Why is backstory so important?

Very much agree. I think that wraps up the issue some have. We can find characters who are intended to be just minor but they turn out to become cult classics. Examples are Boba Fett the Emperor, Darth Maul, and even the mentioned Darth Plaguies. Once they hit the screen, they were cool, intriguing, and fans wanted to know more about them. That info wasn't given in the movies though simply because they were not main characters and their info didn't move this main characters story forward. We did get more in tv and novels on them. It seems to me Snoke has turn into another but in todays world of instant gratification, we want it now, in the movie even if it does nothing for story of the main characters.

Also while the trilogies are connected, they each can stand on their own. I don't have to watch the PT to like and understand the OT. I don't have to watch the OT to understand the PT. Consequently, I shouldn't need to watch the PT and OT to enjoy the ST.

 

Thanks for this because it helps my point. Very few people come into a TV series in season 7. I never have unless the backstory of the characters were unnecessary to the current plot.

Episode 7 of Star Wars works as an entry point for new fans by design. That way they're not lost by back stories on side characters. It's also confusing to new audiences.

 

While I agree with you that Disney has cast aside the loyal fan base in order to appeal to new fans, I don't even think there are significant numbers of new fans in the first place. I doubt there are terribly many people over the age of 8 that went into E7 without knowing who Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Darth Vader (etc) were, and also having a pretty good idea of the events which took place in the OT.

 

I didn't say anything about casting aside loyal fans.

That may or may not be true, but it doesn't make much sense to make a film that requires a new audience member to consume 6 films as a requirement.

 

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. It is not logical to say they geared their movies towards new fans and also geared the same movie towards long time fans.

Do you really think that there was any lack of familiarity with the storyline by anyone going to see E7? Like, large amounts of people went to see E7 and didn't know who Luke Skywalker was, who Han Solo was, etc...?

 

Let me be clear (again). I didn't say they "cast away loyal fans." That's something you brought to the conversation. That said...

Why can't it be both? Why is it illogical to attempt to make a film that appeals to the widest possible audience?

I'm not sure how that relates to my point that watching the first 6 films isn't a requirement to watch this ST. This trilogy can be watched independently of those films and that's by design. We didn't know Maul's back story. We didn't need to know Phasma's back story and on and on it goes.

 

Late to the party, but I'd like to throw my hat in the ring.

I think @metadude had the right idea of it. Backstory is important because it connects us to the characters and what's going on.

Take John Wick for example. It's a very simple revenge story, and one that doesn't really stand if you just hear the plot. But once given a little background as to why the dog is important and why all the mobsters are afraid of him, we get stakes. And that's the thing here - background can create stakes within the story*.

Snoke is an...interesting case, and I don't think it's the best example tbh. We don't need to know where he comes from, or how he got into power. That's not important really. But what is important is important is how he got into Ben's head, and how Leia (and presumably Luke) knew about him. That's the necessary backstory IMO.*

Knowing how Snoke knew Ben and the Solos would enhance the personal stakes already set.

But the obsession with him lies within a fanbase that wants Plagueis back. That thought he could be - or should be/have been - Plagueis. Just go back and look at the forum threads about it.

As for the Vader thing, Vader DID have backstory within Episode IV. It's not important, and it's retconned later, but it's there. Vader was Obi-Wan's apprentice. Vader killed Luke's dad. He's a cyborg, "more machine than man now." He's one of the last remnants of a "dead religion." Vader got a decent amount of backstory, if only to set up the fact that he was Luke's main threat. The end of the trench run isn't suspenseful just because Luke might fail and the Rebellion will be destroyed. There's that subtle layer of the fact that the man who killed Luke's father - the man that killed Luke's mentor - is about to kill him.

Vader showed up ominous and impressive, but the movie didn't end with us knowing nothing about him. Heck, compared to Snoke, Vader got A LOT of backstory within his first movie!

Amen to that, and that INCLUDES Vader's past.


Lastly, I think it's important to note that we as Star Wars fans think backstory is important (and that everything/one should be connected) because STAR WARS TOLD US SO. The Prequels, on a macro level were about the fall of a Republic into an Empire, were also the backstory of most of our OT characters. And then Rogue One filled in the backstory of the opening crawl of ANH. Star Wars has been telling us that the history of these characters and events matter for the past 18 years. So when something doesn't check that box, we get annoyed.


*if done well. Otherwise it's just distracting.
*However, I will concede that you can argue that the story is more of what Kylo does after he's been seduced to the Dark Side and suffered abuses there, and not how he got there in the first place.

 

Kylo Ren is the Vader of this trilogy and we learn a lot about him in the first two films. Snoke is a secondary character who barely gets any screen time in the first film. I don't think anyone is arguing that backstory isn't important for central characters (correct me if I'm wrong).

Some of us get annoyed. I think the backstory in the ST is consistent with the PT and ST so far.

 

To be honest I did find that statement to be insulting and condescending. It infers that you believe yourself to be 'the expert' and the superior keeper of knowledge, all without knowing anything about myself or my education. But I suspect it's because of how you interpreted my statement "What rules? There are no rules!". I wasn't being ignorant of them, rather I was being dissentious towards them!

So when I ask "What rules?" I'm not saying I am unaware of them. I'm saying it as a challenge to the idea of those rules being used as a kind of doctrine. I'm saying they are not strictly set in stone, that they are not some gospel that must be adhered to at all times and that not following them is automatically 'bad' writing. They are there, but they can be taken with a pinch of salt.

What I said in full was there are no rules, only forms and conventions. I was saying that they are not 'rules' as such, they are just popular conventions and established norms which do not have to be adhered to. They are not sacrosanct - and not adhering to them is not inherently bad storytelling or bad film making.

In a wider sense I was positing that they are not all 'objective', indisputable elements as you see them, but that I think they are 'subjective' models, to be used or not used, open to being challenged and subverted. Story writing and film making is 'art', not 'science'. Creativity and imagination shouldn't be shackled by a set of 'rules', but can be used when they are useful.

However, I by no means think they should just be totally ignored and discarded. I'm not suggesting the baby should be thrown out with the bath water - they are the wisdom of writers and can be learned from if it helps one's own story writing. But I don't think it's necessarily fair or reasonable to hold every film or story to some story writing commandments and then declare something as a cinematic failure when it doesn't obey them, as if 'the rules' are like some kind of measuring tool to judge all stories and films by.

Blind commitment to 'rules' can lead to statements like, "Stories have to have X. If it does not have X then it is bad." An example may be "Stories have to have a central character. If you don't have a central character then it's bad storytelling." But that's not true in itself. It's just a popular convention. It's used a lot, particularly in the classical and Hollywood narratives and 'the hero's journey', and it's the form with which most audiences relate to the most, but it's not necessarily 'bad' storytelling if a story doesn't follow those conventions (it was one of the criticisms of TPM as I recall).

And that there is my point - I'm suggesting they are not necessarily 'universal truths' to be dogmatically obeyed. It's not that I don't know rules exist.

Anyway, all of this perhaps has little to do with a debate about whether Snoke's backstory should have been told in the ST or not!

So do I think backstory is important?

Yes. Except when it isn't.

I think that's the only rule which is important here.

 

Fair point, and I can't argue that. Would comparing Snoke to Tarkin work better in this scenario...? Eh, my brain's going off track. Let me revise my thoughts.

I guess the best way I can think of it now is that JJ alluded to a question, "Why should we feel threatened by Snoke?" He asks this through his command of the First Order, his knowledge of Vader's past, and his fear of Luke Skywalker.

RJ's answer to that question was, "we shouldn't. Kylo's the main piece here." And some fans were upset with that.

Outside of Snoke, backstory isn't so problematic. Finn's main backstory is explained in just about three lines,* and Rey's is mostly from visual cues nad slight responses (although her story, like Snoke, is slightly burdened with mystery boxes and fan expectations). Poe's backstory was explained via his parents in Shattered Empire before TFA as well as in his own comic series afterwards. Hux got his in the Aftermath Trilogy, and those Rebels spin-off books.

So overall, backstory isn't that big of a problem, unless A) it's not explained in even the simplest of sentences (read: some fan's problems with Holdo and Poe's story in TLJ) or B) trying to measure up to fan's expectations (a fight it can never win).

Also a fair point. My B on the generalization.



*I'd actually really like to see Finn's backstory. Not for Finn himself, but to see more of how the First Order works. We know they basically strip planets of materials and resources after using said planet to make materials and resources, but what about the child soldiers? Where do they come from? How do they kidnap them? I think there's an incredibly dark story to see here, and Bob Saget I want it!

 

i want this too. we get the tiniest hints of it in Aftermath and some more details in Phasma; they start by taking children who are orphaned by the war and eventually potentially evolve into baby-napping when they run out of kids who have been thrown away.

but i'd like to see a story about Finn's origins (and hopefully someone more interesting and complex than just: hi, we're here to dominate your planet, give us your children). because for all of Rax's failings, he did have noble intentions. maybe if he had lived the First Order could have been more balanced? i dunno ~ he was kind of extreme. but leaving it in the hands of Sloane and Brendol was probably the worst that could have happened for it. : o p

 

You hit the nail on the head with Snoke, at least for me.

The only real thing I want from Snoke is how he affected Ben (and by extention the OT3), because that is all that is relevant to the story (imo). It's important to me, because it could have a larger effect on Luke's characterization. It's funny, for me every issue I have seems to come back to Luke. I think Snoke is essential in telling and understanding that story.

At the same time, I realize as many keep stating that the story isn't about Luke, it's about Rey (I am listening and I do comprehend). But I care more about Luke then I do Rey. I wanted Luke to be Gandalf to Rey's Aragorn. I could accept something different, but the character I get is so far removed from RotJ Luke, and that Snoke is mentioned in Ben's early past, that I can't help but feel there's a part of the story there that needs to be told. Now that Snoke and Luke are both dead, it seems unlikely that we'll ever get that.

To me, that's the missed opportunity. It would add layers to Kylo, and quite possibly more sympathy then many of RJ's attempts in TLJ via other means. It would explain or help explain Luke, who is pivotal to the story told in TLJ. It then would have greater meaning in the Luke/Rey interactions. It's all linked, we can sort or see it, but at the same time it's left so vague as to be infuriating lol.

For me, this wouldn't even be an issue had JJ not mentioned in TFA that Snoke had anything to do with Ben until after he turned. Then I'd still be frustrated with Luke's characterization, but I wouldn't be annoyed with Snoke's lack of backstory that could possibly fill in those holes that I feel are left open without some form of discourse of backstory to his influence on Ben early on.

 

This is real easy question. We are at Part 8 of this 9 part Saga so you need backstory on characters at this point, or you wonder where they had been for the past movies? It was fine for the Emperor to have no backstory, because we were thrown in this world and you just sort of went with it. But once you have a Prequel Trilogy and then a Sequel Trilogy set 30 years later, then you have to start explaining more about these characters or it becomes redundant. Snoke's character felt like The Emperor 2.0, so the best way to distinguish him as a different villain was to give him some backstory that made him feel original. Maybe he was hiding out all these years while The Emperor ruled the Galaxy as he lost in a battle to him sometime between 1-6?

Disney could have easily made their own SW Trilogy set 200 years after ROTJ with all new characters that had nothing to do with Han, Luke and Leia, and THEN you can have Snoke as the villain without a backstory, because it's not relevant to what came before 1-6. But 1-6, and now 1-9 is a narrative and you can't just throw these characters in there with no context or they stick out like a sore thumb.

 

So you mean that the narrative for the sequel trilogy should be told differently in this trilogy compared to the others? So far the back story has been consistent with the other trilogies. However, if I understand you correctly, since this a sequel and not a prequel every minor character needs a back story?

It's very difficult to make a film worth watching with these kind of requirements. Each film would be over 3 hours and it would be burdened with backstory for characters that don't really even matter that much.

 

I'm talking about major characters, not a character like Unkar Platt (I think I spelled it right). Snoke is a MAJOR character, and he came off as Emperor 2.0 in TFA and I sort of rolled my eyes. If they gave some backstory on him that differentiated him from the Emperor, then he would have been an interesting character and it would have felt original. The biggest problem with Sequels and multiple seasons on a Movie/TV show is that they start to repeat themes/characters, so you need to give something to the fans about that character that will make you look at him/her in a different way so it doesn't feel like the story is just going down the same road as before.

 

my sister would never tolerate this in a film. and honest-to-God, she is exactly the audience for the ST: someone who knows Star Wars well enough to know who all the main characters are, knows absolute zip about legends, eu, cartoons, etc., and just wants some bright fun entertainment that will get her hooked going forward.
she doesn't want to have to turn to me every five minutes and ask: who's that? is he important? is he related to someone? have we seen him before?

my other sister was hesitant about going to TFA. she said she didn't remember Star Wars all that well. i told her: there's nothing you need to know that isn't explained in the film. and she was fine. afterwards she asked me if San Lor Tekka was from the original movies, but that was her only question.

only hardcore Star Wars fans ask where Snoke came from. i'd wager most of the general audience understands that he's a minor background evil puppetmaster who is trying to take over the galaxy. it doesn't matter why. or where he came from. or how he amassed his power. any more than it ever did with the Emperor.

 

You are probably right that casual fans don't care about that stuff, but you still have to appeal to hardcore fans for several reasons:

1. Hardcore fans are still a big part of the fanbase

2. Hardcore fans see the movies multiple times compared to casual fans (I saw TFA 4 times, and had one friend who saw TPM 8 times!)

3. Hardcore fans buy the merchandise, as TLJ merchandise sales plummented 49% from TFA.

I'm not saying you cater 100% to the hardcore fans, because there is a balance of keeping casual fans too. But many hardcore fans feel alienated after TLJ, and that is the wrong approach to keeping the SW brand going in the future for reasons I stated above.

 

i actually challenge this. while i agree hardcore fans make up a percentage of the fanbase, i'd bet money it's not the majority.
and what's a hardcore fan anyway? i saw TFA 14 times in the theatre. i read all the new eu stuff. i consider myself a pretty hardcore fan.
but i never was a now-legends fan, don't care much about the PT, and absolutely can't be bothered by Snoke's backstory ~ ha!
is there a scale of "hardcore" where i can appropriately slot myself?

i agree hardcore fans will watch multiple times and buy all the merch. i also agree that alienating hardcore fans hurts the brand any way you slice it.
but i do think hardcore fans underestimate the number of new kids on the block, returning old dogs, and casual general audience members.
Lucasfilm seemed pretty clear in its objective with the ST: court more female fans, court the overseas audience.
are they succeeding? to some degree perhaps. they're not winning in China, but i'd say they're winning the female fans.

my point is, they are happy to make the hardcore fans happy (and are successful there to some degree--not sure how to measure it, but it's people like me who wandered off in the PT era, or who generally like anything Star Wars, perhaps), but they're not worried about catering to them as a specific audience because they can't afford to. that's like making Firefly the movie. nice idea, excellent fan service since the show didn't get to end, but no one who doesn't know the show is going to go watch that or understand it, really (and they didn't).

Lucasfilm rightly and smartly wants Star Wars to be universally accessible; not a secret club to which only the initiated are welcome. and they can't do that by cluttering what's essentially an adventure fantasy with intricate minutiae that perplexes or bores or alienates the general audience. to be fair, they already have stuffed the ST and stand-alones with tons of easter eggs and winks and nods and Darth Vader in all his glory. it's a lot.

the hardcore fans who want more are asking for too much.
Lucasfilm never said it was making content for just them. and those people need to learn to share.

 

I was expecting this response and should have clarified as 'Hardcore' fans was the wrong word. I would just say there are SW fans and Casual Fans, as SW fans range from EU readers, to people on the internet, to fans who just love the franchise more then anything else and see the movies multiple times. That's the difference between SW fans and Star Trek fans, as most Star Trek are true diehards. I am a perfect example as I am not big SciFi fan, but I LOVE SW more then anything, so I am diehard in that sense.

Whether we like it or not, SW is a male driven franchise and that is where Disney is missing the boat. That doesn't mean you can't have female fans, as there were girls who liked SW when I was growing up in 1977. It is no different then Lifetime movies catering to a majority women audience. That doesn't mean men don't watch Lifetime and Hallmark, but they cater those movies to women as my mom and sister and law love that channel. There is no problem with female protagonists as we grew up with Ripley and Sarah Connor as Aliens and Terminator were beloved movies. But you also had cool male characters like Arnold because guys gravitate to strong male characters. When you make them all boobs and idiots like TLJ did, then you are going to turn off a good potion of your base.

Star Wars is never going to be Hunger Games, because that is not the original audience. If you want to change that and cater to the Hunger Games/Twilight audience, then most of the OT fans will walk away because it won't be for them. So my point is you can't please every type of audience and that is what Disney is trying to do and you end up alienating everyone.