SPECULATION Rey's return

Some of the best cringe ever written. Luke freaking Skywalker; the kid WHO THREW HIS LIGHTSABER at the Emperor's feet and cast his lot with his terrible father.... at first, I was done when Jedi ended. But I hated the low budget mini wookiees so much that I eventually made my way to the EU with all of its mad clones, Thrawns & Vongs. And Lumiyas - lol.

More than one of those cooks should go back to washing dishes.

 

That's not true. George had lots of ideas. Too many to fit in one movie. When the movie he did make was successful, he recycled and re-recycled unused ideas for a second and third movie with stories and key character relationships he created and changed as he saw fit (in other words, made up as he went along) The third movie's story was heavily influenced by his wish to do a better version of the cantina scene in the original film, and his growing desire to not make any more SW films.

Empire Strikes Back was still "Star Wars Part II" until the third draft. He hadn't even planned to tell a back story at that stage. Lucas had ideas. Not plans. Stories were created as he went to incorporate those ideas.

 

"Whatever George comes up with that morning becomes the original idea he had all along." - Rick McCallum.

 

As with many other negative arguments pertaining to the Sequel Trilogy, the notion that there needed to be a painstakingly mapped-out narrative blueprint for its component films is fallacious and completely antithetical to what Star Wars is and has always been at its core: a modern Mythology.

 

Cos Dashit, happens.



Fun Info:
how many peeps know that Leia was supposed to named Queen of the Alderaanians (the surviving ones at least)?






https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Cos_Dashit

 

But this just isn't true, or, at the very least, is a vast oversimplification of the truth. The only thing we know for certain is that originally Lucas wrote a script that was far too big for one movie. It isn't a slight or a diss against George, it doesn't discredit him or this thing that we all love to say that for large parts of the creative process beyond the first film, he winged a lot of it and made decisions, crucial story decisions on the fly. Lucas' own story has changed an almost uncountable number of times over the past four decades, we have accounts from other producers and people who've worked on the films, and if none of that is convincing enough... just look at what's shown on screen and it's so very obvious. There are egregious retcons and continuity breaks, some without any explanation and others with very poor explanations. I would strongly argue worse than anything we get in the ST.

At the end of the day, though, nobody really cares. Either because of how much time has passed, or because of the way we consume media nowadays where we know far too much of the process than we should, or maybe just because people are willing to give George a pass but not Disney/Kathleen/JJ/Rian. But it largely is the same.

 

When the comment was made that the grand story arc for the ST films wasn't planned out from the outset, a defense was raised that OT films weren't planned out either. That led me to my quote above. The responses I've gotten have left me scratching my head So, allow me to try again.

Star Wars was George Lucas's brain child, He wrote all three OT films and directed two. Maratoto opined that George's "ideas weren't plans." But all creative writing -- short stories, books, or screenplays -- start with ideas. Some writers choose to work up a detailed story outline before they start writing. Others, not-so-much and, as you'd expect, there's everything in-between.

But the final script (i.e., the author's "plan") isn't done until he says its finished. In the case of film, further rewrites and edits can--and do--take place during shooting and in the editing room. That said, the original Star Wars and its two sequel films were most definitely "planned out" by (and story changes approved by) one person, George Lucas.

In the ST films, the story got passed back and forth between two writer directors who didn't collaborate with each other -- and that fact was reflected in the lack of coherence in the overall trilogy story.

 

This is a blatant falsehood that has been publicly debunked by both Abrams and Johnson (and Kathleen Kennedy).

https://comicbook.com/starwars/news...-he-had-many-discussions-with-j-j-abrams-abo/

 

Of course I am excited. After Palptine’s death and loose ends with the Empire finally put to rest 30 years after Episode 6, I do wonder what the new challenges are and how is the galaxy 15 years after TROS.

I just hope they have learned their lesson after the hasty and tight production of Ep. 9 as my biggest problems were handling Leia after Carrie passed away, recycled and uninspiring designs, missing details.
I want this “wow, this is new!” feeling when I see some concept art or teaser trailer, like I did as a kid with Episode 1.
I had the same feeling with TFA teaser trailer, before I saw recolored TIE fighters, pimped up Stormtroopers and star destroyers (with Death Planet turning to a star).

I also hope to see Finn and my boy Poe Dameron again (Poe and Kylo are my fav characters from sequels).

 

But why does it matter if one person or multiple people are behind making decisions? How does that impact one's enjoyment of what we actually get to see? You say you can very obviously tell in the way the ST plays out, but can you really?

In the first film of the OT, the audience is told that Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker are two separate entities. We aren't told this by a villain, or someone we aren't supposed to trust, it is said by someone who is supposed to be the most wholly good person in the galaxy. In the next film we find out this isn't true, that they are in fact the same person and the father of our protagonist, and then in the third film when it's time to explain why we were originally lied to, we get the very weak explanation of, "Well what I said actually is true if you look at it a certain way." The first two films also happen to feature romantic tension between two characters who would in the third film be revealed to be siblings.

If someone were to look at this without context they'd understandably think this was the work of many people attempting to do exactly what the filmmakers of the ST are accused of doing, but no, it's just the one man. The examples I provided are just two (the main) examples of many that exist throughout the OT, and it continued into the PT as well. George's work and his writing are riddled with retcons and things that break continuity.

In the ST what is actually shown and said to the audience in regards to Rey's parentage and overall family history is very mild in comparison. Nothing is revealed in the first film, in the second film the main villain of the entire trilogy gives an abridged version of the truth, but really, it was the truth as it was known to him at the time... and then finally in the third film we get the full reveal... and it doesn't actually destroy what was previously said, it only adds more meat onto it.

I want to make it very clear, that I don't care either way. The many retcons in George's work don't bother me, nor do any potential retcons in the ST, I just don't understand why so many people do care. Why one gets a pass and the other doesn't. Does George simply get one for creating everything even if it sometimes muddles what we are shown on-screen? I sometimes shudder to think what the reaction would be if Disney made the OT in this modern climate and did the same things that George did.

Circling back to the beginning, I really don't think that the lack of organization behind the scenes in the ST films is all that visible, certainly not any worse than the other two trilogies. I think many have forced themselves to see things that aren't there and largely judge these films for things that aren't actually shown on-screen. Once certain information became public: Not having an overall plan for the trilogy, not knowing Rey's parentage from the beginning, Mark Hamill explaining the problems he had with Luke's character, etc. this trilogy was dead in the water for those people and I eagerly await the days these films get looked upon with fresh eyes that know nothing about the making of them.

 

This all boils down to some fans feeling the rug was pulled out from under their theories and predictions for Episodes VIII and IX and a theory of lack of communication behind the scenes is required to explain why their predictions weren't fulfilled.

 

There are similarities with some of the reactions to S3 of The Mandalorian, which supposedly "lost its way" because it did not focus on what some of the fans assumed it would. Or focused on things which undermined their basic assumptions about what the show is "all about" and what it should or shouldn't do. This has been followed closely by speculation of what they probably "planned" to do and how those plans were changed by "marketing" or other outside influences and conflicting interests.

That's only some fans though. I think most of us aren't so invested in what we think will/might/should happen that it becomes difficult to enjoy or follow the show without trying to formulate hypothetical scenarios for how the correct, natural path was strayed from. (Or in the ST's case, they never conceived of a desirable path to follow or destination to reach at any point.)

A good chunk of the criticism is of an inherently unsafe "they were supposed to...." nature. Also, I think that deep down a lot of us have lingering anxiety and resentment about the fact that other people are responsible for created Star Wars films/shows.

 

​

Damn those salacious headlines.
​

 

President Harry Truman's "The Buck Stops Here" slogan became famous for a reason. Feature films by Committee are not impossible, but film history has shown that the more unified the vision between the film's writer and director, the better the outcome.

These are good points. But the difference between the two trilogies is that George Lucas made one mega-blockbuster film and subsequently decided to turn it into a trilogy whereas Disney bought Lucasfilm with the intention of giving fans a ST of films from the outset.

I would argue that tweaks between OT#1 and OTs 2 &3, can be forgiven by fans in the name of an expanded story. But if GL had been working with an established world and storylines, I suspect fans would've looked at the inconsistencies differently. As it was, I thought TESB did a masterful job of building a narrative bridge between Star Wars and Return of the Jedi. With regard to your points, YES, Obi-wan lied to Luke. But put yourself in Kenobi's shoes, do you tell this young, impressionable kid with force capabilities that the Dark Menace of the Galaxy is his father? Besides, the way the original film came out, Darth Vader's shocking announcement in TESB became one of The Biggest Film Shockers of All Time. Regarding Leia and Luke, while we didn't learn their heritage until ROTJ, that knowledge became signfiicantly less awkward when GL had Leia falling in love with 'bad boy' Han Solo in Film 2.

There were a number of fans at the time the 'Grand Finale' third film came out who were unhappy that it wasn't 'darker' like TESB. But the fact remains that Lucas was able to narratively tie everything together to "stick the landing" with ROTJ's conclusion. I'm afraid the vast majority of SW fanatics wouldn't same the same about TROS's ending.

 

One thing I'm excited about for new films is getting away from a trilogy structure. The idea that you have to have a plan is a little outdated and it's not really practical. Stories evolve and until the sausage is made you don't know what characters will work and what doesn't. The ST didn't have a strong plan, but they had certain things in mind. Rey's journey to becoming a Jedi and carving out and episode to focus on Han/Luke/Leia. Fisher's death really wrecked the last act. Being tied to having to do a trilogy was even worse at that stage. The entire story had to be wrapped up in one film.

Doing one film at a time allows greater flexibility. Some things will work and some thing won't, but at least the story doesn't have to come to an end at a predisposed time.

 

In the article I linked to above, JJ compared the process of handing the story he set up in TFA off to Rian and then ultimately picking things up from TLJ in order to bring the ST to its conclusion to the way that television writing works, and I honestly can't think of a better analogy.

 

It all depends. Fans being fans, if we're presented with a Really Cool Story with Really Cool Characters -- THEN we want to see MORE of the same!

The funny thing about the whole "trilogy" business with films is that it was inspired by the publishing of JRR Tolkien's masterwork, The Lord of the Rings. Fast fact, Tolkien intended it to be one REALLY LONG book. It was the book's publisher who told Tolkien it was much more feasible -- and profitable -- to break it into three separate books. Back then, that was considered a really wild way to do it. However, since then, all kinds of authors and filmmakers -- including George Lucas with his Star Wars story and New Line Cinema with its film adaptation of LOTR -- became intrigued with that format.