Saga What Do We, As Star Wars Fans, Actually Want Star Wars To Be About and Should the Saga Continue?

Well, I agree with you. SW has been a sandbox for me as well and then moved into the sandpit as I played as a child with SW toys and then stayed with me my life. I also want it to continue as I thought ROTS was the last SW movie I would get to see. Look at my signature, except one exception I love the direction and want it to continue. Make no mistake I think TLJ was a massive misstep but more than anything I hope SW movies on from it. I am pleased it has not been for you.

 

No, Luke was saying the Jedi are failures are should end. Not just some “powerful” people in the group. He pretty much put every Jedi in the same bag. If you think a reformed Sith shouldn’t convince Luke that he was wrong about thinking the Jedi created darksiders, then another failure Jedi teacher shouldn’t convince of Luke to continue. But he did because the plot wanted it to be.

I think Yoda adds nothing to what was already an obvious theme, people fail. It just doesn’t answer the question to why the Jedi should they continue if they keep failing. Why Rey should be a Jedi and not something else. What is the point.

Anakin is the personification of that point. He is the darksider who came to the light because of a Jedi and helped ending the Sith as a result. That, and the fact that he is also the reason why the villains are wrong, his inclusion would tie a lot of loose questions that were badly answered (or not at all) in the ST.

 

That's kind of an aspect of it being a sandbox though, isn't it? Not everything will work for everyone. The Last Jedi was a movie created largely from the mind of one person. Something that personnel won't resonate with everyone because we all take different things from Star Wars.

So, even if you don't like it, can it really be considered a misstep?

 

Luke says the Jedi should end because of the one's that fall and become the dark-siders who terrorise people. It's really quite simple.Vader represents that failure.

Yoda literally tells Luke that the failure is good because it improves the Jedi. Failures make them better.

 

I think I have agreed with your point a few times in just the last few days that everyone takes something different from SW. They sure do. I suppose my counter is that until TLJ there haven't been any missteps in SW for me. It's my first one as I only have only experiencing loving every SW movie. I disagree with the approach that TLJ took on a very fundamental level. I'm not the only one and clearly, the people who feel that way did take something quite different from SW than those who don't. I suspect it all comes back to Luke and the investment that you have on particular aspects of his character. I think for many SW is more than a movie as it calls back to themes that make a part of their core beliefs. I don't see that as a bad thing though. Quite the opposite actually as I think its really good.

 

Again, like I said, it's a movie very personalized to the one that made it. It won't appeal to everyone. But if that was the point, to allow more creative people to make things in the universe, then that needs to be expected and accepted.

 

The Jedi who supposedly created the darksiders are the ones who represent that failure. They are the ones who failed, not their poor victims or consequences, the darksiders.

By that logic, Yoda represents that failure.

Vader is the consequence of the Jedi's existence, in Luke’s logic. And in Luke’s logic, Vader's reason to be was the failure the Jedi, not the Sith. Which is what I am saying, a voice that represented the other side POV saying the Jedi are not reason the darkiders exist or are created, counterarguing the idea that Jedi are failures (they are not), was sorely lacking in the movie.

 

In all fairness, I don't accept that. Its EP VIII in a series of movies that expects the audience to follow along the whole way. It's the very misstep I am speaking about.

If it was something other than EP VIII I would agree with you. I don't want to get back into a back and forth but "to allow more creative people to make things" is very much a personal opinion. Although if there was that much creativity then the project should have been an original work instead of reusing so many scenes and concepts from previous movies.

But I do agree its very personalized to the person who made it. Who interpreted GL's vision in his own way. I have accepted it

 

I don't think you understand Luke's logic. The Master, yes, represent failure, but Vader represents that failure equally.

Yes, he does. But he can also speak to success despite failure. Vader just represents catastrophic destruction, which is less convincing than Yoda communicating with Luke, in my opinion.

But Vader does represent the Jedi's failure. The counterargument shouldn't be that the Jedi have no relation with Vader and other darksiders - they are related and Vader is a consequence. The Jedi did fail. It should be that, despite failure, they can learn from it, which is what Yoda has done.

 

@DarthPhilosopher
I took Luke’s logic from watching the movie and from watching RJ trying to explain it to the audience, so I think I understand It well, thank you very much. I accept if you had different interpretation.

If you think Yoda can speak for the success of the Jedi, so does the story of Vader. Vader is the ultimate success story of the Jedi after PT. Up until then, from what we knew, no Sith had came back to the light because of a Jedi. There is no point in continuing if you only speak of "failures" and make platitudes about learning without examples or reasons why. Yoda brings no example of that, but Vader can. I have no idea what Yoda learned from his supposed failures or not, but I know what Anakin learned, and I know that he is more than thankful to Jedi Luke for that.

That is my opinion what the movie was lacking. It was very one-sided on the "muh Jedi failed, let me wallow in self-pity" debate. TLJ gave virtually no reason to why the Jedi should even continue via Rey, or why Rey shouldn't just be a different type of Force user.

 

No Luke is the ultimate success story of the Jedi. Vader is in no way a 'success story'.

There are plenty of reasons, that Yoda represents, of why the Jedi should continue. He trained Luke, the Jedi did maintain a semblance of peace, and they are the best the galaxy has despite their failures. Building upon what you have is the lesson, not to burn it all down.

 

Vader’s redemption is the example of Luke’s success story.

We can all give reasons to why the Jedi should continue, but the point was simply not there in the movie.

 

So, Vader wasn't a success story...

Except Rey makes several points which Yoda did not need to outline again.

 

The story group is totally comprised of fans, they are practically the Whills. I think Pablo is still in the group and he is 100 knowledgeable of all SW great and small. I was referring to spiritual and philosophical contemplation in their process. I don't think they really delve too deep into that right now. I believe we will see a reinvention of the wheel within SW as it grows or face a burn out. As a new generation takes the reigns of it, the content within will resemble less and less the familiar attributes of 1-6 and instead we will be discussing the outlook from 7-whatever episode. Comparisons back and forth will not be as hotly debated. Especially if they stop the saga and start a fresh reboot, redefining what SW is and will be.

 

Rey made one point, and it was that a Jedi saved Vader. Luke wasn’t moved.

 

Hm? You’re the one saying Vader wasn’t a success story. You suddenly remembered Rey also brought up that point?

She did in an almost throwaway line, except she was framed from the pov of as a naïve and a third person perspective who was proven wrong, and her comment had virtually no weight in the discussion (if you can call that a "discussion"). In fact, the movie went through greater lengths to hammer down the notion that Jedi are failures and have no reason to exist, but forgot to give a concrete reason to what’s the point of them continuing to existing in the first place. All I saw was examples of failures, when there should have been more highlight on the successes, more argumentation and counterpoint to Luke’s rants.

I just think that Force Ghost Anakin, the personified example of a success story of a Jedi, could have added something that was lacking in a movie in which philosophical debates were delivered like like unchallenged truths, almost entirely from a one-sided pov and only briefly countered by some random girl who was proven wrong in the very movie. There was a substantial lack of balanced povs or counter-argumentation, which would've given the movie the nuance and discussion I think it lacked. And Anakin coming from the perspective of an ex-SIth could have been quite the perfect counterbalance to the self-pitying, navel-gazing rants of an ex-Jedi.

 

And the sad thing is that it was done on purpose, so that they can destroy the meaning and definition of 'Jedi' and turn it into something else that's more convenient to whatever their current and future narrative is. They give (one of) the most devote Jedi an illogical and unjustified anti-Jedi rant, completely out of nowhere. The rant is not argued against nor dealt with and at the end we're expected to think the Jedi are still something good or that by hitting the reset button (which seems to be their intention) one can still call anyone Jedi? How this open corruption of what Lucas established is not only found to be acceptable but is also praised is beyond me...

 

That is the thing: I don’t think it was on purpose. It think it came across that way to many (both dissenters and lovers) because Rian Johnson is not a good communicator of his ideas imo. He makes a bold statement, but it wants it to be a “food for thought” rather than dogmatic statements. Yet he doesn’t give good counterbalance examples/opinions to show that what he is looking for is a debate, not a radical change of the SW mythos in which he is the dictator of the new direction.

I have been listening to his interviews and podcasts, and he has clarified in many occasions to interviewers who praised his “destruction of the past” message that that was not the message he believed, that the message was that one has to embrace the past and build from it. That is why you see Rey being named as “the last Jedi” by Luke. She is supposed to symbolize the embracing the past and continuing from it.

Except that that point was barely in the movie. It was sort of delivered half-assedly as a quick wrap-up conclusion to an overlong plot about Jedi the being this and that and we must kill the past, repeat ad nauseam. The only counterargument to that came from a protagonist who was proven wrong, so we might as well disqualify her opinion. Which is no wonder to why most people’s take on the movie was that it was attempting to destroy the past and the old SW mythos, when that wasn’t the case at all.

I agree that Luke's rants came out of nowhere. It's like he put the prequels on his DVD player and then went online to talk about it with fans, where he found there was a lot of people who were making long thesis about how the Jedi were the reason why the Sith won, and he joined the chorus. Bottom line, it didn't feel like something an in-universe character like Luke who lived in a very specific time and should've had very limited knowledge of the past would go on to rant about, but then again, the characters in the ST feel like they are very aware of the Lucas' story for some reason. Luke was ultimately used as a mouthpiece to Rian Johsnons's fan thesis, but it felt quite off and OOC. Not to mention that his feelings for the Jedi have virtually no connection to why he failed with Ben. As far as I know, no Jedi philosophy preached about killing an innocent apprentice in his sleep just because he had some bad thoughts. Even the "corrupt" PT Jedi understood the difference between a "vision" and a person's choice, as nothing is written in stone. But Luke in TLJ sure likes doing a lot of scapegoating.

 

I do. There's a clear intent behind all this. I'm not saying it's all on Rian Johnson (everyone who's in charge of things is responsible as well since they allowed it and/or pushed for it), but it's there nonentheless. The anti-Jedi rant was introduced in the movie and put there on purpose (it was not something established in TFA, as much as I despise that movie) and without any logical motivation behind it. Not only that, but it was left as is, therefore leaving the audience to take what was stated as true. There's also the fact that Rian knew he wasn't going to do the next chapter, so these choices were all counscious.

Getting rid of mentors without learning anything from them is also another purpose of the narrative their are shoving at the audience. Specially in regards to the Jedi, where all of them are now dead. The last one didn't pass on what he has learned. Nobody becomes a Jedi by reading some books either (books whose content is conveniently not revealed. Something to be decided later, surely. The perfect circumstances to turn the Jedi into whatever they want).

Good point. Although I'd argue that the content of the PT does not support his argument and respective false claims.

And I do agree how unbelievable it is that virtually everyone is so aware of the events (personal and otherwise) of the previous movies as if they were part of the audience. It's 'scratching the fourth wall' ridiculous.

 

I haven't seen TLJ and I don't care to.

But this destruction of the past idea was definitely in TFA. I think it was done by JJ because he thought it was subversive and subversion is cool. Oh, ROTJ ended happily ever after? Well, 30 (or whatever it is) years later, the Jedi have been destroyed, Han and Leia's kid fell to the dark side and is a mass murderer, Luke quit and is in hiding, Han is a loser scoundrel again except even worse than before, the Empire comes back and destroys the New Republic in a single shot, Han is murdered by his own son for nonsensical reasons, etc. All the progress of the OT is destroyed. How do you like that for a happily ever after? Ha ha. That kind of unexpected destruction of the beloved OT is just another one of JJ's patented shallow twists. It's completely consistent with his work.

Though I haven't seen it, it wouldn't surprise me if Rian had the same idea. Ranting on something beloved is subversive and cool, it's "art". George liked to subvert expectations too, but he did it in a way that was actually artistic.

Linking it to online fan discussions is a great way to put it, because it does come off as contrarian trolling inserted into canon.

I agree that the fourth wall knowledge is ridiculous, and I hate it, but artists like JJ would call this totally "meta" and therefore cool. What we find obnoxious, they find artistic.

 

No doubt, but I was referring to the 'blame the Jedi' line of thought. Then again, that's probably due to the fact that in TFA Abrams avoided Luke and the Jedi completely, pushing that task to whomever came next.

 

I don't think JJ avoided Luke and the Jedi completely. Han's speech to Rey and Finn in the MF talked about the Jedi with reverence, and both Rey and Finn were in awe of the history. Luke was training a new generation of Jedi until one student killed them all. Luke blamed himself and went in search of the first Jedi temple, presumably from my pov at the time to learn to not screw it up next time. I don't think TFA set up TLJ to trash the Jedi and their legacy at all. That is 100% RJ imo.

 

I meant that he avoided dealing with Luke and the Jedi completely. He's nothing but a MacGuffin.

 

Actually he was in that moment.

 

...? Is this based on a novelization? If so, I’m glad that that means something to you, but I have learned to disregard the novels entirely, especially novelizations of films. A novel certainly doesn’t change how I interpret what happens on screen in front of me.