The Force Awakens story connection to JRR Tolkien

Agreed, very nice piece. It also lays out like the real world, after WWI it wasn't peace, WWII happened and then almost instantaneously the Cold War followed.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it" Which is basically the Republic in this film, not seeing the rising threat of the FO. Just like the Jedi Order not seeing the Sith threat before it was too late.



(Probably off topic, w/e) But did you see the same author's other touching piece about TFA and his daughter. This really solidifies a middle finger to people calling Rey a "Mary Sue" https://gerrycanavan.wordpress.com/...a-three-and-a-half-year-old-girl-no-spoilers/

 

So you can't be critical of a character because of what it makes other people feel?

Are you friken kidding me?

Jesus, I hope some of you people never take up writing.

BTW, the author actually calls Rey a Mary Sue in his own comments in the OP article.

 

yeah what a stupid thing to say. agreed on all accounts. i have faith Rian Johnson will write Rey as a more interesting character.

 

Let's point out that that little blog entry did say no such thing.
Just for the hygene of the argument.

 

There's a lot of Arthurian mythology built into it as well:

-Maz is the Lady of the Lake, even to the point of handing Excalibur (Luke and Anakin's old lightsaber) to Rey (who could be seen as the Arthur-type character).

-Poe is Sir Lancelot-the shining example of courage, virtue, compassion, and what all good guys should aspire to be like.

-Rey pulling the lightsaber out of the snow is like Arthur pulling the sword out of the stone.

-Etc.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 6, 2016, Original Post Date: Jan 6, 2016 ---

Given the film's critical reception, I don't know that I'd agree with this.

 

The fact that a villain faction survives after its defeat and rise again is a super common element in narrative. Tolkien, Abrams and other writers used it but you can't relate the stories because of it: it's like saying LOTR and Snow White are similar because there is a villain in the story.

 

From the article:

That Star Wars implies a world of sorrow belied by the spectacle of Jedi‘s happy ending isn’t a surprise to me — I told you, I read the EU books — but I can see why it’s a surprise to someone whose last memory of these people is smiles, a fireworks display, hugs, and a picnic. Return of the Jedi never asked us what we thought would happen when those people woke up the next morning and the Empire still had 90% of its guns, ships, territory, generals, and soldiers, ready to descend into vicious, scorched-earth fanaticism as they slid into defeat; it just wasn’t that kind of story.

Where I'd wholeheartedly agree is the stupidity of the ROJ Special Edition revisionism showing the Imperial citizens on Coruscant celebrating what appears to be a massive defeat of "their" military. It's almost suggesting that after the defeat of the 6th German army in Stalingrad the citizens of Berlin went out on the street to celebrate.

What the author ignores is that Star Wars was renamed "A New Hope" and already the title - a synonym for Luke Skywalker - suggested that the grip of the Galactic Empire would be gone by the end of the OT. That's an essential premise of the OT and its deliberate fairy-tale allusions.

That the Empire still had 90% of its military is or was pure conjecture. If we look at real world analogies the Alliance in ANH was rather like the UK in WW II, almost defeated by Hitler Germany but then gradually helped and supported by the US which together with other "alien" allies defeated Hitler Germany.

Frankly, I don't like rationalizations that come at the expense of characters or renowned organisations. My core problem with this rationalization remains, that it postulates that the Alliance to Restore the Republic somewhat didn't know what it was doing when taking up arms against the Empire.

On the contrary I (still) believe that by the time of ROJ the Alliance had gotten enough support to turn the tables, and the Battle of Endor simply meant that the one who would emerge victorious would define the future fate of the galaxy.

But then, again, making sequels how to restore benevolent order in the galaxy is probably not nearly as exciting as featuring two fractions engaged in battle for the fate of the galaxy.

 

They did succeed to a degree. The FO is nowhere near as large and far-reachingly powerful as the Empire was. They built a New Republic, etc.

 

A lot can happen in 30 years time during post war eras. Look at the middle eastern countries for example; 30 years ago tribal leaders in Afghanistan may have been killed by US soldiers, and now those children who hid in caves are now full grown men trained in combat and seeking vengeance for their fathers. This could be the same type of mindset in the First Order. The rebels did have a victory, but those small pockets of survivors grew up in secret and have now claimed power. They don't remember the Jedi, or Battle of Yavin, and don't really fear "the spark of Hope" that could destroy the Empire like it did years ago.

 

In the book aftermath, Mon Mothma is the chancellor of the new republic with its capital on her home world. Unless something changed that is the system destroyed by Starkiller base.

 

I think what we are seeing with the FO as a descendant of the Empire is that the Empire was a political reality, with roots going directly back to the Old Republic. Many of the members of the Empire were not fanatics, just functionaries and careerists.

The tragedy of the FO is that it was founded by, and built upon, the ideology of radical and fanatics. This is a much more dangerous thing.

The Tolkien parallel is well made. The events of the OT were a high point, and hence worth telling, of a generally depressing history of the failures of good to establish lasting peace, due to the failings of the human character. (Yes, I said Human, because even though the story is set in AGFFA, it is about us).

 

EDIT: Nevermind

 

As a fan of both I'm immediately intrigued by this idea! But I don't understand just how Tolkien abandoned LOTR sequel because it's "sinister and depressing", because... The whole Silmarillion is pretty sinister and "Hurin's Children" is the very second term for depressing, so I really don't see just what he wanted to avoid there.

As for The Force Awakens and the sequel trilogy, while I am very puzzled just how everything kept tumbling down after the triumph on Endor for our heroes, nevertheless it really is interesting setting for the sequels and the growing tension will only add to the stories ahead.

 

Interesting but I would still suggest Occom's Razor in that JJ, LK and Disney just wanted to minimize risk and thus they played it safe and soft rebooted the OT original characters be damned besides 100 years later is more like Star Wars Legacy where its not really our main characters fault if everything goes to hell after they moved offstage...its not just that JJ copied the OT that infantalizes the audience it the bigger means better approach, the lack of background details, the plot holes and the lack of depth.

But Still a good read.

As for the Empire what Empire in history has a smooth succession when its 3 Top Leaders get eliminated all at once.

 

Its not that its not an attempt to bring back the magic of the OT and make new dough. Its not that they may not have wanted to keep it safe and so on. Its that they didi all that while also giving in the narrative reasons and within the context of the saga make artful and meaningful connections. This isn't just a shameless cash grab. Its a shameless cash grab that they want to last. For future movies, for future theme parks and for posterity. Hence thy had to also make a masterpiece which I think they did. There is layers of symbolism, plots and dialogue that work on multiple levels and all sorts of visual and tonal call backs to the whole saga. Not just for nostalgia but because the original creator of the franchise built into the DNA of the saga tonal, visual and plot call backs.

 

Please this movie has less depth then an average Pixar movie...it only looks like depth because JJ moves fast and doesnt explain a single thing. U want a movie that did a good job at this then watch Creed....TFA did it better then Jurassic World I will admit. They played it safe, had good acting, made a lot of money...mission accomplished masterpiece it was not a forgery sure a masterpiece requires a great deal more creativity.