Lose another character....Can we deal with it???

R2-D2 is very much the glue that holds essential parts of the saga together, when we take into consideration how pivotal Artoo was in so many scenes in assisting the characters in their mission and helping them to survive.

It almost seems absurd to say, after all R2-D2 has done, "R2-D2 should not be eliminated simply to give more screen time to BB-8," but there's truth in that, with Artoo and the other Original Trilogy characters, including even C-3PO.

I think the "tabula rasa" scenario should be the storytellers' last and least attractive option, signifying they have run out of ideas.

Given the incredible material they have at their disposal, the storytellers have limitless potential to do positive things with all the characters.

I hope they recognize that, show us they recognize that, and go on to demonstrate some responsibility and a willingness go beyond the trendy edginess, beyond the obviously intentionally dark, and well into the meaningful with great purpose.

JediMasterRobert

 

Seeing the storytellers have already incapacitated and marginalized Luke for an entire film, I'm hopeful he gets to have a story arc.

What Tolkien with Gandalf and the Balrog would make an interesting parallel for Luke and Snoke, as for cliff-hangers with Episode VIII. Gandalf returned as Gandalf the White. Luke could return as a Force spirit.

I think eradicating Luke Skywalker altogether seems unnecessary and anti-Star Wars.

And sometimes it is not.

Simplicity is fine and all, in abstract, but dumbing things down by way of death can become tiresome, predictable, unimaginative, and generate diminished emotional impact when its overused as a plot device in fiction. Viewers can come to expect it, even enjoy it (as in Game of Thrones), while ultimately becoming desensitized to demise.

I think the "the Old has to go to make room for the New" would be the weakest, vainest, most disrespectful, and least sensible reason to eliminate an Original Trilogy character in the Sequel Trilogy.

It even gives the appearance of ageism.

JediMasterRobert

 

Point conceded, probably shouldnt post when I'm so hungover and cynical. Lesson learnt. Though, I think the blurry point my befuddled brain was trying to make is that shows like GoT are a good demonstration that no character is nessecarily safe, regardless of the attachment the audience has to them, and they can suffer pointless, crappy, meaningless deaths, just like people in the real world. And it sucks, but the audience, the remaing characters and the story/show goes on. Can you imagine a show like GoT even being made, let alone having any sort of success in the 70's or 80's? Times, they are a changen. Don't underestimate the depths writers will go to break the audieces heart. I guess we should be thankful that SW writers have more respect for the SW saga, the fans, and the lessons and universal truths that the stories try to impart. And that's why we'll all still be watching SW when flash in the pan sagas like GoT are long forgotten. (BTW, I wasn't entirely sure which audience your post was aimed at, me, the forum, the writers...?)

Ultimately though, I think your right, this is STAR WARS! And one of the reasons it stands the test of time is the respect to which the writers treat the subject material, the lovethey have for the SW universe, the fans, and the greater meanings and lessons contained within in that universe that cross time and space in all universes, real and imagined.

 

Thank you, Empire Jo.

This is one of the things that has me most concerned going into Episode VIII and IX.

The "darkness for darkness' sake" model of storytelling is something I am not a fan of, because it is gratuitous and there simply to be dark and not even necessarily in a meaningful way.

Which some audience members might enjoy and embrace. Which is also something that has me concerned in a more general sense, and partly with regards to the greater human condition.

Darkness in Star Wars, even in the virtual bloodbath that was Revenge of the Sith, was more than arguably essential to the representation of Anakin's fall. It served a purpose, and the Jedi Order of old was ridden with the very clear purpose of ushering in the Sith-lead Empire.

If any more characters absolutely "must" meet their ends in Episode VIII or IX, let it be for some amazingly good reason built up to and supported with purpose, not simply treating them as expendable characters who stand in the way of fresh faces and what certain executives/producers might believe are more "marketable" personas in the Sequel Trilogy.

JediMasterRobert

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 13, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 13, 2016 ---

Thank you for your detailed responses, Rebo! I appreciate it when people substantiate their views.

Ageism is not quite a stretch here if the riddance of Original Trilogy characters is predicated primarily on their being old and that the "new characters" need room.

This is a precarious subject, to end a character, especially deeply admired and loved ones.

They are like family members among so many of us.

So, naturally, many of us would want what's "best" for them: to give them the very best story arc possible given their characterization and overall history.

Death is an exit, surely, but merely one of many in the dramaturgy.

I wish they would! In fact, I wish Episode IX could get two parts, if such an extended treatment is truly warranted.

I would say, why rush things when Star Wars requires such a big canvas? I'd prefer the artists in charge now to take their time to paint a masterpiece down to the finest details.

JediMasterRobert

 

Thank you for your reply, Rebo.

It is not an assumption I would justify or personally make at this point, as I have not yet seen Episode VIII. It's still stuck at the "if" stage until more information becomes available.

I believe they are telling a new story, but it is not entirely "new" because it is proceeding directly from what Luke, Han, Leia, et al have done up to now. The storytellers are continuing the story of Star Wars.

Agreed!

Having studied world literature (comparative lit), I have no problem classifying Star Wars as a contemporary member of the greater evolving-across-history epic tradition.

Star Wars unfolds in a very episodic manner, in medias res (starting, in its cinematic chronology, with Episode IV), but, considered cohesively (and if only from its films) its epic elements are amply there, although Star Wars is not an epic identical to Homer's Odyssey.

Although Luke does now, at the end of The Force Awakens, has a strong parallel with Odysseus (and Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings) in having been away so long and being potentially instrumental in his return.

JediMasterRobert

 

I totally concur. That deserves its very own trilogy.

I think one of the greatest things George Lucas achieved, character to character, was to develop them in-depth in epic contexts and/or against epic backgrounds -- in the painterly Ralph McQuarrie sense and the historic/epic poetic sense. There was concurrent develop of the Clone Wars and Obi-Wan and Palpatine's characters, as well as Yoda's and the rest, for example.

I think the new Sequel Trilogy can continue in this simple-yet-complex mode effectively.

I would just prefer any "simplification" in the continued story not to be conducted primarily or solely through the riddance of core characters without excellent reason.

Characters can recede, fade, retire even, while retaining "presence," relevance, even as they make room for others. Yoda's arc is a classic example of this.

JediMasterRobert

 

I would agree as well under the condition it could serve the interests and story arcs of both characters involved in this storyline transaction -- not simply to have a "move along" storyline gesture, a merely generational stepping-aside, or a forced/hastily reasoned exit for Character A only so as to clear the stage for Character B.

With excellent reasoning in place, any exeunt and entrances do symbiotically serve the plot and the respective characters involved.

It really all comes down to the handling. I think there are workable ways to retain yet deemphasize characters in more compelling ways than to simply terminate their arcs.

To use character demises sparingly and judiciously, with great reasoning and justification, so as for these terminations to be utterly purposeful and even natural in the overall storyline: this is an ideal I believe the storytellers can uphold if they are so inclined.

JediMasterRobert

 

Yep, Artoo was the true hero lol.

 

These are difficult things to be decided.

There are limitations which could be helpful in the narrative: for example, Luke can only be in one place at a time, unless he has developed a new Force ability (imagine Force multitasking ).

He could be involved in a major way in a separate subplot, as Obi-Wan was in his pursuit of General Grievous, which gave room for Anakin and Padme's storyline to develop simultaneously.

The Force Awakens demostrates Luke Skywalker can be there and yet not there, even as, originally, it was felt that his presence necessitated his absence.

All throughout the film, for me, Luke's presence (if just as a question to be asked from the opening crawl) and physical absence touches nearly every scene.

I love Leia as a character and her actress Carrie Fisher. I would much prefer not to find out she was figuratively shoved to the sidelines or sent off stage only to make room for "the new." Writers should give her a very good reason to not be there. Give her great reason to leave. Give her the ultimate reason to sacrifice herself, if the story warrants that.

But, at the very least, I would like her afforded her due respect in this Sequel Trilogy, not only as the mother of Ben, wife of Han, sister of Luke, or as a General of the Resistance, but also in light of everything she did and suffered up to The Force Awakens.

These are arcs and identities not easily to be effaced, technically or emotionally.

I generally feel the same way toward all of the major and secondary characters, old or new: I would prefer for each of them be introduced, developed, and concluded in the most meaningful ways possible to make for their best use and to contribute their characters' lives to making the best overall story.

I am optimistic and think it can and perhaps will be done.

JediMasterRobert

 

i don't see any reason why the old guard can't continue to be old guard. they don't need to die to pass the baton. in fact, the baton is already well and duly passed.

i don't need to see Luke in battle action. i want him to be wise and above the base violence. Leia can continue to be a leader and tactician.

i'd love to see Luke and Leia serve out this legacy as long as they're able.