New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

[chimericoncogene]

[deleted duplicate reply, computer error, apologies]

[Vendetta]

Vendetta... the thing is, Star Wars movies are movies. There is only so much that can be conveyed on-screen. In a novel, you can talk about little things in the background, little tidbits of history... on screen, a lot of that gets lost too easily.

Yeah no, the actual thing is that you claimed they had good worldbuilding. They don't. That's not me criticising the films (at least not the OT), it's me criticising your claim you pillock!

[ray245]

One of the good thing about prequel world-building is that they actually give us a Jedi Order that feels like a proper community as opposed to a bunch of Jedi knights randomly going around the galaxy like gunslingers from westerns.

[Darth Yan]

Setting IS part of world building and Star Wars has THAT nailed down pat in the OT.

[ray245]

Setting IS part of world building and Star Wars has THAT nailed down pat in the OT.

It did, but at the same time the setting had to be expanded if you are going to tell additional stories about the GFFA. Which was what the Sequels failed to do.

The sequels wished things could go back to being nice and simple like the OT, when it really shouldn't be doing so to begin with. I find the lack of world-building in the sequels to be akin to people who wished "let's go back to the good old days when things were simpler".

[The Romulan Republic]

Setting IS part of world building and Star Wars has THAT nailed down pat in the OT.

It did, but at the same time the setting had to be expanded if you are going to tell additional stories about the GFFA. Which was what the Sequels failed to do.

The sequels wished things could go back to being nice and simple like the OT, when it really shouldn't be doing so to begin with. I find the lack of world-building in the sequels to be akin to people who wished "let's go back to the good old days when things were simpler".

And of course, there's HUGE overlap between people who pine for the "good old days" when everything was "simpler" and racists/misogynists/homophobes/xenophobes, because "the good old days" were fucking horrible, even compared to the present, for most people who weren't a rich straight Christian white man.

And no, this is not me saying every single person who disliked the ST is a bigot. But it shouldn't be surprising that the Alt. Reich/Trumpers were able to piggyback their hate campaign so effectively on the grievances of "traditionalist" fans pining for the "good old days".

[ray245]

And of course, there's HUGE overlap between people who pine for the "good old days" when everything was "simpler" and racists/misogynists/homophobes/xenophobes, because "the good old days" were fucking horrible, even compared to the present, for most people who weren't a rich straight Christian white man.

And no, this is not me saying every single person who disliked the ST is a bigot. But it shouldn't be surprising that the Alt. Reich/Trumpers were able to piggyback their hate campaign so effectively on the grievances of "traditionalist" fans pining for the "good old days".

It's more about the pinning for a return to "your" childhood, a time when everyone loved Star Wars. This is why in general, filmmakers who were massive fans of an original movie trying to do a remake rarely works as well as it did. Peter Jackson King Kong for example, did not do all that well because it gave far too much reference to the old Kong movies.

The people Disney hired to salvage both Solo and Rogue 1 for instance, are all older directors who were not fans of the original movies, because they saw them as adults instead of watching it as a child. As someone working in the creative industry, nostalgia is more of a hindrance rather than a strength. It only works when your audience shares the similar worldview as you did, which is great if you are making a film for an American audience who grew up in the 70s and 80s with Star Wars.

[The Romulan Republic]

And of course, there's HUGE overlap between people who pine for the "good old days" when everything was "simpler" and racists/misogynists/homophobes/xenophobes, because "the good old days" were fucking horrible, even compared to the present, for most people who weren't a rich straight Christian white man.

And no, this is not me saying every single person who disliked the ST is a bigot. But it shouldn't be surprising that the Alt. Reich/Trumpers were able to piggyback their hate campaign so effectively on the grievances of "traditionalist" fans pining for the "good old days".

It's more about the pinning for a return to "your" childhood, a time when everyone loved Star Wars. This is why in general, filmmakers who were massive fans of an original movie trying to do a remake rarely works as well as it did. Peter Jackson King Kong for example, did not do all that well because it gave far too much reference to the old Kong movies.

The people Disney hired to salvage both Solo and Rogue 1 for instance, are all older directors who were not fans of the original movies, because they saw them as adults instead of watching it as a child. As someone working in the creative industry, nostalgia is more of a hindrance rather than a strength. It only works when your audience shares the similar worldview as you did, which is great if you are making a film for an American audience who grew up in the 70s and 80s with Star Wars.

Its both, and the pining for the "good old days" and nostalgia can leave people susceptible to a much more toxic message.

But yeah, there's a reason why, when I hear that they've hired "a fan" to take over a series, I don't celebrate. I dread it. Because experience has taught me that "fans" usually come in with an agenda, axes to grind, and nostalgia blinders. They have decades of built-up preconceptions about how it "should" be, all the things they want to "fix", and I suspect that tends to make them less receptive to outside ideas, and more inclined to push their pet projects to the detriment of the whole. I saw it with Peter Jackson's films, I saw it with Moffat's run on Doctor Who, and I saw it with Abrams' Star Wars.

A few high quality exceptions notwithstanding, there's a reason why calling a piece of writing "fan fiction" is generally not a compliment. That its fan fiction with a multi-million dollar budget doesn't change that.

Edit: I admit I'm a hypocrite here, because I'm a fan and I'd totally take a job writing or directing a Star Wars film in the extremely unlikely event that I ever got the chance.

But I think, by and large, what matters is not whether someone's a fan- what's important is that someone is a professional, takes the job seriously, treats the people around them and the material with respect, and does their honest best to create a professional final product that functions as a whole. I don't care if a writer, director, or actor was a fan- I care that they're a professional (though having experience in the same genre and medium can be an asset, I think).

[Darth Yan]

Ron Howard likes Star Wars he just doesn't worship it.

Also as loathsome as Bryan Singer is he had yet another problem regarding nostalgia. He didn't know the X Men so he was willing to experiment, resulting in 2 flawed but good films. Superman Returns however was by all accounts mediocre because it gave too much honor to the originals.

I liked the Disney remakes most when they tried something new (having Scar as seething fury rather than playfully wicked, fleshing out WHY the help were cursed as well.) Pete's Dragon is probably the best Live action remake, and it's a whole different beast from the original (different settings, different characters)

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, in Bryan Singer's case, the fact that he had nostalgia blinders or didn't is rather secondary to his being a serial child rapist (I assume that's what you were referring to reg. his loathsomeness).

Yeah, there's no point making a film if you're not willing to do something new. If I want to watch the OT again, I'll just watch the fucking OT again.

[Gandalf]

Does LOTR have better worldbuilding, beyond the silly mountain city and weird town in the middle of nowhere (I like spaceships, not dragons)?

Considering that there are whole scenes of exposition outlining details of key characters, places, and history, yes. But that's because that's how Tolkien built his world. He liked detail, and Jackson worked to put that into the films.

Star Wars, as Straha really outlined earlier, drew strength from its absurd vagueness in the OT. People could fill in the gaps themselves and it didn't hurt the story at all.

[Darth Yan]

Think you mean Vendetta there. Straha hasn't shown up

[Gandalf]

It's in the Plinkett Picard thread. My apologies, I could have been clearer.

[ray245]

Its both, and the pining for the "good old days" and nostalgia can leave people susceptible to a much more toxic message.

But yeah, there's a reason why, when I hear that they've hired "a fan" to take over a series, I don't celebrate. I dread it. Because experience has taught me that "fans" usually come in with an agenda, axes to grind, and nostalgia blinders. They have decades of built-up preconceptions about how it "should" be, all the things they want to "fix", and I suspect that tends to make them less receptive to outside ideas, and more inclined to push their pet projects to the detriment of the whole. I saw it with Peter Jackson's films, I saw it with Moffat's run on Doctor Who, and I saw it with Abrams' Star Wars.

A few high quality exceptions notwithstanding, there's a reason why calling a piece of writing "fan fiction" is generally not a compliment. That its fan fiction with a multi-million dollar budget doesn't change that.

Edit: I admit I'm a hypocrite here, because I'm a fan and I'd totally take a job writing or directing a Star Wars film in the extremely unlikely event that I ever got the chance.

But I think, by and large, what matters is not whether someone's a fan- what's important is that someone is a professional, takes the job seriously, treats the people around them and the material with respect, and does their honest best to create a professional final product that functions as a whole. I don't care if a writer, director, or actor was a fan- I care that they're a professional (though having experience in the same genre and medium can be an asset, I think).

Actually, as a fan, I think I will fully acknowledge my nostalgia goggles at work and avoid the opportunities it entails. I think the best thing a fan can do is to avoid gate-keeping as much as possible, and instead understand the need to expand and pass on the franchise to a different generation.

I am no longer a kid, and I couldn't return to the time where I was a kid growing up with the prequels. I very much enjoy those memories and experience when I was a kid, but our main responsibility is to ensure the kids today can share that experience. So things have to change, and adapt them in a way that modern kids can enjoy the franchise.

[The Romulan Republic]

I do think the goal here needs to be to expand the franchise, not cling to an ever-shrinking fanbase of "purists". For a franchise, a nation, a society... the moment you start looking back on a "golden age", and forever trying to recapture it, you've doomed yourself to decline and, if not corrected, eventual obsalescence and death.

Its like whenever I hear people talk about "the Greatest Generation" (the Depression/WWII generation), I don't hear it as a compliment. I don't see it as an honour. I hear it as saying "You raised a generation that is smaller than its parents, and built a society which has accepted that it can never be more than what it was."

And when I hear people say that we need to "Be faithful to the Original Trilogy" or whatever, I don't see that as honouring the OT. I hear "This story will never be allowed to be more than what it was, only less." That instead of inspiring new creators to experiment and innovate as it did, the OT has become a weight around the neck of the franchise, dragging it down and holding it back.

[ray245]

I do think the goal here needs to be to expand the franchise, not cling to an ever-shrinking fanbase of "purists". For a franchise, a nation, a society... the moment you start looking back on a "golden age", and forever trying to recapture it, you've doomed yourself to decline and, if not corrected, eventual obsalescence and death.

Its like whenever I hear people talk about "the Greatest Generation" (the Depression/WWII generation), I don't hear it as a compliment. I don't see it as an honour. I hear it as saying "You raised a generation that is smaller than its parents, and built a society which has accepted that it can never be more than what it was."

And when I hear people say that we need to "Be faithful to the Original Trilogy" or whatever, I don't see that as honouring the OT. I hear "This story will never be allowed to be more than what it was, only less." That instead of inspiring new creators to experiment and innovate as it did, the OT has become a weight around the neck of the franchise, dragging it down and holding it back.

Which is why the whole new empire vs new rebellion set-up is an issue. Yes, that set-up worked for the OT. But if you are making a sequel, you cannot reproduce that exact same set-up. It is ultimately a pointless venture because all it does is to invite comparison anyway, and you are stuck with a near impossible goal to live up to.

For instance, they clearly want Rey to be the new Luke Skywalker for the new generation. But what they have done with Rey is to try and make her a Luke 2.0 ( when JJ Abrams is handling her). Yet in the end, it is ultimately to the detriment of her as a character because she HAD to be the new Luke. Rian Johnson tried to break away from the mould with TLJ, but the set-up he has been given isn't helpful at all. Certainly not when there is all sort of mystery box about Rey's parentage and the legacy of the Vader reveal to deal with.

When people have the option of watching the original Star Wars for a Empire-vs-Rebel set-up, why do you need to watch a version that is essentially a remake...but contains more flaws and issues in its storytelling?

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed. If you want to watch the OT, watch the OT. The movies are still there. If I go to see a sequel, I want a new story. Set in the same universe, certainly, compatible with that universe, but not just the same story, and not the same story with new names and a new coat of paint, and certainly not the same story except done shittier.

Although actually, literally remaking the OT shot for shot except with a more diverse cast would have been significantly better than what we got. Not terribly original, maybe, but it would have been a good story updated to the modern era. But what we got was the promise of a new story, in a new era, with new characters, except it turned out to be an updated OT with more plot holes, no thematic coherency or strong character arcs, and forgetting a lot of what made the OT good.

The original film wasn't great because it had a Death Star for the heroes to infiltrate and then blow up. It was great because it had a clear story built around engaging characters in an interesting and visually innovative setting. There was nothing innovative about Starkiller Base- it just derailed the plot that the first half of the film seemed to be about, and took the focus off those characters' journeys for a set-piece.

Empire Strikes Back wasn't great because Luke's father turned out to be a bad guy. It was great because it threw an unexpected twist at the characters that forced them in new and compelling directions (which the next film actually, and I cannot emphasize this too strongly, FOLLOWED THE FUCK UP ON). To his credit, Rian Johnson at least seems to have tried to do this, but by leaving it late in his film and only briefly touching on it, he was relying on the next film to follow it up which... yeah. Betting on JJ Abram's professionalism is clearly a losing bet.

Making Rey is a Palpatine at the last minute, then having her shrug it off and just say "I'm a Skywalker" is missing the point of what made that revelation work in ESB- especially because they'd already pushed the idea of her having a mysterious parentage in the first film, and Johnson had his twist in the second, and so by the time RoS rolled around, it wasn't even a surprise, more just "Yeah, she has an evil ancestor, because that's obligatory in a Star Wars protagonist now".

Return of the Jedi wasn't great because it had a Vader redemption plot. The Vader redemption plot worked because it made sense based on what happened in the previous films. Whereas I at least felt TLJ had pretty firmly shut the door on a Kylo redemption, or at least on Rey playing a role in it.

Abrams hit the same beats (erratically), but missed WHY they worked in the OT.

[ray245]

Indeed. If you want to watch the OT, watch the OT. The movies are still there. If I go to see a sequel, I want a new story. Set in the same universe, certainly, compatible with that universe, but not just the same story, and not the same story with new names and a new coat of paint, and certainly not the same story except done shittier.

Although actually, literally remaking the OT shot for shot except with a more diverse cast would have been significantly better than what we got. Not terribly original, maybe, but it would have been a good story updated to the modern era. But what we got was the promise of a new story, in a new era, with new characters, except it turned out to be an updated OT with more plot holes, no thematic coherency or strong character arcs, and forgetting a lot of what made the OT good.

The original film wasn't great because it had a Death Star for the heroes to infiltrate and then blow up. It was great because it had a clear story built around engaging characters in an interesting and visually innovative setting. There was nothing innovative about Starkiller Base- it just derailed the plot that the first half of the film seemed to be about, and took the focus off those characters' journeys for a set-piece.

Empire Strikes Back wasn't great because Luke's father turned out to be a bad guy. It was great because it threw an unexpected twist at the characters that forced them in new and compelling directions (which the next film actually, and I cannot emphasize this too strongly, FOLLOWED THE FUCK UP ON). To his credit, Rian Johnson at least seems to have tried to do this, but by leaving it late in his film and only briefly touching on it, he was relying on the next film to follow it up which... yeah. Betting on JJ Abram's professionalism is clearly a losing bet.

Making Rey is a Palpatine at the last minute, then having her shrug it off and just say "I'm a Skywalker" is missing the point of what made that revelation work in ESB- especially because they'd already pushed the idea of her having a mysterious parentage in the first film, and Johnson had his twist in the second, and so by the time RoS rolled around, it wasn't even a surprise, more just "Yeah, she has an evil ancestor, because that's obligatory in a Star Wars protagonist now".

Return of the Jedi wasn't great because it had a Vader redemption plot. The Vader redemption plot worked because it made sense based on what happened in the previous films. Whereas I at least felt TLJ had pretty firmly shut the door on a Kylo redemption, or at least on Rey playing a role in it.

Abrams hit the same beats (erratically), but missed WHY they worked in the OT.

Actually remaking the OT would have stopped them from making easy money off the fanbase who wants nostalgia at all cost. They don't want the original story of Star Wars. They want to see the OT cast again, while retaining the sense of "simplicity" that the OT offered.

Which is why we end up with what we got in the end. A sequel that is not really a sequel, a remake that is not really a remake. Disney want to have the cake and eat it all.

[chimericoncogene]

Fine. Your yardstick for worldbuilding in film is clearly quite different from mine, so I will not meaninglessly contest the point any further.

[Elfdart]

Which brings me to one final failure and it's more of an acknowledgement that it would have been far better to have a single director do all three films, even if that director had been Rian "Subverting expectations" Johnson.

I'd just as soon have Jerry Sandusky coach my nephew's Little League team.

The whole reset of the milieu is bad, but it's just a symptom of a much larger problem:

Star Wars is George Lucas, and without him, they've got nothing. The setting, the characters, the story are all distilled from Lucas' imagination, life experience, likes and dislikes, his worldview, his daddy issues and even his weird fixation on midgets. What did Abrams, Johnson, Edwards or Howard bring to the party?

[MKSheppard]

even his weird fixation on midgets.

[ray245]

Which brings me to one final failure and it's more of an acknowledgement that it would have been far better to have a single director do all three films, even if that director had been Rian "Subverting expectations" Johnson.

I'd just as soon have Jerry Sandusky coach my nephew's Little League team.

The whole reset of the milieu is bad, but it's just a symptom of a much larger problem:

Star Wars is George Lucas, and without him, they've got nothing. The setting, the characters, the story are all distilled from Lucas' imagination, life experience, likes and dislikes, his worldview, his daddy issues and even his weird fixation on midgets. What did Abrams, Johnson, Edwards or Howard bring to the party?

Well Filoni has his wolves.

[Gunhead]

I'd just as soon have Jerry Sandusky coach my nephew's Little League team.

The whole reset of the milieu is bad, but it's just a symptom of a much larger problem:

Star Wars is George Lucas, and without him, they've got nothing. The setting, the characters, the story are all distilled from Lucas' imagination, life experience, likes and dislikes, his worldview, his daddy issues and even his weird fixation on midgets. What did Abrams, Johnson, Edwards or Howard bring to the party?

I don't know who Jerry Sandusky is and I'm too lazy to google him.
Anyway, I think neither Edwards nor Howard bring anything spectacularly new to the table, but they did make movies that were entertaining and action packed which is a helluva lot more than any SW movie has done for me since the OT. Rogue one more than Solo but I don't think my personal likes or dislikes about those two movies have any real bearing on this thread.
Not much more I have to say about it. All SW movies have something I like, somethings I don't and it really just boils down to are the good bits good enough so I overlook the stuff I don't like. Actually to be honest I have a hard time thinking of anything I like about the Rise of Skywalker... and I'm not rewatching it to see if there is something. As to Lucas... his track record for me is pretty 50/50 so yea maybe it would be better if he was still in charge but at this point it's a bit of a should've, would've, could've.

-Gunhead

[Eternal_Freedom]

A thought has just occurred to me. Perhaps instead of having one director across all three films, they should have had one writer across all three films - a quick glance at Wikipedia tells me TFA was Kathleen Kennedy, Lawrence Kasdan and JJ Abrams, TLJ was just RIan Johnson and ROS was Terrio and Abrams.

Is it any wonder the ST wound up being a crapshoot when in addition to different directors, you had five different writers working on things.

It stems from something I've thought for a while now - we always like to talk about how xyz director did on such and such a film when they can only work with the script/story they have been given. You can take someone like, say, Spielberg or Cameron and give them a rubbish script/story and you'll still get a bad story, though one that's at least filmed well. Give a great script to a mediocre director and you'll get a good story at least.

Frankly I'd have been happy with Abrams or Johnson directing all three films if someone else had done the script - the fact that Kasdan was involved with TFA is surprising given how good a job he did working with Lucas on ESB and ROTJ.

[ray245]

A thought has just occurred to me. Perhaps instead of having one director across all three films, they should have had one writer across all three films - a quick glance at Wikipedia tells me TFA was Kathleen Kennedy, Lawrence Kasdan and JJ Abrams, TLJ was just RIan Johnson and ROS was Terrio and Abrams.

Is it any wonder the ST wound up being a crapshoot when in addition to different directors, you had five different writers working on things.

It stems from something I've thought for a while now - we always like to talk about how xyz director did on such and such a film when they can only work with the script/story they have been given. You can take someone like, say, Spielberg or Cameron and give them a rubbish script/story and you'll still get a bad story, though one that's at least filmed well. Give a great script to a mediocre director and you'll get a good story at least.

Frankly I'd have been happy with Abrams or Johnson directing all three films if someone else had done the script - the fact that Kasdan was involved with TFA is surprising given how good a job he did working with Lucas on ESB and ROTJ.

Writers don't have authority in films. They get overrided by directors all the time. So you need someone who can hold the directors in line, and that's basically the producer/suits of the company, which in this case is Kennedy.

But in order to hold the directors in line, you need the producer to take an active interest in the creative vision of the entire trilogy...which was not something Kennedy ever seem interested in.