TLJ throne room fight scene

[FaxModem1]

And somehow, Snoke's band of misfits and incompetents are the galactic threat that the New Republic can't stand against, to the point of being about to fall in a few weeks according to Rey.

It's like if the Dominion War was instead having the Federation being on the brink of losing everything to the Kazon invading.

[The Romulan Republic]

And somehow, Snoke's band of misfits and incompetents are the galactic threat that the New Republic can't stand against, to the point of being about to fall in a few weeks according to Rey.

It's like if the Dominion War was instead having the Federation being on the brink of losing everything to the Kazon invading.

I mean, Hitler was an incompetent at everything but propaganda, and he conquered most of Europe, and might have conquered the world had he not botched the war with the Soviet Union.

The NR was mostly demilitarized, and I can buy that in the political circumstances. The Galaxy, after a millennia of relative peace, has gone through decades of wrenching, catastrophic war and dictatorship. The NR promises (implicit in its very name) to restore the peace of the good old days of the Old Republic, and needs to differentiate itself from the Empire, to convince the galaxy that its not just another dictatorship offering false promises of peace, but that it will unite the galaxy through consensus. They kept some defensive fleet, obviously, but there was also pretty clearly no appetite for controlling the galaxy through military dominance or having a massive military machine, with the government split between militants, pacifists, and a substantial neo-Imperialist element that probably goes a long way to explaining why so much of the NR submitted so fast to the First Order.

The fundamental problem is that the OR worked (mostly) because it had the Jedi Order to sense problems before they happened and nip them in the bud, either by diplomacy, by their fearsome reputation, or, if all else failed, by precise, small-scale commando actions. The NR essentially tried to duplicate the OR except even more decentralized, and to do it on a shakier foundation (since Palpatine thoroughly wrecked the OR), but without a strong Jedi Order or an equivalent enforcement mechanism. That is what doomed the NR- the failure to understand that the OR minus the Jedi doesn't work.

The NR was dead from the moment Luke's order fell apart. Which adds further weight to Luke's actions, both why he was so terrified of what Ben could do, and his shame at having failed. His poor choice didn't just doom him and his family and students, it doomed the entire New Republic as well.

Edit: It also makes Luke's final stand even more significant. He's not merely saving the Resistance in one battle- he's reestablishing the legend of the Jedi on which the OR so depended (because the Jedi Order was always, to some extent, a paper tiger- it relied on the appearance of invulnerability to keep a lid on things, until the Clone Wars and then Order 66 made it clear that conventional troops could destroy even an army of Jedi with massed firepower). It fits very much with Luke's use of psychology to win battles he can't win by brute force, as well as tying into the film's message of hope as the counter to the Dark Side, and it represents Luke's final victory (barring whatever happens in IX, etc.) over Palpatine. Luke restores what Palpatine destroyed- the reputation of the Jedi on which the OR was built.

[Gandalf]

And somehow, Snoke's band of misfits and incompetents are the galactic threat that the New Republic can't stand against, to the point of being about to fall in a few weeks according to Rey.

It's like if the Dominion War was instead having the Federation being on the brink of losing everything to the Kazon invading.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq could have torn up IS with some ease. The "new and free" Iraq had some problems in that area.

[The Romulan Republic]

And somehow, Snoke's band of misfits and incompetents are the galactic threat that the New Republic can't stand against, to the point of being about to fall in a few weeks according to Rey.

It's like if the Dominion War was instead having the Federation being on the brink of losing everything to the Kazon invading.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq could have torn up IS with some ease. The "new and free" Iraq had some problems in that area.

Saddam's Iraq wasn't exactly a paragon of military competence and prowess either, and arguing over whether the A-rabs can't handle democracy and need a "strong" dictator to keep them in line is off-topic, but the point that an unstable state can be quickly overrun by even a weak enemy is valid.

[Straha]

And somehow, Snoke's band of misfits and incompetents are the galactic threat that the New Republic can't stand against, to the point of being about to fall in a few weeks according to Rey.

It's like if the Dominion War was instead having the Federation being on the brink of losing everything to the Kazon invading.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq could have torn up IS with some ease. The "new and free" Iraq had some problems in that area.

It's interesting to think that the theme of "evil actions are necessary for stability" isn't exactly a new one in Star Wars post-OT. The Republic was put to the brink by a gang of vulture capitalists and if it hadn't been for the literal arch-villain's creation of an illegal unethical army they would be in a perpetual state of precarity. The YV gloated about how if the Empire were still around during their invasion they would have been crushed flatter than a pancake. The NR was constantly going from one complete crisis to another. Meanwhile the Empire has always been portrayed as a bastion of stability. Cruelty, yes, but stability.

[The Romulan Republic]

And somehow, Snoke's band of misfits and incompetents are the galactic threat that the New Republic can't stand against, to the point of being about to fall in a few weeks according to Rey.

It's like if the Dominion War was instead having the Federation being on the brink of losing everything to the Kazon invading.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq could have torn up IS with some ease. The "new and free" Iraq had some problems in that area.

It's interesting to think that the theme of "evil actions are necessary for stability" isn't exactly a new one in Star Wars post-OT. The Republic was put to the brink by a gang of vulture capitalists and if it hadn't been for the literal arch-villain's creation of an illegal unethical army they would be in a perpetual state of precarity. The YV gloated about how if the Empire were still around during their invasion they would have been crushed flatter than a pancake. The NR was constantly going from one complete crisis to another. Meanwhile the Empire has always been portrayed as a bastion of stability. Cruelty, yes, but stability.

Its the old con of people reflexively thinking that "dictator" equals strong, secure, efficient government. Which it does, I guess, sometimes, if you're part of the favored group/ruling class. If not... there can be no security in a society where the government can kick down your door and haul you to a torture chamber or put a bullet in your brain any time you rub someone the wrong way.

Of course, dictatorships aren't always that stable even for those in power, and when they end, they tend to end very messily, because (obviously) there's no mechanism established for the peaceful transfer of power. Saddam's Iraq, for example, is held up by some (usually misguided anti-was/anti-imperialism activists who make the mistake of thinking that the enemy of their enemy is their friend) as a case where Iraq was better off under a "strong" dictator- while ignoring that Saddam's actions ultimate lead to his overthrow by the US (and no, that's not me saying the war was justified- just that Saddam obvious failed to maintain his country's security). Assad is an even better example- there is endless insistence that Assad should remain in power because if he doesn't Jihadis will overrun Syria, how he is the only one who can maintain control- which rather ignores the fact that he failed to maintain control, that his country descended into civil war as a result of his leadership, that it subsequently was overrun by Jihadis, and that the only reason Assad is winning now is because Putin pulled his ass out of the fire.

Same shit with the Empire- sure, it was "secure", as long as you didn't make waves, and you weren't in the wrong place at the wrong time (like anyone living on or visiting Alderan). But the notion that it was a more stable government is rather undercut by the fact that it collapsed in under thirty years (compare to the Old Republic's millennium of relative peace and stability), and that it lost to the very Rebellion/New Republic its supposed to be so much stronger than.

The idea that despotism=security and stability is perhaps the oldest and most persistent lie in the world.

[Straha]

Yeah... I mean... sure?

I'm less interested in nutshell discussions of the history of power applied to modern politics and more interested in how Star Wars as a fictional universe, where the entire point of the series is an explicit and undeniable Manichean reality supported by a transcendental and super-natural cosmic ordering of the universe, also implicitly lays out that 'Yeah, the bad guys may be evil but good is inept, incompetent, and dangerous for the universe.' How and why did that shift occur from a writing perspective and why has that shift been accepted by the fans in a largely uncritical manner?

[Imperial Overlord]

It's fairly simple. A capable government isn't one where a plucky band of rebels is constantly needed to save the day and in expanding that formula past the Empire era, where the government is the enemy so it can't save the day, requires pre and post Imperial governments to be failures. It is present to a lesser degree in the prequels because the prequels are explicitly about the government being deliberately undermined by artificially created crises and the population being manipulated to support authoritarian answers to the crises. The sequel trilogy just has government fail completely in order to recreate the conditions of the original trilogy without spending any screen time on the workings of government and society.

It is,in short, sloppy writing in order to maintain the status quo. It's also occurring at the same time as our post 9/11 love affair with authoritarianism so we're seeing facism overthrow weak representative governments at the same time that governments are justifying new security agencies and wide reaching powers in the name of "security".

[Straha]

It is,in short, sloppy writing in order to maintain the status quo. It's also occurring at the same time as our post 9/11 love affair with authoritarianism so we're seeing facism overthrow weak representative governments at the same time that governments are justifying new security agencies and wide reaching powers in the name of "security".

I don't necessarily disagree with the first part of your post. This is what's the most interesting part of it to me, though. The later Prequel Trilogy (post-TPM, most certainly ROTS) is a ham-fisted attempt to criticize both militarism and a drive into authoritarianism in response to feelings of insecurity. See, most notably: "This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." Hell, the crux of Attack of the Clones is how the good guys are against even having a standing military.

What's fascinating, then, is how a body of work is so un-reflective that it misses how its representation of power so completely contradicts the dedicate moral of the story.

[Imperial Overlord]

What's fascinating, then, is how a body of work is so un-reflective that it misses how its representation of power so completely contradicts the dedicate moral of the story.

That's really an issue with the sequel movies. The prequels, for all their problems, are consistently suspicious of rising militarism and authoritarian expansion of powers.

The sequels are reactionary, attempting to recapture the feeling of the original series without being interested larger themes or deeper meaning. They are barren because they are blind to any deeper message, focused instead on resetting up the stage. That isn't to say they don't have any thematic content, because by the very nature of having certain actions succeed and certain actions fail they do, but they don't have such as part of a conscious effort.

They are blind to the forest because their attention is focused on the trees.

[ray245]

Speaking of fight scenes, this is kinda relevant.

https://uk.ign.com/articles/2019/07/12/ ... -skywalker

Talking to Wired (via Comic Book), Rey actor Daisy Ridley talked about a key difference in the new lightsabers, explaining that they are notably lighter than ones used in previous films, allowing for more acrobatic fights.

"The interesting thing about this film is that we concentrate more on the fact that [the lightsabers] are light," Ridley said. "Because the [old] lightsabers were so heavy, as Eunice said, who is our new stunt coordinator, that it was more like broadsword fighting, which isn't technically what it's supposed to be because lightsabers are supposed to be light, by nature. So they actually made the lightsabers lighter for us. We, in this film, have, perhaps one of the most epic fights in Star Wars."

Are they basically admitting their creative decision in EP 7 and 8 regarding the fight scenes was a mistake? If this is so, I'm can't help but having a sense of schadenfreude at those people that praise how Ep 7 "fixed" lightsaber combat by making it heavier and more "realistic".

If Disney thinks that the majority of their audience don't actually find the fights to be that engaging in the long run, then it is a validation that many of the OT fans views have really hampered the SW franchise with their wish and desires.

[Patroklos]

Or the guards were more creremonial in nature. Snoke being a guy prone to hubris and thinking himself untouchable, just picked some loyal guys who were good but not great.

He also considers hiring losers to key positions so he can easily emotionally manipulate them a keystone of his HR strategy, so its not like that would be out of character.

Yup.

I think a lot of the First Order's failures in leadership can be explained by the fact that Snoke, rather than seeking out and promoting the best talent he can find, surrounds himself with inferiors he can easily control.

Again, this makes your villains underwhelming and nonthreatening. A hero’s worth is directly related to the threat of the obstacle overcome. Some people might like Star Wars: Dynasty Warriors. I prefer to forget in the moment that the hero is obviously going to win because movie and celebrate the victory over a capible foe, even if just for a short time.

The truely sad thing about this entire sequence is we have several avenues to make these guards truly impressive enemies (royal guard analogues, the Knights of Ren, etc) but after the first somersault you instantly know these are just reskinned battle droids whose only contribution to the plot is add run time to an already bloated film. Nothing changes in the film plot whether they exist or not. That tells you all you need to know about them.

kK is right. The point of the Royal Guads in TLJ is for them to be conspicuously absent. It is messaging to the viewer on multiple levels.its also a good exercise in less is more, because they were so elusive the imagination is left free to fill in the blanks as the ensuing decades as a fan favorite attest (it’s impotrant, however, that this blanks were not central missing plot points).

[Vympel]

That's really an issue with the sequel movies. The prequels, for all their problems, are consistently suspicious of rising militarism and authoritarian expansion of powers.

The sequels are reactionary, attempting to recapture the feeling of the original series without being interested larger themes or deeper meaning. They are barren because they are blind to any deeper message, focused instead on resetting up the stage. That isn't to say they don't have any thematic content, because by the very nature of having certain actions succeed and certain actions fail they do, but they don't have such as part of a conscious effort.

They are blind to the forest because their attention is focused on the trees.

This is a simply absurd statement as far as I'm concerned. "Blind to any deeper message?" I could understand the argument for TFA, but TLJ? Dealing with failure and disappointment is a key theme of the film and runs throughout. Cynicism versus heroism in Finn's arc. TLJ's entire climax was a triumph of the Jedi philosophy in its purest form (in the form of Luke's non-violence). It's the only movie that's had pretty much any interest at all in acknowledging the thrust of Yoda's teachings in TESB.

As to the video, it's suprisingly really, really lightweight on its criticisms. "This guy is spinning in the background in a gratuitious fashion" and "the stuntmen appear to be waiting because the actors are late in this scene". Ok? It's still a great fight scene. My favorite of the ST.

As to the guards somehow being ceremonial or whatever - errr - why? They're fighting the two most powerful Force users in the setting. Of course they're going to lose. They still did very well, all things considered. Ben ended up in a chokehold and Rey was wounded.

[Gandalf]

It's interesting to think that the theme of "evil actions are necessary for stability" isn't exactly a new one in Star Wars post-OT. The Republic was put to the brink by a gang of vulture capitalists and if it hadn't been for the literal arch-villain's creation of an illegal unethical army they would be in a perpetual state of precarity. The YV gloated about how if the Empire were still around during their invasion they would have been crushed flatter than a pancake. The NR was constantly going from one complete crisis to another. Meanwhile the Empire has always been portrayed as a bastion of stability. Cruelty, yes, but stability.

I guess that's a side effect of when they were made? In the eight years between Return of the Jedi and Heir to the Empire, the US went from one dealing with the post-Vietnam/Nixon era strife, to one that's at the end of history.

It makes me wonder about Thrawn as such a popular character. Would be less/as/more popular without the weird Yuuzhan Vong justification?

[Imperial Overlord]

This is a simply absurd statement as far as I'm concerned. "Blind to any deeper message?" I could understand the argument for TFA, but TLJ? Dealing with failure and disappointment is a key theme of the film and runs throughout. Cynicism versus heroism in Finn's arc. TLJ's entire climax was a triumph of the Jedi philosophy in its purest form (in the form of Luke's non-violence). It's the only movie that's had pretty much any interest at all in acknowledging the thrust of Yoda's teachings in TESB.

That's a fair counterpoint. Parts of TLJ is conscious that it's saying something, but the movie is all over the place with what it's saying. Heroic suicide attacks are wrong when it's Poe against the door knocker cannon but right when its hyperspace ramming. Poe's arc seems to intend to project "be a team player not a reckless maverick", but instead ends up at "blind obedience to authority is good" which is not exactly what the saga has traditionally endorsed. To me it feels like contradictory points being bolted together to form a mismatched whole.

[Elheru Aran]

It makes me wonder about Thrawn as such a popular character. Would be less/as/more popular without the weird Yuuzhan Vong justification?

Vector Prime was published in late '99. Heir to the Empire came out in 1991. The first I really remember them talking about mysterious extragalactic threats was in the Hand of Thrawn duology, which was published... well Vision of the Future came out in 98. So, the justification was only really around maybe a couple years before the YV books came out. Prior to that point, Thrawn was pretty much just the first of a wave of Imperial warlords, and written as less of a fuckhead than most (see notably Warlord Zsinj's portryal in Courtship of Princess Leia). He didn't need superweapons (well, I suppose you could consider cloaking devices and clonetroopers such perhaps?) to bring the Republic to its knees, just TACTICAL GENIUS/s.

[Straha]

What's fascinating, then, is how a body of work is so un-reflective that it misses how its representation of power so completely contradicts the dedicate moral of the story.

That's really an issue with the sequel movies. The prequels, for all their problems, are consistently suspicious of rising militarism and authoritarian expansion of powers.

In dialogue, yes, but not in the overt text of the story. Like, consider:

- In the Phantom Menace the democratic organs of government completely fail to prevent the takeover of Naboo or to effectively react to it. The Jedi, without a military, are next to useless in the crisis (and establish that the Republic is actively disinterested in both capitalist cartels and slavery) and the various militias (both human Nabooan and Gungan) are explicitly shown as being too inept to overcome an incompetent droid army. The only way the crisis of the movie is resolved is via Anakin blundering his way to success. At no point during any of this is the representation of democratic governments backed by respect for law ever shown as being either capable or a force for good, and it represents no obstacle for Palpatine to simply slide his way to the top.

- AOTC. A clone army is able to be made to order for the Republic without anyone in the Republic knowing about this, at the same time the clone army appears to be sentient beings who have been brainwashed into absolute obedience which again raises all sorts of other ethical issues that no one gives a damn about. A cabal of corporations and other monied interests are able to conspire in secret to the point where they have raised a large army that explicitly threatens the existence of the Republic, while the Republic is none the wise. Padme frets about the creation of a military but when the Republic is threatened with an existential crisis the only choice it has to sustain itself is the deployment of said military. And the power to deploy the military comes via approved democratic processes despite the purported moral of the story being that this securitization is bad. To summarize: The Republic is portrayed as precariously inept, it only survives the crisis by the creation of an illegal military which is deployed without question despite being Capital-B Bad in terms of the morality of the story, and the paragons of good are again simply chaff on the wind for events around them.

I'll add, to tie this back to the OP, that AOTC also completely undercuts the morality of the original trilogy by expressly tying 'Jedi Power' to 'Ass-Kicking'. Like, if you think the Dooku vs. Yoda battle scene is a better fight scene than the TLJ throne room fight scene you're just in this for the spectacle. And if you think the TLJ fight scene is somehow uniquely discordant from the story while Jedi Master 'Wars not Make One Great' Yoda kicking ass fits into the arc of the OT... well... you're just wrong.

- RotS. Look, I think my point is made. But: Jedi - Inept and uncaring about deaths (see: Obi-Wan's treatment of clones, compare it to Anakin's despite him being represented as pretty much unredeemable for the entire movie). Republic - Corrupt and complicit in its own overthrow. War - Kick Ass. This isn't even subtext, the explicit message of the movie is that democracies are unreliable, unstable, and happy to vote authoritarians into place without opposition.


Which is what interests me because I agree with you that George Lucas intended the trilogy to be a warning against militarism. He just didn't reflect on what he'd actually written.

[FaxModem1]

Well, Lucas did say that he was basing Palpatine's rise to power on classic figures like Napoleon and Caesar. Showing how democracy can lead to authoritarian government, and be openly embraced by it. I think the whole point is that people can be seduced by the 'safety' of an authoritarian government in times of crisis. Especially since the Republic is such a mess that a lot of people seem to be unsatisfied with what's going on.

In The Phantom Menace, we get looks into how the corruption is so bad that corporations have open representation in the Senate, the courts are said to be pointless, the head of government is overrode by the special interest groups, and there's suffering outside of the Republic that's even worse(slavery on Tattooine). While the execution could be better, we're essentially seeing the writing on the wall that the Republic is in for some hard times if they don't fix things soon, and they don't, and things get progressively worse with each film.

That's the point. The Republic is falling apart because no one has cleaned up the corruption there, everyone knows it, and no one is really doing anything about it. Democracy is wonderful, but if you don't fix the things that make it wonderful, you're going to elect a tyrant in the making like Palpatine, and embrace him as he enslaves you.

EDIT: It should also be noted that by the time the Jedi actually go in to clean up the Senate, it's too late and they're wiped out.

[Galvatron]

I'd even take it a step further and speculate that all Disney is really trying to do with with the ST is wrap up the Skywalker saga while leaving the universe itself in a perpetual state of conflict so they can milk it forever. After all, it's called Star Wars, not Star Peace.

[Imperial Overlord]

Which is what interests me because I agree with you that George Lucas intended the trilogy to be a warning against militarism. He just didn't reflect on what he'd actually written.

I don't think I'm going to surprise you when I say that I believe the prequels to have been poorly written. That the Republic is so inept and complacent that it has to resort to (Sith created) morally repugnant solutions to survive the (Sith created) crisis doesn't absolve the Republic for choosing to employ mass produced brainwashed slave soldiers. Heroic fantasy is often somewhat libertarian as the need for big damn heroes to save the day implies the existence of governments that are of incapable, immoral, or both. By making the Republic almost completely toothless Lucas plays into that as well as the ends justifies the means position taken to support immoral governments because "at least their strong." This is, of course, repeated by the sequel series.

[Straha]

Well, Lucas did say that he was basing Palpatine's rise to power on classic figures like Napoleon and Caesar. Showing how democracy can lead to authoritarian government, and be openly embraced by it. I think the whole point is that people can be seduced by the 'safety' of an authoritarian government in times of crisis. Especially since the Republic is such a mess that a lot of people seem to be unsatisfied with what's going on.

Yeah, but I think that misses the point a tad. He doesn't show that it can lead to authoritarian government. He shows that it inexorably does, and the steps taken at any particular moment were represented as the right ones to take in the context of the movie. These movies aren't warnings, they're political pessimism.

The message of the original trilogy is that heroic individuals, guided by Righteousness, can overthrow tyranny and change the universe. Even if they make mistakes on the way.

The message of the PT is that good guys are inept, democracy broken, and tyranny is good for stability.

The message of the Sequel Trilogy so far is that even after the good guys win they'll still be inept, evil will always be powerful, and democracy is so broken that even the good guys will need to break away to create their own paramilitary 'resistance' to it.

Although, I'll echo Vympel in that TLJ is probably the closest to Yoda's message of pacifism and sanguinity in the face of danger and a warning about valorization of martial prowess. It's interesting that, seemingly, an important takeaway from the movie by a good number of people is 'yeah, but the light saber duels sucked' when the end of the movie (and Luke's sacrifice) is all about how, yes, light saber duels are bad and the reflex to violence only begets new violence (see: Luke's reflex on seeing the potential for evil in young Ben Solo).

[ray245]

It's interesting to think that the theme of "evil actions are necessary for stability" isn't exactly a new one in Star Wars post-OT. The Republic was put to the brink by a gang of vulture capitalists and if it hadn't been for the literal arch-villain's creation of an illegal unethical army they would be in a perpetual state of precarity. The YV gloated about how if the Empire were still around during their invasion they would have been crushed flatter than a pancake. The NR was constantly going from one complete crisis to another. Meanwhile the Empire has always been portrayed as a bastion of stability. Cruelty, yes, but stability.

I guess that's a side effect of when they were made? In the eight years between Return of the Jedi and Heir to the Empire, the US went from one dealing with the post-Vietnam/Nixon era strife, to one that's at the end of history.

It makes me wonder about Thrawn as such a popular character. Would be less/as/more popular without the weird Yuuzhan Vong justification?

Thrawn's popularity is due to almost every military leader in the GFFA after him were shown to be quite inept in a variety of ways. Yes, Ackbar, Palleon were depicted as quite decent commander, but they are often depicted as operating under severe political handicap.

When the Vong were winning the war due to the Republic's inept leadership, the appeal of having a Thrawn-like figure only grows.

I'd even take it a step further and speculate that all Disney is really trying to do with with the ST is wrap up the Skywalker saga while leaving the universe itself in a perpetual state of conflict so they can milk it forever. After all, it's called Star Wars, not Star Peace.

And at some points the causal audience will stop giving a shit about the new conflict in a SW movie, because we will come to a realisation that everything the heroes achieved will be undone in the next trilogy.

[Batman]

If anything I'd expect the fans to be the ones to drop out, the casual audience doesn't give a damn about the narrative, all they want is space fights, laser sword duels and some snarky humour.

[Straha]

If anything I'd expect the fans to be the ones to drop out, the casual audience doesn't give a damn about the narrative, all they want is space fights, laser sword duels and some snarky humour.

I think they did drop out. I think they dropped out during the PT.

I'm not going to paint the OT and EU era fandom as some rosy era (we were all there, we know what it was like), but the notion of a continuity of message from the OT to the PT is pretty laughable.

To just use light saber duels and the symbolism around them, we have three duels in the OT:

- ANH. Obi Wan and Vader fight. By modern standards it's kind of a dull affair but the emotional fraughtness of the duel reigns through and the ultimate purpose of the fight is not for Obi Wan to 'win' but for him to delay Vader until Leia, Luke, Han, Chewie, and the Droids can get away. The ending line of 'if you strike me down...' is a warning against those who believe strength is an ultimate power.

- ESB. Luke and Vader fight. In the story it is never portrayed as anything but a colossal mistake on Luke's part to have gone to the Cloud City to fight Vader, and at no point is he ever portrayed as being anything but completely outclassed by Vader. The fight is a one-sided beat down which has some cool visuals but is shot purely from the perspective of Vader as an almost force of nature.

- RotJ. The denouement of the fight is Luke beating Vader through sheer rage and blunt force in defense of Leia followed by Luke throwing away his light saber and declaring himself a Jedi.

In only the first duel is the fight portrayed as a good thing, and in only the third is effort spent on making the fight a visually compelling 'fair' fight.

Contrast that to the PT with the inanity of Darth Maul, the massive story incongruence of Dooku vs. Yoda, or the tediousness of Mustafar. If you stuck through the PT as a 'fan' you're almost by definition a fan of sci-fi spectacle. So it's no surprise that people act weird when a fight like TLJ (or even TFA) tries to go back to emphasizing the story importance of the duel over the perceived spectacle.

[Civil War Man]

If anything I'd expect the fans to be the ones to drop out, the casual audience doesn't give a damn about the narrative, all they want is space fights, laser sword duels and some snarky humour.

Depends on how those elements are done. The casual audience may not give a damn about the narrative, but if Disney basically just serves up the same thing over and over again, that casual audience will get bored and move onto something else long before the dedicated fans do, specifically because they lack that investment in the setting. The fans may be more dissatisfied with individual entries, but they generally will stick with it unless the new entries really start repeatedly and consistently alienating them. Of course, for some segments of the fan base we may be already approaching that point, but that's another discussion entirely.