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

Oh, I wasn't referring to your post. There were a few posts in the first page, that could be considered rather harsh on him, if someone takes them seriously. I was referring to those.

 

Yeah, I was kind of thinking this too. If you legitimately dislike Joss Whedon, fair enough, but I hope no one is condemning him just on the basis of this one questionable opinion. Just because someone says something that you disagree with - or, even, is outright wrong - doesn't necessarily make them a bad person.

 

I think the article itself does a pretty good job of schooling Whedon, but I'll add my 2 cents.

First thing I would say is I don't think it's just a "he's got an opinion" sort of thing, like "I like the color blue" or "I hate the taste of lima beans." Joss Whedon's opinion here is based upon his interpretation of the film and his interpretation is based upon facts (things that occur in the film). For instance, it's perfectly fine for someone to say that he dislikes the ending of ROTJ or, in fact, all of ROTJ. However, it wouldn't make any sense for someone to say that they dislike ending of Return of the Jedi because it's an unhappy ending that leaves everything unresolved. That's counter to what actually occurs in the film, and this is the same problem with Whedon's position.

So, while there's really no point in critiquing Whedon for liking a film or not, critiquing his interpretation of a film is certainly a matter that is up for discussion, and that's what I'm going to do. First, Whedon is not right about TESB. It doesn't have a true cliffhanger ending. A cliffhanger is literally that -- a guy is hanging off a cliff or some other precarious situation -- and you have to tune in next week to find out whether he falls off or not. If TESB ended with Luke hanging on the antenna beneath Cloud City, then it would certainly be a cliffhanger -- at least for Luke's storyline. This doesn't happen.

Instead of being a cliffhanger ending, it really just has some unhappy endings. The TESB has clear endings to each of the character's stories. Luke doesn't listen to Yoda, and he receives a beat-down from Vader because of it, but he still manages to escape Vader's plan to trap him. Han is being chased by the Empire, he does some clever things to evade them, but in the end, he's caught. Leia is chased by the Empire and gets away. Lando betrays his friend, then has a change of heart, and he helps Han's friends escape to make amends. Those are endings; someof them are unhappy endings, but they are endings to their respective storylines that were started at the beginning of TESB. If the Death Star had blown up Yavin and killed our heroes that would be an ending too. It would just be a bummer ending. People would probably look around at each other and say, "Is that it?" "That's no ending" etc. because there's an expectation that the good guys are going to win, but if the Empire blew up Yavin, that would be just as much a full ending as the Rebels blowing up the Death Star is.

We also don't have to see the ultimate ending of what happens to these characters for their respective storylines to have endings. In the Spaghetti Westerns and Road Warrior, the hero achieves a goal and then walks off into the sunset. We don't know whatever ultimately happens to them. That doesn't mean the storyline established earlier in the film hasn't been resolved.

I honestly think Whedon makes himself look pretty foolish in his analysis of TESB. He's really making like a freshman screenwriting mistake when he can't distinguish the difference between a cliffhanger ending and an unhappy ending. And what makes Joss seem especially ridiculous here is the language he uses, saying stuff like not giving TESB a proper ending is "a betrayal of trust to me." Give me a break. GL is just making a movie. He's not naming names to Joseph McCarthy's House Committee On Un-American Activites. And what's such a laugh is that Whedon actually committed the same "sin" that he falsely accuses GL of committing. He simply left his TV show unresolved, apparently the moment before a climactic battle was about to begin. If doing this was such a "betrayal of trust," I think he could've avoided doing so with "Angel," whether the series would be renewed or not.

 

Great post, ladnar! [of course, it also helps that I can't stand the only Joss Whedon production I've ever seen and have seemed to form a strong dislike for him for some reason]

 

darth ladnar: While Whedon may have misspoke in using the term cliffhanger, the bottom line is you have to watch ROTJ to fully enjoy ESB, so there is no ending in that respect. You can watch ANH and you don't have to watch ESB & ROTJ to fully enjoy it as it stands alone yet can be watched as part 1 of 3. Now the Indiana Jones films are different where they each standalone. Sure I would recommend Raiders first, but you could watch Temple of Doom first (as I did as a kid) and you won't be totally lost in the story. I think that's what Whedon means.

 

Yeah, I would agree that for some people the ending of TESB felt unsatisifactory, and I think this is because people have learned to expect happy endings. ANH leaves a lot unresolved. Vader is still alive, the Empire hasn't been defeated, the Emperor is out there in charge of things doing who knows what, but ANH has a feel good ending, so people leave the theater with a feeling they expected to get: a high from the good guys getting a big win.

I can understand why some people felt dissatisfied with TESB mostly downbeat ending because for them a downbeat ending is not an ending at all. They're basically thinking to themselves: "Now the happy ending won't happen until the next film! Not cool!" And since Star Wars didn't totally break from contemporary Hollywood conventions they were right that their happy ending would come along in the next film. (If Star Wars had followed Gary Kurtz's vision, ROTJ wouldn't have had a mixed ending, with Luke walking out into the sunset and the Republic still in shambles.)

However, while some didn't like TESB's ending, I think most liked it. (I was only 7, and I didn't feel ripped off at all.) Those who liked it probably thought it was less conventional, that it made us care about the characters more since they were down on their luck, and I think many may have felt psyched by the fact that TESB established something really shocking -- that Luke might be Vader's son -- and that that shouldn't be clarified in the last 10 minutes of the film. Instead, I think many felt such a shocking twist deserved to only be clarified in another film and after some time has passed. In fact, my feeling is that this above of all else is what made the ending acceptable to most people. They knew it wouldn't feel right to resolve the Vader-Luke/father-son thing in the last few minutes of TESB. Because of that, people were like, "Yeah, it's okay that we haven't gotten our happy ending. This Luke-may-be-his son-thing should only be resolved in the next film. It wouldn't feel right to have our happy ending here."

One thing I would add: If GL had unexpectedly died and ROTJ never made, the Saga would definitely feel incomplete because the heroes would be left at such a down point and the villains are at such an advantage. Fortunately, ROTJ piles on the happy endings in a satisfactory way, so the 3 years after TESB proved well worth the wait!

 

Although ANH stands alone in a way that the others don't, I would have a hard time enjoying just watching that one, because there is quite a bit that is left unresolved.
If you're going to stick dialogue in that film such as "I want to come with you to Alderaan, and become a jedi like my father" and then train Luke to use a lightsaber, then if I don't eventually get those things, I'm going to feel unsatisfied on some level.
I would wonder why you chose to stick that dialogue in there, and why you made a point of showing the protagonist how to use a lightsaber, if it is never good for anything. It's kind of like putting Excalibur in the hands of Arthur, and then saying, "You don't get to use this, and you don't get to be king, but here ya go."

All this becomes an even larger issue when the villain that supposedly killed Luke's father, and happens to be a jedi killer, escapes at the end. He also happens to be the same character who spoke out against the necessity of the Death Star. Those are large plot points that I personally would consider "in need of attention," once you've established them in your movie. My reasoning on that opinion is that, if they weren't going to be used, why establish them at all?

 

Joss is a girls name...just sayin

 

I disagree that fans always want a happy ending as the 2 examples I brought up earlier in this thread are movies that end on a downer note, yet they were beloved by the public, and they came out before Star Wars. Rocky loses in the original movie at the end to Apollo, but its still a great movie, and the Bad News Bears lose the championship at the end to the Yankees, but its still a great movie. I would dare to say if these movies ended on a happy note, they may have not as been as well received. I would even go a step farther and say I LOVE movies that don't end up all happy like Rocky and Bad News Bears because they are the exception not the rule in movies.

But were getting off point as whatever you want to say about Star Wars(ANH), it has an ending as you keep looking at the movie through the lens of the sequels. I saw it in 1977, and was satisfied with the ending because the Death Star was the true bad guy. Yes Vader survied, and the Emperor (who was never shown) still survived, but at the time, the true evil was the Death Star, and thats the payoff in the movie, not Vader and The Emperor. You forget that Vader has a different role in ESB as he is the LEAD bad guy, as he is telling the guards where to go, what to do, but in ANH, Tarkin was giving Vader orders.

My whole point and Whedon's point is that ESB doesn't have a true ending because essentially ROTJ is part 2, whereas ANH can be watched as a standalone movie and work perfectly. Just as I pointed out in all the Indiana Jones movies, they all standalone as you could show your kids any one of them as they don't need to watch Raiders, then Temple, etc. Whereas you have to watch ESB and THEN ROTJ.

Now of course I don't blame Lucas because he made ESB with the specific goal of having ROTJ come out as part 2 of the movie, but if you watch ESB by itself, it doesn't have a true ending.

 

Maybe ANH simply features two main villains? I know that tvtropes has us all thinking in tropes, but not everything follows clear-cut tropes. Both Vader and Tarkin have a huge influence on the plot and it is very hard to say who has the bigger influence.

 

Yeah, I'm actually mostly agreeing with you. If you go down 2 paragraphs from the paragraph you're responding to I say this:

While I guess I don't come right out and say it word-for-word, but in the above snippet, I'm basically saying people do sometimes like unhappy endings, if they are done right (and some happy endings aren't done right either), and I think the majority of people liked the ending of TESB. I think most people didn't go out of the theater grumbling. I think most were satisfied.

My main point in the paragraph you cited was this: 99 out of 100 films have a happy ending, so people learn to expect happy endings. However, I'm not saying that people won't like an unhappy ending if it is done right. Some might say that Rocky has an unhappy ending, but he achieves his goal, so in a way it is a happy ending. (And the "I don't want no rematch" is hardly intelligible.) Other films have a much more explicit unhappy ending -- Gone With The Wind, the most notable example. Rhett just marches off. I think this ending works for 2 reasons. Scarlett, while in some ways a captivating character, really has it coming to her. Plus, the book was a big success, so a lot of people knew how it ended already. Another good example would be the original Planet of the Apes. Heston's character never makes it back to his earth. Instead, he learns that he was transported to earth in the future and that humanity was destroyed in a nuclear war, the unhappy ending comes right along with the revelation of this twist that comments on modern life, and I think this twist plus the social commentary allows the unhappy ending to work.

So, this is my point of view about TESB. TESB resolves the storylines the film establishes, and it is not a cliffhanger. Luke begins his training, he leaves his training early, he suffers the consequences of leaving his training early by having his ass handed to him, but he does escape with his life. Vader is intending to capture Luke, he fails, he can't bring himself to kill Luke (as he said he would to Palpatine), and he is left thoughtful. Han and Leia are being chased by the Empire, he cleverly evades them for a while, but in the end, he is captured and she escapes. Each one of those is a completed story arc.

In the above post I gave reasons why I think the unhappy endings in TESB work (and not all of them are unhappy). In part, I think people are satisified with its ending. They have a feeling that the story arcs established in the film are finished. Back then, they also felt like they've been through a cinematic experience unequaled up to that point, so they still left the theater saying "wow!" They just learned of an epic twist: Vader is Luke's father. Twists are great ways to end films. For instance, Psycho ends with a great twist: Norman has "become" his mother, the killer, so that gives TESB a twist ending feel like Pyscho has. Also, the characters gain our sympathy because it ends on a down note. Etc.

Now, I do somewhat agree with you on this next point that you made. People also, in part, accepted the ending of TESB because they thought they happy ending would be coming in the next film. ANH has such a happy ending feel that people surely want to see the rebellion succeed in the end, not get their asses kicked film after film. The Saga was never meant to be like Gone With The Wind or Planet of the Apes. I think fans also rightly felt that the Luke-Vader twist was so big that it shouldn't be fully resolved at the end of TESB, but that it deserved answered in the next film. So, I think a lot of fans were actually thinking: "Yes, this is a great place to end the film. Keep me in suspense." But in keeping with this also comes the expectation that another film is going to be made.

To summarize my view, TESB does fully complete the story arcs of its various characters, so in that way it is a complete film, so I think TESB works on own, but at the same time, it leaves people wanting more. What I disagree with is the position that TESB is the first half of a two part film. I think here is the test. If GL died and ROTJ never made, would people still like and watch TESB? My answer is yes. People would say: "It's a shame that we don't get to see if the rebellion ultimately defeats the Empire, how Luke resolves his daddy issues, if Han is rescued (though that's sort of a detour off the main plot), what the ulitimate fates of our heroes are (and some people still want that answered; hence the ST)" However, even though people would think it's a shame ROTJ was never made, I still think most people would watch TESB again and again, enjoy it, and think it's great. (There would probably just be even more SW fan-fic.)

 

Ironically, this is itself a trope.

I have to say that Tarquin really doesn't get enough respect as a villain from some modern fans.

 

Neither Tarkin nor Vader is a "Big Bad" of the series.

 

Calm down fellow SW fans, its just his opinion as I have never seen a fan base get so bent out of shape when someone doesn't love our beloved franchise.
------------

this.

 

They are the main villains of ANH, though.

 

This is an interesting question, as maybe it should get its own thread.

I can only speak for myself, but I would say, "ESB was such a great movie, but the cause it doesn't have an ending, IMO, I don't know if I can rank it among the greats.

I say this because I only watch ROTJ these days BECAUSE of the greatness of ESB. If ESB were mediocre, I would have walked away from SW and just been a HUGE fan of the original just like I am huge fan of the Original Jaws. So it is kind of a catch 22 with ESB for me, where the movie is so damn good and entertaining everytime I watch it, but I feel the need to watch a more inferior ROTJ to complete the story. Whereas whenever I pop in ANH, I don't feel the need to pop in ESB to get the ultimate fulfillment of continuing the story. I feel the same way with the PT as if I watch one, then I feel the need to watch them all because they are a continuous story.

That is my one beef with 'continuous story' franchises is that it isn't practical to watch ALL of the movies at once (who has the time?), so you feel cheated by just watching one. But if you are able to watch them continuously, they are much more deep and have so many more layers then a franchise like Indiana Jones where the movies can standalone. I can pop in Temple of Doom whenever I want and don't feel the need to watch Last Crusade the next time I watch a movie.

It's an interesting question, and I'm sure everyone is different.

 

Great post. It conveys most of my sentiments on this subject.

The biggest problem I have with what Whedon said was something about TESB ending being terrible because it didn't give him all the answers he wanted to know, and all that stuff about having to wait three more years, among other things. I find it impossible to agree with him, because the formula for the middle movement in this type of storytelling almost inherently requires such an ending. GL could have written it so that the rebel alliance scores a more satisfying victory, I suppose, but then how much less a threat would the villains be when they get their butts kicked in every film? Joss Whedon himself is not going to use Loki as the antagonist in the next Avengers film for precisely this reason. He knows that no one wants to see Loki get his butt kicked film after film.

Just like he felt that TESB did not give him the whole story, I've always felt that ANH did not give me the whole story. I don't blame either film for that, and this isn't a result of me looking at ANH through the lens of the sequels. It's a result of me looking at ANH through the lens of someone who is interested in having loose ends tied up, such as I would get from any of the Indiana Jones, or Rocky films. In interviews, GL has claimed that because of circumstances, he was forced to make ANH stand on it's own, so often that people have begun to repeat him as if what he said meant ANH had no loose ends to tie up. It doesn't stand alone in the same way an Indian Jones, or a Rocky film does, and it was never meant to.

 

Yes, if Belloq had escaped at the end of Raiders, or Mola Ram and the Thugee Cult still lived on after The Temple of Doom, then the Indiana Jones series would be equivalent to ANH.

I would say this. TESB does complete the story arcs of its various characters, but it never brings a final end to any of the storylines. ANH does bring a final end to 2 storylines out its many -- Tarkin as a baddie, and the creation of the Death Star storyline. Our heroes, Vader, his master, the empire, the bounty on Han, etc live on. So, in that way ANH does have slightly more finality to it.

I think ending of the destruction of the Death Star storyline and the sense of finality around it is what people feel a little weird that the Death Star was the weapon that also had to be destroyed in ROTJ, but when you think of it, it makes perfect sense that the Empire would make another. The US didn't just make one nuke. It made 1, then another, then 1000's. But storywise people thought the Death Star was gone and done with because its destruction was depicted with such finality in ANH. (They could've easily inserted a line into ANH saying: "Well, if they have one, there's bound to be others.")

Personally, I think it would have been better to show a 2nd barely begun Death Star behind the functional 1 in ROTJ. That seems more realistic to me. It would have made it clear that the Empire intended to mass produce them. This was actually in one of earlier drafts of ROTJ and I don't know why it was eliminated. GL could've had the explosion of ROTJ's DS destroy the other one was well, making it clear the DS threat is truly over now that the Empire has been destroyed.

 

I think it's funny that the writer of the article, this Ben Moore, seems to grasp what the filmmaker, Whedon, does not, when Moore says "...it could be argued that the film IS a complete experience. Many of the character arcs started in the film are concluded, more or less, by the end – they’re just not feel-good conclusions."

Huh.

I would've thought that a self-proclaimed fan of the franchise such as Whedon would understand at least this much about the film. One of the greatest things ESB pulled off was to give us a film which stands on its own - a "complete experience" - while leaving the first-time viewer just dying to know what happens next. It's a stroke of brilliance, not a weakness.

 

Sucks for Joss Whedon. But it's cute that he assumed I care what he thinks.

 

Given that Joss Whedon wrote and directed The Avengers, I will take it as a compliment that he didn't like ESB's ending.

 

oh well

 

Wow, good thing the guy didn't say he dislikes the entirety of the movie!

 

Although, to his point, if ESB does have an "ending" wherein stuff is resolved, I would say the theme is "You need a little help from your friends". It runs through the movie, Luke is saved by his friend Han, they separate, Luke wants to save his friends even though his master tells him no, Luke proceeds to try and save his friends but they're the ones who save him (Luke even pleads to someone who literally hears his cries in nothingness). And, at the end, they're all together and even though one friend is missing, another one will go find him.

So while I do agree with the general point that ESB is more cliffhanger-y than providing a resolution, there is a resolution in there. Love for your (makeshift) family is what will save you in the end.

 

Because the Emperor was Vader's superior. Not his equal.