StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Leaving aside with how Disney is managing the world-building of Star Wars, I am wondering what people here thinks about the sequel era as a setting. So I'm not talking about the quality of the sequel era movies, but rather how do you feel about the entire era as a setting. Do you find it interesting enough to invest more time into discovering what the Galaxy at large is like, more side stories in EU novels, video games and TV shows?

How does the sequel era compare to the OT era and the PT era? Do you find those eras more interesting than the sequel era? Do you feel like the sequel era is distinct enough from the OT era?

My personal view of the sequel era is that it is an extremely boring era to explore. Not only does it feels very similar to the OT, it feels like a paler, smaller scale version of the OT era. The relatively small scale of the organisations depicted on screen doesn't exactly help. In the OT, you get the sense of the rebellion being a vast organisation, even if it is tiny compared to the empire. The presence of the empire is always felt no matter which planet you travel to. The PT era has the Jedi Order and all sort of interesting Clone Wars stories to tell.

The Sequel era just felt devoid of all the things that could make the story interesting. We have an resistance that's reduced to a dozen or so personnel (but can clearly rebuild in a year's time), a Jedi Order that's wiped out, a First Order that seems to get all sort of superpowers as the plot demands, and fairly engaging characters imo. Sure, the movies might give off the "lived-in" look that the OT fans crave for, but the galaxy at large doesn't feel inhabited at all.

Maz castle's, Canto Bright all felt fairly boring locations that isn't worth a second visit. On the other hand, places like Bespin, Endor, Yavin and Tatootine all give off a sense of history and vibrancy of daily life to the galaxy at large.

The OT didn't spend loads of time showing us how the galaxy at large functioned, but we often do get glimpse of a larger universe, a larger conflict beyond what we saw on the screen. We hear about the Bothans being casually mentioned, hints about imperial bureaucracy at work and etc. Even the rebellion is always depicted as being much larger than what we saw on the screen. There's hints of the rebellion having far more warships at Yavin IV than a bunch of fighters, but those ships were not used because it will be a waste of time and manpower to send bigger ships to attack the Death Star. We saw the rebellion having a much bigger fleet at the end of ESB. We saw how big the rebellion was, with the head of the rebellion suddenly popping up in ROTJ.

The ST era on the other hand, never seem to be able to develop a universe that exist beyond the needs of the plot. The ST era feels rather lacking in terms of world-building, and as a result I find it quite hard to be invested in the conflict of the ST. It feels un-engaging as a whole.

I think the ST is basically the OT but bigger and flashier. I don't think it feels smaller- I think it feels big, but lacking detail/depth. It feels slapped together quickly, at times, contrived as opposed to having the more "natural" feel that the best of the OT and PT did. This is in part due to the fact that world-building for the sake of world-building is probably not something that the average viewer (as opposed to die-hard fans) or the average Hollywood writer or director cares that much about, and partly because the PT got (undeserved) flak for having "boring" political scenes.

That said, the ST arguably does not need to world-build as much, because while the OT had to create the setting, we already know the setting, and can infer a lot of what's going on in the background without it being shown (at least theoretically).

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-03-27 09:55pm I think the ST is basically the OT but bigger and flashier. I don't think it feels smaller- I think it feels big, but lacking detail/depth. It feels slapped together quickly, at times, contrived as opposed to having the more "natural" feel that the best of the OT and PT did. This is in part due to the fact that world-building for the sake of world-building is probably not something that the average viewer (as opposed to die-hard fans) or the average Hollywood writer or director cares that much about, and partly because the PT got (undeserved) flak for having "boring" political scenes.

That said, the ST arguably does not need to world-build as much, because while the OT had to create the setting, we already know the setting, and can infer a lot of what's going on in the background without it being shown (at least theoretically).

The ships are "bigger", but the scale of the conflict feels smaller, with the resistance being a mere squadron of fighters and a few empty ships.

The OT and PT didn't exactly world-build for the sake of world-building, but what we do see on the screen has a life of its own. We get a sense of how society functions in SW.

ST needs to world-build because there's a long gap between the OT and the ST. There's too much stuff that's left unsaid.

I think the big problem is that the stakes of the ST aren't really there. In the OT, we knew that this was the threat of the Empire as an entity, that they were in charge, free to destroy planets and burn down homes(poor Owen and Beru), and that they were in charge, so that there would be no repercussions of this, due to the fact that the military and the Emperor controlled everything. That's why the Rebels fought them, because they were tyrants and had to be stopped.

In the PT, we see that our heroes are fighting for the soul of the Republic. There's corruption, there's separatists, and there's general problems with the galaxy. And most importantly, the Sith, evil bad guys plotting to take power, are plotting something nefarious. The stakes are trying to preserve what's good about the galaxy from being destroyed, and it takes the form of a tragedy as our heroes efforts are leading to what we know will be tyranny. The PT gets flack for this, but while delivery was a bit stilted and dry at times, it made a rich setting to explore, as we got to see all these side stories in Clone Wars about how badly the Republic was falling apart, and how the war itself was transforming the Republic into the Empire.

In the ST, we know there's the New Republic, we know there's the First Order, who is against the NR, and we have the Resistance, who are against the FO. We know the New Republic was seemingly either given a decapitation strike, or just a black eye by the First Order, and the same could be said about the First Order being given one by the Resistance. And we know there are rich people doing their thing on Canto Bight, and people struggling to survive salvaging scrap on Jakku. What we don't know is how this all ties together. Are the rich profiting over corruption in the New Republic? Who knows? Are the poor being made into near slaves on Jakku because of the First Order? Who knows? Until we get a feel for how the conflict between the Resistance and the First Order goes, we don't know what the stakes are.

Contrast this with Cloud City. Han and Leia have a conversation with Lando about it, and how such a place could be independent of the Empire. This isn't just worldbuilding, it also tells us that the Empire's hands are in everybody's pockets, and being an exception to that is tough, which is Lando has to make a deal with them to survive. Also look at the Trade Federation from the PT, the Viceroy gets off scot free from his invasion of Naboo, which shows how ineffectual the Republic is at dealing with it's criminals and corrupt. What is Canto Bight or Jakku saying about the post-Endor galaxy? What is it saying about surviving in this world? It sucks that our heroes are being hunted down by the First Order, but what does that mean for the child slaves on Canto Bight, or the salvagers on Jakku?

I like it. It's a great setting about living in a world built on myths, and what happens when those myths prove to be somewhere between useless and terrifyingly powerful.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-03-27 09:55pmI think the ST is basically the OT but bigger and flashier.

Flashier I'll give you but bigger, no.

From the first movie of the OT politics were front and center and Leia pretends to be on a purely diplomatic visit to get the Death Star plans to the rebellion, the Senate is mentioned as being dissolved giving the Empire free reign to keep the local systems in line, Vader confronts Tarkin and asserts his command, the Clone Wars are mentioned, even on ass-fuck-nowhere Tattooine Luke mentions the civil war. Systems either visited or mention in the first movie alone include Tattooine, Alderaan, Dantooine, the Kessel run, and Yavin. Vader mentions that the Tantiv IV passed through a restricted system and some nobody in the cantina mentions he's earned the death sentence in twelve systems. We know that the Empire had vast areas under its control and that they had the galaxy locked down so tightly that the Rebels could find no better world to create a base on than the inhospitable ice-ball that is Hoth.

The OT was huge and set up so many little things in passing. I think we forget just how much world building the OT did because of how much the PT filled in the blanks.

That said, the ST arguably does not need to world-build as much, because while the OT had to create the setting, we already know the setting, and can infer a lot of what's going on in the background without it being shown (at least theoretically).

The ST hasn't given us basic information that we need to get a feel for the setting. We have no idea what happened between RotJ and TFA. What do the politics look like, is the first order actually a large threat or the is Republic just ineffective? How large is the resistance? Is the first order actually claiming territory or are they just threatening to do so?

If we knew these things I'd be more inclined to want to read the new EU books and see what's going on elsewhere in the galaxy but the new movies don't drop the kinds of interesting hints at a larger world the OT did so I don't actually care. The desire for blockbusters has butchered my desire to engage with Star Wars outside of seeing a movie once every couple of years.

Jub wrote: ↑2019-03-27 10:30pm Flashier I'll give you but bigger, no.

From the first movie of the OT politics were front and center and Leia pretends to be on a purely diplomatic visit to get the Death Star plans to the rebellion, the Senate is mentioned as being dissolved giving the Empire free reign to keep the local systems in line, Vader confronts Tarkin and asserts his command, the Clone Wars are mentioned, even on ass-fuck-nowhere Tattooine Luke mentions the civil war. Systems either visited or mention in the first movie alone include Tattooine, Alderaan, Dantooine, the Kessel run, and Yavin. Vader mentions that the Tantiv IV passed through a restricted system and some nobody in the cantina mentions he's earned the death sentence in twelve systems. We know that the Empire had vast areas under its control and that they had the galaxy locked down so tightly that the Rebels could find no better world to create a base on than the inhospitable ice-ball that is Hoth.

The OT was huge and set up so many little things in passing. I think we forget just how much world building the OT did because of how much the PT filled in the blanks.

I think people forget just how good Lucas is at dropping nuggets of random information throughout the movies. Mon Mothma was introduced in ROTJ, but you can almost tell she is one of the key leaders, if not the leader of the whole rebellion without being formally introduced. There's a casual note about the many Bothans that died. Who were the Bothans?

This is good world-building. It doesn't dive into the boring, minute detail about how the galaxy functioned, but you get constant hints about the galaxy at large again and again in the movies. You keep getting the sense that there is a whole lot of stories, civilisations and organisations that's not depicted on screen, but they are all there.

The ST hasn't given us basic information that we need to get a feel for the setting. We have no idea what happened between RotJ and TFA. What do the politics look like, is the first order actually a large threat or the is Republic just ineffective? How large is the resistance? Is the first order actually claiming territory or are they just threatening to do so?

If we knew these things I'd be more inclined to want to read the new EU books and see what's going on elsewhere in the galaxy but the new movies don't drop the kinds of interesting hints at a larger world the OT did so I don't actually care. The desire for blockbusters has butchered my desire to engage with Star Wars outside of seeing a movie once every couple of years.

The only movie that did this well is Rogue One, but that's set in the OT era.

I think it was a missed opportunity. For all of its multitude of problems, I think the old EU had the right idea in its underlying setting. The PT showed us the dying gasps of the old system as its taken over from the inside by an authoritarian regime, the OT showed us partisans and guerillas trying to bring down the regime, and the old EU, at its best, showed us some of the struggles of trying to build something new after the regime is defeated. The ST is basically the OT again, only it's a proxy war except for when it's not.

I can understand the impression people get in this thread and elsewhere where they describe the ST setting as feeling small and/or empty. The best way I can describe that feeling is that sometimes it feels more like a theme park ride than a living world. The worst moments in the PT also had this problem (cough cough droid factory cough), as did many of the worst edits in the OT special editions.

The ST feels like if you were anybody aside from the main cast you'de be getting a 30-second blurb about it on the evening news.

"In other news, the First Order lost a dreadnought at the battle of Crait. Analysts suggest this will only make them more volatile in the future. Now to Krischen with the weather."

None of what we see on screen feels connected to anything.

Jub wrote: ↑2019-03-28 03:24pm The ST feels like if you were anybody aside from the main cast you'de be getting a 30-second blurb about it on the evening news.

"In other news, the First Order lost a dreadnought at the battle of Crait. Analysts suggest this will only make them more volatile in the future. Now to Krischen with the weather."

None of what we see on screen feels connected to anything.

To be fair, the original Death Star explosion was reported along similar lines:

WNYX News Time 1247 mark 59 Tragedy struck today in sector 9 as rebel terrorists blew up the Death Star, killing thousands. The Rebel Alliance, a fringe group of Anti-Empire fanatics, has claimed responsibility for the terrorist act. Fortunately, Lord Vader escaped without harm. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims."

I think, as a setting, from the Battle that ended the war, up to Starkiller base destroying the Republic capital, it was probably a cold war setting.

However, the Sequels themselves barely cover a week of time, so it's hard to say what they effect would be.

Jub wrote: ↑2019-03-27 10:30pmThe desire for blockbusters has butchered my desire to engage with Star Wars outside of seeing a movie once every couple of years.

The push for blockbuster films has been there since A New Hope. It's always been about the money.

FaxModem1 wrote: ↑2019-03-28 04:08pmTo be fair, the original Death Star explosion was reported along similar lines:

WNYX News Time 1247 mark 59 Tragedy struck today in sector 9 as rebel terrorists blew up the Death Star, killing thousands. The Rebel Alliance, a fringe group of Anti-Empire fanatics, has claimed responsibility for the terrorist act. Fortunately, Lord Vader escaped without harm. Our hearts go out to the families of the victims."

The point is everything we see on screen is just a bite with no connection to anything else. What we see feels like a bunch of bullet points instead of sentences and paragraphs which we got in the OT and PT.

Gandalf wrote:The push for blockbuster films has been there since A New Hope. It's always been about the money.

You can say that but Lucas had a unified vision for what he wanted in his blockbusters. Can you say the same for Disney's Star Wars by comitee team?

I don't see the relevance of any idea of a unified vision?

Gandalf wrote: ↑2019-03-28 06:35pm I don't see the relevance of any idea of a unified vision?

Having a unified vision lets you put in hints about what's coming next, it means you're thinking about the world you're working in and all of this allows for smooth and easy world building. You know, the exact thing the ST is lacking in favor of moar set pieces and keeping the pacing up so the, assumed to be, ADD kiddies don't lose interest.

Where I would suggest the 'unified vision' concept plays in to the Sequel Trilogy is in the perception, and maybe I'm just speaking for myself here, that the films thus far have mainly consisted of loosely arranged ideas with narrative and thematic cohesion (maybe even quality) a secondary concern at best. To my mind, the same idea scaled up could be fairly named as a criticism of the trilogy, though fairness demands our acknowledging that we are only two thirds through it.

So, not wishing to derail or overstate the case, an example might be The Last Jedi. The idea of a unified vision or lack of it might reflect on the film's much-discussed omission of background detail to the degree that (at least some among) the fans were expecting. One could make the argument that this omission has as much to do with the films being overly loose regarding narrative and theme as it does with a particular artistic choice or a deliberate snub to toxic fandom.

While I won't weigh in on whether Abrams' or Johnson's vision is better, I do think a case can be made that it was a mistake to not have a single director for the whole ST. And perhaps an even bigger mistake to bring Abrams back for IX, as it means that TLJ is likely to be left the odd man out, stylistically and perhaps thematically, and will thus stick out like a sore thumb in the context of the larger series, whatever its individual merits. Especially if Abrams decides to ham-fistedly retcon everything in TLJ to belatedly return the series to "his" vision (or worse, to appease angry fans).

Gandalf wrote: ↑2019-03-28 06:35pm I don't see the relevance of any idea of a unified vision?

'Unified vision' would be a lot more appealing a concept if the chief example of it wans't the MCU, where with a few exceptions (all of which happen to be the better movies), every movie is shot in an identical boring manner with a series of locations that might as well be grey parking lots appearing over and over (the Russo brothers have very little artistic vision, is my point).

Personally I don't think the concept has any great inherent value. The idea that there's some sort of collapse in vision between TFA and TLJ is overplayed as it is. It's based entirely on people's expectations between TFA and TLJ being dashed.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-03-28 11:30pm While I won't weigh in on whether Abrams' or Johnson's vision is better, I do think a case can be made that it was a mistake to not have a single director for the whole ST. And perhaps an even bigger mistake to bring Abrams back for IX, as it means that TLJ is likely to be left the odd man out, stylistically and perhaps thematically, and will thus stick out like a sore thumb in the context of the larger series, whatever its individual merits. Especially if Abrams decides to ham-fistedly retcon everything in TLJ to belatedly return the series to "his" vision (or worse, to appease angry fans).

The OT had three different directors, if you'll recall. I don't think that's the issue, so much as whoever is responsible for the actual story. For the OT, that was definitely George Lucas. He may not have been the director but it was ultimately his creative vision in control. I don't think there's anybody like that for the ST, and I feel like it shows.

I mean, I enjoy both movies, but I certainly recognize their flaws.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-03-28 11:30pm Especially if Abrams decides to ham-fistedly retcon everything in TLJ to belatedly return the series to "his" vision (or worse, to appease angry fans).

You seem to be under the delusion fans don't matter.

Disney and Lucasfilm are BUSINESSES. They make movies to make money, NOT to satisfy some fuckwit's (Rian Johnson's) "artistic vision." Disrespect the fans- the people SPENDING THE MOST MONEY ON MERCHANDISE- and what happens? "Get woke, go broke."

You should watch the videos here, and see how much damage Lucasfilm did to itself when it denounced its own customers as "manbabies."

RogueIce wrote: ↑2019-03-29 03:08am The OT had three different directors, if you'll recall. I don't think that's the issue, so much as whoever is responsible for the actual story. For the OT, that was definitely George Lucas. He may not have been the director but it was ultimately his creative vision in control. I don't think there's anybody like that for the ST, and I feel like it shows.

I mean, I enjoy both movies, but I certainly recognize their flaws.

I think the problem is mostly to do with a president that isn't too interested in storytelling. Whatever Kennedy's strength is a a president of the company, she is not someone who takes control of the storytelling the same way Kevin Feige does. Passing that responsibility to the story-telling group is a big mistake, because the story-group does seem quite unwilling to establish a particular vision for the directors.

The fact that multiple directors have been hired and fired because of creative differences goes to show instructions from the top isn't very clear. Running SW and MCU are an entirely different kind of responsibility from traditional movie studio presidents. You need to be more like a showrunner of a long-running sci-fi/fantasy TV series, establishing what is the overall direction you want to set for the directors.

Sidewinder wrote: ↑2019-03-29 04:26amYou seem to be under the delusion fans don't matter.

Disney and Lucasfilm are BUSINESSES. They make movies to make money, NOT to satisfy some fuckwit's (Rian Johnson's) "artistic vision." Disrespect the fans- the people SPENDING THE MOST MONEY ON MERCHANDISE- and what happens? "Get woke, go broke."

You should watch the videos here, and see how much damage Lucasfilm did to itself when it denounced its own customers as "manbabies."

Which fans did he "denounce?" Find me the quote. I've already found it, but I'd love to see you use it to back up your claim.

Also, "get woke, go broke?" I guess that explains why Black Panther didn't make any money.

Gandalf wrote: ↑2019-03-29 10:58am

Sidewinder wrote: ↑2019-03-29 04:26amYou seem to be under the delusion fans don't matter.

Disney and Lucasfilm are BUSINESSES. They make movies to make money, NOT to satisfy some fuckwit's (Rian Johnson's) "artistic vision." Disrespect the fans- the people SPENDING THE MOST MONEY ON MERCHANDISE- and what happens? "Get woke, go broke."

You should watch the videos here, and see how much damage Lucasfilm did to itself when it denounced its own customers as "manbabies."

Which fans did he "denounce?" Find me the quote. I've already found it, but I'd love to see you use it to back up your claim.

Latinas don't like it. Asian WOMEN don't like it. Black men don't like it. Yet these people are denounced as "white supremacists."

Also, "get woke, go broke?" :lol: I guess that explains why Black Panther didn't make any money.

Have you not heard about Marvel Comics' sale figures dropping? Battlefield V failing to sell well? At least Black Panther had the coattails of Captain America: Civil War to ride on.

Sidewinder wrote: ↑2019-03-29 04:26am

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2019-03-28 11:30pm Especially if Abrams decides to ham-fistedly retcon everything in TLJ to belatedly return the series to "his" vision (or worse, to appease angry fans).

You seem to be under the delusion fans don't matter.

Disney and Lucasfilm are BUSINESSES. They make movies to make money, NOT to satisfy some fuckwit's (Rian Johnson's) "artistic vision." Disrespect the fans- the people SPENDING THE MOST MONEY ON MERCHANDISE- and what happens? "Get woke, go broke."

You should watch the videos here, and see how much damage Lucasfilm did to itself when it denounced its own customers as "manbabies."

The way you get and keep an audience, ultimately, is by having a compelling vision and sticking with it. You do not do it by pandering to whichever fan group complained loudest about the last film. However counterintuitive it may seem, constantly pandering to fans will actually weaken a franchise over time, because a) The fandom is actually a fairly diverse group and its impossible to please all of them all the time, b) A lot of the fandom has demands that are mutually inconsistent or incompatible, or are longing for a recreation of an OT viewed through rose-tinted nostalgia glasses that never actually existed, and c) Most fans know jack shit about writing, as five minutes browsing Fanfiction.net will make painfully clear. If we let "the fandom" dictate the course of the franchise, we'd probably end up with a sado-masochistic Reylo porn film, if fan fiction is anything to go by.

At best, trying to pander to the fans will lead to an incoherent mess that changes course based on whichever group whined loudest about the last film (I actually think this is part of the current ST's problems- that it tried to pander too much, not enough, which is where we get shit like shoddy world-building because "WAAAAHHH, boring Prequel political scenes raped my childhood!). At worst, it would mean the franchise being overrun by constant shipping/porn fics, or worse still, to the franchise being run by the Alt. Reich (who are very good at being the loudest group of whiners in any conversation, even when they represent a minority view).

I mean, is that really where we're at? The argument here is "the ST sucks because it was written by filmmakers rather than the Disney marketing division"?

It is also disingenuous to conflate "Not overtly insulting/attacking the fans" with "Not making the film you/"the fans" dictate".

But then, since you immediately pivoted to "See, some black people agree with me, I'm totally not racist", followed by "WAAAAHHH, they're persecuting anyone who doesn't like the ST by accusing us of being white supremacists", followed by a snide, totally off-topic comment about how Black Panther was riding Captain America's coattails (because a black hero could never succeed without riding a white hero's coattails, am I right), I think its just possible that you have some less savoury motives than fan entitlement. And no, that's not me calling everyone who dislikes the ST racist- it's me reacting to your specific post.

Sidewinder wrote: ↑2019-03-29 01:31pm

Gandalf wrote: ↑2019-03-29 10:58am

Sidewinder wrote: ↑2019-03-29 04:26amYou seem to be under the delusion fans don't matter.

Disney and Lucasfilm are BUSINESSES. They make movies to make money, NOT to satisfy some fuckwit's (Rian Johnson's) "artistic vision." Disrespect the fans- the people SPENDING THE MOST MONEY ON MERCHANDISE- and what happens? "Get woke, go broke."

You should watch the videos here, and see how much damage Lucasfilm did to itself when it denounced its own customers as "manbabies."

Which fans did he "denounce?" Find me the quote. I've already found it, but I'd love to see you use it to back up your claim.

Latinas don't like it. Asian WOMEN don't like it. Black men don't like it. Yet these people are denounced as "white supremacists."

You didn't answer my question. Would you like me to post the quote to which you dishonestly alluded in your earlier post?

Have you not heard about Marvel Comics' sale figures dropping? Battlefield V failing to sell well? At least Black Panther had the coattails of Captain America: Civil War to ride on.

I assume that you have evidence that shows Black Panther "riding on Civil War coattails?"