HUMOR I want YOUR Star Wars hot takes

Here's one that I legitimately believe.

The Padme/Anakin family dinner deleted scene from Attack of the Clones, where we meet Padme's mom and dad and sister, is great. It should have replaced half the Naboo scenes in the film. It brings an actual warmth and humanity to their relationship which appears nowhere else in the entire prequel trilogy.

 

*There was more thought, planning and character development in TLJ then the rest of the entire Saga. That is why Rian is getting is own Trilogy.
*Lukes portrayal in TLJ is way more believable and sensible than the 'Super Jedi" many fans wanted to see.
*The first 20 minutes of TFA was so well done, the absence of OT characters was not needed (Props to JJ and Kasdan for amazing new character introductions).
*Copying the story beats of ANH was the only way JJ was going to return the excitement and enthusiasm of the Saga.
*Rey is a more interesting character then Luke.
*Snoke was a fun character to see played out in TLJ, but he was neither intimidating nor scary like Palpatine. Maybe that was the point, though.
*TLJ was a better movie than TFA. But TFA felt more 'Star Warsy' than TLJ.

 

Edit... Sorry should say...*The first 20 minutes of TFA was so well done, the absence of OT characters was not an issue.

 

>BRACE FOR IMPACT

-I consider Ep. 1-6 as a complete story where every entry is essential, but there are a lot of aspects that I prefer in the Prequel Trilogy to the Original Trilogy (characters, themes, actors, music, visuals, era, lightsaber duels, etc.)

-ROTJ does everything better than ESB

-Though I have access to both the original and Special Editions, I actually prefer the latter. Excluding the Mos Eisely entrance in ANH, I liked pretty much every change.

-The Force Unleashed is one of the worst products under the Star Wars banner. It was a bad game and story when it came out, and age has only made it worse.

-There should be more main characters in the new films that are aliens. This trend of having almost nothing but human protagonists and villains is starting to suck the space opera element out of this series.

-The "used future" aesthetic of the OT should never have been brought back for the ST. The fact that the galaxy still looks like it's under Imperial Rule during a 30-year era of non-fascist peace under the New Republic is baffling and out of place. It doesn't make a lick of sense in-universe, and only makes Lucasfilm's attempts to parrot every aspect of the OT all the more apparent.

-Adam Driver is a worse actor than Hayden Christiansen. Hayden under-acted his lines, but Adam over-acts them to the point of pure cringe. He reminds me of the diabetes-inducing performance of Colin Farrell in Alexander.

-Introducing the more spiritual angle of the Force through Mortis and The Ones via The Clone Wars was great. It really added to the mythological aspect of Star Wars, really pushing it towards a fantasy feel than sci-fi...which I've always felt was a great fit for Star Wars.

-The Yuuzhan Vong are my favorite Star Wars aliens. Their culture, deities and wartime goals are absolutely fascinating...they're the most Giger-esque thing I think I've ever beheld in the SW universe, and characters like Nom Anor and Tsavong Lah occupy a spot in my top SW characters.

-The Yuuzhan Vong War is an extremely suitable and logical evolution of the conflicts in the SW galaxy: The Clone Wars was a bloated war of attrition and political machinations, the Galactic Civil War was a conflict of underdogs vs fascists, and the Yuuzhan Vong War is a holy war of clashing spiritual ideologies between those that believe in the Force and those that see it as a heretical evil

-I liked the midichlorians. I still like the midichlorians. I will continue to like the midichlorians.

-Han Solo's kids are more interesting than he is. In the EU, at least.

-I've always liked the Special Edition "Jedi Rocks" scene in Jabba's Palace, even as an adult. I don't know why, but I've always found it inexplicably-amusing. And it was a complete mind-eruption for me when I heard Sy Snootles actually speak Basic in the Clone Wars.

-Lawrence Kasdan works best when building a script around the ideas of other people. He's a good writer, but a lot of the ideas he had conceived back in the day for the characters are nothing short of awful. His unaltered vision for ROTJ are proof of that.

-I've never been that infatuated with Leia's character. She's okay. I liked Padme, Ashoka, Mara and Jaina better, personally.

-I'm still gradually making my way through the latter portion of the EU, but I'm enjoying everything I read by Troy Denning so far. Still trying to see why everyone hates his work.

-I've always enjoyed the political aspect of the Prequels, even when I was younger.

-I find Ezra's character to be really likable, and quite relatable. (The meme about him being Space Aladdin is hilarious, though).

-Releasing Star Wars movies annually creates an abundance of problems for its spin-off material.
The literal appeal of the EU was getting bold and radically-impactful story arcs, but because Lucasfilm is just going to reserve that kind of universe-bending conflict for the films they're pumping out at a grueling pace. And Solo: A Star Wars story is an egrigous example that not everything that would make a great comic or novel works with the format, runtime, or tangible production differences of film. Sometimes a story just works better on a smaller scale. But now every major story is just going to be on-screen regardless of scale. It's for this reason that I feel the Nu-Canon supplementary materials are destined to linger in unimpactful, one-shot story hell for all time...and is not going to improve like so many optimistic fans believe.

-Kylo Ren's cross-saber is the THE textbook definition of wasted potential. The reason the double-bladed lightsaber was something exciting was because of all the cool things we got to see Darth Maul do with it. Nothing outside of pushing the hilt prongs into Finn's shoulder has proven that the cross-saber is anything substantially-better than a regular single-bladed saber...rendering it an aesthetic superfluidity without any practical use.

-There has yet to be a romantic sub-plot in a Star Wars movie that I care about. Books are a completely different story, though.

-There should never have been any direct, cinematic continuation of the OT, and should've focused on a new era where Luke, Han, Leia, the Empire & Rebels and the Millenium Falcon were nowhere in sight. Star Wars Legacy, Luke's ghost aside, was a great example of this: showcasing the flow of galactic history over a century later. That's a new setting, era, cast and conflict right there. Something original. Providing original things is the only way this franchise is going to interest me at all...not pandering to the nostalgic elements of prior movies.

-Attack of the Clones is a better prequel than R1.

-I would like to see more human/alien romances on screen. Having just human romances in a galaxy like Star Wars seems like a bizarre exercise in extreme selection given the number of sentient, humanoid alien races.

-KOTOR 2 is a better game than KOTOR 1.

-Kylo Ren is the worst-written character we have gotten on-screen to date. He is the literal embodiment of the ST's problems.

-I would like to see a next-gen, graphically superb modern follow-up to Episode I: Racer and Racer Revenge more than anymore action games or shooters in the SW galaxy.

 

And this is why it's impossible to please all fans.

Because you and I are exact opposites.
For every point item here, I either don't care or entirely disagree.

So clearly, we're going to want different things from Star Wars. What makes you pleased will likely not work for me, and equally the reverse.

This is one reason I think the multiple release variations of Disney is good.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

My hot takes are better then your hot takes.

 

*taps mic*
*PA feedback*
Ah-hem (-hem -hem -hem)

"My hot takes brings all the trolls to the thread,
And they're like,
I'm'a quote what he said,
Dam'right my view's the best ,
I could teach you,
But you're not too smart."

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Probably. Rebels worked extremely well for me, so as long as there's some product in the Disney continuity that matches the quality and creativity of that show, I would be more than content to indulge in that and ignore the films entirely.

Here's hoping that The Mandalorian or Jedi: Fallen Order fills in that void for me.

 

Which is emblematic of the character himself. He’s introduced to us as someone deliberately trying to intimidate. He isn’t entirely confident in himself or his abilities, so he uses theatrics to compensate. His saber design, like his mask, has no practical purpose. It’s really more hindrance than anything. But that’s not the point. It’s all for show. That’s the character.

 

Yep, and that's likely stuff I won't care too much about.

I dislike the entire EU (and I've tried to like it), and Fett, to me, gets less and less interesting the more he and his context are discussed.

What made Fett cool to me was his mystique from minimalism. The Prequels made him less so, and a show focusing on him is very likely to destroy that air for me (I'll probably still watch it, but I have very low expectations - nothing about Fett is going to be as cool to me as a nearly nameless and faceless bounty hunter).

Jedi exposition generally bores me. I don't care about the whole Jedi/Sith lore. That's not why I tune in to Star Wars. Even if I did; it's the same thing as Fett. What makes these space wizards mysterious and interesting is the ambiguity. I have a sense of how they work in the films, but no exact detailed specifics. Giving me that is just taking the salt and butter out of the popcorn for me.

As to Rebels. Hated it.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Agreed. All the flashy little ornaments weighing down the branches are lovely and all, but what about the actual tree?

If there’s a term I’ve really come to despise lately, it’s ‘world building’. That’s usually just code for ‘tedious plot decoration’ - meaningless fluff that’s fun for people to memorize and regurgitate. Lore is a bore - HOT TAKE!

 

I like world building, but I'm not big on that world building being in the film.
Ridley Scott, for example, spends a TON of time on world building when he works on films like Alien or Blade Runner films, but you don't see it in the film directly. You see it indirectly. The point of world building is to supply the creators with a level of familiarity to work out how to bounce the world against the characters so that what we do see of the world feels alive, even if we don't understand everything about it.

That's mostly why I couldn't get into the EU. It was basically just taking all of the material from the films that was behind the scenes world building stuff, and anything that wasn't fully described but summarily shown in the films, and just going to town geeking out on describing every nut and bolt that wasn't already taken.

None of that material, however, is written the way the main films are written. There's no allegorical fairy tale woven together in a chiastic structure that only works symbolically, and doesn't mind itself with the details. The large part of the EU material is just science fiction set in the Star Wars universe.
Neat...but I'm not watching Star Wars to watch science fiction. I'm here for a fairy tale that happens to be set in space, but that space doesn't work like science fiction space. It works like old epic's oceans. It's just the wide wild abyss where monsters and danger roam; where our heroes must trek across through danger to get to their next trial.

I don't care how hyperdrive works, nor light sabers. I don't care about the itemized history of the Force. No more than I care about how Thor's hammer, or Ezekiel's majestic flying machines work. Nor anymore than I care about the itemized history of Qi (Chi).

Hyperdrive works because the story needs to go from point A to B and put great distance between the two so our heroes aren't near home, or some place safe, and also not take tons of time to accomplish it. Light sabers work because a sword is a powerful symbol with lots of mythical history built right into it, and since we're in a laser ridden fairy tale, they're made of lasers - regardless how little sense that makes in reality. And the Force does what it does because it's the mystical religious magic of the fairy tale that pushes our heroes into moral dilemmas. The most important thing about the Force isn't what it can or can't do, or any in-world rules about it; it's that it gives the wielder great power and what they choose to do with that power, and how they come to terms with it speaks volumes allegorically not only about their character, but the moral of the story itself that we are supposed to learn from.

The EU lacks this approach by and large in exchange for focusing on "cool things".

So while I personally love world building myself and love watching the behind the scenes documentaries that go into all of that stuff, I'm really not terribly interested in that exploration being the point of watching the film; especially not Star Wars.
That's actually why I never got into Science Fiction novels. They bored me to no end because they would spend a hell of a lot of time just describing how everything works, and how everyone's culture's worked, etc... blah. If you want to do that, imo, do what J.R.R. Tolkien and Terry Pratchett did...release a separate book that specifically covers that material head-on without regard for trying to pretend to tell a story at the same time (e.g. History of Middle Earth, The Science of Discworld, etc...)

But...that's just me.
I know there's a HUGE market for fiction that just geeks out on exposition to an exhaustive level.

Even still, I think I agree with Tolkien on the subject.

"I am doubtful myself about the undertaking [of finishing The Silmarillion]. Part of the attraction of the The Lord of the Rings is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist. To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed."
​

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Episode 7 could of used some of that "world building". I shouldn't have to read the Aftermath Trilogy to understand that that the New Republic and The Resistance are two different entities when the movie didn't make it clear that they aren't one in the same. We needed context on how the Galaxy became it's same state as it was 30 years ago and how did Snoke come into power? We don't need detail history of him just something simple as he was The Emperor's contingency plan in case of his death or something. That would of been good enough exposition to explain the First Order. All of this could of been done in a few throw away lines. I like the PT but the one thing that they did get right was the world building. It's like the PT did everything right that the ST got wrong while the ST did everything right that the PT got wrong.

*end of rant*

 

Sorry sir I'm gonna have to see your fan card

 

My point is that the term itself (like ‘plot hole’ or ‘retcon’ or ‘mary sue’) has become increasingly misused by people that don’t fully grasp what it actually means. ‘World building’ is not an arduous listing of rules or an exhaustive inventory of items or a detailed map of known locations. That’s ‘gamer’ mentality. It has no place in legitimate storytelling.

‘World building’ is about fleshing out the stage where the events of the narrative unfold on. It’s about crafting a reality that has just enough detail to convince us that it could really exist - that our characters could really live there. It services the story, it’s not THE story. When that focus shifts and more attention is paid to the background rather than the players standing in front of it, that’s when I begin to check out. Stories, for me, are about people and not things.

The movie made it pretty clear that they’re two separate outfits. It’s in the opening crawl. What the movie failed to do was explain WHY they’re two separate things. That’s not ‘world building’, that’s plot establishment. Why would the controlling government tolerate an encroaching militaristic nation and ‘secretly’ support a private, ill-provisioned militia?

There’s a canonical answer to that question, but you’re right, it’s not in the movie. That’s a structural problem with the film and could have been easily addressed. Considering how abruptly the Republic is eliminated from the equation though, it becomes a relatively moot point.