Fixing the dreadful worldbuilding of the ST

No argument here as every Studio is in it to make money, but that is not really the debate here.

You may have to read my original post again because I said I 'liked' the films, as I don't know where you are getting that I don't like them. My problem was with more of the big picture stuff that tie to the Saga, as it had a tough road ahead because Lucas essentially ended the Saga in 2005 making the story the arc about Darth Vader. In fact, I actually really like TFA and TLJ as standalone films, but right now I am very mixed on them as a Saga films, as I go back and forth a lot. In fairness, the picture will be fully clear once Episode 9 comes out and we can see the whole puzzle together and whether it works or not as a Trilogy/Saga.

My point was (and I should have been more specific) that TFA was more like a retread and that set everything up where it was going to be tough for TLJ to be that original. TFA took everything from the OT with Rey being Luke, Snoke being The Emperor, The First Order being the Empire, Starkiller Base being The Deathstar, so that is a retread whether you like it or not. Once that setup was in place, there was not much more RJ could with to really take this Trilogy that much differently as we are still stuck with Resistance vs First Order (which originally was Rebellion vs Empire and Rey vs Kylo Ren (which was originally Luke vs Vader). Again, I think a lot of the problem with this Trilogy falls on JJ Abrams for the way he set everything up, as I think they could have gotten alittle more original, yet still kept with the 'mirror' themes that are the same in the OT/PT.

 

uhhhhhhhhhhhh, no. No, it's not "just him."

 

The main problem that I have with the idea of retread is this Star Wars saga is a chiasmus, so it's always going to refrain the previous films.
It's not a form of retread. A form of retread is Jurassic World. It's essentially the same plot and set up as the first Jurassic Park with an iPhone glossiness and steroids, complete with hubrisness, new genetic impossible creations that are assured to never go wrong because of fail-safes that inevitably go wrong, back-stabbing caused from greed, flare tropes, a protagonist who doesn't like children, a T-Rex thing saving the day at the last minute, and, importantly, no narrative reason for the repetition.

The reason this saga isn't a retread is that every film, starting with the second half of ESB, has been a refrain of prior films. ESB literally refrains the first half of the film, and ROTJ refrains ANH. People back at the time complained and gave flack about ROTJ being a copy-cat of ANH. It wasn't, but Lucas, famous for talking a lot, but not really giving a lot of details, didn't help much because he didn't explain what he was doing until we got to the prequels where, once again, people noted the similarities to the originals and made complaints. Those complaints were nothing compared to the mountain of complaints over Jar Jar, Yoda, the CGI issues, and the dialogue, but it was there. It was a bit softer because everything was in reverse, so not everyone noticed the "copying" (it wasn't copying) that was going on because this time around, everything Luke did before, Anakin pretty much did just the opposite.
Lucas spoke about this, following the prequels, letting everyone in on the idea of "rhyming" and "poetry", or that everything was an intricate "clock".
Several ways of saying the same thing: chiasmus.

The ST is doing the exact same thing. It's repeating the same motifs and situations, but flipping the context and results (which is what the prequels did to the OT).
It just happens to be easier to spot this time around because in the prequels, Anakin did everything opposite of what Luke did.
This time we have Rey and Kylo, and Rey directly experiences the motifs of Luke, while Kylo directly experiences the motifs of Anakin.
The difference being that everything involved with them occurs in the reverse fashion that it did to Luke and Anakin.

Lucas has repeatedly discussed that one of his central philosophical focuses in Star Wars was the relationship of the "sins of the Father", and whether new generations can ever be free of the cycles of the past.
He's practically being literal about this. He literally gives Luke the same scenarios morally that Anakin had, and has them go opposite of Anakin's way; examining this.
The ST, then, is reprising this same question - there's a new generation, and the cycles are yet again repeating. The question is whether or not they can break the cycle and end it all.
This is why we have both the Anakin and Luke motifs this time around. Previously, you only had one or the other, but now both are being refrained and answered simultaneously.

And it's more than just these two character molds that are rung repeatedly through the saga.
There's layers to these narratives; different discussions.
I won't go through them all, but on one layer there's the topic mentioned above about breaking the chains and cycles of moral debt and history repeating itself.
On another layer, there's the question of man's relationship to the universe, or nature. That is symbolized and examined passively through the films by the placement of things in the universe. The OT was all about man vs machine (Lucas has talked about this a lot), where the Death Star was the perfect synthetic utopian world; not reliant on nature for anything, and perfectly to the order of man's will through the power of industry. It could destroy nature, rather brutally. Conversely, the Rebels and Jedi were constantly in nature motifs, where they repeatedly relied on nature to hide them and supply them with their home; almost womb-like. The amount of cave dwelling in the OT by the "good guys" is pretty extensive.
In the prequels, this took another angle, and instead of man vs machine, it was over-toned with warping nature through attempting to preserve it and as a result ending up separated from it without being aware that this is what was happening.
The Jedi sat in a tall synthetic tower while simultaneously discussing the preservation of the natural Force, Coruscant was the seat of the a democracy which championed the freedom and preservation of life, yet it's infrastructure entirely sprawled over the entire planet to the point of absolute consumption of all nature ironically. So this time around, the good guys, restricted the freedom and growth of nature in their attempt to preserve its sacredness, while in the OT, the bad guys superseded nature and set out to command and destroy it at their will.
In the ST, it's both smashed together. This time around we have things like Star Killer, which don't supersede nature, nor hold nature sacred and smother it by accident. Instead, it grabs nature viscerally and twists it into its will; sucking the very essence of life (a star) and pounding that into the very heart of a planet (its core) and forcing those life forces to become a weapon to destroy other nature. It's now about bending nature to man's will; not wrecking it by idolizing it too much, or dismissing it by synthetics.

There's also sociopolitical layers that discuss the relationship of governance and the social economics between people and government, and in each trilogy, a different sub-topic is examined. In the prequels it was the seductiveness in which quick solutions and fears give way to malevolent returns, in the OT, it was about the damage to the individual caused in the name of the better good of the system, and in the ST it's about openness to diversity coupled with overconfidence leading to a failure to foresee the return of radicalism.

Then there's social debt to those around you; Lucas was big on this topic, and talked about it a lot.
It's discussed with different sub-topics in each trilogy as well. The prequels are about society's debt to you (a very loud and constant topic for Anakin); the OT is about your debt to society; and the ST has so far been about your debt to yourself in society - that is, what do you owe society in terms of self-development - do you develop yourself to fit in society in spite of your fears and wants (Rey), or do you demand society fit to you because of your fears and wants (Kylo)?

There are scores of these, and all of this in this saga relies on the same cycle of events, settings, and motifs occurring.
If it didn't, then it wouldn't be worth crap philosophically at all.
It would just be another movie about spaceships, technology, and mysticism.

So I can't agree on the retread concept.
That assumes there's no narrative purpose for the reprisals other than to attempt to sell tickets by doing the same thing as done before, but that's not the motivation in this Star Wars saga for the reprises of familiar moments and settings. It's doing it for a very old narrative reason used in many old epics: chiasmus.

Folks will probably get their non-refrained Star Wars after 9. After that, there's nothing required to refrain; all the loose ends can be wrapped up and a bow put on it.
If they want to continue that tradition, then they could, but there's no requirement, and from what we're seeing Disney planning, I think it's pretty safe to assume at least one or two future saga's won't be in this narrative structure and will likely just be focused more on being a space show with mysticism (like Rogue One).

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Well, most Disney movies have that problem, being planet skipping around with no different feeling for any planet. However, even reading the books, there is not much world building, with the most being Parnassos, and that wasn't even in the ST.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 19, 2020, Original Post Date: Aug 19, 2020 ---

DISNEY WINS!

 

Unless I want to have an experience, such as playing my Star Wars Episode 1: Racer again, I don't see how the ST needs worldbuilding, besides the lack of diversity in alien faces and designs.

I honestly think that this is ironic. I remember reading part of a review, whether it was in Wikipedia or linked/described on Wikipedia that the original SW (A New Hope) had great worldbuilding but poor characters or plot. I mean what is it? What is more important, to be honest?

 

Characters of course. And the ST did this much better than the prequels.

Crait, Ach To, Exegol and Kijimi were great planets and addition to the saga, by the way.

 

PLANET REVIEW!

Crait- Easily the best planet in the ST, very creative design, and it makes for a good BF2 map. There was not much exploration of the natural things or denizens of the planet except for those crystal foxes. However, we most likely will go back to Crait.
Ahch To- We have never had a planet where our story takes place on a small island. Very nice seeing the flora and fauna, and how luke gets around. Also, the caretakers were interesting. Also, having two suns would affect the climate, so there are two possible scenarios. For one, we could have two stars that are not as bright as our Sun. Ahch To would turn out like Kepler-9, being frozen and cold. If the two stars radiated the same heat as our Sun or more, then Ahch To turns into Mustafar, and we get cooked Porgs. Twin Suns are an interesting idea, but not feasible to live with.
Exegol- Just another Korriban or Morriband. If you replaced it with one of those planets, it would end up the same. Not very original.
Kijimi- It's cool that it was built on monasteries, but still, it's like snowy Corellia. Second least original, after Exegol.

 

Actually it depends of the distance of how far the suns are, not quantity.

They were discussing about this in another thread.

 

well, yeah, but based on how much of them we can see, it would fall under those conditions. Also, there is another thread for this? COOL!

 

Not a thread but they were talking about that here:

https://thecantina.starwarsnewsnet....st-jedi-general-movie-discussion.56619/page-8