Saga Unpopular Star Wars opinions!

I believe that Luke's journey was about becoming a Jedi, because his father used to be one. That's it. Saving Anakin/Vader was something that popped up in the third film. Luke's journey of self discovery was mainly about becoming a Jedi. In words, it seemed to me that Luke was wrapping his identity around being a Jedi . . . not about being Luke Skywalker. He even wrapped Anakin's identity in the same cloak - especially in that line to Palpatine in ROTJ:

"I am a Jedi like my father before me."

I would have preferred if Luke saw himself being other than a Jedi. But . . . he was still young at the time and had years before reaching true self-discovery.

 

Before he wanted to be a Jedi, Luke wanted to be a pilot. His destiny, his calling was that of a Jedi. It was part of who he was. All Obi-wan did was show him the door.

 

Like what?

 

Can't remember if I've posted this in here before, but I think the OT needs to be completely remade.

 

Don't you mean . . . who? Luke's identity should not be wrapped around what he is. It should be all about who he is. His profession should not be the main concern. Being a Jedi Knight or Master should not be the ultimate achievement for Luke. Learning to embrace the inner self should.

 

And the two can not be combined?

 

Exactly. Luke did that. That was part of his journey was finding himself and what his destiny is. That's what Lucas means by "Follow your bliss". Owen wanted Luke to be a farmer, because he didn't want to lose him to the Empire. Luke and Beru knew that was not Luke's destiny. She knew because she could see how much being a pilot meant to him and Luke wanted a life outside of being a farmer. He thought that the path away from Tatooine was just being a pilot. Obi-wan showed him who he was meant to be and with his family gone, he took it. That's why he tells Obi-wan that he'll go with him, because there's no life for him on Tatooine. And to become a Jedi takes the most serious mind and deepest commitment as Yoda tells him. Obi-wan had told Anakin that it was a commitment that is not to be taken lighten and not easy to break.

 

Naboo in the prequels should have been Alderaan!

 

Why do you think that?

 

I am not representing Avnar here, but since Alderaan was the one destroyed by the Death Star, it would have been nice to see of it on-screen, rather than the planet and then KABOOM.
Also, the political system of Alderaan is interesting IMO and I would have liked to see its wonderful architecture and nature. Oh wait! Isn't Naboo like that?

I am confused now

 

I totally agree with the Naboo should've been Alderaan idea. Especially since if we actually got to see it and know it in the prequels, it would've made it much more personal for us when it got destroyed in "A New Hope".

 

But we can't have that! It narrows the galaxy too much!

Anyway I agree with you.

 

I see both sides of it. Yes, Naboo should've been Alderaan for connection purposes that we actually 'know' it but FS is right it would make the galaxy way too small. Also, people already despise Tarkin for Alderaan no need to deliberately continue forcing he's black when he is fact *grey*.

 

I was being sarcastic when I said that. 20 seconds of Alderaan in ROTS doesn't cut it. Should have been in AOTC instead of Naboo again. ​

​

​

​

​

 

But it's not about making people hate Tarkin more. It's about people actually feeling something when we see that world destroyed. Right now, it's still terrible to witness. But in a "wow, blowing up a world is terrible" kinda way, but it doesn't really get you too much on a gut level. It's like hearing statistics about gun violence vs. hearing a personal story about one. The personal story is going to affect you a lot more strongly.

 

For some. Not all and it would increase the hate of Tarkin which isn't needed.

 

People need to keep in mind that history is full of "Tarkins" - what fiction like Star Wars does - is show such characters being defeated.

 

Well, I would argue that Tarkin is already hated. And in fact, we're *supposed* to hate him in "Star Wars". So I really don't see it affecting people's feelings on him too much. I was thinking less about increasing a hate for Tarkin, and more about increasing empathy for Leia in that situation. It would be easier to feel for her if we knew even a few intimate details about the place she just lost.

And even if you were correct, wouldn't it be more important story-wise to increase an audience's empathy with one of the protagonists, rather than protect one of the villains from more "hate"? Which again, I don;t really get. Because, the movie clearly wants us to hate him anyway…..

 

I'd disagree with that
I don't think SW really tries to force views upon you. Points of view are subjective and cinema is open to interpretation

 

Not really. In all movies of the OT (at least) everytime a baddie appeared on-screen he was either chocking, maiming, killing or blowing up planets. Now, it is pretty hard to not hate these characters if everytime you see them they do something horrific that you condemn.

But a far better example is (IMO) the use of droids and stormtroopers. In both trilogies, the "heroes" were faced against an army of droids and then an army of stortroopers. Both armies had no facial expression! This is purely done, so that the viewer does not feel remorse about the death of Stormtroopers in Tantive IV, or the death of droids on board the invincible hand. Thus, when a hero/jedi kills an enemy soldier that is no biggie, but when stormtroopers kill the Rebel soldiers on the Tantive IV, we suddenlyfeel bad for them.
Another example, is the death of members of Red squadron during their attack against the first Death Star. Men like Naeco or Porkins, that were shot down by either Vader or other TIE Fighters makes you feel remorse about them. This feeling is further strengthened when Luke watches Biggs, his friend, being shot down by Vader and we see his feelings on-screen. But we don't see the death of the stormtroopers on-screen, nor how it affected them. For the same reasons; so that the viewer has no moral qualms about the "bad guys".

The same things happens with the Ewoks. Cute and furry little creatures that the viewer enjoys seeing. Now, the big bad Empire comes along and terrorizes them. What if the Ewoks looked more like the Aliens from the Alien movies? I'm pretty sure that no one would feel any bad if they were killed by AT-ST's. Since we are still on the same topic, what really frustrated me is when we see two Ewoks running from an AT-ST, one of them gets shot and the other one appears to be dead. Then, the other one survives and goes up to his friend and tries to wake him up. But he doesn't wake up and the Ewok lingers a bit looking at the corpse....And the audience is crying now

I can go on and on about how the movies has deliberately vilified the "villians" and deliberately lionized the "heroes".
So, in my opinion, SW does force views upon you. You just have to be smart about it.

 

Discussions about Star Wars in relation to the material that inspired George (westerns/samurai films/pulp sci-fi/fantasy and mythology/real world politics, religion, and philosophy) are much more interesting than discussion about Star Wars in relation to the EU.

 

There were tonnes of Imperial stormtroopers, officers, Jabba's men, etc., onscreen doing none of that stuff.

First Imperial commander I saw in A New Hope asked Vader if it was a good idea to take Leia prisoner, as it might create upset in the Senate.

Ooh yeah, I hate your guts now. You *******!

I don't think fans can blame the movie for their own views. One thing that annoyed me was the sheer number of fans who villified Lando for betraying the Rebels.

Empire Strikes Back clearly timelined that the Empire arrived on Bespin before the 'Falcon did. Lando's responsibility was to the population of Cloud City, and a cloud car did fire warning shots upon the 'Falcon during the approach.

If my hyperdrive was working, I'd have taken that as a clue.

What is smart about that opinion?

The Empire were on Endor for six months, or however long it took to set up their bunker, AT-AT station, and shield without bothering the Ewoks.

To paraphrase Rambo, the Ewoks "drew first blood" when that one with Leia stabbed a scout trooper in the knee!

At no point in the movie was it indicated that the Ewoks had any problem with the Empire's presence on their world before Threepio's potted history of the Battle of Hoth.

A number of my school friends, back in '83, and afterwards, turned on the Ewoks pretty quickly.

 

And shortly before, you see Vader chocking a Rebel soldier to death and throwing him to the wall!

The same thing was with Luke Force chocking the two guards at Jabba's palace, but no one complained then...

In any case, I stand by my views and you have your own opinion about it; I can respect that. However, I don't want to fight about such a thing. So...peace

 

But you wrote "everytime a baddie appeared on-screen ".

I'm pointing out that there were baddies on screen who did not engage in such things. You didn't specify that you did not mean middle-management or the foot-soldiers.

Of course, peace. ?

The same thing was with Luke Force chocking the two guards at Jabba's palace, but no one complained then...

I had a significant problem with Luke after the confrontation in the Emperor's throne room, when he attacked Vader after the threat to Leia. Definite turn to the Dark Side.
Yeah, I don't think the movies can be blamed for trying to push views on us.

 

Yeah...Sorry for not clarifying that. I meant the baddie characters that mattered to the viewer and the ones that had bigger roles; e.g. Tarkin, Vader, Palpatine, Dooku etc.

And the opposite (meaning the ionization) about the heroes, meaning the heroes that the viewer can connect with and the ones that had bigger roles; e.g. Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda etc.