CT Joss Whedon Doesn’t Like the Ending to Empire Strikes Back

Seriously I don't have issues with Whedons opinion, it just seems quite weird, seeing as how Empire is called Episode V.

 

Agreed. I kind of wonder why the same complaint isn't used against Epsidoe IV. The only conclusion I can come to, is that the rebels were victorious in Episode IV. I have to wonder if that is
what makes it more of an ending for Whedon.

 

Because is wasn't called Episode IV in 1977, as that was added in 1981 for the re-release. When people saw it in 1977 it was just called Star Wars and it had a beginning, middle & ending.

 

It still left the villain alive, and the tyrany of the empire as well. Being that, it wasn't marketted as episodic at the time, I would think people would be even more upset about Star Wars back in 1977.
Because that isn't much more of an ending than TESB had.

 

To the contrary, it was a throwback to a very old style. The concept was prevelant in the earliest days of cinema (Flash Gordon, Andy Hardy, Little Rascals, etc.) We even saw the concept in the 1960's with the Planet of the Apes series, although they weren't as open-ended as the SW movies. I suppose by the 1970's it had just fallen out of fashion and what was old was new again. If anything, viewers were accustomed to this kind of style on television and not on film.

 

I don't agree with either Whedon or Carbon1985, but come on, this is kind of a specious comparison. The original film has much more of a solid resolution than Empire does.

 

Because the movies weren't sequel crazy at that time like it is now. Back then you went to the movies in the context as a standalone movie and didn't think of future sequels like we do now. Jaws & Star Wars invented the summer blockbuster and by the 1980's people started expecting sequels after a popular original movie hit the theater.

 

I still don't see what that has to do with people being upset by the ending of TESB. ANH/Star Wars left just as much room for more story to be told as TESB did. People had to wonder what would happen to Darth Vader after the DS was destroyed?
I certainly would, because the movie specifically made a point of showing that he survived the battle of Yavin. Why do that if there was to be no sequel?

I can understand if people were so wowed by the new special effects back then, that they allowed themselves to ignore the fact that not everything was tied up by then end of ANH/Star Wars. But the truth is that it had no more of an ending than TESB did.

 

If you read the opening crawl, the ending is all there for everyone in 1977:

Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and RESTORE FREEDOM TO THE GALAXY.

I was there in 1977, and trust me people were satisfied with the ending.

 

I'm not implying that they weren't satisfied with the ending. I'm implying that it has no more of an ending than TESB does. The villain of the story was very much alive at the end of it.

For instance, you you claim ANH has an ending because the opening crawl implies that the stolen plans can RESTORE FREEDOM TO THE GALAXY. That's all well and good. But should TESB,
after we all know that the stolen plans did NOT restore freedom, imply that doing something else will restore freedom to the galaxy for there to be an ending to that film?
Seems like a rather redundant thing to do, especially after the first claim turned out to be untrue.

So, my question has been, what exactly would have been a satisfactory ending to TESB?
Take into consideration, that the title of the movie almost implies that the Empire will win in a lot of respects.

 

So glad that Whedon stood up to the "ESB rocks, PT sucks" crowd!

 

ANH had to be somewhat standalone because GL didn't know if he would be able to make the others. Nobody believed in the project except for Alan Ladd Jr. at Fox. It was entirely likely in GL's eyes that that this could be the only SW movie. Even so, he left a lot of material for sequels because he had the rights to produce sequels and still would pursue it even if it had to be made independently. The Princess was rescued and the DS destroyed so there was no cliffhanger like ESB, but there was room for a next chapter with the survival of Vader and the Emperor still in power.

 

The ending of ESB has Lando & Chewy leaving to rescue Han after Luke says he will meet them, so there is clearly another mission that needs to be told in the next movie. In SW you have a big medal ceremony to our heroes getting a standing ovation from the people of Yavin. How can you say they are the same ending????

 

In SW Darth Vader is clearly seen escaping the scene of the battle. I can't see any difference in the two scenes. They both imply that there is more to be done. What good is a living villain at the end of the story. It may have happened in other movies or books, but common practice is that the villain is either killed, or captured so that he/she can no longer wreak havoc. How can a living and free villain not be considered here?

 

We'll agree to disagree cause my head is spinning. Vader wasn't even the main villain in SW as he was just a henchmen to the Empire. Stop looking at the movie in the saga context and look at it in 1977 context.

 

I'm not looking at it as a saga, here. "Vader helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the jedi knights" Obi Wan Kenobi to Luke Skywalker (the protagonist). He was practically synonymous with the Empire throughout. So what good is he to the end of the story if he still lives?

 

Rocky loses to Apollo in the original Rocky and the movie is a classic that didn't need a sequel. The Bad News Bears lose the championship in the original and is a classic that didn't need a sequel. In Star Wars Luke blows up the death star and the movie is a classic that didn't need a sequel. You're looking too much into the movie because all 3 of the movies I named stood on their own and don't tie up every loose end.

 

Are you comparing a war movie, to movies about sports, where it isn't custom to kill anyone?

 

This is a quote from the Rocky movie

also

Apollo Creed: "Ain't gonna be no rematch."

Rocky: "It ain't gonna be no rematch! Oh, come on! I had enough things in my face tonight! Adrian!"

According to the script, Rocky met his own requirements for his own personal victory. After the fight is over, Rocky and Apollo are not mortal enemies. These are only a few of the problem with stating that the movie Rocky didn't tie up all it's loose ends. There were no loose ends at the end of Rocky, no villains to eliminate that would undoubtedly cause more trouble if they are not dealt with. I haven't seen Bad News Bears in years, but I hardly believe their game was a life or death contest overseen by a virtuous general on one side, and an evil henchmen on the other.

 

Empire was not my idea of a cliffhanger. The overall story was unresolved, but the movie came to a fitting conclusion nonetheless. It's not like it stopped right before the next action scene, we as the audience didn't really get cheated out of anything. Maybe he prefers happier endings, but the Empire Strikes back still has an ending.

 

Joss Whedon? That's like saying Quentin Tarantino prefers less violence in his movies.

Empire does have a cliffhanger ending. Whether or not that's the right thing to do is the issue.

Vader escaping at the end of ANH isn't a cliffhanger. It's more like Jaws(Richard Kiel) swimming away at the end of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. People were glad Vader didn't die because he was too cool. They wanted to see him again. They were also satisfied that one bad guy(the one who ordered Alderaan's destruction) was killed. Audiences also weren't annoyed because it meant that there was possibilities for more movies and that Vader would be in them. It can still stand on it's own too.

 

That statement totally debunks the idea that no one was expecting a sequel because sequels were not prevalent in films at the time, and supports the idea that people expected more movies because Vader escaped, which is definitely a cliffhanger for his character. His survival signifies that evil in the galaxy is not dead. Vader being the one to survive almost promises that the war would go on, more than if any other imperial had survived. He was the one who put absolutely no faith in the Death Star, verbally implying that it wasn't so necessary to imperial rule, and would be the least likely to curl up and retire after its destruction.

After all this, I'm still wondering how TESB could have ended without a "cliffhanger" and still set things up for a third movie. People are saying that ANH wasn't a cliffhanger because the opening crawl states that destroying the Death Star would bring freedom to the galaxy. Any movie that comes after that, could only bring THAT kind of closure by implying that either the alliance, or the empire was destroyed at the end, and would at the same time, put the lie to the opening crawl of the previous film.

That's why I don't agree with Whedon's assessment that a "cliffhanger" was a bad idea. If it was, then perhaps it would have been better not to make TESB at all, and actually allow Star Wars/ANH to stand alone, or not make ROTJ, and actually destroy one of the two sides in TESB.

 

You're focusing too much on the specific words. Whether you consider ANH to stand perfectly on its own or not, it certainly does not compare to ESB in the amount of things it leaves hanging.

 

Does it really matter how much it leaves hanging, so long as it leaves stuff hanging?
Not sure what words I'm focusing on. No one can really tell me what would have made TESB not end on a cliffhanger.

 

Vader wasn't even the main villain in the original movie. Tarkin was. Vader was just his henchman. Tarkin died, that was resolution enough; every villain doesn't have to die at the end of a movie for it not to be a cliffhanger.

Vader has like ten minutes of screen time through the movie; his survival wasn't a big deal because the forces he served had been soundly defeated.