main
side
curve

Saga Did TFA make the OT pointless?

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Darth Weavile, Oct 22, 2017.

  1. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011
    And I like, relate, and empathize with Anakin. But what does this have to do with Snoke being a complete non-entity of a character despite having played a pivotal role in completely reshaping the arc of the entire Star Wars saga? That really doesn't strike you as a bit lazy?
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2018
  2. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Of course it's my opinion. But it's also only our opinion that Snoke's development is deficient.
     
  3. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011
    In Snoke's case it's just barely an opinion, because almost nothing meaningful is actually revealed about him. The only things we know about him are the few things we're told he did, which is to completely recapitulate Palpatine's arc while doing nothing to stand apart from him. What part of this are you willing to argue? And again, what do our respective opinions of Anakin's arc have to do with whether or not Snoke works as a character? It's nothing but a rhetorical deflection that's gone on long enough already and is starting to bore me.
     
  4. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    In my opinion they are equally deficient.

    No, because someone's opinion might be Snoke functions better without explanation.
     
  5. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Well, that's a silly opinion given the absolutely massive discrepancy in background and character work given to each.

    No, because someone's opinion might be Snoke functions better without explanation.[/QUOTE]

    Why, though? Why does Snoke function better as a pale recapitulation of a better, more compelling character? Why would it have resulted in an inferior set of films if there were instead a fleshed-out villain with an interesting story and unique motivations? To me, these seem like hard questions to answer.
     
    Sith Lord 2015 and Qui-Riv-Brid like this.
  6. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    I'm not suggesting they have equal character development. I think that Anakin's character problems and Snoke's lack of backstory equally hinder the story (only marginally).

    People could suggest they like the fact that he doesn't need an explanation and is mysterious. Again it's a valid opinion.
     
  7. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    As in regards to one individual person that can apply to most anything. A person can say Snoke doesn't need an explanation. Yet the question I'd ask them if that doesn't than does anything? Now if they consistently saying nothing needs one then fine but then I'd ask what do they find a draw in Star Wars because Lucas kept giving them through his movies to proper proportional degrees as merited by the character.

    Do you specifically mean empathy or sympathy?

    The narrative effectiveness of the ST is completely compromised even though they have gone out of their way to make the characters, especially Rey, sympathetic. TLJ was desperate to make Ren sympathetic as well but with the emphasis on emotional identification that is based on selfishness of the characters.

    .Luke was built as a sympathetic character through story and character by being selfless but Anakin really was not. One might be sympathetic to him in some instances but his arc is about selfishness and greed taking over his choices so it was more and more about empathy. Understanding his choices and why he did them.

    There is no way that Anakin was going to give the audience the hero catharsis that Luke did. That was not his part to play in the six movies. The story of the inverted journey's of father as villain and son as hero meant that we could never feel that way about Anakin until he finally became the hero he chose to be at the end of ROTJ.

    Lucas could have done the easy thing and give Anakin heroic catharsis then have it all crash but that works against Luke's story.
     
  8. Lulu Mars

    Lulu Mars Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 10, 2005
    I love the original saga as it is, but I'm curious: Why would that work against Luke's story?
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2018
    Tosche_Station likes this.
  9. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Because then Luke making the right more and more selfless choices as he went along to being a Jedi whereas Anakin becomes more and more selfish to becoming a Sith is thrown out of balance. This choices don't happen out of nowhere. Anakin can't go along making selfless based choices then suddenly turn on a dime into selfish ones.

    His base was selfish. He was saving others for himself because he didn't want to let go. He wanted power and control. Luke's base for saving others came out of selflessness.
     
    Lulu Mars and Darth Weavile like this.
  10. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Snoke not needing an explanation is not the same as, say, a main character not getting character development or many other essential things not being explained. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to think that, given Snoke's placement as the 'big bad' above the main characters, he remain mysterious.

    There absolutely was a way to write Anakin so that he was likeable, empathetic and more understandable, while preserving Luke's story. There are many ways you can write tragic heroes, who make greedy and selfish decision, understandable - I think Lucas just fell short in the PT with Anakin.
     
  11. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Snoke isn't mysterious. He's just boring. B-O-R-I-N-G. Mystery only works for a character if they have something else going for them. Boba Fett was cool because he was mysterious and because he looked and acted super goddamn cool. He had value beyond just being mysterious. The mystery only served to amplify his other qualities which were far more important to his appeal.

    Snoke has no value beyond that. He's just the Emperor 2.0. He's a featureless wedge jammed into the movie because it was the only to support the rest of the OT rehash infrastructure. The only supposed value he possesses is that we don't know anything about him. Well, that doesn't make a character good. Otherwise it would be incredibly easy for anybody to create a compelling character. All they'd have to do is not do anything.

    And the fact that you're continuing to describe Anakin in terms such as "a main character not getting character development" when he is without a doubt the most well-developed character in the entire Star Wars film canon is just....well, it's really something. We get it, you don't like how Anakin was portrayed in the prequels. But to say he didn't get character development is not accurate. That at least is objectively false.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  12. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Urgh, okay? Some people find him mysterious, and that's not surprising. The fact you don't doesn't really change that.

    You're misrepresenting my point. I said that Anakin was underdeveloped, but if you look at the context, I wasn't suggesting the character did not get much development, only that certain things about the character weren't developed enough. I said that Anakin's likeable characteristics were were not included in that development enough. A character can be greatly developed, but have parts of their character you wish were emphasised more, or developed further. I don't even really dislike how he was portrayed - I just think it could have been done better. You keep bringing up this straw man and I keep rebutting it. Hopefully this settles it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  13. CT-867-5309

    CT-867-5309 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2011
    I've noticed that you've had to say "some" "people" several times now. Is that because these people are nebulous and don't include you?

    Your rebuttal sucks, just like your comparison. You keep comparing some flaw in Anakin's development to Snoke's total lack of development. It's a stupid comparison and you know it. I think you're just compulsively defending Snoke (thus your depersonalized defense hinging on "some" nebulous "people", not you), arguing something even you don't believe just for the sake of arguing. It's annoying.

    Snoke is about as mysterious as the case of the missing paperclip. It has to be interesting to be mysterious, otherwise you just don't care to unravel any supposed mystery. I don't care where my paperclip went, I just get another one.
     
  14. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    What on earth? Have you even been following my argument? (to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if you're confused considering how much it's been misrepresented here).

    I think Snoke's lack of explanation is a deficiency. However, I only think it's on the scale of Anakin's lack of likability in the PT - i.e., yes, it's a problem, but it isn't fatal to the narrative and can easily be solved by other material (such as television shows, etc). I am not comparing their character development or suggesting Snoke and Anakin are just as developed. I am saying that:

    a) Snoke's lack explanation and;
    b) Anakin's lack of likability

    to me are problems of similar scale.
     
  15. CT-867-5309

    CT-867-5309 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Yeah, I understood that perfectly. It's a stupid and annoying comparison to insist upon. Those two things (a and b) don't belong in the same breath.

    I'm saying this as someone who has said that Anakin's lack of likability is a huge problem about a thousand times on the JCF. If anything, I think Anakin's lack of likability is a much greater problem than anything Snoke, as the non-character that he is, could possibly present. Which is my point. It's dumb to compare the two in any way, no matter what allowances you make. The very nature of their existence defies comparison to each other.
     
  16. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Obviously your opinion on the matter is going to depend on how much each of those issues is significant to you. For me they are comparable, and for others in this very thread the Snoke issue is far worse, and for you the Anakin issue is far worse. It seems unnecessary to be so combative about this when clearly there is such a wide array of perspectives in this very thread on the matter.
     
  17. ezekiel22x

    ezekiel22x Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 9, 2002
    I'd say Snoke is a perfect example of cheapening the original films just to allow the ST to have something of a reboot flavor. He checks all the broad plot points of Palpatine with none of the character building depth. No fatherly charisma, no sinister spookiness in his comings and goings, no power demonstrations on a personal level beyond a few orders for his immediate lackeys.

    I would call him underdeveloped but I don't think he's really developed at all. Better that they just used the ol' Palpatine clone idea, because at least I could mentally transfer the I-VI characterization as a means of filling in the ST's lack thereof.
     
  18. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    I like Anakin very much, I empathize with him and in terms of understanding there never has been nor will there ever likely be a Star Wars character more understandable. The next closet on that level is Luke in the OT (certainly not the utterly confused and confusing fella who supposedly is Luke in TLJ).

    I've had talks with many people whose problem with Anakin is not that they don't understand the character they simply don't like that they don't like and embrace the character like a Luke or other heroes of various stories. Of course none of them turn evil and go from the protagonist of one entire trilogy to the antagonist of another entire trilogy.

    That Anakin is the most well developed is as you say objective fact. It's done over 6 movies so what more people really want is that heroic catharsis and likeability factor which pretty much comes down to his portrayal in AOTC.

    That is perfectly right for the movie and the trilogy though and if Anakin is some other character then ROTS really can't happen properly.

    Exactly. Bring back IM and it lifts the entire trilogy and actually makes some sense of it. Then you have real mystery because it's "How did he come back?"

    Snoke is "mysterious" in the way Sidious once was because in the OT he was only mentioned then appeared in one scene before he finally had an actual part. Of course now that is his 5 appearance in six films and we know he is Darth Sidious.

    The "mystery" came from lack of knowing how he works in the story. The ST is packed with tons of mysteries though as we really don't know how pretty much everything works and the films disagree with each anyway so it goes from mystery to confusion!
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  19. Sith Lord 2015

    Sith Lord 2015 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 30, 2015
    I found both Snoke and Kylo to be among the most boring villains I have ever seen. Snoke is just a lazy carbon copy of the OT Emperor. Oh, I just remembered he's not only a carbon copy of that. When I saw the movie I was also immediately reminded of that Cylon leader from the original Battlestar Galactica series. Anybody still remember that? Basically it was the same generic bad guy wearing a hood sitting on some pedestal, and having no back story. But at least in Galactica that concept was kind of new (being made before ESB), and they tried to make the villain look a little interesting. Not so with Snoke at all, just some generic pale weird-looking CGI guy sitting on a throne. Wow, so nowadays SW has to steal stuff even from franchises that itself are copies of SW!
    As with Kylo, I just never got why he had to wear that mask, other than to fulfill some weird fan cliche that villains always wear masks to be cool. Guess what? It's already been done before in SW, and way better. At least Vader wears that mask for a reason. Kylo's reason is nothing more than imitation. If he worships Vader that much, why not have that same mask and suit made for him? Oh wait, I get it.... they wanted to be "original". And let's just ignore the fact that he is made to look almost exactly like Snape in Harry Potter. But I guess audiences in recent years are just considered to be too stupid to notice.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  20. DarthTalonx

    DarthTalonx Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Agreed. It's the lack of backstory though that makes it even worse. Given no backstory of the galactic situation, or of these vital characters (be they heroes or villains) it renders the entire struggles of both heroes and villains in the OT somewhat pointless and meaningless. You are left wondering what happened and who are these people, and of course none of that is answered. I too was not a massive fan of the designs, but TFA certainly makes the OT feel like it's set in another galaxy altogether and the lack of continuity/the flow of the Force is notable.

    Agreed there was mystery with a purpose, in the context of the story and with payoff in the saga. But here the mystery, appears to just be lack of planning and lack of story. To paraphrase Vader, "I find your Lack of backstory disturbing!" And it renders the OT (indeed Episodes 1 to 6) somewhat pointless by reducing the entire struggles of both heroes and villains in the previous chapters. Not least by not explaining how we got here from ROTJ. And actually showcasing any exposition of world building or story or who characters are.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
    Sith Lord 2015 likes this.
  21. ThisIsMe1138

    ThisIsMe1138 Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jun 26, 2018
    Answer to original question: No.
     
  22. Darth Weavile

    Darth Weavile Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion
     
    DarthTalonx likes this.
  23. Outsourced

    Outsourced Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Also answering the original question. No, it didn't.
     
    heels1785 likes this.
  24. mike778

    mike778 Jedi Knight star 1

    Registered:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Regarding the original question ...

    Was it pointless winning the First World War if 30 years down the line, there was going to be World War 2 ? Its Star Wars, there are wars the name is a giveaway. In the original trilogy, the good guys won - Leia and Han got to get down to business in the baby making department and were presumably happy for 20 years or so. Chewie seemed happy enough, Lando seems to be still alive and guessing he had a pretty good time of it for a while. Luke was probably contended enough for a while until it went wrong with the wannabe Vader.

    Nothing lasts forever - have to make the most of the good times. If there wasn't another war, something would have got them eventually anyway.
     
  25. mike778

    mike778 Jedi Knight star 1

    Registered:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Agree with Snoke ... in TFA he looked like a rubbish copy of Palps. Personally I think RJ made the best of a bad situation by killing him off in TLJ. This worked well for me, got rid of a iffy character, was a genuine surprise and moved trilogy on well with KR moving in to the big cheese's chair. Can't agree with you on Kylo though, most interesting character in a star wars film since the originals.
     
    Alpha Spook likes this.