ST Do you think more people will warm up to the ST 15-20 years from now?

I think many conflate compassion/ love with attachment. They are not the same thing, and Lucas didn’t consider them to be the same thing.

 

You're just explaining the metaphor, whereas I was speaking from the context of within the metaphor. It's obvious that being unable to let go of something is the spiritual flaw, and the negative result of this flaw, in the case of being a Jedi in the context of this particular myth, is that it exposes you to your weaknesses, which in SW, manifest themselves through the dark side.

Classifying westerners as being uncomfortable with embracing death is a mixed bag, considering the west is so divided on religion. I'd say the extreme left would have a lot of discomfort with those ideas, if that's who you mean. At least in the US, plenty of people are comfortable with spiritual ideas.

 

“Western” meaning viewers with beliefs centered in modern western spiritual practice. In common use, it does not refer to everyone who lives in the “west” as of course every western pluralistic society includes many people with spiritual beliefs based on Eastern thought, due either to their origins or the adoption of those thoughts. It’s common shorthand. Your interpretation of it is not the common one.

 

Exactly! Non attachment is not suppressing emotions, or not having emotions, which includes feelings of love. It's about striving towards an inner balance, and spiritual growth. Attachment is represented by feelings of possesiveness (whether material or inmaterial), jealousy, and fear of loss.

 

I hear what you're saying, and you're right. Possessiveness, and controlling what you can't control, that's the real problem. And the reason why this is a rule for the Jedi, is because by nature of being very powerful force users means you have ability to help people, and you're gonna wanna save those you care about, and that could lead to trying to control things, keep those they love from dying, etc, and become more powerful and .... well, there you go.

But I think the PT Jedi failed because they did end up suppressing themselves in some ways. It's not that they never felt anything, they did, certainly, but I think part of their failure was losing that part of their 'humanity' in this respect. They were so fearful of that slippery slope, so constantly mindful of it, that they cut it all off at the entrance. So they became stifled. Rigid. Perhaps even blinded, arrogant, elitist, and feeling superior to 'pathetic lifeforms' that they deemed beneath them. There is an unbalance there.

Luke discovers how to retain healthy attachments without becoming possessive. It's something the PT Jedi had no clue about. He's able to love, more so than just compassionately, but also able to let everything go when needed. He almost tripped up in the end of ROTJ, but then threw his saber away and refused to play the Emperor's game, even if it meant that Leia dies. Because she's going to die someday, and he can't control that forever. And so he retains inner balance.

This is really what he should have passed on, but didn't. Who else would have been able to help Ben Solo deal with feelings, relationships, having parents, etc, then the guy who figured it all out. Unfortunately the ST didn't care about that, or didn't understand what Luke learned in the OT.

 

There is a lot of talk about what the Jedi should and shouldn't have done based of the 6 movies that GL did but GL/Filoni also dove alot more into the morality of the Jedi Order in actual canon in TCW/Rebels and made it clear the Jedi Order was wrong in their approach and Jedi should have children among other issues with their attachment rules.

OT: 6 hours 27 min
PT: 6 hours 58 min
TCW : 66 hours 32 min
Rebels: 37 hours 30 min

100+ hours giving more context to 13 on the big screen.

 

I don't think Dave Filoni has ever suggested or ever gave off the suggestion in Clone Wars and Rebels that Jedi should have children.

And Clone Wars was pretty much helped along by George Lucas.

 

The ST two years later...

 

Tbf the issue isn’t the line itself - it’s the surrounding context.

 

The line is pretty bad too. But yeah. Maybe you wanna explain how dead Palpatine returns in your Palpatine Returns trilogy.

Whole thing is lazy and just an afterthought. And really shows how little they thought of their audience.

 

The feeling that as long as it had the Star Wars logo on it, then it would sell was obviously a driver to LFL throughout the ST era. A lot was carrying that water after it success of TFA and RO (A Star Wars Story) was saved.

Then came TLJ and every project not with F&F since.

 

Which is also why they decided on copying the OT. JJ even said they basically went in thinking what was SW, what things needed to be seen to make it feel like SW. So it was all just check boxes, and logos, and they - apparently - didn't really ever care if the story was SW. Or even made sense. Just throw in Palpatine because .... it's the last movie, and we won't have to do any work towards building the character.

 

Basically its saying that romance is one of the strongest attachments someone can have.

But it doesn't really change that even the jedi themselves know they shouldn't get into proper relationships. Obi Wan and Satine, or Hera and Kanan. Which Hera and Kanan was fairly subtle. Many had no idea until the end of Rebels when she quite clearly had his kid how far they had really gone. Filoni didn't get into a straight-up relationship with them. which again says that the Jedi know what they shouldn't do. They know the threat that could come out of it.

People are looking at the positives that can come out of attachment. but i don't think the positives are the point. if it was always positive the attachment rule probably wouldn't exist. its the fact that often things can go very wrong and thats when the bad things happen. its not always happily ever after.

With Obi Wan and Satine for example. There are signs something might have happened between them. But Obi Wan also kept a fair distance and his emotions as balanced as possible. So when Maul killed her. He grieved. But Obi Wan had to let it go because it could have been self-destructive. He didn't set out for revenge on Maul. and even in Rebels when it really came down to it and Obi Wan took the final swipe at Maul... it wasn't in anger towards what he did.

Its not a case of those awful Jedi convinced us it was bad. its that it can be bad. Some might be able to love and lose and control that... but not everyone would be able to do that.

 

JJ was talking about “basic elements of a genre.” Which needs to be done any time one is working within the confines of a franchise especially.

I’d much rather a creative first consider the fundamentals of what defines a franchise for viewers before going off and doing whatever.

 

Was he? Is that an actual quote?

And...Before going off and doing whatever? You mean .... copying the OT story?

They weren't being creative. They were being derivative. On purpose. They check boxed things they thought was "Star Wars". Things that had to be in their film or else it wasn't Star Wars. Pretty good start. Pretty bad spot to end in. Because it didn't result in a new creative story, or really any new characters, (maybe out side of Finn, and he's not developed well either) that weren't just poor-substitutes for the OT counterpart.

And the only thing they really left out, on purpose, that wasn't check boxed, was the politics. Because that scared them to death. Probably because of PT backlash, and frankly, just weren't interested in updating that part of the world. Which is why we just get Rebels V Empire, again, with different logos and names. It doesn't feel like a natural progression of the narrative, nor the natural progression of where characters should have ended up in. They didn't even bother to come up with an end point either. Maybe outside of Kylo being redeemed (another check box, by the way), if we're being generous, and didn't care about what was in Rey's mystery box., or their heroe's background.

So all of the creative parts they were in charge of creating, they just left adrift. Uncaringly, lazily, adrift.

 

Your arguement seems to be that it makes for better storytelling if Jedi can be in romantic relationships. And while i don't agree about that one, i think arguing what lore should be different for better storytelling could basically be said about alot of things in Star Wars. But you work with the lore you have.

Problem is the Jedi ain't wrong. I don't think george was even saying the Jedi were wrong. He might have been saying the Jedi had little faith and a very pessimistic view towards overcoming the darkside. But If George was trying to say the Jedi were wrong, Then he didn't give a good enough way around attachments to be wrong or how they could be overcome. Infact he might have done to a good job of explaining why they are bad.

To say oh its ok if someone loses their attachment, has a breakdown and turns to the darkside. because as long as they have ANOTHER attachment that can bring them back... what's the harm? But thats a very messy system. Which in the end would supporting the Jedi ways of now allowing it. Why would you encourage the possibility of turning purely because there is a thought that well an attachment could bring someone back also... if lucky.

Even in Rebels Vader tried to kill Ahsoka. Clone Wars liked to give off the impression that Anakin cared about Ahsoka. But apparently not enough to spare her life. He was straight out gonna kill her. People often ignore that though because she wasn't his long-lost son. So she doesn't count. which in itself complicates things even more.

 

We're talking about a story written by a man who never got over his wife cheating on him. Just because the in-universe narrative supports the Jedi stance doesn't mean it actually makes any sense. Realistically, the Jedi are giving into their own fear... the fear of losing control of their emotions, which is apparently the first step to the dark side. But this contradiction never gets brought up because Lucas, in all likelihood, doesn't see it as a contradiction... even though it is. The PT lore is built on a house of cards and as the years pass, more and more writers realize that they have to ignore certain aspects of Lucas' belief system to keep things going.

 

But truth is, they don't have to ignore it. Its Jedi lore. George basically created a whole lore around the time of episode 1. The sith, The jedi, The rule of 2, The attachment rule. They wouldn't exist without Goerge's worldbuilding and logic. And the worldbuilding in itself created such things like The Old Republic. So you work with the lore. if you want to acknowledge attachment, then you also have to acknowledge how bad it can be too. Just like The Mandalorian did in series 2. Which is a part of the OT also. Lukes attachment to his friends was a threat to him. And even though it worked out for me because he stopped himself. It doesn't mean that the threat that was there is suddenly null and void forevermore.

And the Jedi don't lose control over their emotions. There is no contradiction there. And when they do lose control, thats when there is call for concern.

And i think if they chose to ignore the attachment rule, they would probably end up accidentally validating it over and over, Since chances are attachment will always carry a large part of it. I mean even TROS wants to give off the impression Rey is at threat of her anger, purely because she wants revenge of her parents deaths... And i don't even think that was JJ acknowledging the attachment rule. I think that was naturally made sense.

But then arguing all this is like arguing the logic of the rule of 2. which is basically one sith has the power and another craves it. A rule that was created because the sith are power-hungry and having too many of them together resulted in them killing each other. Lucas didn't create that logic because his wife cheated on him.

 

No, he created it because he suddenly found himself creating a backstory and needing an excuse about why there weren't tons of Sith running around.

Anakin Skywalker's story seems to disagree with that. Unless you take the stand that once a Jedi loses control, they cease to be a Jedi. But then that's dependent on semantics. I highly doubt the women and children at the Tusken camp were glad that Anakin ceased to be a Jedi while he was slaughtering them.

 

Sounds like an understatement.That sounds more like a ST approach then a Lucas approach.

 

I find it convenient that these rules are never mentioned before the movie where they're suddenly needed for story reasons.

Same with the "no relationships" thing never being mentioned before the movie where Lucas needs there to be a hidden romance subplot.

Or suddenly, when Lucas needs Anakin to go to the dark side, the Sith know how to cheat death.

 

To be fair, the Sith weren't even mentioned by name in the OT. He could have done anything. He created a story that fit perfectly well with the OT, and some EU material, without breaking it.