ST What does the ST add to the Saga? What is its story purpose?

Quoting because I can only like once. That summed up the issues well.

 

"It" being The Last Jedi. Also why I dont understand the hate towards it or why people think it's the worst of the st.

 

It's because of the story of the film. Luke Skywalker is essentially out of character due to the fact that the film does 0 development to earn where is at in the story. There is a story to get Luke the way he was and as Mark Hamil said himself he imagined Luke being responsible for killing his family to get him there. None of that story is on screen.

The entire Canto Bight Arc with Finn and Rose being essentially pointless. It tries to make a point about capitalism but its just doesn't fit in the overall narrative of the film.

The characters are incompetent in many ways and a lot of what happens in the film would not occur if people just communicated or you know shot at people instead of being part of a your mom joke.....

The Holdo maneuver not being presented as a one in a million thing that occured and makes you wonder why didn't they just do that with one of the other ships they had to abandon in the first place.

There are a lot of issues with the story and it's structure that for me and many others make the thing entirely unbelievable which breaks the immersion.

 

You just have to accept where the story picks up. After the turn Ben Solo. Part of the sequel trilogy's drama stems from that.

I dont know I'm reading a bunch of opinion as to why the film did not work not liking Luke's character. This happens *after* return of the jedi so how are you saying it is out of character if what we are seeing has not happened yet.

 

No you don't have to accept that without explanation. "Having to accept it" is what LFL must have been banking on. Don't question the logic just accept whatever we tell you. On a Saga of 6 films that have been the most analyzed of all-time, that's not going to pass for many people.

What occurred to the character of Luke is a perfect example. Putting Luke in a place that has no explanation of how he get there and doesn't fit the setup of TFA at all and just swallowing that?

LFL has said (both Iger and KK) they want future movies with less history to them. That was all about them acknowledging the failures they had in making a connected story out of the ST.

 

Discuss the topic, NOT other posters. This includes making comments about groups of fans because they liked A or disliked B.

 

You do have to accept it and they explain as they go. That's part of the drama TFA sets up--what happened. We are left wondering what happened and how this all came to be. Also, it is explained why Luke is in exile and it fits with his character.

 

@obi-arin-kenobi, I completely disagree that the way that Luke was portrayed and what we are told he has done in TLJ in any way fits with the Characterization, personality, integrity, and core traits and beliefs of Luke Skywalker as established in the three OT films.

I also disagree that the reason we are given for why Luke is in exile is enough of a reason or even makes any sense. Why, for example, would Luke choose to look for the planet where the first Jedi temple is just so that he could live there in exile and die there? Why not go to an even more remote world like Hoth, or Dagobah for example, where the likelihood that there would be any other sentient people living there would be less? Why look for the Jedi temple at all if he wasn’t looking for something there to help the galaxy’s situation? When I heard that Luke had been searching for the first Jedi temple, I thought it would be because he was looking for knowledge or answers; not that he just wanted to die there? That, in itself makes ZERO sense. There are a whole lot of other things that don’t work about Luke, his situation, and his location when you really think about it.

 

To continue on from my previous reminder / general warning... this thread is pretty off-topic at this point. This is not for the same old back and forth arguments about why someone liked or disliked the ST or any of its movies.

 

To be fair, would you rather retire to somewhere really cold like Hoth, or a gloomy swamp, when you can retire to a nice island with caretakers to look after you, and where you can go fishing every day?

 

He has the responsibility of building the jedi and passing on what he has learned, which is potentially dangerous. What is so unbelievable about Luke faulting? There was an entire council before. Here, it's just Luke.

Because hes trying to make sense of it all.

 

The ST is such a mixed bag for me because the films all feel like they're pulling apart from one another rather than sticking together. The PT felt cohesive, and it really benefited from having one man helm the story and provide direction . . . it was just that for 2/3's of that direction it didn't feel great. I legitimately love ROTS though.

The ST is a mess when you try to look at the narrative of all 3 films over their respective stories, but the individual moments are fantastic. A lot of that is nostalgia in TFA, but TLJ told bold risks and is my legitimate favorite, and easily my 2nd favorite Star Wars movie of all time. The Rise Of Skywalker felt like surface-level fun but as soon as you dig deeper (which we Star Wars fans do love to do) it falls apart.

 

i did expect them to tell a story as the films went along however the fact that the story and ideas changed between films and directors really made a mess out of the structure of the trilogy.

While the ST is supposed to continue the story i can’t figure out what the point is each film seems to have an entirely different point that doesn’t fit together with the previous films. I honestly don’t know what they were tying to accomplish with the ST except bring Star Wars back to the big screen

 

I'm not sure anyone has to 'accept' anything, in terms of how Luke is portrayed in TLJ... other than accepting that it is what it is, and nothing can change it. However it still doesn't make it better for those that believe his portrayal is hugely flawed (and what that means for the saga). I think the fundamental issue with the sequels (IMO of course) and why they add little/next to nothing in the Star Wars saga (narratively/thematically) is that the filmmakers don't understand their characters, or fail to portray the character relationships/dynamics in a meaningful way. The films should never have had Kylo and Rey at the heart of them, unless they were directly related, or Kylo was not related to the OT 3 at all. The problem is, by making Kylo the son of Leia and Han, it necessitates establishing those relationships from the off... and of course the ST never really does that (does Kylo even speak to Leia in the films... ever???).

The fact that Kylo Ren is the son of Han and Leia should have been at the very heart of the ST (as that is where the emotional drama is), but instead, both Abrams and Johnson make it about Kylo and Rey... and of course that relationship is built on nothing. What drove the OT, emotionally, was the Luke/Vader dynamic... and in terms of internal logic, that dynamic works and creates drama, because obviously Vader is Luke's farther. The ST aspires to have that same dynamic, but it's completely misdirected by not giving Kylo and Rey that history/connection. It's ultimately a meaningless relationship that has no emotional heft to it whatsoever. And without that key relationship working, the other relationships/dynamics fall in on themselves... be it Rey/Finn, Finn/Poe etc. etc.

 

I'm literally jumping in here without reading much else. I'll stick to the main topic. The ST is an interesting beast. I think for the casual viewer it's rather entertaining. Overall, in my subjective opinion, they aren't bad films. Yes, they are my least favorite Star Wars films. Despite that, It's a roller coaster ride of fun. However, coming in to them as a fan of the series, it can be disappointing. Do they add to the series? Yes, but perhaps not in the way that many of us would have liked. Certainly those of us who enjoyed the prior EU content probably enjoyed that much more. However, it does add, at the very least, some character depth in the current canon. We see what Luke becomes in 30 years, along with the other characters. We see who is taking their place. It expands the universe even more so than from what we knew (disregarding the EU) before. We see what's possible with the force. What's interesting is, these films will probably become more forgivable, and be viewed in a better light when we get canon EU content built around them. When we get in depth stories that tell us specifically what Luke, Han, Leah, and their children did during that time. When we get further character development and backstory on Poe, Rey, and Kylo. All of these things will probably bolster these films up. That shouldn't be required in order to view a film in a good way, but what's been done is done. It seems like the process has been a learning experience for Disney and Lucas Film without Papa Lucas, and perhaps at this point they are getting the feel for what makes a successful Story Wars story.

 

if you break it down to the bare bones:

PT is how a Skywalker caused the destruction of the galaxy

OT is how Skywalkers helped free the galaxy

ST is how Skywalkers enabled a non-Skywalker to bring the balance to the Force

Also

PT - romantic love dooms
OT - familial love saves
ST - romantic and familial love save

I'm sure anyone can find their bare bones purpose for each.

 

The balance to the force aspect may have worked if that had actually been on any of the films. That idea didn’t come up once

 

OT - Hero’s journey
PT - Hero’s tragedy
ST - Heroine’s journey

 

hey, the Balance came up once! @Jedi_Fenrir767





@cerealbox Excellent!

 

Yes but the idea that they were trying to bring balance to the force as a theme for the ST wasn't present a great opportunity would have been Luke talking about how their needs to be balance in TLJ. It may have been in whatever JJ's VIII would have been it actually makes a lot of sense given that Luke was at the First Jedi Temple and Lor San Tekka helped him find it. Well whatever that would have been was completely dropped in subsequent films.

 

well, Luke was talking about that Jedi needed to end but changed his mind. And what is destroying Palaptine but bringing the balance in the Force...again. So it was more "goes without saying" but I agree it wouldn't hurt if they mentioned it more explicitly.

 

I don't think it really works since Palpatine was added after the fact to the entire thing. The idea of balance feels very much shoehorned into this trilogy. Then again a lot of the stuff in this trilogy is shoehorned in

 

Han and LEIA's CHILD. Who's evil. For no reason. We got backstory on Poe - he's gone from child of the Rebellion to drug smuggler because he needed to be more like Han Solo. Finn gets to say "fear my mop" and Rey is now a Palpatine. I don't know how that makes anything more forgivable, because frankly? I'm never forgiving them for wasting the opportunity to reunite Luke, Han and Leia and do right by them.

What romantic love in the ST saves? The romantic love that carried over from the OT was destroyed and that's the only romance I saw on a screen in the ST.

You mean how to go from one desert planet to another?

 

The Canto Bight evils of capitalism is so poorly handled because it has no affect on how the war plays in the movie.

Guess what movies have the evils of capitalism actually affect the story. Yep, the PT. Hell, the main villain faction of TPM is a monopoly flexing on the government by invading a planet. And the corporations supply the arms and weapons for the separatist movement to fight back against the Republic. The entire PT is about the failing of capitalism and democracy. Why bother doing that again if you're not gonna incorporate it even half as good as done before?

And since the ST's foundational values were "Don't worry. No PT politics or critiques on society everyone! Just classic 1977 action! WITH REAL DESERTS!!!!!!", it makes the entire thing even more hollow.