1. Due to the increased amount of spam bots on the forum, we are strengthening our defenses. You may experience a CAPTCHA challenge from time to time.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Notification emails are working properly again. Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam". This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. IMPORTANT! To be able to create new threads and rate posts, you need to have at least 30 posts in The Cantina.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Before posting a new thread, check the list with similar threads that will appear when you start typing the thread's title.
    Dismiss Notice

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker General Movie Discussion

Discussion in 'Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker' started by Trevor, May 31, 2019.

  1. DigificWriter

    DigificWriter Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2019
    Posts:
    871
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,577
    Ratings:
    +2,187 / 105 / -32
    Although I'm not trying to change people's minds and probably won't, one of the things that works for me about the Age of Resistance Trilogy is that it's about legacies. Every character in the trilogy has to grapple with the question of legacy in some fashion, - especially its two 'mythic protagonists' Rey and Ben Solo (and, yes, Ben is a co-protagonist throughout all 3 films in the trilogy even though he's initially presented as being antagonistic and hostile towards his co-protagonist Rey and other characters) - and the entire story itself is predicated on legacy since the First Order is quite literally the legacy of the Empire in more ways than one.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. eeprom

    eeprom Prince of Bebers

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Posts:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    5,582
    Trophy Points:
    15,317
    Credits:
    5,602
    Ratings:
    +8,423 / 34 / -9
    I think that’s a lovely place to come from. I just wish the trilogy had foregrounded and resolved that concept a bit more. I mean, why did the New Republic fail? Why did the New Jedi fail? Why did Luke fail? Dogma? Hubris? Fear? They didn’t learn from the mistakes of the past and so repeated them . . . I guess?

    Has this new generation succeeded where the previous two failed? Did they learn a new/better way forward? It doesn’t really seem like it. Things are mostly in the same relative place they were 30 years prior. A net-zero gain.

    The sequel trilogy is certainly interested in the weight of legacy and the struggle of reconciling that burden. And that’s a truly engaging thread to follow. But it’s not very conscious of the new casts’ own legacy. Have they left the galaxy in a better place than they found it? Is there any reason for us to expect the ending of TROS to be any more impactful than the ending for ROTJ?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Too Bob Bit

    Too Bob Bit Jedi Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2018
    Posts:
    537
    Likes Received:
    9,522
    Trophy Points:
    88,517
    Credits:
    2,669
    Ratings:
    +10,267 / 9 / -1
    Sometimes for me I think part of the problem and maybe the mistake with TROS was trying to position and market it as the conclusion of the whole saga. I'm not really sure when that happened, but my memory is that it all began sometime after TLJ. But I went into this trilogy treating it like just some new extra episodes of stuff which happens after the main saga was over - an expanded universe in movie form - a just 'what happens next' bolt-on series of movies.

    Of course, I understood that Disney wanted to capture the old idea of Lucas's third trilogy in his trilogy of trilogies, and even went as far as resurrecting his additional three standalone movies idea as well, but I saw that all as just marketing to capture our imaginations and reignite the excitement of that original idea, as if it was still the plan all along!

    But I saw that as a red herring, and I went into the start of the ST seeing it not so much as the FINAL trilogy in the saga, but rather the FIRST trilogy in what I thought - or hoped - would be Disney moving forward into a new era with the story. But then TROS came along and it felt like it just tried just a little too hard to be the big, explosive finale to the whole series.

    Basically, I think I would have preferred if they had just focused on at least concluding the third episode in their three part story, instead of trying to make it the ninth and final part of the series and the conclusion of the saga as a whole. I felt that was done already in ROTJ. Lucas's saga was over in episode VI. The ST ought to have been Disney's new beginning.

    But I don't know - maybe it already is everything I think it should have been, and I just fell for the marketing...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. DigificWriter

    DigificWriter Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2019
    Posts:
    871
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,577
    Ratings:
    +2,187 / 105 / -32
    @eeprom We don't need to know what led to the New Republic's fall within the context of the story being told, not just within the Age of Resistance Trilogy itself, but also with regards to the Skywalker Saga as a whole, because that's not the point of the story being told.

    When taken as a whole, the overall theme of the Age of Resistance Trilogy - and its place in the overall Skywalker Saga - is legacy and how characters both define and are defined by that word and concept.

    @Too Bob Bit The Episodic Films of Star Wars (AKA The Skywalker Saga) are George Lucas' films; expecting a direct continuation of said films - and especially a continuation launched by George himself - not to perpetuate the format and conceits of said films and ultimately resolve the narrative begun by said films is a bit strange.
     
  5. eeprom

    eeprom Prince of Bebers

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Posts:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    5,582
    Trophy Points:
    15,317
    Credits:
    5,602
    Ratings:
    +8,423 / 34 / -9
    Of course it is. What led the Republic to become the Empire is the same thing that led the Jedi to become extinct and Anakin to become Vader. They’re variations on the same theme - each complementing and reinforcing one another. The good of the Republic survived in the Rebellion and is redeemed with the foundation of the New Republic just as the Jedi and Anakin are survived and redeemed through Luke.

    All three are corrupted and then redeemed in the same arc within George’s six part story. That’s not a coincidence. It’s a deliberate commentary: The macro and the micro are all connected.
    To what end though? Legacy for legacy’s sake alone is blisteringly shallow in the big picture. The original trilogy was about how a new generation, having grown up in the wake of the catastrophic decisions of the previous, had to right those wrongs and restore equilibrium. That was THEIR inherited legacy. The prequel trilogy was about providing context for how that previous generation had made those ill-fated decisions - to articulate the importance of what the new generation was doing in contrast to them.

    The sequel trilogy is about how, regardless of their best efforts, that new generation ultimately made similar errors, suffered the same consequences and must themselves be redeemed by a new new generation. As a whole, the entire saga is about ‘legacy’. The ST doesn’t have a monopoly on that word and concept. So what then is it really saying with respect to what came before? Are they just going to, in turn, make those same mistakes and then a new new new generation will have to intercede? What progress has been made exactly?
     
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
  6. DigificWriter

    DigificWriter Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2019
    Posts:
    871
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,577
    Ratings:
    +2,187 / 105 / -32
    In my opinion, the Age of Republic Trilogy, thematically, is about failure; the Age of Rebellion Trilogy is about redemption; and the Age of Resistance Trilogy is about legacy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. eeprom

    eeprom Prince of Bebers

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Posts:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    5,582
    Trophy Points:
    15,317
    Credits:
    5,602
    Ratings:
    +8,423 / 34 / -9
    I don’t know, man. Saying that the ST is about ‘legacy’ is sort of like saying dessert is about ‘food’. Isn’t the whole meal about ‘food’? Isn’t the whole saga about ‘legacy’?

    The first movie has the hero inherit his father’s sword and a tradition over a thousand generations old. It has the heroine sent on a mission by her father to recruit a legendary general. It makes the villain a wayward student desperate to prove he’s surpassed his former teacher. Legacy, and its associated burdens, was baked into the recipe from the start. That’s not something new the ST brought to the table.

    What makes it especially resonant now though is the paratextual and metatextual implications. Behind the scenes, the people making these movies are themselves inheritors of a legacy. They’re fans, who grew up with these stories, picking up where their heroes left off and trying their damndest to do it proper justice while making it their own.

    Similarly, the audience is also experiencing a version of this. Children, who grew up with this franchise, are adults now and have their own children that are growing up on it. It’s generational inheritance. Star Wars has become a legacy itself. It’s life reflecting art reflecting life. That perspective positions the theme as much more poignant, since it's mirroring our own experience, but really it’s not that distinct from what was there all along.

    Or not. I don't know. I'm just blathering at this point :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
  8. DigificWriter

    DigificWriter Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2019
    Posts:
    871
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,577
    Ratings:
    +2,187 / 105 / -32
    Yes, the argument can be made that the entire Skywalker Saga is, on some level, about legacy, but with the Age of Resistance Trilogy and the conflict with the First Order, the theme of legacy is explicitly and overtly tied to every single character and the plotlines of every individual film.

    A few quick examples:
    * The First Order is both overtly and clandestinely the legacy of the Empire. Not only do its primary representatives in all 3 films - Hux, Phasma, and General Pryde - have direct legacy connections to the old Empire either by blood, service, or iconography, it was directly puppeteered by the Emperor through its Supreme Leader for years in secret

    * Finn, Rose, and Jannah represent and are first-hand evidence of the Empire and First Order's legacy of oppression, with Finn and Jannah having had their pasts and legacy literally stolen from them and Rose's planet and parents having been literally destroyed because of the First Order and its stated goal of restoring and surpassing the Empire's legacy

    * Rey and Ben's entire lives are shaped by legacy. Rey's parents strand her on Jakku in the hopes of protecting and hiding her from the legacy of the Dark Side, the Sith, and the Empire, and Ben's fears about living up to the legacy of his family - on both the Light Side and the Dark Side - are the direct cause and effect of his fall and redemption. Rey also gets to write her own legacy in the end through her connection to the Force and to Ben and those who love him

    I could keep going, but I think these examples are sufficient to illustrate how and why the theme of legacy is specifically relevant to the Age of Resistance Trilogy as well as being generally present in and applicable to the Skywalker Saga as a whole.
     
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
Loading...

Share This Page