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

[Vendetta]

The sad thing is more that it didn't try anything NEW. For all it's flaws the old EU was willing to tackle different eras in time and built upon unexplored stuff (Even if it was light and dark it was that time when the Jedi were guardians of peace and justice). The Clone Wars, despite having the Sith, REALLY felt like a shitty war that was ultimately pointless.

But it doesn't need to.

Star Wars is an entire galaxy, there's millions of planets of "unexplored stuff" out there without faffing about retelling the same dynamic of evil empires and crumbling republics with a very slightly different coat of paint because all of this happened again four thousand years ago or whatever nonsense.

The strength of the Mandalorian was that it leveraged that. It told an actually new story by looking for a new perspective to look at the galaxy from, not one that was somehow shackled to one we already had.

[Darth Yan]

Why should they try new things? Films cost too much (relative to a lot of other merch) to experiment with a bunch of new ideas and properties.

Because it eats into their long-term profits if people get bored of a franchise.

Exactly. Franchises either evolve or die. The prequels for all their flaws were something different. Hell even in the EU the NJO Arc was new and is now looked on more fondly because hey at least it was trying something different rather than the same tired crap again and again

[Darth Yan]

The sad thing is more that it didn't try anything NEW. For all it's flaws the old EU was willing to tackle different eras in time and built upon unexplored stuff (Even if it was light and dark it was that time when the Jedi were guardians of peace and justice). The Clone Wars, despite having the Sith, REALLY felt like a shitty war that was ultimately pointless.

But it doesn't need to.

Star Wars is an entire galaxy, there's millions of planets of "unexplored stuff" out there without faffing about retelling the same dynamic of evil empires and crumbling republics with a very slightly different coat of paint because all of this happened again four thousand years ago or whatever nonsense.

The strength of the Mandalorian was that it leveraged that. It told an actually new story by looking for a new perspective to look at the galaxy from, not one that was somehow shackled to one we already had.

Except even things like the Jedi and Sith can be done in new ways. The Tales of the Jedi and Kotor showed the age when the Jedi were renowned guardians of peace and justice. The Darth Bane trilogy showed it from the bad guys point of view and showed a Galaxy shattered by war and darkness (the New Sith Wars was a ripe area for exploration because it was basically the darkest the galaxy ever got before the empire's rise). Hell in some ways they add context. The prequels are when the good guys failed and the bad guys flat out won (seeing the times the heroes won paints a more tragic light on it); they also show why the Jedi went full emotional repressed.

Hell the Clone Wars stuff also felt like an honest war story. The Jabiim arc in particular is a perfect allegory for Vietnam in that it's a bloody costly and ultimately pointless endeavor where neither side is really that good. It also plays in with the "bad guys win" motif that was the prequels.

[ray245]

Exactly. Franchises either evolve or die. The prequels for all their flaws were something different. Hell even in the EU the NJO Arc was new and is now looked on more fondly because hey at least it was trying something different rather than the same tired crap again and again

Indeed. Disney did not spend billions to buy out Lucasfilm for the sake of making 3 Star Wars movies. They bought it in order to make billions off the franchise every single year like they did with MCU. The sequels crashed and burned as an era because they did nothing new with it in terms of storytelling and setting.

[Gandalf]

Exactly. Franchises either evolve or die. The prequels for all their flaws were something different. Hell even in the EU the NJO Arc was new and is now looked on more fondly because hey at least it was trying something different rather than the same tired crap again and again

Indeed. Disney did not spend billions to buy out Lucasfilm for the sake of making 3 Star Wars movies. They bought it in order to make billions off the franchise every single year like they did with MCU. The sequels crashed and burned as an era because they did nothing new with it in terms of storytelling and setting.

Did they fail though? That trilogy made a bucketload of money.

[The Romulan Republic]

Exactly. Franchises either evolve or die. The prequels for all their flaws were something different. Hell even in the EU the NJO Arc was new and is now looked on more fondly because hey at least it was trying something different rather than the same tired crap again and again

Indeed. Disney did not spend billions to buy out Lucasfilm for the sake of making 3 Star Wars movies. They bought it in order to make billions off the franchise every single year like they did with MCU. The sequels crashed and burned as an era because they did nothing new with it in terms of storytelling and setting.

Did they fail though? That trilogy made a bucketload of money.

From a purely commercial perspective, the trilogy didn't fail, although it should be noted that RoS is the first Star Wars film where the third film in a trilogy made less than the second. The only outright flop, though, was Solo.

From a critical perspective, its more mixed. Ditto if you're evaluating in terms of originality.

From the perspective of telling a coherent narrative, they failed pitifully. I would also argue that they failed morally the moment they threw Kelly Tran under the bus.

And as a result of their focus on pandering over creating a coherent narrative or respecting their artists or the diversity of their fandom, I suspect that they have damaged their brand long-term (Disney seems to agree, somewhat, as they've pulled back on rushing out new films). But time will tell.

[chimericoncogene]

The sad thing is more that it didn't try anything NEW. For all it's flaws the old EU was willing to tackle different eras in time and built upon unexplored stuff (Even if it was light and dark it was that time when the Jedi were guardians of peace and justice). The Clone Wars, despite having the Sith, REALLY felt like a shitty war that was ultimately pointless.

But it doesn't need to.

Star Wars is an entire galaxy, there's millions of planets of "unexplored stuff" out there without faffing about retelling the same dynamic of evil empires and crumbling republics with a very slightly different coat of paint because all of this happened again four thousand years ago or whatever nonsense.

The strength of the Mandalorian was that it leveraged that. It told an actually new story by looking for a new perspective to look at the galaxy from, not one that was somehow shackled to one we already had.

What about crumbling empires and rising republics? Or flat out cold wars between near peer nations? Anarchic free for all, every planet for itself? Great games between three, five great galactic blocs playing musical chairs with alliances? Barbarians at the gates? Or conquering Republics pushing deep into the anarchic wilds of space? Or eras of greater galactic peace, with only brushfire wars and trade disputes for excitement?

Even for galactopolitical storytelling, the sample space explored in the EU was much wider than Rebellion vs. Empire. They had warlords, they tried to build a new Republic, they had near peer powers, they had extragalactic invaders (silly, but intragalactic barbarian work too e.g. long lost Beserker probes).

And the sample space the films can explore in terms of galactopolitical stories is equally wide. Even if the galactopolitics is not used in the story itself, it is essential to give the viewer an impression of the galactopolitics, because it strongly affects what happens in the story. It's worldbuilding 101.

In a smaller story, if hero planet is fighting villain planet over say, a mineral rich supernova remnant, we need to know whether the central government is available to mediate or even ride in with overwhelming force, or whether this is a proxy war in a greater conflict or cold war. Is it free for all, with no help but the possibility of recruiting allies and widening the war? How much war machinery can we expect. War industry? Post empire, the galaxy will be flooded with cheap ATSTs and ATATs, post Clone Wars, cheap DC15s and battle droids. It affects storytelling drastically.

This is why people say the ST ruined Star Wars. It didn't build an interesting setting, and went with something rehashed and stupid. Seemed to be leaning towards free for all, but it wasnt really clear that there was anything happening outside the main characters.

[chimericoncogene]

From a commerical perspective, the question is: do you just want a second Marvel, or just an extra IP smaller than Fox?

[ray245]

Did they fail though? That trilogy made a bucketload of money.

Every subsequent movie made less money than the prior movie, with budget either climbing or staying the same. And there is the big issue of whether they can use an entire era of setting to attract viewers.

You're looking at the short-term profits and not looking at the long-term effects. Finn, Poe and Rey are supposed to kick-start a whole new era of Star Wars, with fans eagerly coming back to them as the new Luke, Han and Leia of the modern generation. Instead, the actors have all said they are done with Star Wars, and the most appealing character(Kylo Ren/Ben) from the sequel era is killed off.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup. What it amounts to is that instead of launching another long-running, popular franchise a la the MCU, we got the end of the Skywalker Saga: not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Edit: Of course that's not to say there's no way they could get the original cast back in ten or twenty years, once the controversy has had time to subside and nostalgia for the ST has had a chance to set in. But for the time being, any new film would be entering a very toxic atmosphere, and would have to struggle uphill against a divided fan base, a racist/misogynist hate campaign from the Right, anger from the Left over shit like cutting Rose, a shitty incoherent conclusion which shit all over one of the biggest cultural icons of all time, and basically just a very poisoned environment and a lot of ill-will all around, plus an understandable lack of interest from a lot of the people involved, as noted above. And I'm not sure what you can do about the mess RoS made of continuity, short of decanonizing/remaking it (which I don't expect to happen).

So for the next several years, at least, probably the best thing Disney can do is to focus on television and maybe smaller standalone films or films set in other eras.

[chimericoncogene]

TFA already made a huge mess of continuity. Either do a parallel timeline thing or skip the unusable era.

[The Romulan Republic]

TFA already made a huge mess of continuity. Either do a parallel timeline thing or skip the unusable era.

You know, Filoni did introduce the option of time travel to the franchise. Just saying...

But there's nothing in TFA that actually contradicts continuity, either explicitly or thematically. Its unoriginal, yes. Contrived at times, yes. But nothing in it actually contradicts how the Star Wars universe is established to work, or the core ideas of the earlier films, at least not explicitly. TLJ actually arguably does, with some of Luke's comments about the Force, Yoda's lightning stun, and hyperspace ramming, but all of that is somewhat open to interpretation. RoS, though...

Palpatine being back is arguably a thematic contradiction of the OT and PT, as it undoes the significance of Anakin's sacrifice and role as the Chosen One. Rey being a Palpatine... you could argue that's not a contradiction of TLJ, Kylo was just lying/wrong about her being "nobody", but it would seem to at least contradict the preceding film's intent. It certainly seems to lack satisfying, coherent character arcs for a number of main characters.

I also regard the decision to cut Rose, seemingly to appease the bigoted scum who harassed Kelly Marie Tran, as a moral transgression with very serious real-world implications that renders the entire film tainted by association.

If I were to try to salvage the ST, I'd say three things have to happen:

1. They need to give Rose a larger role in RoS. Any cut footage needs to be edited back in to an extended edition, which will be treated as the canon version. Maybe give her a spin-off too, if Kelly Marie Tran wanted to come back. This is not about continuity, but about something that is, in my view, far more important: a real world moral wrong that needs to be righted. An extended RoS could make minor cuts/additions to patch a few other minor faults as well, but would not be able to salvage the major thematic and structural failings of the film. Which brings me to the second point:

2. You need to fill in some of the gaps in the timeline that left the ST feeling underdeveloped. I have some hopes for the TV series on this score. The Clone Wars did a lot to redeem the reputation of the Prequel era in the fandom, to flesh it out more, and I think a high quality TV series (or spin-off films, conceivably) could do the same for the ST. Show the rise and fall of the New Republic. Set-up Palpatine's return so at least its not so out-of-left field.

3. You need a follow-up/new film (which sadly probably won't be practical for at least ten years or so, if ever), basically telling the story RoS should have been about: of Rey forging her own identity (now that she's rejected Palpatine) and building a New Jedi Order alongside Finn, Rose, and Poe.

I think if those actions were taken (I don't really expect any of them to be, except maybe number two), you would at least fill in/smooth over the most glaring failures, and make something... passable.

The alternative would be to decanonize the ST (or at least RoS) entirely and/or create an alternate timeline reboot, like you said. Trying to build on the ST as is is like trying to build a house on quicksand.

Edit: The simplest, most efficient, and yet least likely course would be to simply make a clean break: rule RoS or even the entire ST non-canon. Yet I couldn't really be satisfied with that, because it would be an insult to all the people who worked on the films, most of whom had no control over the shitty creative decisions Disney and Abrams made. Many of the actors, crew, and, yes, Rian Johnson did good work and are probably decent people, more or less. It wouldn't be fair to them to say "Your work doesn't count" because a few assholes at the top shit all over everything.

[chimericoncogene]

Well, they decanonized the whole EU, including a lot of good novels. But I'd rather they do another time jump and flesh out the consequences of a galaxy in anarchy for forty years since the Empire's fall and kinda sorta ignore the ST (the NR obviously having been too shaky to hold together after one little war, and having little true power blah blah blah).

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, they decanonized the whole EU, including a lot of good novels.

True. Necessarily so, I think, given that adapting that sprawling continuity to film would have been impossible, but it sucks for the people who wrote those books. I think that I'd prefer to take the "alternate timeline" approach- both versions are "true", both are canon, both are equally valid.

But I'd rather they do another time jump and flesh out the consequences of a galaxy in anarchy for forty years since the Empire's fall and kinda sorta ignore the ST (the NR obviously having been too shaky to hold together after one little war, and having little true power blah blah blah).

Yeah.

If it was me, I'd probably wait ten or fifteen years, focus on making TV shows and stand-alones that flesh out the gaps in the ST's backstory or focus on other eras altogether (I still want a Rian Johnson KotOR trilogy, actually). Then I would basically just make the films that should have been made in the first place, because the ST is basically just a rehash of the OT, and the galactic situation is pretty much the same as after RotJ, except now Luke, Leia, and Han are gone (well, there's always CGI recreations, but that's a whole other argument).

Though, really, I like TLJ. No, it doesn't fit well with the rest of the ST, but that's really mostly Abrams' fault, and the fault of the people who green-lit his idiocy. At least it fucking tried to do something creative and thoughtful. At least it fucking tried. All Abrams seemed to care about was pandering. What I really wish is we could just pick up from there, have a sequel that actually builds on rather than ignoring TLJ, and just ignore the steaming pile of shit that is RoS. Because the ST had problems before RoS, but I truly do believe that they were fixable problems, if you had a director and writer willing to build on what had been established, strengthen it, and bridge some of the gaps in the story,* instead of undercutting TLJ at every turn and throwing in random, poorly-constructed fan service regardless of whether it had any cohesion thematically or as a story.


*A good example of how a sequel can enhance and strengthen a preceding film can be found in the MCU. I wasn't a fan of Civil War because I felt that we were meant to sympathize with Cap when his motives were mostly selfish, and the film failed to make a strong case for why he was in the right, and because they did a film called Civil War, with friends and family pitted against each other, but it was played as mostly light-hearted and there were few to no lasting consequences (I argued at the time that the film would have been stronger if Rhodey had died and Cap's team were still in prison at the end of the film).

Then along came Infinity War, and it showed that, yeah, there were lasting consequences, as the division caused by Civil War made the heroes easier prey for Thanos. While also creating a situation where Cap's simple heroism made sense again.

Or even look at the OT: Empire Strikes Back made some at the time controversial moves that were at odds with the tone and themes and established backstory of the preceding film: it was darker, ended on a fairly open-ended note, and threw out the established backstory of Vader being Luke's father, drastically changing Luke's backstory and motivations while making the Wise Old Mentor Obi-wan a liar in the process. It also, albeit slightly, increased the racial diversity of the main cast by adding Lando (while marginally reducing gender diversity, with Leia being the only notable female role). It could very easily have ended up as bitterly divisive as TLJ, and I wonder if it would have if the internet existed then to amplify trolls' voices, or if America politics were then what they are now. But one thing ESB had going for it was that the subsequent film actually built on the changes it made. Leia being Luke's sister might have been kind of awkward, especially given their previous kissing, but at least RotJ didn't drop "There is another" as a plot point. Lando still had a big role, even though it would have been very easy to just quickly kill off a supporting character who up to that point was mainly known for being a turncoat. And of course the entire conclusion hinged on Luke being Vader's son, and on that changing Luke's goal from trying to kill Vader to trying to redeem him, and in my opinion gave us one of the best endings in cinema.

In short, ESB works in large part because RotJ built on it, rather than trying to clumsily retcon it at the last minute. And TLJ was pretty much following in ESB's footsteps. It just didn't have an RotJ to build on it.

[chimericoncogene]

Eh. I sympathize with your reasoning, but TLJ was very very poorly executed setting wise, and the same basic story could have been told in a far better way. Ditto the entire ST, in fact.

I personally consider AOTC to be the best Star Wars movie, followed closely by ROTS, for magnificent worldbuilding, stunning setpieces, excellent galactopolitical storytelling, and a good pull on this string framing device with converging stories.

AOTC is as unconventional as TESB in terms of storytelling - an idiotic romance and murder mystery = galactic war with factories - but it is unconventional in a way I like a lot more, which is why it is my favorite.

[The Romulan Republic]

Eh. I sympathize with your reasoning, but TLJ was very very poorly executed setting wise, and the same basic story could have been told in a far better way. Ditto the entire ST, in fact.

I personally consider AOTC to be the best Star Wars movie, followed closely by ROTS, for magnificent worldbuilding, stunning setpieces, excellent galactopolitical storytelling, and a good pull on this string framing device with converging stories.

AOTC is as unconventional as TESB in terms of storytelling - an idiotic romance and murder mystery = galactic war with factories - but it is unconventional in a way I like a lot more, which is why it is my favorite.

Huh. You may be the first person I've ever met who considers AotC the best Star Wars film. Its honestly refreshing to see someone speak so well of the PT, even if I disagree on your view somewhat regarding TLJ.

Visually though TLJ was pretty grand, especially that Holdo ramming shot and Luke's confrontation with Kylo. Hell, I'll even give Abrams kudos for those shots of Rey exploring the Star Destroyer wrecks in TFA. Is it simply a question of the small scale of certain things (like the size of the Resistance fleet) that you take issue with?

Obviously opinions differ on that, but I've never been terribly concerned by how big or small the numbers are. A sense of visual grandure in a visual medium is far more important than how high the number of ships is or whatever. Yeah, reducing it to just the Falcon in the end seems a bit much, but Hollywood has always liked its Small Bands of Rag-Tag Heroes, and there are other things I put more weight on- style, consistency, originality, thematic relevance, pacing, whether the film has protagonists I can sympathize with and villains who feel believable (TLJ does admittedly struggle on this score, leaving Phasma flat and Hux an absurd joke, with Kylo the only one who's really a fleshed-out or interesting character for the most part).

I also do take politics very much into consideration in my evaluation of a film, and TLJ's deconstruction of the Lone Vigilante archetype, its shots at "Both Sides" narratives, and the hate it received for diversity from the Right all made me inclined to sympathize with it. If you judge someone by who their enemies are, well, Rian Johnson has all the right enemies in my book. So I freely acknowledge that part of my defense of the film is an act of political solidarity on my part.

[Vendetta]

I personally consider AOTC to be the best Star Wars movie, followed closely by ROTS, for magnificent worldbuilding, stunning setpieces, excellent galactopolitical storytelling, and a good pull on this string framing device with converging stories.

You know, I'm not actually sure that Attack of the Clones has particularly good worldbuilding.

Worldbuilding isn't just about filling a setting with Stuff, it's about making it coherent so that it all makes sense in its own terms and feels like a world that would be there whether the current story was taking place in it or not.

And I don't really get that sense from the PT setting. Like this I think is the underlying criticism when people say "politics bad" in the prequels. It's not that politics bad, it's that the underlying worldbuilding didn't support the politics.

Take Episode 1, the opening crawl tells us that there's dispute over taxes to outlying regions, and the Trade Federation are blockading Naboo to try and force a resoluton in their favour.

But we don't know, and will not find out in the movie, what side the Trade Federation are on in this dispute, why they think a blockade will advance their cause, or why they chose Naboo for that blockade. Notably, those things still need answers even if the whole thing is actually a sympathy play by Palpatine to elevate himself within the senate, the Trade Federation still need to appear to be rational actors in order for their actions to be supported by worldbuilding. And they need to be in the movie not in supplemental materials.

So we can't attach any weight to their actions. They're there because that makes the story happen, not because they have a reason founded in the world.

And it's the same with the separatists in 2 & 3. We never actually find out why they want to be separate, especially in the context of what we've seen of the Republic in Episode 1 where it doesn't seem to have a lot of actual authority or power to enforce what authority it does have, given that of three locations we visit one it can't defend from a hostile aggressor and one is so far beyond its control even its money is no good. What do they want to get away from, and what do they want instead? We don't find any of that out in the movies, they exist because the movie needs a conflict.

That's the problem with the "politics" in the prequels. It doesn't mean anything to the story. We don't want the Trade Federation to fail because of what they want, because we don't know what they want and we don't know why they think what they're doing will get them what they want. They're just an obstacle in the plot.

(If you want to distil it down to a single scene, it's the droid factory on Geonosis, which is clearly designed as a location for an action scene not to make sense in the universe, and shamefully it did it three whole years after this.)

[chimericoncogene]

The easy answer is because the Prequels say that Sidious arranged everything. It's a bit of a weaksauce cop out, I totally agree with you on that. Sidious arranges the blockade, he pulls Dooku's puppet strings, and gives the order to invade even as his patsies look confused as to why. Why they trusted him, the viewers are left guessing. And I guess it could have been communicated far better to the viewer.

Why is the Empire bad other than the fact that they blow up Alderaan?
I mean, the Trade Fed invades a peaceful planet with a clearly pacifist queen who is so pacifistic she gives up. The evil Seps try to assassinate that queen turned Senator! But the Empire just blows up one planet and suddenly they're the bad guys
Why are the Rebels rebelling? What deserves this much rebelling? How much rebelling is happening that rule by fear has become necessary policy? Why does Luke hate the Empire? Is the Empire poor or something? Economically depressed? Sure, space wizard emperor, but then so is Count Dooku and insectoid man.
I don't know about the West, but in East Asia the common understanding is that the center is always against the borderlands, that centrifugal forces and boom busts are the norm. What is long united will fall asunder, what is shattered reunites. So that may have colored my view - that Separatism is as natural as Rebellion. Washington isn't popular in large chunks of flyover country either, and Americans have had revolutionary and civil wars.

Separatists are the bad guys, insectoids and battle droids look evil. Stormtroopers look evil, Darth Vader is menacing.

But yeah, I understand your argument. I still much prefer the set and backgrounds of the Prequels to the OT, which is a bit empty because Outer Rim and no CGI. We get a city planet! Trantor from Foundation (yes i know the domes are buried) in color!

And is there anything wrong with that trope? It's bad if it's overused, and Star Wars used it... three times? Fighter chase ROTJ and Ep I lightsaber duel and Ep II? Different enough, i think.

[Vendetta]

The easy answer is because the Prequels say that Sidious arranged everything. It's a bit of a weaksauce cop out, I totally agree with you on that. Sidious arranges the blockade, he pulls Dooku's puppet strings, and gives the order to invade even as his patsies look confused as to why. Why they trusted him, the viewers are left guessing. And I guess it could have been communicated far better to the viewer.

Again though, that' not enough to stand as worldbuilding. "Palpatine pulled everyones strings to make them act to his own ends" is fine as an overall structure, but the audience needs to see where the strings are attached. We need to know why it worked.

And whilst you can turn the same thing against the OT, they were concieved as and were much simpler stories. They're pulp adventure stories that don't need worldbuilding to drive their narratives. Whereas the PT try to be a much more complex thing, Anakin's story is a tragedy about how great potential was turned to darkness by a stagnant institution that couldn't adapt and the overall arc is about the rise of a political manipulator playing both sides of a conflict. In that story the politics needs to make sense and that needs the underlying world to be better constructed.

So the PT needed more detail behind it because of the story it was trying to be, but it didn't have detail that cohered into an overall world, just a bunch of Stuff.

[chimericoncogene]

Again though, that' not enough to stand as worldbuilding. "Palpatine pulled everyones strings to make them act to his own ends" is fine as an overall structure, but the audience needs to see where the strings are attached. We need to know why it worked.

And whilst you can turn the same thing against the OT, they were concieved as and were much simpler stories. They're pulp adventure stories that don't need worldbuilding to drive their narratives. Whereas the PT try to be a much more complex thing, Anakin's story is a tragedy about how great potential was turned to darkness by a stagnant institution that couldn't adapt and the overall arc is about the rise of a political manipulator playing both sides of a conflict. In that story the politics needs to make sense and that needs the underlying world to be better constructed.

So the PT needed more detail behind it because of the story it was trying to be, but it didn't have detail that cohered into an overall world, just a bunch of Stuff.

It did a reasonably good job, IMO. Coruscant is rich (well, the Senate is rich and decadent), the Outer Rim is poor and hates the Republic (or doesn't accept their money = bad news), the bad corporations are greedy and evil, and are hive species with giant war factories, and most importantly, the Senate is soft, and lacks the military power to keep the systems in line. All it does is talk. Compare Geonosis (war factory land, hard edge) with Coruscant (no war factories, plush Senate).
Doesn't really explain Kamino, but that's the good guys' war factory and looks shiny like a hospital.
All people are greedy. Greedy people = don't want to pay taxes. Greedy people + weak central control = Separatism + civil war.
I'm not sure whether it might be a culture thing (see above), but people don't need this spelled out, do they? Americans and Brits (I dunno whether you are one) tend to be very loyal to their country and its principles (because the nations tend to be old-ish), even if they don't always act like it or think themselves loyal to what their country represents. Except Scotland... hmm... The Republic isn't a unified nation like the United States. It's a conglomerate mess, which is why the Senate has a thousand senators all wearing different funny clothes.

[MKSheppard]

Because it eats into their long-term profits if people get bored of a franchise.

This is another issue.

I recall someone -- I think it was Valdemar -- saying that ROS had done what nothing else could have done -- it finally got the Star Wars Monkey off his back.

That's something that a lot of hollywood suits don't get, I think.

Even though it's been nearly twenty years (lol 2003-2020) since neo BSG premiered; it doesn't really feel that long, since nBSG managed to at least get to the end of whatever story they were trying to tell (even if they failed the landing), and the effects and acting are still pretty decent....

...So what the fuck is the point of a reboot of BSG again? Other than to set money on fire?

Westworld worked as a reboot, like BSG, the original was from the 70s (1973) and it had been long enough (44 years) for the franchise to be dormant, and for special effects to catch up to what writers could come up with.

Another thing for why nBSG worked was that it was one of the first long term structured episodic shows; with a bold new style.

By contrast, I tried watching discovery and the pilot was enough to make me contemplate suicide as they kept throwing in treknobabble left and right. It's like Discovery's writers threw every TNG/DS9/VOY script into a neural net generator and then used output to write dialogue.

I don't want to watch/listen to Treknobabble again like it's 1993 again and I'm rocking a 486DX and Doom.

[Vendetta]

It did a reasonably good job, IMO. Coruscant is rich (well, the Senate is rich and decadent), the Outer Rim is poor and hates the Republic (or doesn't accept their money = bad news), the bad corporations are greedy and evil, and are hive species with giant war factories, and most importantly, the Senate is soft, and lacks the military power to keep the systems in line. All it does is talk. Compare Geonosis (war factory land, hard edge) with Coruscant (no war factories, plush Senate).
Doesn't really explain Kamino, but that's the good guys' war factory and looks shiny like a hospital.

It doesn't explain anything. It's visual language that tells us how to feel about the environments as we're watching the movie, but it doesn't establish the things that a series that was trying to tell those stories needed to.

Notably you haven't addressed any of the things I've actually raised.

What side is the Trade Federation on in the supposed tax dispute and why?
Why should the audience care if they get their way?
Why do they think blockading one planet out of millions will help?
Why Naboo specifically?

Those are things that the audience needs to be able to answer if the conflict is going to hinge on manipulating the fictional politics of the setting. Not being able to answer questions like that by looking at the work shows you that it doesn't have good worldbuilding. The circumstances exist solely to allow the plot to happen, not because they're consequences of a fictional world obeying its own rules.

All people are greedy. Greedy people = don't want to pay taxes. Greedy people + weak central control = Separatism + civil war.

Or tax avoidance, or corruption, or any number of far more likely things.

Again, the Republic is so weak it couldn't have possibly enforced any tax laws on people who didn't want to pay (especially ones who have massive war factories).

This is, again, not a universe naturalistically following its own processes as a product of worldbuilding, it's a conflict that exists so there can be a plot for space wizards to run around and do heroism.

And it's not about whether the audience needs to have it spelled out to accept that it's happening, but whether it counts as good worldbuilding and whether the audience walks away satisfied by experiencing the world through the story and characters. Over time as the initial rush cooled and people assessed the prequels more soberly, it turns out they generally didn't.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Flawed as the PT might be, I think it did at least serve it's purpose as a prequel - it showed us how we got to ANH, how the Empire came to be, how the Jedi went extinct and Vader was "all that was left of their religion" (to quote Tarkin) and so on. The ST, on the other hand, failed in that it doesn't really show us what happened after the events of ROTJ - we jump from Emps being dead, the Empire having suffered a major defeat and lots of people cheering, then suddenly it's thirty years later and there is nothing in the film that fills in that A to B to C timeline. We can infer a bunch of things - The Empire collapsed after another crushing defeat at Jakku (though no reason why they'd fight over a sandball like that), the Republic was restored, and now there's a new bunch of bad guys using modernised Imperial designs facing off against a new Rebellion.

Hell, I can't recall ever hearing an actual on-screen explanation for who started the First Order - was it one of the Grand Admirals/Grand Moffs who decided to play the long game? Was it the new-canon equivalent of Harrsk, Terradoc, Zsinj or some other EU Warlord? Where did Snoke come from? And so on. It's almost as if, absent the Han/Luke/Leia stuff, the entire ST is completely disconnected from the OT/PT.

There's nothing to fill in the gaps except new-EU books and such. And it's not like a good portion of the audience weren't already familiar with SW - the TFA opening crawl starts with announcing Luke has vanished. SO assuming that you can't follow on from events in ROTJ is moronic - anyone going to see TFA would have at least known the basic outline of SW.

[chimericoncogene]

It doesn't explain anything. It's visual language that tells us how to feel about the environments as we're watching the movie, but it doesn't establish the things that a series that was trying to tell those stories needed to.

Notably you haven't addressed any of the things I've actually raised.

What side is the Trade Federation on in the supposed tax dispute and why? Lower taxes probably. Big corporation and all.

Why should the audience care if they get their way? They don't. They're merely going along with the protagonists. Why do I give a crap about Alderaan when Stormtroopers look so shiny they could be on a recruitment poster?

Why do they think blockading one planet out of millions will help? Sidious told them to. And they did say this was a peaceful protest and a legal blockade. Occupy Wall Street, people!

Why Naboo specifically? Because Sidious told them to. Random planet. Protest, like protesters blocking access to a random shop or a semi-random street. With guns this time.

Those are things that the audience needs to be able to answer if the conflict is going to hinge on manipulating the fictional politics of the setting. Not being able to answer questions like that by looking at the work shows you that it doesn't have good worldbuilding. The circumstances exist solely to allow the plot to happen, not because they're consequences of a fictional world obeying its own rules.

Or tax avoidance, or corruption, or any number of far more likely things.

Again, the Republic is so weak it couldn't have possibly enforced any tax laws on people who didn't want to pay (especially ones who have massive war factories).

And when the Republic's new, anti-corruption Supreme Chancellor tried to enforce those tax laws and began talking about building a military to enforce those tax laws??? (that was Episode II: Military Creation Act)

Separatism. With guns.

Perhaps I have not made it clear. No central government military + centrifugal forces = Separatism. Not all places are as "nice and friendly" as the USA! Think Zimbabwe, or Iraq, or ancient China.

If you don't like Washington, and you don't pay taxes to Washington, and you have your own army, and you are ethnically/culturally majority say... Indian?

Well, why are you still in the United States of America? Why should the United States of America keep its borders open to trade with you? How can the USA prevent more states from leaving? What do those fundies dream about in their idiotic Kratman books? You do realize that many large nations have active separatist movements, right? Why are those ever a thing?

The UN works because it doesn't collect much in taxes, has little real power, and few regulations. The Republic seems to be a somewhat tighter compact, with more regulations and taxes that were until relatively recently widely obeyed and widely enforced or until recently not enforced at all (hence no reason to leave).

And how do you think Washington likes its tax base drying up? There will be people friendly to Washington agitating to bring the states in line, to end the tax evasion and corruption! Washington will want to bring the states to heel. You're not talking a individual not paying taxes here. You're talking about a state (maybe owned by Google or something) refusing to pay taxes. These are actual honest-to-god planets. Kurdistan has enough trouble paying taxes to Baghdad. Would Kurdistan pay taxes to New York once the idea got floated that hey, we don't actually need to do that and we have the guns to say no?

Because Washington is greedy too!

As to why the Republic ever worked in the first place? Who knows? Maybe it had a military once, and maybe it kept going on inertia. Maybe shipping regs were profitable once. Maybe the Jedi were sufficiently terrifying. But the point across is clear. There is friction enough that escalation to war is believable.

[ray245]

Flawed as the PT might be, I think it did at least serve it's purpose as a prequel - it showed us how we got to ANH, how the Empire came to be, how the Jedi went extinct and Vader was "all that was left of their religion" (to quote Tarkin) and so on. The ST, on the other hand, failed in that it doesn't really show us what happened after the events of ROTJ - we jump from Emps being dead, the Empire having suffered a major defeat and lots of people cheering, then suddenly it's thirty years later and there is nothing in the film that fills in that A to B to C timeline. We can infer a bunch of things - The Empire collapsed after another crushing defeat at Jakku (though no reason why they'd fight over a sandball like that), the Republic was restored, and now there's a new bunch of bad guys using modernised Imperial designs facing off against a new Rebellion.

Hell, I can't recall ever hearing an actual on-screen explanation for who started the First Order - was it one of the Grand Admirals/Grand Moffs who decided to play the long game? Was it the new-canon equivalent of Harrsk, Terradoc, Zsinj or some other EU Warlord? Where did Snoke come from? And so on. It's almost as if, absent the Han/Luke/Leia stuff, the entire ST is completely disconnected from the OT/PT.

There's nothing to fill in the gaps except new-EU books and such. And it's not like a good portion of the audience weren't already familiar with SW - the TFA opening crawl starts with announcing Luke has vanished. SO assuming that you can't follow on from events in ROTJ is moronic - anyone going to see TFA would have at least known the basic outline of SW.

Yet apparently, we have plenty of people telling us we don't need to care about it at all. Afterall, the OT supposedly didn't give us that much information either, so the sequels shouldn't waste any time on exposition at all.