Saga Is the new trilogy as black and white as the OT?

While overall, most people agree that the original trilogy is better than the prequel trilogy, one of its biggest flaws is its black and white philosophy l, particularly concerning good and evil. The prequels, on the other hand, depict more shades of gray and middle ground. So far, is the new trilogy more like the original or prequel trilogy in this regard? Is Episode VII black and white with good and evil, or does it show more gray area?

 

GL's view that compassion is good and greed is evil permeates the whole saga, not just one or two trilogies.
When it comes to the portrayal of characters, I don't feel that it's ever been particularly black and white. Maybe it seemed that way from 1977 to 1980, but ever since the release of TESB, it's been clear that things were never that simple.

 

I think the ST will have a combination of both the OT and PT. I still say that Rey/Kylo Ren won't be exactly who we think they were as the trilogy unfolds, as maybe Rey was channeling the darkside at the end of TFA? (one theory that is floating around). I don't think Kylo Ren will be redeemed in a spiritual sense in this trilogy, but my hunch is that he may not be loyal to Snoke the whole trilogy and may end up helping Rey or Leia in one sense or another.

 

TFA was fairly straightforward: the FO were the bad guys (sometimes too much, see Hux as an example), the Resistance are the good guys and Rey and Finn are also good. Besides Luke, who ran away from his friends and is to blame for Kylo's turn, everything else is clearly black and white, just as ANH was.

The OT changed later on, when Lando joined the Rebels and Vader turned, something similar might happen here, but I doubt that.

 

At the moment, I would say it is as black and white as the original trilogy. A common criticism from fans about The Force Awakens is that it hits too many beats from the original trilogy, especially A New Hope. As you said, A New Hope had a clearly defined hero and villain faction. The same holds true in The Force Awakens, where the First Order rose out of the ashes of the Empire and are the antagonists while the Resistance are the heroes.

I don't think this clear view of good and evil is a flaw. Because the Resistance protecting innocents and fighting for peace and justice is a noble pursuit and the First Order causing mass genocide and raiding villages to take something that isn't theirs without asking is viewed as evil.

However, I do think that there will be more shades of grey seen in the rest of the sequel trilogy and we have already seen grey in The Force Awakens. General Hux and Kylo Ren, for example, do horrible things, but they sincerely believe that they are working towards the perfect rule and government. They are doing horrible things, but they believe that the ends justifies the means and if they do eventually reach the First Order having absolute control over the galaxy, it will be a much better place. GL has always said that usually, the bad guys never see themselves as the villain. The stormtroopers think they are contributing towards a better galaxy. As well, the Stormtrooper that died on Jakku seems to have had a friendship with Finn. And friendship, GL describes as good.

The way I view good and evil is on a wide spectrum, and the First Order being a sinister faction means that they fall towards evil a whole lot more than good.

 

"First comes the dayThen comes the night.
After the darkness
Shines through the light.
The difference, they say,
Is only made right
By the resolving of gray
Through refined Jedi sight."―Journal of the Whills, 7:477

 

Wish that scene in the novel where Hux didn't want to destroy the whole system that the Resistance base was in, was kept in the movie.

 

That was in the novel? Because Hux was the exact opposite in the actual film, where he completely wanted to.

 

Pretty much since TFA and ANH are the same movies.

 

And TPM.

 

The overall point is that the PT has given the final changed the entirety of the way the OT was looked at which started at the end of TESB once Vader was revealed to be Anakin and that was carried over into ROTJ.

It's so interesting to me that the very thing which "destroyed" the "simpler" as it were version of Star Wars is the thing that is most hailed by some fans who then "blame" the PT for "ruining" the reveal (that they already know).

 

And let's not forget ROTS and ROTJ! They're all different takes on the same scenario, whereas TESB and AOTC (and probably EpVIII) are different takes on another scenario.

 

I'll say: let's wait until all the films are out and then do this comparison. What do we get by just comparing the first three films of each trilogy? Also, I don't think that being black-and-white is a flaw, nor does adding greyness automatically make a film philosophically better.

 

Well from what we CAN gather, it's just as black and white as ANH. "Potentially" more grey but the thread is asking a blunt and simple question.

Is the ST as black and white(TFA) as the OT?:

Yep.

Now I do agree on comparing "movies".

We should wait until the rest of the 2 are done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

When you're muggle baddies wear what are basically Nazi uniforms and have English accents, and the baddies with powers expressly and gleefully use something called 'The Dark Side' then you are in a universe where morality just isn't going to be a shades-of-grey situation, at least in the main movies. There is absolutely no way the Empire as presented can be seen as a good thing, and the First Order is explicitly made up of people who thought the Empire was in fact a good thing. Bad baddies are bad, good goodies are good.

 

Grey area in what regard, because I think in both trilogies and star wars as a whole its always was still obvious who the bad guys were. For example in Kotor 2 which is regarded by many to be the most morally grey star wars work, I don't think it went any further than deconstructing and showing the flaws of previously heroes such as the jedi. You still had the clear cut bad guys such as the sith who wanted to destroy planets and literally eat the universe.

 

I've not played kotor, but the prequels are done the way you describe it to be. It's obvious that the Jedi have the moral high ground, but there is more grey area regarding what makes someone good or bad. The original trilogy however, portrays it as easier to become evil just by one small act.

 

Throughout the prequels the Jedi are never actually presented as bad or evil. They make a lot of mistakes and get a lot of things wrong but always with good intentions. The only decision they make in the movie that really gets into a morally grey area is when they decide to overthrow Palpatine by force and take control of the Senate to rebuild it - and even then they themselves know that they are in real danger of crossing a line they shouldn't cross.

 

That was their lowest point, but it also bothered me how they exploited Anakin to spy on Palpatine, taking advantage of his personality. This is explored more deeply in the novel, but shown in the film as well.

 

It wasn't their finest moment but if my timing/memory hold up at that point they thought Sidious was controlling Palpatine instead of suspecting he was Palpatine. Obviously still something of a low point but again there is a solid argument about it being justified if it meant the Sith Lord was captured.

 

The novel was more overt about it - they go from saying:


"We have to face the possibility—the probability—that what Dooku told you on Geonosis was actually true. That the Senate under the influence—under the control—of Darth Sidious. That it has been for years."

to


"The only reason Palpatine's not a suspect is because he already rules the galaxy."

to

"By placing the Jedi Council under the control of the Office of the Supreme Chancellor, this amendment will give him the con- stitutional authority to disband the Order itself."
"Surely you cannot believe this is his intention."
"His intention? Perhaps not. But his intentions are irrelevant; all that matters now is the intent of the Sith Lord who has our government in his grip. And the Jedi Order may be all that stands between him and galactic domination. What do you think he will do?"

to


"This is a move toward our destruction. The dark side of the Force surrounds the Chancellor."
"As it has surrounded and cloaked the Separatists since even before the war began. If the Chancellor is being influenced through the dark side, this whole war may have been, from the beginning, a plot by the Sith to destroy the Jedi Order."

to


"Anakin is the one Jedi we can best hope would survive an encounter with a Sith Lord. So let us also use him to help us set our trap. In Council, let us emphasize that we are intensifying our search for Grievous. Anakin will certainly report this to the Chancellor's Office. Perhaps, as you say, that will draw Sidious into action."


So it stands out a lot more, than in the movie script.

That's exactly how Novel Obi-Wan does it:


"Palpatine himself may be in danger," he said. "This may be the only way you can help him."
"What are you talking about?"
"I am not supposed to be telling you this. Please do not reveal we have had this conversation. To anyone, do you understand?"
Anakin said, "I can keep a secret."
"All right." Obi-Wan took another deep breath. "Master Windu traced Darth Sidious to Five Hundred Republica before Grievous's attack—we think that the Sith Lord is someone within Palpatine's closest circle of advisers. That is who we want you to spy on, do you understand?"
A fiction created by the Jedi Council... an excuse to harass their political enemies...
"If Palpatine is under the influence of a Sith Lord, he may be in the gravest danger. The only way we can help him is to find Sidious, and to stop him. What we are asking of you is not treason, Anakin—it may be the only way to save the Republic!"
If this Darth Sidious of yours were to walk through that door right now... I would ask him to sit down, and I would ask him if he has any power he could use to end this war
"So all you're really asking," Anakin said slowly, "is for me to help the Council find Darth Sidious."
"Yes." Obi-Wan looked relieved, incredibly relieved, as though some horrible chronic pain had suddenly and inexplicably eased. "Yes, that's it exactly."
Locked within the furnace of his heart, Anakin whispered an echo— not quite an echo—slightly altered, just at the end: I would ask him to sit down, and I would ask him if he has any power he could use—
—to save Padme.

 

Whilst I am not a massive fan of the novelisation it certainly does help sometimes to have things a bit more elaborated on. In the films whilst they are not actually sending him to spy on Palpatine directly it's very easy to presume they are. And it can feel a bit like the main reason Anakin gets chosen is purely and simply to give him yet another thing to argue with Council/bond with Palpatine about rather than being a pragmatic decision.

The other side of the Black/White morality divide is that unlike most of the high end Imperials of the OT, the Separatist leaders who aren't Sidious or Dooku aren't actually all that evil. Greedy, petty and corrupt yes, blow-up-neutral-planets-out-of-spite evil, not really. Even Grievous is hyped up as being a monster whilst never actually doing anything particularly villainous, merely cowardly.

 

You are right, the Jedi had every right to spy on Palpatine. But it would have been better to confront him head on, forcing him to either surrender or reveal his secret. However, the council was wrong in taking advantage of Anakin's loyalty and using it against him. Before he turned evil, Anakin was very loyal to his comrades and would take extreme risks for them. The council exploited this and used him without telling him to spy on the chancellor, his supposed friend.