If the issue is that you don’t wanna see such things, the solution is easy: don’t watch any such things. If the issue is that you don’t want such things to exist for others to watch, my question would be: why?
Beyond the simple reality of opportunity cost (the resources to make one project don't go to another), I don't know that any work in a shared fictional universe fully stands alone, so to feel like you can tell any story simply because the setting technically would allow it is to lose something. You can set something up simply to be a setting, but even in its current form, I think the brand (or, more kindly, the "soul") of Star Wars is still something more, about hope, redemption, and culturally associating that "good" defeating "evil" is possible and worthwhile. There are tonal aspects to it that I'd argue are at least as important as the logistical ones (e.g. let's not have a Jedi in Chicago).
To the first point, I'd argue that resources spent on a particular franchise are not a zero sum. In fact, it's more likely that the more rich and flexible the themes of a franchise can be, the more resources will be allocated to the franchise (if successful). It can be argued that some of the successful Star Wars spin offs already take a lot of tonal liberties (even if they might do so in different ways as how you might be referring) while contributing to the success (and increasing resource allocation) of the entire franchise. Repeating the same tone over and over might in fact not be necessarily a good thing in the long run.
To the second point, I'd argue that the morals/message of a story is ultimately up to interpretation... one could easily interpret the tale of the ridding hood as a cute cautionary tale against stranger danger with a happy ending... but some might think up about symbolism with menstruation and associate it with darker issues (and there's even some recent new feminist takes on it..) and depending on how you think of it quickly stops being "cute" or the ending stops being really that happy when you think of what was sacrificed...
If you just watch the OT in isolation and start thinking about it you might as well end up realizing the rebels might in fact be the bad guys. The Empire only actually uses their weapons when they need to fight the rebellion and/or punish criminals/traitors, we are not really shown in the OT how the Empire is evil, only told from the point of view of the rebels. Or how are the rebels good. What's the republic's tax policy? how do they deal with corruption/crime? did people actually have better lives under the republic or could it be that life under the Empire the life of the average law-abiding citizen was actually safer, more prosperous and comfortable? If one has only watched the OT movies it might as well be the tale of a lesser evil being replaced by an even bigger one. It wouldn't be the first time someone has come up with a similar interpretation.
Also, I don't see the problem if, for example, the Skywalker saga had a particular tone and theme, and another hypothetical saga could have another. Just the same way as how the life in one country can have a different tone than the life in another one, despite being part of the same planet and overarching history. The OT will still be there and your interpretation for it doesn't have to change regardless of how many sequels and spin offs they make.
The Empire only actually uses their weapons when they need to fight the rebellion and/or punish criminals/traitors, we are not really shown in the OT how the Empire is evil, only told from the point of view of the rebels.
That interpretation relies on the assumption that every single man, woman, child, alien, animal, plant, etc on Alderaan is a criminal deserving death and that is… let’s just call it a very generous interpretation.
Other than that, Andor for example was a rather noticeable departure from classic Star Wars fare and one might argue that that specifically was what brought it such general praise and acclaim, so mixing up the formula every now and then can really be an injection of fresh life and into the franchise bringing in fans that would not normally get into Star Wars.
That interpretation relies on the assumption that every single man, woman, child, alien, animal, plant, etc on Alderaan is a criminal deserving death and that is… let’s just call it a very generous interpretation.
What I said is that they only used their weapons when they needed to fight rebels, not that the rebels were the only ones affected by the attack.
Was every cleaner, cook, clerk and technician (+ their families) working inside the death star a criminal deserving death when the rebels blew it up? The death star had the population of a big metropolis, so it had to host an entire urban ecosystem, including recreation areas and entertainment.
Sure, the station was also a military base containing a very powerful weapon, but the Empire had very little reason to believe Leia when she told them Alderaan had no weapons or that it wasn't a threat, she might have even lied about Tatooine. Alderaan might as well have been an important Rebel base. In fact, we know it played an important role in establishing the Rebel Alliance.
But all this was an example. I'm not really saying that the destruction of Alderaan was deserved, or that it was an adequate response (although there's people who have actually argued that it was justified), what I'm saying is that things are always open to interpretation, so wanting to keep the same "tone" can mean different things for different people. For some perhaps the main topic is the odyssey of the main character who started from humble beginnings, and fights against seemingly impossible odds. One might be able to keep that same "tone" in either side of the force, or with darker undertones.
If the rebels had complied and obeyed the law, the planet would not have been destroyed.
That’s not how this works. If the rebels break the law and the empire punishes Alderaan, that is so-called “collective punishment” - punishing someone who has not committed the crime for someone else’s crime. Under pretty much every body of international law hereabouts, this is forbidden. It’s like if I punched you in the face because someone somewhere jaywalked. Neither fair, nor legal. Now, of course, one could argue that under imperial law, it would be legal, but that would mean to just bend over and believe that every whim of the emperor’s is legal and then the empire could do no harm because it would simply always declare itself blameless and in the right. (Nazi Germany did just that, which is why we have human rights now around here btw.) So if we go by international law or just a general sense of justice, then self defense against the rebellion could potentially be justified, but “self defense” against the children of Alderaan is just bullshit, that’s just not an argument, that is the kind of excuse that every bully ranging from domestic abusers to actual dictators like to use - be it “look at what you made me do, little kid - you made me beat you because you broke some arbitrary rule I just made up, this is all your fault” or bombing civilians under the pretense of defending the own country from some nebulous weapons of mass destruction or other fake flimsy pretenses.
Just like any “punishment” against the civilians of Alderaan for something they did not do is not an argument that will get anybody anywhere. It’s just collective punishment: hardcore war-crimey. No way around that.
Was every cleaner, cook, clerk and technician (and their families) working inside the death star the rebels blew up a criminal?
A criminal? No, but the rebellion did not blow up the death star as punishment for e.g. Alderaan. The death star was blown up in self defense against a current attack. Would any lesser means have been sufficient to end this attack? I cannot think of anything that would have dissuaded the death star, so the attacking military installation death star had to be destroyed to end this attack. Allowing the argument that nothing any opponents of the empire do can ever be legal because the empire makes the laws would just mean rolling over in front of injustice which is not acceptable in the face of absolute totalitarian arbitrary despotism. If one were to seriously consider that line of reasoning, then any and all military actions against Nazi Germany were crimes. I will not entertain such lines of thought. Unlike Alderaan, the death star had already fired up its planet-killing lasers and just turned out to pull the short straw in this fight its commanders started.
The death star was blown up in self defense against a current attack
In every war, I keep hearing both sides talk about self defense, sometimes about fighting to seek "peace", doing "preventive war".. or some other ideal that always moves them to commit murder. One could argue that destroying Rebel bases that could potentially be host of Jedi Masters who train dangerous assassins, or important schematics that could help blow up entire moon-like stations and could end up being the vane of the empire (which is actually what ended up happening) was also self defense...
Mahatma Gandhi would have disagreed with the approach, for example.
Yes, but my issue here is less making the decision which side was rightfully defending themselves here. My issue lies with the existence of an empire that claims to be able to declare even the worst atrocities it commits legal and any resistance illegal. If we give the empire the purview to declare what is legal based on the emperor’s capriciousness, then they can never be the bad guys, because they would only ever be the bad guys if the emperor said “I am the bad guy”, which totalitarian dictators tend to not do. Still, atrocities as seen in the movie which we are shown, must be judged by SOME standard and I refuse it to be exclusively the standard which the totalitarian dictator sets.
I do understand that totalitarian dictators would generally like me to consider their point of view more valid. In this case study, I do not.
I do not like totalitarianism, I'm a democrat. But that's not the same thing as saying that totalitarianism = evil.
My support for democracy is mainly pragmatic, rather than an absolute belief in the goodness of whatever the majority decides. If a democracy makes decisions I consider evil, then I would criticize it, same as I would criticize a dictatorship that does evil. And yet when it does good, I would praise that, same as I would praise it when it's a dictatorship the one doing a good deed.
The reason I prefer democracy, is because it gives certain guarantees that there will be a way for people (me & others like me) to voice their dissent in a way that might have some impact. But that doesn't mean that it's ok to do evil whenever it's done in the name of democracy.
The Republic (by whichever governance method it uses.. which is not completely clear, at least in the OT) can commit evil acts in the same way as the Empire can. And based on that, they can be the evil ones, just as much as the Empire can.
The difference is that totalitarianism gives evil people the power to commit atrocities unchallenged while democracies tend to implement measures that hold people who commit evil act responsible. So naturally evil tends to gravitate towards the system where they can set the rules while democracy tends to have rule sets that are intended to protect the majority from one-sided evil acts.
So the emperor is balls-to-the-wall unhindered evil and does not allow resistance even to unquestionably evil acts of his, while the republic on the other hand has systems in place that would punish genocides, optimally, but at the very least it could and would raise questions.
We are not shown any of those systems the resistance has in place that would "optimally" prevent evil acts, and how are those superior / more efficient to the ones from the Empire. Instead, they present a case for how the Empire can, in fact, be challenged. Whether that challenge ultimally results in an improvement for the galaxy is not shown, we are left guessing.
But the whole point I was making was that all of this is open to interpretation. You don't have to agree with any one particular interpretation of it. Just as long as we acknowledge that such interpretation would be a valid one.
Whether that challenge ultimately results in an improvement for the galaxy is not shown, we are left guessing
I’m curious as to what a deterioration from “if this one person I’m currently torturing without any legal repercussions doesn’t tell me what I want, I’ll eradicate the population of an entire planet without any legal repercussions” would be, system-wise. Logically speaking, the only direction left for things getting worse here would be foregoing even the fig-leaf justification and just blowing up a people every week for no reason. Honest,y the rebellion doesn’t give me that vibe, so I can assume that they’d be an improvement over the empire.
Was every cleaner, cook, clerk and technician (+ their families) working inside the death star a criminal deserving death when the rebels blew it up? The death star had the population of a big metropolis, so it had to host an entire urban ecosystem, including recreation areas and entertainment.
If an act is wrong, the act is wrong regardless whether or not those affected by it knew the risks.
If someone kills a policeman who happens to have put their life on the line, the killer shouldn't just be let free under the pretense that the policeman knew the risks...
Also, I feel the empire probably didn't expect the rebels would actually end up being able to blow up the station. Sure, they were very concerned and seriously tried to get the schematics back / supress the rebels, but I don't think everyone there was fully aware of the risks.
Absolutely, though I'd probably grumpily watch it anyway. To be perfectly honest, I'm mostly trying to do some mild click-bait trolling to put a little life into this magazine/community. Maybe it'll take, or maybe it won't, but I feel a sense of responsibility to add something since I took it over.
I agree with the article. My first viewing of TLJ left me shook. I did not like it because it wasn’t what I’d hoped it would be. But I re-watched all 9 movies a few months ago and I have to say that the whole Sequel Trilogy was way better than I had remembered… especially TLJ.
There are a lot of things I really love about TLJ and overall it gets a lot of unnecessary hate, and usually a lot of the arguments are not well constructed beyond "I didn't like it". The main three gripes I hear about it are: a) Finn's side story was unnecessary (which, sure - maybe. I could see both sides of that argument so won't fight about it) b) Luke was nerfed from his Legends persona (arguably, was a fantastic decision) c) the immediate death of some characters.
Legends Luke's power is stupid and god-like. At one point he walks on the surface of a black hole, which is absolute trash fan fiction. Legends makes a very poorly/quickly trained Jedi into a Master and the absolute strongest being in the universe, who is so powerful that he basically isn't human anymore. It makes for a very boring character, similar to Superman. TLJ makes Luke into a believable character, considering his background and what's happened to him since we last saw him. 30 years is a long time and he's seen some shit - all without a lot of the proper Jedi training that other Jedi received since they were children.
As for the deaths of Phasma and Snoke: who cares? The main reason for them to be around was to be monoliths for Finn and Kylo Ren to overcome. They weren't interesting characters otherwise and we find out why Snoke wasn't developed further in the next movie. Also, Kylo Ren should be the focus of a movie in the Skywalker saga, not the newbie Snoke. Removing him was a good choice. Finn's monolith being removed gives him an opportunity to move to a new phase in the next movie, which was then not utilized by JJ. Furthermore, Phasma was supposed to be the next Boba Fett: just a marketable character who was pretty boring in the original trilogy but looked cool so his action figure sold well. TLJ does a very sensible thing overall: It takes unnecessary characters and writes them out of an already overcrowded character list.
TLJ also examined what went wrong with The Force Awakens and fixes it: namely that TFA is so safe that it leans into a boring rehash of ANH. TLJ at least had the guts to do something different and take the franchise in another direction, one SW sorely still needs thanks to JJ and Disney's refusal to do something different. So much of SW in the last 2 decades has been incredibly safe - except TLJ. It really goes to show how little originality and small vision JJ Abrams and Disney have as creatives that they couldn't figure out how to handle TRoS, which is arguably the absolute worst SW film - and outperforming AotC in that regard is truly impressive.
Last point, the last 20 or so minutes of TLJ really understands the origin of SW: Japanese samurai/ronin sword duels. It's also visually beautiful.
Idk, hard disagree from me. I really like Rian Johnson's work, but imo, this movie was a narrative mess that seemed like it was trying to be polarizing for the sake of being polarizing, not to elevate the franchise or make an artistic statement. I mean, he had a vision and he took a risk, which I respect, but it sounds like he was unwilling to take input from some of the players that know Star Wars best, which was a big mistake in my view.
I just wish we got something in between J.J.'s approach of essentially just remaking the old movies and Rian's approach of subverting every possible aspect of the property until it was unrecognizable and unfulfilling... and whatever that last movie was. Yeesh.
I came out of TLJ thinking, "Well, that was not what I expected, and I'm not quite giddy, but this is absolutely the best Star Wars movie I've seen since ROTJ, and it may be better than ROTJ."
A cohesive theme, a mature consideration of where this franchise needed to go, setting the table for a final act that would not simply be rehash of ROTJ, exploring a Kylo who has finally got what he thinks he wants, the Resistance poised to rebound, Finn all-in, Poe sobered and matured beyond a cliche. Even Canto Bight hinted at a galaxy that was larger than the OT-redux power dynamic that TFA crammed down our throats. If I had some concerns, it's that a slow-speed chase was not super compelling as a framing device and they probably just should have had the Rebels get to Krait sooner, that the lack of a time-skip meant we couldn't get as much off-screen hand-wavy character development, and some of the dialogue is a bit Marvel-ized. The Holdo maneuver could be (and was, though clumsily) waved off in the next movie (e.g. "She was able to lock onto the Hyperspace tracker!"). Given the sstate of play left by 7, I loved Luke's arc, and understood it as a frustrated man still trying to do the right thing even when it was painful. That is ABSOLUTELY what might happen to a Luke Skywalker who found his beloved nephew was a path to genocidal evil, and even then the man who took his weapons into the cave, who risked the galaxy to save his friends, was only impetuous enough to ignite his lightsaber. Luke was at peace at the end of ROTJ, but it's silly to think he was utterly changed from his younger self. No one is. He did way better than most.
Overall, TLJ was much better than TFA or any of the prequels, and frankly the filmmaking choices and George's gaps in interest/talent still leave the PT hard to watch, even if the overrarching plot is less disjointed. I was excited to see Episode 9 in a way I hadn't been in a long time, only really hoping they'd consider splitting it into two because TLJ needed to clean up the mess of TFA's nostalgia fest (which could have been much better with only minor tweaks). But no, JJ and the powers-that-be acted like cowards and bullies' toadies, actually wasting time to lampshade how much TROS was not TLJ (e.g. "Come with us Rose!" "I can't! Leia gave me homework!"). This of course pissed off everyone, as of course the TLJ fans were put off, but it also completely missed the point of what those with concerns about TLJ disliked about it, as well as reminding them of it several times.
Finally, and in conclusion, find you someone who looks at you like JJ Abrams looks at a Hyperspace skip. 😂
There was no plan, but there were also directors who think they can do it better. TFA was a shot for shot remake of A New Hope because they refused to take even a single risk, and TLJ does not present any cohesive storytelling whatsoever, along with an added “thematic pressure” that is so mind bogglingly idiotic that it breaks right through the standard “sci-fi suspension of disbelief” and leaves the viewer questioning how the fuck it’s even possible, instead of paying attention to whatever passes for a storyline . And don’t even get me started on the lightsaber choreography.
Oh, and that article conveniently ignores the majority of these gripes.
If TFA were a shot for shot remake it might have actually not been that bad....
I. The hero is overpowered from the get go. Rey can fly the millennium falcon by herself... and she's able to use the force AND beat a Sith already from the first movie! ...it would have actually been better if they had taken notes from the 1st duel between Luke and Vader...
II. Kilo is shown to be childishly immature, insecure, whiny and prone to make very obvious mistakes... he's obsessed with Vader, but he's nothing like Vader.. he's so emotion-driven that it ends up being a very superficial character that just throws tantrums.
III. Poor attempts at shock value. You could see Han's death from a mile away.... but worse, it had very little real emotional weight. It came off very unconvincing... specially since we are shown how it was Leia the one who was pushing Han to try to save his son, Han didn't actually believe in him to begin with. They really did him dirty with such a cheap death. No comparison with Ben's death on ANH.
IV. Too many superfluous characters... I don't remember ANH having this much filler stuff. We didn't need so many parallel stories being told at the same time slowing down the flow. ANH delivered a lot of world building without having to make long expositions.
V. Open ending without a satisfying conclusion. ANH would have worked well even if it were a single movie instead of a trilogy. The death star blowing up is a very satisfying end. TFA climax is just Rey finding Luke. It's almost as if the whole movie was just setup for whatever comes next without having a good idea of what should come next but leaving a lot of poorly developed characters, with a lot more restrictions and subplots than ANH had, all built up in a Universe that was a lot less interesting than it could have been if we simply started straight from the beginnings of the New Republic that Ep6 had set up..
It's almost as if they were trying to make a remake without really understanding what was that made the original great.
I might have to rewatch TFA to remember more problems with it... but I don't think there was a single difference vs ANH that I liked. Not only was it unoriginal, it was bad at the things that it did different and it set up a very shaky ground for any follow up movie... imho, TLJ did good by destroying some of the weak and uninteresting macguffins and opening it up back again to uncharted territory, and at least when it tries to shock it does shock. Even if it also has many flaws in and on itself. After that, ep9 had a lot of freedom and it would have been able to go in a lot of directions without having to mess up with anything... but no, they managed to somehow still find ways to mess it up.
You’re pretty right on all accounts. I meant it in the fairly literal sense of “introduced to orphan main character on desert planet, go to rebel base on lush green planet, then fight planet destroying superstation controlled by the empire” oh and maybe there’s a frog-like mentor character?
I was five when Star Wars first hit the screen. It's not a lie. It was definitely for kids. If you were a kid, you were definitely into it. If you were a teenager you were mostly into it. If you were an adult, you might be into it, but mostly because your kids were into it.
Where I came from, most adults didn't give much a passing interest to the films. Critical reviews for it only embraced the films well after the OT and the release of the Special Edition. The movies originally came out to mixed reviews, and the industry in Hollywood didn't embrace them as they do now. You notice this in the clips you shared when they talk about how the films didn't have any kind of moral message (you know as well as I, that they do).
There had to be a massive sea change in Hollywood to embrace Star Wars as a franchise, and that didn't happen until those kids and teenage fans began to make movies.
Nothing would change even if padme fell for someone else first. Anakin is obliviously selfish, and he was willing padme into loving him without knowing it. She never had an honest choice in the first place. She would end up leaving any other person for anakin whether it was meant to be or wasn’t, because subconscious Jedi mind magic and a deeply rooted desire.
Yeah, its just my ugly theory about their relationship. It explains why she still seemed to like him despite all that terrible “romance” dialogue they had in episode 2.
My apologies for using such inbred language. I have learned my lesson. No commenting from work. Next time I attempt to comment will be after a long stent with grammar and spell check. I'll see if I can track down my old 3rd grade teacher to verify before I post. Would that be up to your standards?
StarWars Community
Hot