Saga Do the Sequels increase or decrease the value of the saga to you?

@CT-867-5309

Yes. Exactly. To all of that.

Whether something is "on par with", or not, is a simply a point of view. You don't like Palps returning. Some thought ROTJ was a warmed over ANH rehash. Fans hate what they hate.

Yes, Shmi....who is canonically the OG Skywalker, yet was introduced in 1999. Whereas ,the real OG Skywalker (Luke) premiered in decades earlier in 1977. Besides the point indeed.

Anakin was the right choice to finish Palpatine. The only reason The Emperor was created was to give Vader his face turn moment by Palps being the big heavy.
Of course, any notion that Anakin was destined to do it also came decades later in another recontextualization.

I don't know, this just seems like a case of you contradicting your own argument.

I never said "Palpatine's return makes sense because it happened before."

I argued that The fact that Palpatine was resurrected before under George Lucas's watch and garnered his approval/green light on it suggests that Lucas doesn't think that a returning Emperor/Empire craps all over the legacies of the OT or the OT heroes as some fans claim.*

*The fact that some fans do think this is typical as we've been split on these geeky things since at least 1980. These kind of things just doesn't hold up very well as a concrete indictment of SW.

Dude, we get it. You didn't like it. I dunno what to tell you. None of this rings true for me and I cannot relate.

 

I'm out.

 

The sequel trilogy is like poetry, it's sorta like they rhyme... or something idk

 

@jaimestarr: What does Lucas's approval or the chronological time when something was canon have to do with anything? Those things are unrelated and don't matter.

 

@Saga_Symphony

1. Lucas approval of a story element of Star Wars with worth more than a fan opinion of the same story element.

Meaning, if Lucas doesn't think a resurrected Emperor craps of the OT hero legacy, fans complaints of this is just typical fan rage lumped in the same bin with the "Han shot first" fury and shrieks that various elements of the PT "wrecked Star Wars."

2. The things like chronological time and what is/isn't canon is relevant in this instance as some fans here are falsely insinuating/claiming that the ST that broke some Star Wars rules/ fan expectations by including story elements like a resurrected Emperor, a resurgent Empire, Luke gone dark, etc. These have been elements of the post ROTJ Star Wars lore for over 30 years not.

If a fan doesn't like these post ROTJ story elements... fine. For one to act like these were "crimes" that the ST brought about is to simply be mistakenly uneducated or intentionally false.

 

Not everyone knows/ cares about what happened in books/ comics, or what Lucas approves. And I'm not up for tangents about canon or whatever. Agree to disagree.

On Palpatine's influence on the Republic: The Republic was flawed, but obviously better for the galaxy than the Empire, and the Senate was better than the dictatorship of Palpatine. Palps didn't make things happen all on his own, but he was the driving force for things turning to sh**.

 

To me it's similar to the prequels.

Initially I find it decreases the value of the saga in how it's changing how I view the original movies, but then I come to appreciate what's there anyways.

 

Yes...and not everyone thinks that the ST "destroys the legacy of the OT/PT/whatever". That's just typical fan hyperbole.

No arguments on any of this from me. Thanks for the chat.

 

It doesn’t destroy the legacy of the OT characters except:

- Luke failed to rebuild the Jedi Order
- Leia and the rebellion’s new Republic fails
- Leia and Han’s relationship doesn’t last
- Their son turns to the dark side because Uncle Luke attempted to murder him in his sleep because he had a bad vision
- Luke gives up and goes to an island while cutting himself from all his friends
- Han goes back to smuggling
- The Empire returns
- Somehow Palpatine returned (and no, Dark Empire being a thing doesn’t mean this doesn’t ruin the legacy of Anakin Skywalker.)

I just don’t see how that’s hyperbole, that’s pretty much the most thorough way to destroy these characters legacies, and it was obviously intentional on the part of the writers. JJ because he has no imagination and just wanted a soft reboot and Rian because he wanted to “kill the past.” Which is just completely disrespectful to the characters and makes 1-6 pointless in the grand scheme of things.

 

The sequels certainly didn't ADD anything "significant" to the saga. So do they decrease the value of the originals? I have no idea. Did ESB actually improve ANH? Again, I couldn't say for sure.
All I can say about the sequels is that they were 100% redundant and didn't improve the story in any way. So did they "decrease" the saga's value as a whole? Maybe, maybe not. I simply find them to be unnecessary. They don't drive the story forward in any way whatsoever.
So if I had to choose between "increase" or "decrease", I'd definitely go for decrease.
I realize that all this is highly subjective. Personally, the sequels gave me nothing, ZERO. So I had no way to "connect" to them intellectually OR emotionally in any way possible. The prequels on the other hand did exactly that for me, made me feel emotionally invested and connected to the saga. So they worked for me. Ultimately, and on a very personal level, this is what it ultimately comes down to, your emotional reception of a story, how you experience it, "justified" or not.

 

Kinda mixed on whether they add value or not, honestly.

I don’t really have major problems with 7 and 8, but I really don’t care for episode 9. It just feels anticlimactic and I don’t feel like it really adds much to the story, it just feels kinda repetitive. I’m also of the opinion that it’s virtually impossible to do a true sequel to ROTJ, because I really don’t know where you can take the story. If a brand new villain was introduced, it seems like it just wouldn’t feel like Star Wars, and if you just bring back the Sith/Empire, then everything is just repetitive. I’m critical of the ST, but I’m also not a huge fan of the Thrawn trilogy, or Dark Empire.

 

This was never put forth as an endgame/goal for Luke. His task was to confront Vader, not succumb to the Emperor, and pass on what he learned to Leia. I'm not sure why you think this is Luke's destiny/right/legacy as it's from the old EU, not the OT films.

The OT films never put forth/mentioned/hinted at/whispered that Leia was to build a New Republic. Again, that is an invention/convention of the EU. Plus, in the ST the rebellion did form a new republic that actually lasted longer than Palpatine's Empire.

Their relationship that was just burgeoning at the end of ROTJ. Again, it was the EU that had them get married and have babies. This was not put forth by the OT films. Maybe you saw a potential future where Han and Leia got married and stayed together forever and always...this was not some thread put forth by the OT.

So what? In the previous canon all of Han and Leia's kids experienced tragedies, the dark side, and deaths. Check it out.

Again....big deal. In the previous canon, Luke Skywalker actually joined the dark side and served under Palpatine.

Which is a bad thing because? What, people never go back to their old ways? What's Han supposed to do? Be a politician? A lawman? A military leader? Once a scoundrel always a scoundrel. If Han's on the outs with Leia, this is exactly what I think Han would do. Sorry you don't.

Did it ever go away? Every iteration of of Star Wars post ROTJ has featured a resurgent Empire. This has always been the case.

Somehow he always does.

Fact: Anakin's legacy of being destined to destroy the Emperor and "bring balance" is still intact and still a retcon of the story being told in the OT.

Star Wars is not a zero sum game. It's not a competitive sport. They don't take Luke's and Han's medals away for destroying the first Death Star just because GL suddenly retconned in a 2nd more powerful Death Star into existence.

It seems like you thought ROTJ's happy ending meant never ending happiness/success/love for our heroes in perpetuity forever and ever. If you want to believe that, after ROTJ, Luke and friends and the entire galaxy lived in freedom and peace happily ever after with no problems....that's fine. Just say that. Say you don't believe there should be sequel films with Luke , Han, Leia. Because any post ROTJ stories featuring these characters were going to have to spoil that Ewok party eventually.

Han, Luke, and Leia were going to have to suffer in a post ROTJ world because that's how drama works. The bloom was always going to come off the ROTJ victory a bit we were to get sequels. If you wanted some new unrelated, non tangental, challenge for them that's cool....that just ain't very Star Wars IMO. Again, when it comes to post Episode 6 Star Wars sequels ...Han, Luke, and Leia always have to deal with the fallout from the OT.

As I said, Star Wars is the series where there is a bigger, badder, Death Star. Star Wars is a series where Darth Maul, The Emperor, and Boba Fett can come back. Star Wars is a series where it often boils down to some underdog hero from a desert world rising up, flying spaceships, swing lightsabers, and using the saving the day/galaxy. That's not a JJ thing, that's not a Rian Johnson thing, that's not a Filoni thing, it's not a Favreau thing...... that's a George Lucas thing.

 

Here we go with the "you wanted a perfect happy ending after ROTJ" strawman. You can set your watch to it around here. There is a whole bunch of middle ground between that and what we got.

 

in all seriousness, yes...I did. To have ROTJ end the way did and to have:

added, makes the whole thing excruciatingly pointless.

Especially since the ST appears to be a soft reboot anyway.

And even to add to this EP IX doesn't even end on a satisfying conclusion the way ROTJ did. That movie had a finality to it. TROS had a 'tune in next time, same SW time, same SW channel' vibe to it
Is Palpatine even really dead this time? how do we know? etc.

 

Show Luke training several Jedi with different opinions on how things should be done, or different philosophical positions.
Show the Republic ruling the Galaxy. Or trying to mediate a situation that threatens the stability of the Galaxy.
Show a balkanized Galaxy on verge of war.
Some threat that Palpatine was aware of, but is now making its move.
Show a next generation Skywalker/Solo trying to make their way in the world or trying to live up to the expectations of the Galaxy as being descended from Han and Leia, or Luke and whoever.

 

IMO, it's a weak argument to say what the ST does is fine because the EU did it too. That doesn't prove anything; at most, it's just pointing out that the EU also did stuff that didn't work too. Same thing with claiming any retcons the ST makes are OK because the PT made retcons. It's not that simple.

And people assume Luke would rebuild the Jedi Order and that Han and Leia would still be together because Luke was the only Jedi, and Han and Leia were shown to be happy together. Given the time and development that had gone into these characters getting to these points, along with what we know of these characters and their own personalities, it's more than reasonable to assume this is how'd they end up and how they'd continue after RotJ. Because that's what RotJ left us with: happy characters with hope.

I think the ST decreases the character development and accomplishments from the past trilogies... storywise, when you view 1-9 as a whole saga. But in a meta way, the ST kind of highlights what those films did right even more for me. The original designs and concepts, the lightsabers that didn't look stupid, the Force powers that didn't feel like video game powerups, and characterization that was actually consistent...

I think Luke's journey is especially shining all the brighter compared to Rey's. All the hardship and failure and pain he went through, and really just to become a decently-skilled Jedi, no special magic Force powers just handed to him... it's even more impressive.

 

There is. There is a multitude of directions a ST could have gone. I'm sure fans would have bickered about all of that middle ground.

My question is this:

How you create a ST, with a conflict that is narratively connected to Episodes 1-6, without somehow reframing some of aspect of the fairy tale ROTJ ending?

That's not my argument. My argument is that the post ROTJ future in the ST (new canon) didn't step out of bounds and take liberty with the OT heroes legacies any more than the original canon did.

Maybe you just envisioned a completely different post ROTJ SW galaxy than Lucasfilm (past or present) did?

You complain about a resurrected Emperor, a resurgent Empire, and a dark Luke. These were Star Wars canon when Lucas was in charge. He approved these story elements.

If you don't this elements in your post ROTJ Star Wars galaxy...that's cool. Yet, to accuse the ST to be responsible of "trashing OT legacies" is to be hyperbolic and mistaken.

Fact is: The ST didn't do anything to the OT heroes legacies or "accomplishments" that a George Lucas helmed Lucasfilm hadn't already done 3 decades ago. These ST elements that you complain about* aren't too far off from what was already done under Lucas's approval.

* These story elements in particular...
-Resurrected Emperor
-Resurgent Empire
-Dark Luke
-Fragile New Republic

What? People assume all kinds of things. How do you know what all people assumed?

Also, is it an unwritten Star Wars/film rule that whenever we see a movie end with people happy and together that's how they'll stay for over 30 years? That crystalized ROTJ moment is automatically status quo setting/situation for 3+ decades? When does this ever happen in life or in fiction?

 

Leia changed Han. She and Luke helped change him from a self serving mercenary to a hero who would lay down his life for his friends and a cause. So to do the "oh yeah they broke up" thing was a slap in the face to a lot of fans. Of course it happens, but no one really got a happy ending except Lando.

 

@jaimestarr: No offense, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend that not everyone cares about or accepts the EU. "Star Wars fans" do not equate to "Lucas cult that should accept anything he approves, or was approved when he was in charge".

And you don't seem to get the point that the EU and previous retcons don't make the ST's decisions/ retcons OK. The pre-Disney material also made crappy decisions. And...? You're just pointing to other stuff and saying "well, they did questionable stuff too". Again, it's not that simple, and for all the similarities, there are several differences in the creative decisions of the old EU and the ST. It can't be blown off with "no, it's fine, because [insert similarities here]".

And I didn't think I'd have to clarify this, but... no, I don't speak for or everyone or assume things for everyone. Never said I was. I just think a lot of people share these assumptions about the OT 3's fates based on the reasons I stated.

And were those happy, progressive fates for the OT 3 set it stone? No. Again, never said it was. But I did support why that would be a reasonable expectation, with actual reasons and facts about the characters and the ending the film presented. If RotJ had ended with Luke dead and Han and Leia in a fight, that'd be a different story. But it didn't.

And, as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread and several others... you can still have struggle and imperfection for characters without going as far as the ST did.

 

I phrased my response incorrectly, and you werre right to call me out on that. That's one me.

You still avoided the point of my response to you, as @jaimestarr has avoided again and again, or deflected with completely different topics and arguments, which still remain completely irrelevant to my initial post.

The whole "The Republic was corrupt before Palpatine intervened" is still invalid. And this post:

Still remains 100% accurate.

- Would the Republic have fallen if Palpatine wasn't there? NO.
- Did the Republic become partially corrupt because of Palpatine? YES.
- Did the Separatists start the civil war that led to the Clone Wars and did Palpatine initiate the Separatist movement? YES.
- Did Palpatine initiate the Clone War by bringing the Clones into existence? YES.
- Would the Republic have used the Clones for war if Palpatine and his minions weren't ready to murder 30-40 Jedi on Geonosis? NO.
- Would the Republic have blamed the Jedi as traitors if Palpatine hadn't told them so? NO.

There are dozens more questions that have a clear and definite answer as to who planned, orchestrated, manipulated and executed, in order to become the Emperor, and the answer is Palpatine.

No matter what anyone says, after the ending of ROTJ the only possible outcome is a formation of a new government, which happens to be called The New Republic in the old Expanded Universe, in the new canon, in novels, in movies, and everywhere. There was no reason for the trillions of the beings in the Galaxy far far away to even consider the possibility that a Republic that had established a peaceful and prosperous Galaxy for 25000 years, was at fault, just because the Emperor took advantage of it for two decades.

Nope. In fact, the idea that the ST committed those crimes is an objective truth.

You must be confusing the story where a dark side clone of Palpatine (who is NOT the same being) is a pretty minor threat to the heroes of the OT a few years after Palpatine's death (who DIED), with a story where Palpatine's essence survived and was transferred to a cloned body, but was essentially the same person and threatened the whole galaxy again with unlimited power.

The former one, also contrary to what you claimed, never achieved G-canon status, and was only C-canon level (if I am remembering the notation correctly) that Lucas didn't even care for. The latter, is the ST.

Good luck convincing anyone that Lucas actually approved and liked the idea of Palpatine coming back in any sequels. Which was still done 100 times better in The Dark Empire than in the ST.

 

That's why they say there is no accounting for taste. I'm sure some people think the SW stuff you like is stupid. Really, really stupid.

Not everyone cares about or accepts the PT, or the ST. So what? If you only care about or accept certain aspects of Star Wars, that's up to you.

Some people still don't accept the PT. Some don't accept TCW and think Anakin having a Padawan is stupid.

Some fans only accept the OOT and are violently upset with Hayden inserted as Anakin in ROTJ.

Many of these fans are just as upset with these aspects of SW as you are with the ST.

That doesn't change the fact that it's all Star Wars. The rest is just head canon....and that's cool too.

I'm not sure what the quotes are about. I never said SW fans should accept everything Lucas approved. I mean, he did give us Ewoks and Jar Jar Binks.

You are the one calling it "questionable stuff." You are the one that seemingly hasn't ever liked the direction SW story has ever gone after ROTJ.

Bottom line: We can agree to disagree. You seem to have rigid expectations/hopes/wishes for what a post ROTJ narrative can/cannot be. Clearly more rigid than I am, and certainly more rigid than Lucas had ever been. I am sorry if you aren't digging the new era of Star Wars.

This happened with in, what, four years of them knowing each other? They really dated for the 2nd half of ROTJ*. Right? Epic. Imagine what could happen to a relationship like that in 30 years?

*Even then Han mostly thought Luke was in the picture as a romantic rival.

New t-shirt for SW celebration. "Only Lando got a happy ending."

@DarthFixxxer
With all due respect. I just can't.

It's hard to engage with someone who exclaims about things like "objective truth" yet, also blatantly contradicts/misrepresents) their previous statements in order to leverage a "win" for their side of the argument.
This is not a one time thing. We often just wind up debating about how we are debating. You know it to be true. Sorry.

 

Okay That Lando joke made me laugh. Touche.