Even as someone who likes the ST, there's

The realization that Vader is her father was already shown in ROTJ. I know that it initially seems odd that basically what happens was:

Luke: Vader is my father
Leia: (Huge reaction)
Luke: He’s also your father
Leia: (modest reaction)

But there is actually a really simple explanation for this. All you have to do is think about what Leia actually says when Luke reveals they are siblings:

I know. On some level, I’ve always known.

Leia already knew they were siblings. That means that when Luke reveals Vader is his father, Leia has already figured out what this means for her. The big reaction is for both of them.

 

Largely because the trilogy isn't actually about those 3. It's about the next generation dealing with the fallout from the events of the OT.
The OT doesn't give you a lot into the lives of the surviving members of the PT in the gap. That mostly comes after the fact.

 

Generations dealing w/ the fall of the Republic (Return of the Sith, Birth of the Empire...)

 

It just wasn't about them. 40 year old dorks need to get over the fact Lucas made the PT and not the Marvelous Adventures of Han, Luke and Leia; when this would have been a viable option 20+ years ago. That is when the movie you are describing would have been made. Not now when they're all past-prime.

 

While I understand that this wasn't the OT big 3's movie...

I think they could've still been handled a bit better- especially because it should not have been a surprise that's what a lot of fans were looking forward to.

Just in general, the table setting of the ST suffered quite a bit, in my opinion. Not just in filling us in on the OT big 3, but the state of the galaxy in general.

 

I always felt the best ST story would have been from the novel 'Bloodline.' Episode 7 would be about Chancellor Leia being exposed in the Senate as Darth Vader's daughter by a Phantom Menace (the new villain). The new Trilogy could have been the fallout of the next generation of Skywalkers (all good guys) and how they handle the new conflict as the galaxy takes sides. There will be people that take Leia's back and support her and others that don't trust her (who getting fronted by this new villain), and that is the Civil War to save the public. The ST would essentially be about Darth Vader's legacy and how the grandchildren essentially repair the Skywalker name and save the Republic from crumbling inside.

 

When Luke makes his parental confession to her, her reaction always resonated to me as disgust. “Your father?!” When she’s then too upset to speak to Han afterward, I assumed it wasn’t about finding out she’d kissed her brother (well, not completely).

She’s coming to grips with the reality of being this horrifying person’s daughter. The emotions are too big to process and she’s terrified of what the man she loves will think of her now. My read on it anyhow.

More than anything, I feel, it would have been a fantastic entry point into exploring what the ‘Skywalker’ identity meant to her and the broader world by extension. When Rey then claims that name as her own at the end, it would carry more weight having first been ruminated on by her mentor. Logistically, of course, that wasn’t possible in TROS. Oh well.

It’s a tricky line to walk though. The ST wanted it both ways: pay respect to these figures, but also clearly center the events around the new cast. More would have been nice, but when does ‘a little more’ become too much more? So long as their personal journeys worked to service the new characters, I guess.

 

Seems to me, the most significant event in all the OT3 lives post ROTJ was the fall of Ben Solo. It shattered Han and Leia’s relationship and sent them reeling in opposite directions - Leia into founding this militia to combat the very fascist cult that ‘stole’ her son, and Han into this sad path of escapist avoidance in self-exile. Luke’s whole character arc in TLJ was dealing with the aftermath of this event. We don’t know every beat, but we got the gist of the one that mattered most to the story of this trilogy.

Sure, it would have been nice to ‘catch-up’ and explore other experiences they had in-between. They could have also been made to prop up our new team further (to ‘put them over’ as I’ve heard it said), but what we got accomplishes that decently enough, I feel.

“Constantly”? We got snippets of info. Just enough to put the stakes into context for what was material to the characters. We’re frontloaded with exposition in ANH and then not much more past that. Some more detail to clear up the Vader = Dad confusion and “there is another” and that’s about it. The specifics of how it all played out are left intentionally ambiguous so as not to steal the focus.

Sure it did. We got Max Von Tekka (Lor San Sydow?) opining for the state of things. We got Han’s soliloquy on the Falcon “it’s all true” - akin to Obi-Wan’s expo-dump to Luke in his hovel of solitude. We got Leia’s ownership over how she felt Ben was “lost”. We got Kylo’s skewed perspective on the matter in TLJ.

We got enough to put the stakes into context for what was material to the characters. Not enough so we know every detail, but enough so we know the broader strokes and can intuit the rest. That’s Kasdan’s M.O. and I certainly appreciate it.

I agree in that I would have very much liked more attention been paid to the state of the galaxy as a whole and how it relates to the immediacy of our crew. That was a layer I was sorely missing, but wasn’t so vital that the narrative doesn’t work for me without it.

I’m not sure how you can classify the 100% endorsement of Lucasfilm as “going rogue”, but OK

 

There are a large number of factual inaccuracies in this post, which also has its roots in a large number of fallacies and inaccurate beliefs about the period of time in the galaxy that passed between the end of Return of the Jedi and the beginning of The Force Awakens.

Most of what you seem to want the Sequel Trilogy films to address is completely inconsequential to the story being told by said films, and in those rare cases where the information would have been relevant, it is almost a given that we will be given said information through Canonical sources other than the films.

You are also cherry-picking and representing Mark Hamill's comments completely out-of-context in order to try and bolster what you believe, which is just plain disrespectful.

 

Wow. Definitely can’t along with you on that journey, man. Maybe it’s a product of being a parent, but the idea of finding out I RAISED Hitler is far and away more devastating to me than learning I was his kid. You don’t get to pick your parents. It’s luck of the draw. A parent though has influence over who their child becomes.

“I just never should have sent him away. That's when I lost him.” Leia, true to her character, feels responsible for the fate of her son and carries the burden of believing it was avoidable. All that death and suffering that reaps as a result, hangs over HER head now. The two aren’t remotely comparable. It’s not even close for me.

I’m aware. Analogously, we also have no idea how Obi-Wan in the OT feels about the division between himself and his best friend Anakin. The betrayal he must have experienced. The sheer loss. The guilt over what he was forced to do to him. The guilt that he hadn’t finished him off and the countless deaths that resulted. The guilt over having failed his master Qui-Gon in fostering the chosen one. The resentment of being saddled with that unfair burden, coupled with the additional burden of living this life of seclusion watching over young Luke.

We don’t get any of that. Twenty years of unexplored material for a pivotal character. Why? Not just because the prequels hadn’t happened yet, but because it’s not HIS story. The OT is about Luke. It’s HIS journey. More backstory on that end would be lovely and all, but it would also sorely detract from the core focus.

Let’s take one of the most nakedly expository scenes in all of Star Wars as an example. Obi-Wan and Luke in old Ben’s hut, where Kenobi acts as Professor Explain-it-all and plot vomits all over the screen. First, O.B. connects Luke to his father. Then he connects his father to the Jedi. Then the Jedi to the Old Republic. In reverse staging, he then expresses that the Empire replaced the Republic. That the Empire and Vader together destroyed the Jedi, and lastly, that this Vader guy murdered his father - bringing us full circle back to Luke.

That “backstory” exchange is NOT about world-building or lore or history for history’s sake. It’s about framing this impersonal galactic civil war in immediate terms that are accessible and pertinent to our main protagonist. The Empire isn’t just some faceless, vaguely malevolent, military industrial complex to Luke after this dialogue. It’s the villain that killed his dad and everything his dad believed in.

Our hero now has a personal investment in this previously ill-defined conflict. We, the audience, are now likewise invested in his personal investment. We now know why there’s a rebellion. Great! But more importantly, we know why Luke should want to take part in it.

That scene is all about character motivation. Whatever establishment of ‘mythology’ there is, is subsequent. It’s byproduct. It’s residue. It’s the excess dough left over from baking a sheet of cookies. Yes, it’s tasty, but it’s not the point.

I know. It’s almost as if he came out of nowhere. Like some wizard simply conjured him up out of thin air or something. Weird, right?

Hey, I’m mildly curious how this unlikely duo happened to cross paths too. Maybe a teen Ben, in pursuit of a wayward droid, was ambushed by hostile natives and was saved by ‘old Snoke’. Maybe he brought him back to his unassuming shack in the wilderness and hit him with some familial knowledge, sowing seeds of dissention between he and Luke. Maybe even drops the line “that’s your uncle talking”. Golly, we could all uniformly douse our drawers with unbridled glee over the pointless poetry of it. “Hey, that’s a thing I know . . . but from another thing. How profound!”

Whatever the circumstance, I think we can safely deduce that the two hadn’t met by accident. It was all a calculated manipulation from the start. I can only speak for myself, but the specifics don’t matter much to me. It would probably be something contrived and predictable anyway.

We got that first bit answered in TLJ. “I didn't hate him.” Ben Solo didn’t hate Han Solo anymore than Anakin hated those younglings he slayed in ROTS. The point of it was to commit to the darkside. To destroy something pure and revel in that pain and anguish. But, as was explained, it didn’t work. “The deed split your spirit to the bone.”

When was that ever said?

Every single one of your examples are NOT about mythology or history. Again, they are about shaping Luke’s perspective in regard to his journey. The aspects we learn about in those scenes are in specific regard to what’s relevant for Luke to grasp and no more.

In ESB, the focus is on “control” and “belief” with respect to Luke and that’s the nature we find out about. The danger facing him is the potentiality of becoming a new Vader - turning to the darkside as his father did. And that’s what those splendid sage moments we enjoy are geared toward. It’s all about him controlling his negative emotions and believing in himself so as not to go the “quicker, easier, more seductive” path.

In ROTJ, the focus is on ‘attachment’ and how Luke’s feelings towards his loved ones can both be a credit and disservice - a strength and a weakness. That, again, is what those little fireside chats are actually about. NOT mythology or history, but character.

Well, in your opinion. The focus of the scenes we get are structured very much the same way as the OT. The exposition is tailored toward our new protagonists. It’s the information that is relevant for THEM to know. When Han tells Rey and Finn that the Force is real, that the Jedi were real, that Luke was more than a myth, that’s THEIR first steps into a larger world. What they’d only heard about in stories, what they’d previously relegated to tall tales and legends, are all true. And that’s the core of THEIR journey - embracing the legacy of the past and carrying it forward.

And if you want enrichment of the nature of the Force or what all, I’ll gladly point to Luke’s ‘first lesson’ to Rey in TLJ as an exceptional entry into that arena.

Dude, he delivers the thesis statement for the whole trilogy in that read. “This will begin to make things right. I've travelled too far and seen too much to ignore the despair in the galaxy. Without the Jedi, there can be no balance in the Force.” The galaxy is in despair because the Force is out of balance. It’s out of balance because the Jedi have gone. The Jedi are gone because Luke is gone. To make things right, they need Luke to bring back the Jedi. Which he (eventually) does in the form of Rey. Setup >> payoff.

We don’t really get Han’s take on the Force post ANH, but I can sure as sh*t promise you the guy wasn’t a ‘true believer’ at the end of ROTJ. Why would he be? Because he saw a droid float for a bit? “Simple tricks and nonsense” explains that well enough. No, the place he is at the start of TFA, that’s the last 30 years at work. “A magical power holding together good and evil, the dark side and the light…it's true. The Force. The Jedi. All of it. It's all true.” No apprehension there, the geezer is fully onboard with all that “mumbo-jumbo” now.

Regardless, what I was more speaking to in that scene is the full on, shameless and unrepentant backstory we get punched with up front. “[Luke] was training a new generation of Jedi. One boy, an apprentice, turned against him, destroyed it all. Luke felt responsible. He just walked away from everything...A lot of rumors. Stories. People that knew him best think he went looking for the first Jedi temple.” Straight up, here’s a history lesson everybody.

And he’s intitled to that opinion . . . like everyone else.

I couldn’t possibly say. I’ve never bothered to check. There’s only one person’s assessment of a piece of art that I consider paramount: ME. I couldn’t give a fraction of a d@mn what the mob thinks about . . . well, anything. Hell, no one gave two shakes about ‘Citizen Kane’ when it was released. Were they right then or are they right now? Watch for yourself and decide on your own.

I know it’s odd for me to say this after defending it, but I’m pretty underwhelmed with the ST as a whole. I definitely think it could have been significantly better. But it deserves to get credit for things it did right and not unduly vilified for the things people perceive as having been done wrong. Especially when that reception is mostly an artifact of personal preference.

I’d say this thread would be a good companion piece to THE RISE OF SKYWALKER'S BIGGEST SIN thread. There, like here, the criticism is lobbed that a particular thing wasn’t done or wasn’t done ‘correctly’. When, in actuality, the critique really should have been that it wasn’t done the way that person would have preferred. I’d argue that isn’t so much a problem with the movie (or movies), but the filter by which you viewed it - the expectations you brought to it.

But that’s me and I’m a proven moron . . . every day, it seems

 

^ Hamill's unhappiness with Luke's role in The Last Jedi didn't last long, so trying to use it as a cudgel to bludgeon the film - or the Sequel Trilogy as a whole - is taking his comments out of context and misrepresenting them.

 

Even though I agree that I would've liked a bit more of the original three (especially some sort of scene with all of them together), I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that we don't get insight into their lives.

Let's look at Han in TFA- he's lost the Falcon (which itself has since been clearly modified).

He's become a smuggler again (with Chewie) and has at least two syndicates after him. He talks about a recent job in which he lost some crew trying to get the rathtars captured. We know that he's Ben's father, and that Kylo Ren's betrayal helped drive him and Leia apart.

We also see that he's got this sort of friendship with Maz Kanata that we've never seen before, and can surmise that he's considering putting together a new crew (as evidenced by his offer to Rey).


I mean, I'm always down for more backstory, but that's definitely more than nothing, right?


One thing that I like about the films with time skips is that they use pretty simple dialogue to do some shortcuts to world building. Han casually mentioning the "bounty hunter on Ord Mantell" while in Echo Base, Lando mentioning the Battle of Taanab, even Obi Wan's cringed comment about the gundark nest. They all serve to remind the viewer that these characters have all experienced adventures together since we last saw them, even if in actuality it might just be a throwaway line of gibberish. It's simple, but I think it's effective.

I don't think the ST is devoid of this, though I suppose it could've been a bit more robust. For instance, we hear of Luke's temple a few times, but it would've been nice to have a few more lines about that aspect. What was the planet it was on? Were there any assignments that Luke's recruits went on that he could've mentioned?

How about Leia? She's been leading this Resistance (which, the way the movies portray the differences between the Resistance and New Republic are incredibly difficult to follow... context, people!) for a while, so maybe she could've had a few lines about the skirmishes so far, or even just more of a direct address of her observances of the growing First Order threat. Once again- a little bit of context could've gone a long way.

So I do think that we aren't totally left in the cold by this, nor would I have wanted Luke to pull out the scrapbook and show the audience everything we've missed these past few decades. But I also don't think it's entirely fair to say that the lack of context we get didn't damage the story. Luke, Han, and Leia are inherently tied to this story and the rise of its conflict. It would've been weird to have ignored them regardless, but now it's actually left some pretty big gaps in the story. Not so much plot holes (because that's a terribly overused term) but at least areas where the audience has to make their own leap while they probably would've genuinely enjoyed being shown a bit more.