Saga Did TFA make the OT pointless?

Yes, you can dismantle a possible future. TFA did exactly that. Not everything needed to turn out "hunky dory." It just would have been nice if it moved the plot and characters forward rather than backward, thus undoing the Resolution of ROTJ.

 

The Jedi entertain the extinction of the Sith and the imbalance of the force at the same time. So whatever the prophesy says, the state of imbalance does not rely on the Sith's existence, but it is ensured by it.

In any system where there is an imbalance, balance is never achieved the instant that the unbalancing factor is removed. Particularly if that factor is abruptly removed from the system.

 

Backward is just an opinion.

Luke seeking out the first Jedi temple doesn't sound like a backward move. There never was any mention of a first Jedi temple before. Perhaps Luke should have found that before taking on the building of a whole Jedi order by himself.

Han's knowledge and endorsement of the force (something that was still a mystery to him in ROTJ, even if he could no longer remain skpetical) enables him to show his son the compassion which completely undermined Kylo's cowardly act to fortify his strength with the dark side.

Leia was never the leader of the Alliance or the rebel forces. In fact we never saw the leadership of the Alliance except for Mon Mothma. Rogue One showed us that the Alliance is reluctant to fight unless it really has to. So in order for a resurgent Imperialist threat in the future (what you describe as going backward) to be out of the question, would require the arbitrary imposition on the creators of the new republic of motivations and values that they never displayed in the OT or in Rogue One. Once the new republic was formed, it stands to reason that they would be contented with what they had achieved and be willing only to appease any opposition, rather than fight them. That is the only reason why Leia leads a resistance to the FO at the margins it operates in.

The characters have moved forward, but the circumstances of the entire galaxy, which they cannot be expected to control, have stalled any enduring happiness and success they may have had. Wars, whatever their cause, have a tendency to do that.

It's pointless continuing this argument because it's clear that only having a new, untold enemy, with untold motives and ambitions (with different looking spaceships), and the removal of any possibilty that a future Skywalker could be tempted by the darkside enough to make the same errors Anakin did, would be something other than backwards for you.

Until all wars are ended for good, we will always be going backwards. Unless the ST was not supposed to have wars in it, it was always going to be going backwards, in that sense. TFA may not have gone "backwards" but VIII and IX would have to have gone "backwards" or they couldn't very well call them Star Wars movies. Could they?

 

Yes it did.

And TLJ added insult to injury by making all history before TFA pointless.

 

Seriously hope you're not trying to spoil TLJ here, by the way. Not cool, even if you haven't seen it and it's just a joke.

 

Yeah, this is not appreciated.

 

Double post

 

Backward is not an opinion. It’s a turnaround or crumpling of clear character development.

We don’t even know yet about Luke. But it looks like the selfless hero he once was is gone. Hopefully he comes back.

It was nice to hear Han profess his knowledge of the force. But as I already said. He’s smuggling. He’s a criminal again. He’s gone backward.

Leia I agree with you on. She has been great with the very little they have given her to do.

It’s not just that the circumstances of the galaxy have lead them back to war. Absolutely not. It’s that we are seeing the same war all over again. A giant evil Empire against a small, gritty Resistance. Backwards.

In your second to last paragraph, your argument turns extreme and straw-man. I actually have no problem with the antagonists of the ST being the remnants of the Empire. I LIKE the OT ships. There are ways to use these plot points without taking the narrative to a place that it has already been or destroying already established development. I don’t even have a problem with another dark-side Skywalker. But give us a light side one too to protect the legacy of the name.


And I’m pretty sure that your last paragraph is intentional misdirection rather than a complete misunderstanding of the way I used the term “backwards.” So I’m not even going to bother addressing that further.

 

I have said no spoilers whatsoever.

 

What’s the granny reference in your sig? If it has any reference at all to TLJ then you should be dealt with. Basically you’re running around a SW fan forum excitedly bashing a new SW movie about to come out. Hinting at spoilers without revealing specifics. IMO you shouldn’t be allowed to.

 

The circumstances is the wars. Star Wars. Still haven't heard a credible reason why the conflict shouldn't have any connection with the combatants in the previous trilogy or why Leia shouldn't be involved or why Solo's despondency should not lead him to take refuge in what he believes he did best. (and then heroically proves otherwise). Just arbitrary claims that it ought to be something else. Something unspecified. So it's clear that when you mean going backward you mean not delivering on your preconceived notions.

You've provided no argument for why it shouldn't be the way it is in TFA. Just a reaction to it not being some other way that you feel has been promised to you somehow.

Speaking about it in the past tense and what you think it means. There are rules.

 

Bolded is simply not true. That's either an outright lie or you are simply failing to see my point. My argument is that The Sequel Trilogy should not have undone the resolution of RoTJ by forcing the characters into previous places of their character development and forcing the plot to return to its OT state. Why shouldn't it be that way? It's disrespectful to the characters and its sloppy story-telling.

If you want specifics as to how they could have continued the story without hurting RoTJ, they could have kept Luke a selfless character, a hero. They allowed Han to continue his growth away from his criminal life. They could have made the Republic a dominant force in the galaxy, the protagonist emblem, rather than a blip on the radar to be blown up. They could have made the Imperial Remanent a threatening terrorist force, rather than a Empire 2.0 with a Super-Weapon that blows up the government that the heroes of the OT worked so hard to build (in an instant).

Never said Leia or the former combatants shouldn't be involved. Straw-man again. Already covered why Han shouldn't be a criminal again. He had already moved beyond that.

 

The resolution of ROTJ wasn't that Han Solo would never have a reason for taking refuge in his old occupation. Seriously. At what point of that film was it assured that nothing can happen in the future that would cause Han Solo to return to smuggling, for at least thirty odd years?

The resolution was the Emperor was toppled. And he still is. In fact, the Empire doesn't dominate or control the galaxy. They are compelled to flee Takodona when the resistance come to Han and the new character's rescue.

The FO is not the Empire but it wants to be and it has been secretly consolidating its resources under the pretense of the appeasement between it and the predmoninant society in the galaxy.

So ROTJ is not undone. It just categorically isn't.

Luke isn't in TFA and we don't know yet precisely what his motivations for seclusion at Ach-to is yet. Six years on there, perhaps to learn more so that he can be a better teacher, doesn't sound selfless next to Obi Wan's 19 years on Tatooine waiting for the right time to train only Luke.

They could have made the new Republic the dominant force, and not just the largest society in the galaxy. But like I said, that would mean imposing imperialist values and motivations on the Alliance and its supporters, to ensure the complete subjugation of any dissent from Imperialist sympathisers. So the New Republic would simply be the Empire 2.0, rather than the FO wanting to be the Empire.

The FO's superweapon is immediately destroyed following its pre-emptive strike at the NR capital and fleet. Showing the folly of their Imperial ambitions for making war.

Han was helping his friends in ROTJ, not denouncing his outlaw background.

It simply disrespects your preconceived notions of what should happen. It is not sloppy. It acknowledges the points of reference in ROTJ that bother you and puts them in perspective of this new story in this new era.

 

It doesn't though. It puts us in the same place we were before. Rag-tag good guys fighting against a dominant Empire. Who cares if the giant weapon is destroyed? That happened 2 times in the OT. Proves my point further that there is little difference between the Empire and First Order in terms of dominance, and the antagonist's role in the galaxy. Undoes the OT.

The Republic was a dominant force. Even in the ST. The celebrations galaxy-wide at the end of RoTJ prove that there was mass disdain for the Empire. But then they blew it up in order to press the reset button on all that development.

 

Renegade new republicans opposing the FO who are planning to attack the dominant society.

You're only looking at spaceships and ignoring context.

Because it shows that the FO are fanatics. Predeliciton for superweapons proved to hasten the downfall of the Empire. So why they are being used as evidence of the FO's dominance over the galaxy is a mystery.

They don't dominate. There's no evidence of this. You cannot use the NR's reluctance to officially engage with and provoke the as proof that the FO dominate. If the FO dominate, then why would they need to make such a dastardly attack on the NR capital and fleet?

You still haven't provided the argument for why the NR should necessarily be like the Empire and have annihilated their possible enemies rather than risk them getting designs on ruling the whole galaxy again. The Alliance and the Imperials made peace. The new Republic have tried to honour that arrangement and left the FO alone as long the FO left them alone. Leia though it was necessary to keep the FO in check, hence her involvement in a resistance that you approve of.

Three planets. One of which wasn't even in the Republic/Empire. And it was only added in order to enhance the "completeness" of the saga.

In that case too, we're getting to the stage now where it's reliant on you having seen the "current" version of ROTJ since 2004 in order to have got the point of what can't or shouldn't happen in the future.

 

Becoming a general and going on such a risky mission, and even doing so without volunteering them for the mission, is both official and extensive help, it seems more like he really had joined and committed to the cause (if he hadn't by the beginning of Empire despite then feeling uncertainty about whether he could/should continue with it).

 

And ar that point in his life, commiting to the rebels,.his friends, was more desirable. He would rather die alongside them than risk feeling guilty for abandoning them.

The circumstances in the meantime are not the same. There is no civil war. The New Republic is a democracy, seemingly averse to having a large, active military machine like the Empire/Republic.

I'd like to know where Solo could go forward to if he's secure as an illustrious middle aged general (of which army?) in TFA.

 

Once again, the FO is NOT the empire.
It does NOT dominate the galaxy.
It is small fraction of how big the empire used to be.

Based just on TFA, as TLJ might change things, the new republic is stronger than the FO.
But for reasons that certainly could have been better explained, it does not want to dirty it's hands by fighting the FO openly.
So it instead funds and supports the resistance to do it's dirty work.

Is the FO stronger than the resistance?
Probably, but the FO runs away from the battle at Maz's castle.
And there is no indication that it has tried to destroy the resistance before SKB.

But the resistance was a thorn in the FO's side and for that to be credible, then the resistance can't be that much weaker than the FO.

The rebels were a threat to the imperial fleet in ANH yes.
But could the rebels win a military victory over the empire?
That seems more unlikely.
The rebels got more and more support in the senate and would get stronger and stronger.
But beat the whole fleet?
That does not seem likely in ANH.

With the resistance, the republic created it to fight the war it did not want to fight openly.
So did the republic expect the resistance to be able to fight the FO effectively?
I would say yes otherwise what would be the point?
Why waste resources and funds to support a group you expect to loose?

Maybe those in the republic that supported the resistance figured that with time, enough of the FO's atrocities would swing the rest of the republic to declaring full on war on the FO. So they supported the resistance to give them time enough for that to happen.
Ad I've said, this could have been explained better.

SKB is the big change, that is the weapon that neither the republic nor resistance knew about.
That turns the tables completely.
With it the FO can destroy the republic capitol and it's fleet and then the resistance and then force all other system to submit for fear of destruction.

The empire took power slowly, it kept the senate around until they figured that they could do away with that as the had the DS.
The FO tries to take power all in one go.
It does not have an established system of regional governors that do it's bidding, it does not have the recognition as the established ruler of the galaxy.
The FO is just a group of fanatics that has got a hugely powerful weapon.
That they then loose.

As for pressing the reset button, ESB did that too.
ANH established that with no senate, the ONLY thing that could keep order was the DS and that was destroyed at the end of the first film.
So the same mass disdain that you speak of concerning RotJ, it would be there in ANH as well.
And yet here it does NOT cause massive uprisings or wide-spread rebellion.
Why?
ESB pushed the reset button.
Plain and simple.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Well the opening crawl opens with

Spoiler

"The First Order Reigns"

A little hard to argue they don't dominate with that.

 

We're still talking about TFA.

 

Your timing was perfect...in all the wrong ways!

 

And your reading comprehension is not perfect.
This thread is about TFA, so what ever is in TLJ or the as yet unseen ep IX is not the scope of the thread.
And, as I wrote just below the bit you quoted,

IF TLJ changes things, that is not new with SW.

ESB changed things from ANH.
The empire can apparently keep order just fine even with no DS.
The Jedi were apparently not extinct.

Same thing in the PT, in TPM the seps did not exist, Dooku was not seen.
AotC established that the republic does not have an army, which makes one wonder what the senate could have done against the TF, IF they had believed Padme.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

It's like complaining that the Empire had another death star at the beginning of ESB, meaning ESB slapped ANH in its face then dismantled the future of the galaxy post the victory celebrations on Yavin , but using ROTJ as proof that ESB made the previous film pointless.

We've already had a trailer out for months were Snoke proclaims that "Darkness.... rises", so we knew what TLJ would be dealing in long ago.

But this thread is about what TFA did to the OT.

 

The problem is that if they approached this trilogy even somewhat intelligently, all of the lackluster elements and awful choices could have been largely avoided and the story would have been far stronger than it is now. There was literally no reason for the ST to have been made the way it was.

 

It's not "intelligent" to dictate that a new Star Wars trilogy is "supposed" to have new spaceships and untold enemies with no connection to previous bad guys and with entirely different motivation and ambitions. There's no intelligent basis for that argument either. That's simply a demand being made by the viewer, regardless of whatever authentic creative decisions the film-makers make which dictate the aesthetics (which is the correct order).

It seems to require intelligence that some don't have to discern why the ST is the way it is. If ti's not down to intelligence then it must be a petulant reaction to the lack of endorsement of the "argument" for different looking spaceships etc mentioned above. Which would make sense, when the reasons proposed are that the film-makers cynically made the ST the way it is or just made a story that was designed purely to celebrate OT architecture. Presumably as a opposed to a story cynically designed purely to accommodate new aesthetics for their own sake, or for the sake of promoting new merchandise as has been done in the past, or because some fans with those preconceived notions need to be pandered to.