactly? How does it relate to what came before? Star Wars isn’t a documentary. It’s a fictional world with a fabricated conflict that existed to communicate a purposeful and urgent message one man had for the rest of the world. How does this “new” conflict connect to THAT? What message is it trying to tell us?

The stage George Lucas chose to set his character drama on was an allegorical representation of his societal fears. Terrified of the Nixonian White House and the military occupation of Vietnam and what fascist implications that could hold for a future America, GL wanted to show that the heart of revolution and desire for liberty would never die. If the worst were ever to truly happen, if the latest grand experiment in democracy were to fail due to placid, uninvolved citizens and corrupt leadership, culminating in a restrictive totalitarian autocracy - the people would rise up and take their power back. They wouldn’t or shouldn’t roll over and simply let evil win.

I’m just not sure what angle the ST is approaching this with. Is it about legacy? Making good on the promise of those that came before? Finishing what they started? Our forbearers had a noble goal, but stumbled along the way, and now it’s the next generation’s job to pick that torch up and carry it to completion? That’s where my head has been at since the premise of TFA was announced, but I’m not altogether convinced of this anymore.

The problem with comparing this situation to real world examples is that we have the answers there that we don’t have here. WW1 and WW2 were different wars fought for different reasons, but there was a clear correlation connecting the two events. One led to the other and we know that on account of historical perspective. There’s a smattering of ancillary canonical material that provides some context to the ST situation, but from a cinematic perspective, where the story is primarily being told, it’s largely a mystery. How did we get here and how is that relevant to the broader story? What’s the lesson we’re meant to learn here and how is it different than the one we already got?

Like ANH before it, TFA dropped us in the middle of a story already in progress with only the briefest of mentions to what came before. That was a novel approach for 1977 and made sense for the first entry in a series, but when it’s the seventh entry, I don’t quite understand the rationale. Back then, the ‘how’ of the circumstances wasn’t relevant because we had nothing to compare it to. The PT didn’t exist yet. The audience didn’t have any reference point. In 2015 though, we did. We know what came before this now, but not what happened in between. How did we get from A to C then? The movies haven’t really focused on that and I’m not entirely sure they’re going to.

The OT ended on a note of resolution. Liberty had been restored to the galaxy and balance had been restored to the Force. Everything was set right again. If you’re going to deliberately undo that conclusiveness, to intentionally reverse it, then you should really have a compelling reason for it. “Sometimes history repeats itself” isn’t a justification, it’s just an excuse that allows you to do more of the same (except faster and more intense ).

To be clear: my personal enjoyment of the ST isn’t contingent on this. I don’t think it’s bad or a travesty or disrespectful to what came before or whatever. I’m simply finding the grander underline subtext a little lacking so far. Maybe EPIX pulls all this together and puts all the pieces in the right spot. We’re only 2/3 of the way through this story after all and maybe this is going somewhere. Otherwise, I’m not entirely sure why this story needed to be told.

Wow, sorry about the novella. I’ve had this farting around in my head for a bit and needed to exercise this pissy little demon

 

Sure the wars were fought for different reasons, but in the time of liberty and prosperity people become complacent and allow malicious groups and factions to gain power and prominence. This is going on right now in America. It's a very complex issue (the rise of Trump-republicanism and the American Nazis sort of adopting it as a means of legitimization) but it works very similarly to the FO vs Empire.
I don't disagree that they should have done a better job in TFA explaining this but they *sort of* lay the ground work for this but never commit to it.

And the whole point is simply this: Peace is never permanent. Each generation will have to strive to maintain and achieve it.
Human nature, is not necessarily peaceful.

 

They should have reboot it from scratch with a new era, new characters.

Considering the whole point of the ST was supposed to be : Who is Luke Skywalker, I still don't understand why they did this.

From what we know from now, it isn't a great addition to these characters.

 

Cool, but without reflection, how do we know we’re not simply repeating the same mistakes of the past? Perpetuating an endless cycle. Neither movie so far has suggested why we’re in the current situation we are. How do you maintain peace when you don’t know how it was lost to start with? What’s the mistake we’re meant to learn from in this? A democracy shouldn’t tolerate groups with extremist views? Lasting peace is unattainable? Jeez, I sure hope that’s not the moral.

 

The awnser to the thread its: NO.

What ruined the ending of ROTJ was the "special edition" with Hayden Christensen in it!!

 

I'd say the moral is: Love triumphs hate but you can't just expect it to happen. You have to work for it.

 

That’s an admirable and beautiful moral to impart . . . and one that’s already pretty well imbedded in the OT. So, it’s the same message, but reiterated for a new generation that maybe didn’t see the OT? A contemporary echo of the past? Restating the same thing over and over again so people never forget?

Does it make sense where I’m coming from here? I can never tell if I’m wording things right

I have no interest in dropping a turd in anyone’s punch bowl with idle childish complaints. But I do have a number of ‘reservations’ about the Disney led LFL so far and I’m not sure if it’s spurred by old man cynicism or legitimate objection to commoditization. Are these movies saying something ‘new’ or are they saying something ‘old’, but in a ‘new’ way? Or are they even trying to say anything at all? Is it a ‘maybe/maybe not’ proposition based on each filmmaker’s desire? I don’t know. I’m just really confused about how I feel about this franchise right now . . . and pointlessly rambling about it.

 

Yes. I think that has to keep the same general moral and ideals told via different (their success at being 'different' is another thread) and more oriented to new generations matters.

Kids love Star Wars but most kids (and let's be honest some adults) are still wildly obtuse to the morals and values in the OT. They don't relate to an OLD movie the same way they would be to a modern interpretation. It's why *some* remakes work and others don't. The Ghostbusters reboot didn't really have anything to say except: "Hey female Ghostbusters! It's silly!" The original Ghostbusters had overarching themes and tones within their silliness.
The flaw wasn't that it was all female, it's that they made it about that with no other real subtext or "moral of the story" moment. Had they found a way to incorporate more of that in the new Ghostbusters, it would have been a much better movie because it would have had depth.

We have many levels of this within our own ethos and culture. Scary stories or urban legends are often created and revamped in each generation while telling the same basic morals. Fairy tales another example. Did we need another "Scarface"? Probably not but by 1983 people were over prohibition and it seemed like a distant fable rather than a real life warning about proliferating violence through banning things people want. So de Palma updates it with cocaine not liquor and it becomes incredibly resonant in the ethos of a generation who are know in public offices pushing for the decriminalization of drugs.

Star Wars teaches us the same basic story cross-generations and that's fine. It's been 40 years since it was told the first time. It's about creating a new way of telling it (again, up for clear debate). Not every story has to obviously, but these main saga films seem very set on it and to me, that's fine.

 

Still to me what is underlying the OP question is the unstated proposition that the story of the OT is about the actual war - the "star wars"; but it's not about the war, it's about the characters. The war is just a backdrop of conflict. The statement "ruined the ending" is like saying "ruined the background" "ruined the irrelevant cosmetic of the environment". War movies aren't actually about the war itself, it's about the people in the war. Saving Private Ryan isn't about WW2, it's about the characters, and WW2 is the environment. How WW2 actually plays out doesn't matter.

Star Wars could be called The Underdogs and be about a baseball team of misfits going up against a big league team to win the World Series, and the character stories still be the same. I think "ruined the ending" is missing what the story really is, and what the ending of the story actually is, as opposed to the environment of the story. The question of the ending is "Did he save Anakin?" not "What happened with that war going on in the background?" That's why the ending was Luke burning the Vader suit and Anakin appearing as a force ghost.

 

Which is why Rogue One was a big deal, in a way, it was the first Star Wars actually about the WAR more than the characters.

 

The ‘war’ aspect of the story isn’t simply a background. It’s part and parcel with the character journey’s themselves. The OT is about resurgence - the rebirth and reestablishment of a hope filled vision of the past. Luke defeats the darkside and restores the Jedi in a parallel achievement to the Rebellion defeating the Empire and restoring liberty. It’s not one over the other. They’re one in the same. Dismissing the primary conflict of the story is dismissing the characters themselves.

 

Well, again the ending of the story is Luke burning the Vader suit and Anakin appearing as a force ghost. There's no, signing of surrender documents by the remaining Imperial forces or some kind of "Here's the resolution of the war going on around these people". It's really the same as the ending for EIV. Death Star blown up with highest rank bad guy on it. Instead of Tarkin, this time it was Palpatine. EIV wasn't really about the war, it was about Luke's character. The war just served as the backdrop to that change.

Rocky is about a character change. Just happens to have boxing as the backdrop environment but it's not really about boxing. I can say Rocky isn't really a story about boxing without dismissing Rocky. Rocky is about a guy who wants a chance to prove he can go the distance. You can drop Luke and Rocky into different environments and the story is still the same.

 

I guess maybe you only watch the de-specialized editions and don’t recall the ‘real’ ending George tacked on there? He went well out of his way to show a montage of a Galaxy in celebration complete with a statue being toppled and a Gungan shouting “weesa free!” It was a deliberate addition to let the audience know, yes, the good guys won and the bad guys lost. The Empire is now defeated and freedom has returned to the galaxy. Mission accomplished. If that didn’t track for you, then I’m truly at a loss.

Star Wars could certainly have been a Tolkien style high fantasy movie. It could have been a Kurosawa style feudal samurai movie. It could have been a Ford style western frontier movie. It could not have been a boxing movie. That’s an impressive degree of ludicrous. The ‘war’ component isn’t just half the title, it’s half the story. You can’t have one without the other.

The galactic conflict is an outward expression of the interpersonal character tribulations, just as those interpersonal relations are an inward expression of the greater conflict surrounding them. One is an extension of the other. That you’re unable or unwilling to recognize that correlation is rather disheartening to say the least.

 

Yeah I saw the SEs of course. But come on, everything Lucas added was purely cosmetic CGI. The changes didn't really add anything to the story, they just created visual continuity to the CGI spanning the series. That whole montage was just the Ewok celebration on CGI steroids. If the war really mattered to the story, we would've had real resolution, Leia and Rebel leaders accepting the surrender of the remaining Imperial forces, dismantling of the fleets, establishing of the New Republic, Leia's rousing victory speech in a newly established Senate, etc. The montage is just a peripheral CGI-fest addition to an already peripheral war story. That's why we get real meaningful scenes of Luke burning the Vader outfit, Anakin appearing as a force ghost and, by the way, here's some fireworks on the side. Because that's how much the war actually mattered. Enough to show some fireworks as a resolution.

War is simply an expression of conflict. Boxing is a conflict. Any conflict can be dropped into "Star Conflict" and the character stories remain the same. Luke's dad is a disgraced boxer who won't come out of his house. Luke is an up and coming boxer who finds out his dad was the legendary disgraced boxer. He tries to get his dad back on his feet and come watch him in the big match. Conflict arises between the two. In the end, as Luke steps into the ring for the big match, he turns to the audience to see his dad in the crowd. "That's my boy!" Roll credits. Same thing. Like I said, Star Wars could be a baseball story about two rival baseball teams. The only real stories going on in Star Wars (OT) is, kid becomes someone and saves his disgraced dad along the way. Selfish loner learns to play well with others, gets the girl.

Yes, the outward conflict is an extension. It is a peripheral extension. In RotJ the peripheral outward conflict is resolved in blowing up the Death Star, just as it was resolved in ANH. I can see a woman wearing a blue dress, that doesn't mean the blue dress is actually an important and inextricable part of the woman. It's not, it's just what she happens to be wearing on this one occasion.

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I honestly can't tell if this is serious or not. Are you having a go at me? Did I just fall for a joke post like a total yutz? Wow. Shame on me.

 

Here is the thing: World War 1 and Word War 2 WERE NOT THE SAME.

In WW1 there were no "bad guys". Every country had they own interests, even America. And each country emplied the same questionably moral tactics. (in the OT there was a clear bad guy and clear good guys).
In WW2 there IS an enemy, with its own ideology, with f*cked up politics and with new technology.

I don't have a problem with a new war rising after Jedi, BUT:

The Death Star, the same "blowing up the Death Star plot", the Emperor, the Rebels on the run with no resources, exactly the same ships, the same planets with a new name...

If you want inspiration from the real world, why not have a full resourced Republic vs radical Imperials with new war tactics?. I mean, they are radical Imperials, but instead of following a new charismatic leader with new ideologies they follow a new Emperor just there being a plot device. And now, they follow 2 incompetents.

It would be so awesome seeing good people in peril, Luke, Han, Leia and new cast defending this people and democracy agaisnt a formidable new and intelligent enemy.

Now we have literally 20 people vs Simon and Garfunkel and no idea on how the rest of the Galaxy is doing.

 

That's seriously a dismissal fallacy by way of appeal to ridicule i.e. dismissing an argument as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity by way of presenting an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration. In my experience, once these types of fallacies are employed it's an indication the one employing the fallacies is at a loss to contribute further meaningful dialogue. In other words, I'll take your employment of the fallacy as an informal withdrawal from the dialogue.

 

Take it however you like. Have a wonderful day

 

This is a fantastic post. I think it is more than just a little lacking. I think the Story Group has completely failed. You point out the force was restored to balance. But then Luke doesn't attempt to do anything to rebuild the Jedi order until what, 2 decades have passed? Why? And this series does feel like more of the same, just with different protagonists and antagonists. I do hope IX can pull it together, but you are right. So far I don't see how this needed to be told. And I was thrilled for TFA and excited for TLJ.

Sadly I don't think these new films are saying anything at all. Yeah, RJ had Rose try and say something, but it was handled so poorly I can't take it seriously myself. I'm with you, I don't see the point of this trilogy. There is no plan, no overarching story. I blame the story group for this, as well as KK.

 

Logically, Luke would spend some time figuring out exactly how to be a Jedi and discovering what that even meant to him before actually deciding to take on students and ‘pass on what he’d learned’. A decade or so of soul searching and knowledge building makes decent sense to me. Restarting an untold millennia old religion isn’t something you’d want to bang out in a weekend. I just wish the story had lingered there a bit more. The Jedi returned! The Order returned! Aaaaaaaad they’re gone again. Whoa whoa whoa - wait go back. No? Oh . . . bummer.

To clarify, I don’t NEED there to be an overarching thematic bridge unifying the previous trilogies with this one. If the goal is simply entertainment and the director of the week gets to decide whatever themes are married to their contribution, then so be it. That’s not my preference, but this franchise doesn’t exist to fulfill my personal wishes.

You’d think though anyone taking it upon themselves to continue a resolved narrative would focus on the outstanding elements instead of being reiterative. I would have expected the ST to be a combination of the other trilogies. Something that joined the two together in a grander conclusion. Y’know? If the PT was ‘yellow’ and the OT was ‘blue’, then the ST would be ‘green’.

The first trilogy was a parable detailing an institutional corruption, wherein a Republic and its sworn protectors fall, giving rise to perverse reincarnations, evidenced through the decent of Anakin Skywalker and his rise as Darth Vader. The second trilogy was a parable detailing an institutional resurgence, wherein that Republic and its protectors are reborn and restored to station, evidenced through Anakin’s children as paragons of those two groups.

The natural extension to that trajectory, I think, would have been to make the last trilogy a parable detailing institutional validation. To present us with a new Republic and a new Jedi order being confronted with a dilemma just as trying as the prequels. Not the same, but something of similar consequence. Something that threatened to tear down everything they’d worked for, but ultimately they’d prevail. To demonstrate that they’d learned from the mistakes of the past and had corrected them. To bring it all full circle. The PT shows how paradise was lost. The OT shows how it was regained. The ST would show how it was maintained. That’s what makes the most sense to me anyway. Alright, enough pointless jibber jabber from me