ST The Cohesion/Direction/Structure Of The ST & It's Pros & Cons

Not at all.

Sidious' backstory (as it was at the time) was in I-III.

Snoke's story isn't in I-VI. Unless of course he turns out to be Plagueis in which case being Sidious' Master then much of his story would fall into place (as well as his motivations for creating another Empire and another Vader).

So unless they have something else in mind then the best way to tie-in so many of the ST points that are dangling is to have Snoke be Plagueis. Which is easy enough because he is an almost totally undefined character.

 

Ian McDiarmid wasn't in ANH or TESB. At this point in the story he is no worse developed than the Emperor and I would say even including ROTJ. In fact I would argue that the performance and costume are pretty on par in terms of quality. Again, it's fair to say they are too similar, but it's simply unfair to say that one had more development than the other.

 

So, again, you were disappointed in the character development of Sidious in the OT?

Snoke's backstory, as it is irrelevant to the ST, could be told in an anthology.

 

I didn't. I'm asking you what the point is of making a character that fills the exact same function as the Emperor and acts largely the same as the Emperor in the OT when that has already been done.

lol

 

Because it's an archetype that is common in these stories? I don't know, ask Lucas why he included the 'Uber' character in his treatment where Snoke originated. You tried to make the assertion that the Emperor had a fantastic backstory in the OT, where that isn't the case - that's what I'm refuting. Whether it's a retread is another story.

 

An overused archetype, more like.

Considering that they don't have to do anything Lucas says, I don't care what his plans were.

No, I'm saying that when you take the saga as a whole which is what you're supposed to do, the Emperor had a fantastic backstory. You insisted that only the OT matters with this prior argument which prompted my later question of what exactly necessitates a character like Snoke when the Emperor already existed in the OT. So, you have no real argument against him being a pointless addition that adds nothing to the ST's narrative whether he is a "devil" character or not.

 

Well just because he is a retread doesn't mean he is a pointless character. He functions as as part of the story. His backstory is irrelevant to telling that story compellingly, just as the Emperor's is irrelevant to the OT telling it's story compellingly. So, no, he doesn't need more backstory for it to work, just like the OT worked.

 

Considering that his relationship with Ben as the "devil" character hardly shows anything about Ben as a character than what the audience has already discerned (he's pretty simplistic anyway), he's even pointless under those conditions.

 

He's there as the 'master' and controlling force of the antagonist. He's the evil that pushes the antagonist to his evil deeds - it shows Ben's lack of independence, despite his desire for it. When he defeats Snoke it illustrates Kylo breaking of the bonds of his enslavement to his evil master, and is given a choice in that moment. He can either surrender himself and join the Resistance or have ultimate power.

 

Except there's a problem with this analysis. Ben's lack of independence is the consequence of what occurs prior to the films, not the main flaw that originally put him in Snoke's subservience. That's like saying that Anakin's main flaw is his lack of independence. That doesn't work at all. This is why Ben fails to be tragic (or complex) in any way. We have no idea what led him to join Snoke's cause in the first place.

Except there was no reason for him to join the Resistance. There are no redeeming qualities to him whatsoever. The reason why Vader's final betrayal works is because he knew that dying during the act was the only fate he deserved. It was poignant. All that the final events in TLJ amounted to was Ben and Rey largely ending up in the same places they were before while also doubling down on the increasingly dull similarity of this conflict with the Galactic Civil War. There is hardly anything of genuine interest here or anything that makes Ben's betrayal cathartic.

 

Why does it matter if it wasn't the main flaw that put him in subservience? Just like Vader in the OT we don't know the impetuous for Anakin's flaw, but we know that he seeks independence from his master. Similarly Kylo seeks independence from his master and, just like Vader, he seeks to use another in order to achieve this goal. Just because we don't know the full context of his fall, doesn't mean he isn't having this conflict, and that Snoke doesn't play an important role in Ben's arc.

We are meant to assume, knowing that he couldn't kill his mother and that Rey sees good in him that he will return to the light in that moment. Yet he doesn't. In that moment he is tempted by the darkness and refuses to return to the light.

 

I'm sorry, I think you're confused. This is Episode VIII of IX. Not V of VI. There was an entire trilogy that was about the events prior to the original trilogy which means that the ST has to follow up six official films. You can't ignore that.

Anyway, the reason it matters is because that is the crux of his character in the same way that Anakin's character largely rotates around his own tragic flaw that bound him to Palpatine: his fear of loss that was born from his background as a slave and the death of his mother. It was from that flaw that he developed his admirable qualities (loyalty, bravery, etc.) and his worst characteristics (fiery temper, vengeful nature against those he perceives as enemies, etc.). We don't get that with Ben at all. We don't get what his beliefs or motivations are prior to what happened. We don't even glean what it was about Luke or either of his parents that put him on this path. Simply put, he is underwritten as hell, especially for a character that started out the trilogy worshiping Anakin Skywalker and taking his legacy as the Empire's enforcer as what defined him rather than the truly broken man he was. He never grapples with this. Ever. Largely because it's something he ends up never exploring. That entire aspect of his character is dropped completely in favor of his ridiculously contrived dynamic with Rey.

 

You're ignoring two fundamental points:

a) The PT and ST had six films to develop Anakin - it's unreasonable to expect ST to do that in just two movies.
b) Yes, we have the PT now, but the OT worked well without it also, just like the ST is capable of working well without it. You're acting like the OT, and the development of Vader was fundamentally contrived and underwritten in the OT. If we got stories about Ben's fall, it would flesh out the nature of Ben's fall and whether it works, but until then it's unfair to compare it with the PT+OT, when it should really just be compared to Vader's development in ANH and TESB.

 

They sure had plenty of opportunity to do so in those two films but ended up dedicating too much valuable screentime to pointless characters (Holdo, Rose, etc.), subplots that largely possess little relevance to the characters and derivative plot points. This doesn't really help their case when you then say that it's unfair to compare them. The Last Jedi largely should have been about developing Rey, Ben and, to a lesser extent, Poe and Finn as a duo since they have a better friendship from the last film (as thin as it was) where we learn more about the two of them.

By that point, the only supporting characters you have left are Luke, Leia and Snoke, who are all more relevant than Holdo and Rose, who are entirely irrelevant by the end of the actual film since Rose is unconscious and Holdo dies despite this literally being her only film. This change in character attention and dynamics would give it more focus than it originally had.

This also doesn't help your case either since it only provides more reason to treat the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy AS A SAGA THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS A WHOLE and basically says that Lucasfilm has largely learned nothing and is content to use the original trilogy as a crutch in order to make flimsy excuses for the shortcomings of their films.

 

I think they've developed Kylo well enough for two films, especially given that he isn't the protagonist. I mean he is far more developed character-wise than Vader was in ANH and TESB.

So what you're really acknowledging here is that Vader, in the OT, on it's own, was underdeveloped and that this was only rectified with the PT?

 

Let me put this into perspective for you. Pretty much everything in The Last Jedi is centered around him but he hardly gets enough character development to differentiate him from any of the other characters like him that I've seen in the past and honestly, he's among the worst of those. Despite the constant insistence that he's complex, he largely craves power for its own sake and nothing about his dynamic with Snoke is interesting in the slightest because his only motivation from the beginning of the ST is dropped entirely. Nothing about him says otherwise. He always chooses evil and you'd have to be a fool to not see telegraphed it is since nothing conveys that he has any good in him whatsoever.

Perhaps. While Anakin's reveal may have worked on its own, the PT only makes it more evocative. The two trilogies simply complement and build upon each other's themes, settings and characters too well. Anakin Skywalker as well as many other characters in the series benefit greatly from it. The franchise was never the same again after its introduction and to say that it is irrelevant in any comparison to the ST when they both exist in the same universe is pretty asinine.

 

I feel like we're seeing completely different movies. His motivation is made clear in TLJ: he wishes to burn everything down and to rebuild the world in his image. Unlike everyone else in the film, who are all fighting for a past and the ideals of preservation and legacy, Kylo wishes to break free of that. He's an iconoclast. In TFA he was still holding onto a legacy - Vader - but in TLJ he lets it go. He also has some light inside him - he hesitates before he kills his father (which Snoke says broke him), he can't kill his mother, tells the audience that he has light inside himself, and Rey sees it. Again, this is all more developed than Vader was in ANH and TESB and we still don't have the third film.

Again, you're asking two films to have the same level of character development that six previous ones had. That's asinine.

 

I really wanna see whatever versions of TFA and TLJ you saw. I'm so curious.

 

The ones where he does all the **** I just talked about previously.

OK, so he's an iconoclast who is essentially acts like a textbook example of a Sith Lord who has his own disciples under a different name?

 

Yes, he's a greedy, power hungry man, we all know this. But there's a bunch of scenes that clearly show some semblance of compassion that's still there, he's not a complete robot.

 

He is also a complete sociopath and a cold-blooded murder which makes any attempt at making him seem sympathetic utterly contrived and ridiculous, especially when his past is being the son of a prominent princess/general/political firebrand and a war hero.

There's also him choosing to attack the Resistance base and continuing the war, possibly killing Leia in the assault. So much for that love for his mother.

 

Such a massive and seemingly obvious aspect of the ST. There is very clearly still humanity in Ben Solo.

 

No he is different from the Sith, except for Vader (and maybe Dooku), exploring an aspect of Vader we didn't see developed: his want to actually bring forth good rule of the galaxy. It appears Kylo has some misguided idealism that he wants to implement by burning everything down.

Fine, but how is this any different than Vader?

 

Dude what? Yes, he's a bad person, nobody's denying this. That doesn't mean he's incapable of caring about anyone or anything, humans don't work that way.

 

I still won’t be surprised if Star Wars numbering is eventually dropped in the future and changed simply to the names of the films and “A Star Wars Story” in time. So, in other words, that they go by that language for all of the films in the entire universe in time and drop numbering entirely.

RO is perhaps the best prequel that’s ever been made that’s not technically one. By dropping all of the numbering it will open up huge possibilities for them to work back in new stories prior to the ST and not have to worry about them seeming like Episode VI.25 or Episode VI.5 or something silly like that for no real reason beyond fairly recent nostislgia associated with them. Even George at one point toyed with dropping numbers entirely. This from the release of TESB

Of course in 1981 on the re-release of what was then only Star Wars he changed his mind and went with the numbering.

But with two new trilogies on the horizon and huge critical acclaim gaps between the PT and the OT and ST i won’t be surprised at all if they plan on dropping numbers once the total amount of content reaches a point where it makes more sense to do so. Then they all stand a little more on their own and backstories can be tucked into anywhere to form one giant universe of stories.

Would it be controversial? Sure but any less than when George made Greedo shoot first or made the special editions the only official versions? Or when they made the EU Legends? I don’t think so.

They didn’t want to get into Rey or Ben as kids. Episodes I-III would have been even harder on the public and critics of they didn’t realize where it would all lead later. They wanted to get closer to ROTS ages and right into war for this ST but in time there will be too many interesting aspects between the OT and ST to leave unexplored or exclusively to the EU for a company looking for content indefinitely.

So, I’m not too concerned about numbering or that we won’t get more into the time between the OT and ST eventually and get more on Snoke or Luke earlier and when that day from Lucasfilm comes remember you read it here first. They didn’t want to ruffle too many feathers at once but as this goes on they’re not going to let numbering issues stand in the way of all the stories and backstory potential in the 30 year gap between trilogies. I also think they’ll value their Solo, Kenobi, RO (and other content which is set in the past, along with any other content from the past yet to come, enough that they will want It all to be seen as one huge collection of Star Wars films for future purchasers and streamers or rereleases. All Star Wars stories in one huge universe. If I were a betting man I’d say this happens for some giant unified box set of some kind by 2027. The 50th anniversary of the first Star Wars film. We should be up to close to 20 Star Wars films by then set over different time periods. Seems like the right time to drop numbering and rebrand around a new unified concept that brings all of the content together.

That, or they they’ll continue to differentiate between the saga and non-Saga by simply calling the former episodics some other name like “The saga collection” while dropping the numbers and allowing them to go back into the ST past later and add more to the “The saga collection” as they want to. Some great Snoke book comes out that’s popular starring Luke? A good comic series comes out with a young Ben and Luke? Maybe all of that gets turned into a trilogy and added to the Saga collection and given an opening scroll. Something like that seems possible to me.