main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Saga Did TFA make the OT pointless?

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Darth Weavile, Oct 22, 2017.

  1. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    There were scenes of celebration in Baghdad too in 2003. Of course everyone lived happily together ever after that, as expected. [face_thinking]

    I guess I could show a picture of the emerging FO attacking the New Republic in TFA or TLJ and that should be accepted as proof that the ST is not "poorly written" (by those that believe that it is), would it?

    Also. ROTJ wasn't written that way. Those were CGI tryouts for the PT, and Lucas's way of discouraging all further queries about episodes beyond VI. He has since reneged on the decision that the saga ended there, and it was his idea to make the villains of the ST a new generation of neo-Imperials descended from those that settled with the Alliance at the end of the GCW. As far as Lucas was concerned, celebration on Coruscant and Tatooine (which was controlled by the Hutts [face_waiting]) did not mean the end of that community that felt the Galaxy, the Republic, was better served by a totalitarian, militaristic government, ruled by them.

    Also. Why wasn't there massive celebrations after the destruction of the death start in ANH, when the Empire supposedly couldn't protect itself without it or the Senate (dissolved) and using only their existing fleet?

    The rebels were placed in the exact same position as after ANH (a dark time for them).

    TFA gave us a look at the kind of fanaticism that has been carried forward from the Empire to the FO when some are shown not willing to leave their posts while Starkiller is crumbling beneath their feet (while others with more sense are running).
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2018
  2. Lt. Hija

    Lt. Hija Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Not a good example, considering this: The statue was pulled down by Iraqi citizens, with the help American forces during the 2003 invasion of Iraq in front of a crowd of around a hundred Iraqis. The event was widely televised, and some of this footage was criticized for exaggerating the size of the crowd.[4] Robert Fisk described it as "the most staged photo opportunity since Iwo Jima".[5]

    On April 9, 2005, the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the square was the center of a large-scale demonstration from tens of thousands of Iraqis protesting the
    American occupation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firdos_Square

    As a matter of fact, the revised ending of ROJ - celebrations in the Imperial capital (!!!) - could rather suggest that there might have been a group of top brass Imperials that seized control of Coruscant much like the German Wehrmacht officers of the 20 July plot had intended for Berlin.

    (Now, that would have been something, IMHO).
     
  3. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    So it's hardly conclusive then is it?

    The death of the Emperor, and Vader, gave other Imperialists the opportunity to put themselves in the big seat. The idea that Endor is the final victory or anything like it would mean that all the Imperialists in the military (that sprung up immediately at the end of the Clone Wars) had been humoring Palpatine the whole time since the Empire's formation. They always knew this mumbo-jumbo wouldn't fly but they went along with it to not hurt Shiv's feelings. They were just dying to take off that itchy drab uniform the moment he died.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2018
    only one kenobi and Palp_Faction like this.
  4. CLee

    CLee Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Jun 18, 2017
    Well the Emperor does have some supporters but I think the OT does imply that he *is* both the main problem with and source of strength of the Empire. You have military officials being surprised, not displeased but still thinking it probably unwise, for Palpatine to dissolve the Senate. And throughout many Imperials seem to be motivated by fear of Vader and/or the Emperor.
     
  5. Jedi Knight Fett

    Jedi Knight Fett Host, PT Interview Thread star 10 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2014
    I don’t think the people in the galaxy would think it was pointless. So to me that says it all. It was not pointless.
     
    Darth Downunder and Martoto77 like this.
  6. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    For me the ST, and TLJ in particular completely disrupts the flow of the overarching story. In fact, in my view the PT, OT, and ST don't work at all as one cohesive story, since very little of the PT and OT story threads carry over to the ST. The PT and OT tell a complete story. The twenty year gap between the two trilogies do not represent a plot hole, as not much has happened between the two trilogies, that is relevant to the main characters. Conversely the ST skips about a trilogy's worth of story and character development, and opts to condense these developments into a few flashbacks. Han and Leia's relationship fell apart, their son turned to the dark side, Luke turned into a recluse, and Snoke was able to somehow revitalize the Imperial remnants, despite the New Republic's presence. All this skipped story content in the end mostly serves to get the story back to the Empire versus rebels story premise. The ST story does not feel like a natural story progression to me, but a loose remake of the OT marketed as sequels.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  7. ewoksimon

    ewoksimon Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 26, 2009
    No, the victories of the OT are still vital. However, the ST clarifies that the organizations and institutions from both the PT and OT are no longer viable, otherwise the mistakes of the past will be inevitably repeated. In order for there to be a true progression, the galaxy must start totally fresh.
     
    Eternal_Jedi and Martoto77 like this.
  8. themoth

    themoth Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2015
    Yeah, it’s like asking if WW1 was pointless because of WW2.
     
    Eternal_Jedi and Martoto77 like this.
  9. Darth Invictus

    Darth Invictus Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 8, 2016
    I have to say it did-it under cutted the stories of the main OT heroes, makes no IU sense, and is very much a corporate rip off of the OT not a continuation of it.
     
    Tosche_Station and wobbits like this.
  10. Tosche_Station

    Tosche_Station Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Feb 9, 2015
    Except WW2 wasn't "WW1 redux"...
     
    DrDre likes this.
  11. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    To many people at the time. It was.
     
  12. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Tell that to the millions of people who died in the concentration camps, or to those that died in the war of annihilation in the east, or the countries overrun by the German Blitzkrieg. WWII was nothing like WWI except in the sense that it was another world war where millions of people died. The reasons for the war were very different, the goals of the parties involved in the war were very different, and it's execution was very different.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
    Tosche_Station likes this.
  13. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    For the ones that felt they were tricked into surrender when they had no reason to and were betrayed from within their own society by traitor and mad that the pretext to fighting again and taking revenge.

    It's in rather poor taste to invoke the holocaust simply in order to score a tangential point about the differences in the way the two wars were fought.
     
  14. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    I wasn't the one, that argued WWII was a WWI redux, based on the idea that the Nazis initially rallied support with the "stabbed in the back legend" (despite the fact that the Nazis in reality had very different goals, and a very different ideology), conveniently ignoring the giant elephant in the room. That to me is in poor taste. There's nothing tangential about my point in relation to WWII. You cherry picking WWII history to push a narrative doesn't alter that fact.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  15. TripleZero

    TripleZero Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2017
    Not necessarily.

    Given how large the Empire was, it wasn't too crazy to think that some remnant would hide away for an extensive period of time, and build up its forces.. As for Starkiller Base, it did have the element of surprise once they attacked the New Republic It does effectively make it anther "rebels vs empire" scenario, but at least in TFA, the First Order is an authoritarian fringe group, rather than the firmly established dictatorship that the Empire was at the time of the OT.
     
  16. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    The motivation for the aggressor in a war is not an elephant in the room.

    The Nazis started the war. For the Nazis, WWII was going to be WWI done better.

    I was not ignoring any of those things. Saying, in effect, "what about the holocaust", jsut because the complexion of the European warfare of the 1940s isn't an exact match for the European warfare of the 1910s or the interstellar warfare in the GFFA during the post Imperialist war.

    If the main motivating factor for WWII was to do WWI better, then, for many, WWII was intended to be WWI redux. By definition.

    Victims and survivors of the holocaust would not disagree with that statement. You're out of line to invoke them purely to support your own tangential point about the nature of the methods of warfare, (e.g. blitzkrieg - now just called mobile warfare and employed by most world powers in combatg, notably the USA) and the iniquities carried out under the cloak of war in the name of vengeance for the loss of the previous war. Nobody argued that war was waged in the same way in WWII as in WWI.

    Redux means to be revived, brought back. The nazis brought back the German Empire's war with the rest of Europe and tried to ensure the results would be lasting and irreversible..

    The FO are trying to bring back the Empire by starting galactic civil war again.

    Please don't insinuate that I dismiss the holocaust because I've correctly identified the parallels in the backgrounds to the conflicts being compared.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  17. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    I disagree vehemently. The Nazis did not start the war to do WWI better, or to have a WWI redux. WWI was largely driven by the numerous diplomatic crises that preceeded it, and by the various military treaties that had been formed in the run up towards the eventual breakout of war. WWI was not fought to create a greater German Empire, but did result in the collapse of many of the European monarchies, amongst them the German Empire. The Nazis main motivation for war was their ideology of racial superiority, combined with the need for living space (Lebensraum). The war of annihilation in Eastern Europe and Russia, and the eventual holocaust were a direct consequence of the Nazi ideology, and their motivations for going to war. The so called stab-in-the-back myth was only a very small part of the equation, mostly used by the Nazis as propaganda to paint the opposition as the "November criminals", and as traitors to the fatherland.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  18. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Yes they did. They told us so. Many Nazis told us so. Ergo, for many people WWII was redux of WWI.

    The crises that occurred between the wars, and because of the settlement of WWI, were used a) for the new German Imperialists to gain power in the first place b) for them to promote remilitarization and resumption of a war of conquest and vengeance against those who denied them victory in the previous one. They didn't "need" living room. That was the way they described wanting to conquer and/or destroy the rest of Europe for themselves.

    Annihilating their enemies within and without German was their idea of doing WWI better.

    This is recorded history of the Nazi's explicitly expressed pretext for war. The scale and nature of the means used to wage that war is a separate matter. The nazis didn't proclaim that they were going to wage the same kind of warfare as WWI, which is what you seem to think is necessary for them to see it as redux. That's just not true.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  19. darkspine10

    darkspine10 Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 7, 2014
    All this ultimately circles round to just a justification for the ST being completely indistinguishable from the OT, in visual or plot.

    When making a WW1 or WW2 movie, you shouldn't make them look identical. Wonder Woman was criticised for portraying WW1 as if it was WW2.

    And anyway, it just seems to me to be a explanation for limited creativity. It's fiction, we need to make a new conflict different, or it's just re-treading old ground, and boring.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  20. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    You are wrong. Hitler always maintained the main enemy was the Sovjet Union, and bolsjevism in general. He wrote about this extensively in his book "Mein Kampf". Hitler saw his war with the West as a waste, and tried very hard to form an alliance with Great Britain, who he saw as ideological friends, despite being the enemy in WWI.
    While Hitler wanted to undo the disgrace of the WWI defeat, and the collapse of the German Empire, the Nazi's main goal was not to defeat the WWI Alliance, but to conquer the East, to remove indigenous people they considered to be racially inferior in the name of their own living space. Nazi Germany also supported other "Aryan' nations" pursuing their own Lebensraum, including Fascist Italy. The latter country became the most prominent German ally as part of the axis powers, despite being Germany's enemy in WWI. Recently discovered evidence shows Hitler offered to leave Western Europe in exchange for the freedom to attack the Sovjet Union:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history...in-exchange-for-free-hand-to-attack-USSR.html

    This evidence refutes the what you claim is the recorded history of the Nazi's explicitly expressed pretext for war, which in reality amounted to little more than propaganda to gain support of more moderate Germans in the early days of Nazi rule.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  21. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Hitler hated the Soviet Union because he expressly blamed bolshevism , jewry and other perceived "subhumans" for the German Empire's defeat in WWI and the state Germany was left in thereafter. He forced the French to sign their surrender in the same carriage that the Allies had made Germany sign its surrender in WWI. Not just as a whim, but because that was what he wanted from the beginning. The idea that Hitler was just motivated by a need for space and to have ideological friends as neighbors is woefully inadequate.

    I'm not going to argue this any more.

    Many people (Nazi Germany) did wage WWII as redux of WWI that they would do better the second time around. The impact of that policy is not disputed, but neither is it relevant to what the aggressors used as the pretext for waging it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  22. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Sure, he wanted to humiliate the French for the manner in which it forced reparations on the German nation after WWI, but he ultimately opted not to occupy the main body of France, and in stead allowed a free state to form, Vichy France, while Hitler focussed his attention to the true ideological enemy in the East. He opted not to invade Britain, because he admired the British Empire and repeatedly pronounced it the greatest wonder-work every wrought by God. He was convinced the British were permeated through and through by Germanic conceptions of honour and that they would be his allies some day.

    Hitler argued that “the English nation will have to be considered the most valuable ally in the world as long as its leadership and the spirit of its broad masses justify us in expecting that brutality and perseverance which is determined to fight a battle once begun to a victorious end, with every means and without consideration of time and sacrifices; and what is more, the military armament existing at any given moment does not need to stand in any proportion to that of other states” (Mein Kampf, 1923). He regretted that Germany had not pursued this policy prior to 1914.

    You really should read up on WWII history, which is sort of a hobby of mine. I've read dozens of books on WWII and Nazi history in general. Most historical scholars agree, that Hitler's main goal was not to conquer the West, but to conquer the East, mostly driven by an extreme racist ideology.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  23. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    That was his idea of doing better than the German Empire in the previous war. Annihilate the bolsheviks that betrayed Germany. Subdue the western allies if and when you have to.This is what he reckoned the German Empire should have done or done better in WWI. His belief that it could and should be done was his inspiration for taking power and waging that war.

    You may well have studied WWII but you seem to ignore the pretext to the war -The hardship caused by the treaty of Versaille (settlement of WWI) and the way that Hitler was able to exploit it in order to, foment racist ideology and motivate Germans to make Imperialist war once again. He wrote it in his book. It has always been Germany's destiny to conquer the east and/or destroy it and everyone that stood in its way.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  24. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    You mean his idea of doing better in WWI was to achieve his own military goals, which for a large part did not overlap with Germany's goals in WWI, driven by his own perverse racial ideology, an ideology not widely supported during WWI, to defeat an enemy, the bolsheviks, that did not become a significant player on the world stage until very late into WWI during the Russian revolution. In other words WWII is not a WWI redux in any shape or form.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  25. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    In his mind they were. And they were. The WWI was fought on the premise of "protecting allies", but the Kaiser was envious of his relative's Imperial wealth.

    Hitler identified the failure to achieve those Imperial goals would be redeemed by annihilating all potential opposition both ideologically, racially and militarily. The last two being the same thing in his mind. He was able to exploit the aftermath of WWI to motivate Germany to cleanse itself before war even begun and then remilitarise and resume that war in the way he thougt it should have been fought the first time around.

    Just because the Kaiser was less of an outwardly rabid anti-semite and anti-bolshevist than Hitler doesn't mean that they two did not wage imperialistic war. Kaiser Wilhelm was an anit-semite and a anti-bolshevist just the same. And you'll have noticed that Hitler moderated his racist rhetoric regarding foreign policy until war was inevitable.

    The fact that Hitler, that one man, had more racial intent on his mind than the instigators of the previous war, does not preclude the fact that WWII was perceived as a chance to put right the failures and punish the betrayal of Germany in WWI.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018