1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

  2. The Boards Are Now Reopened For Business:

    READ THIS: your ability to post here depends upon it.. See the new rules thread here. Bans can and will be handed out to anyone who doesn't abide by the forum rules.

ST How do you build off the Sequel Trilogy moving forward

Discussion in 'Sequel Trilogy' started by Jid123Sheeve, Jul 9, 2020.

  1. K2771991

    K2771991 Jedi Master star 4

    Dec 21, 2019
    And the assumption that he *had* to grow more matured and would never slip up or give in to anger agian is'nt? Becuase it seems like it is to me.

    We must have watched different versions of the Original Trilogy then.

    God forbid a person have a different take on a character then you without it being malicious, right?

    Far as I can tell he explains it quite clearly and I found his explanations both sufficent but also compelling and belivable, but to each their own.[face_dunno]

    Well I liked it just fine, and so did a lot of other peaple, and we're members of the general audience last I checked.

    But hey, maybe we're just not "real" Star Wars fans:p
    Iron_lord likes this.
  2. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 5

    Jul 31, 2013
    It's not an 'assumption' on my part. It's a natural progression of what's presented in the OT. What is not a natural progression, between Luke in ROTJ and TFA, is him changing gender, and calling herself Sharon, becoming the Sith Lord 'Darth Wormy' or giving up on his friends and sitting back and letting them die. Of course, nothing should be automatically excluded, in terms of where writers want to take characters... however, the relative success of that 'right hand turn' is usually reflective of the quality of the writing. And the ST just doesn't put the required effort into the writing (primarily due to the flawed strategy re. the development/production of the films). And it's why the ST fails, in many instances, in setting an internal logic that can bear the weight of 'willing suspension of disbelief'... because there are fairly large inconsistencies in concepts and characterisation (in this instance Luke).

    Clearly we must of watched different versions. Everyone knowns that at the end of ROTJ, Luke Skywalker was a self centred narcissist right (LOL)? He had loser written all over his face. But... as we've already established that you prefer the games, comics, books (to the films themselves), I would't expect you to be that critical of what they did with characters and concepts in the films. Is that unfair? Maybe... but you seem to hold the films in lower regard than I do, which does seem to reflect some of your ambivilance to some of the more fundamental issues the ST has.

    WTF has 'malice' got to do with it??? Who said Johnson was being 'malicious'? Get some perspective dude....[face_dunno]

    As per above... we've established that we have differing views on 'sufficient' and 'compelling'.

    I'm sure you did like them. It's not an either or thing. However, your view doesn't really disprove the correlation between TLJ and the continued drop in revenues. People can still like the ST... even though they are (IMHO) awfully constructed films.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
  3. K2771991

    K2771991 Jedi Master star 4

    Dec 21, 2019
    Yeah, it kind is; you think Luke *had* to have ended up certain way and that *only* said way is the logical way Luke's character could have progressed, with Johnson's choice being illogical becuase you personally don't think it fits with the character. who are you to decide what is logical for the character and what is'nt relative to any other fan, such as myself or Johnson?

    Well, cool, but that's not what happend. What happened was the character was'nt dipicted in a way that meshed with the personal expectations/standerds of *some* members of the audience and peaple flipped out over that, becuase god forbid anouther fan have a different vision of the character then they did.

    I never said he was a self-centred narcassist.

    But the Luke I remember from the OT was overconfident, impatient, somewhat arrogant, a bit entitled and rather hot-headed. Even in ROTJ, when peaple claim he had shed all those traits, he brazenly walked into Jabba's palace unarmed and full of swagger, hypocritically mocked Palpatine for his overconfidence even as he displaying overconfidence himself and attacked both Palpatine and Vader with the intent to kill them once enraged.

    Unless I misundestood, you did.

    Rather, it's Johnson just trying to deconstruct a character in order to be controversial (that's may take on it anyway).

    You claimed Johnson only wrote Luke the way he did in order to be controversial, and if doing something for the sake of inciting controversy is'nt malicious I don't know what is.

    Why should I - or anyone else who liked or disliked TLJ - care about film making less money then TFA? We're not going to see any of that cash, so what's it to us?
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
  4. ChildOfWinds

    ChildOfWinds Chosen One star 6

    Apr 7, 2001
    @K2771991 , I will just comment about Luke with Jabba: The Luke who went into jabba’s den of evil was playing a role. He was pretending to be arrogant and confident BECAUSE he was walking into the lion’s den alone and with no weapons. You don’t go in to negotiate with a crime lord bearing the persona of a frightened, insecure kid. You go in trying to look like you have the upper hand, so that you are more likely to get what you want during the negotiations.

    And yes, Luke was a bit hot headed and impatient in ANH. But guess what? He was also a teenager, and many teenagers are like that. They usually grow out of it, as Luke did. People say that they like what was done in TLJ because it made Luke “human”. They forget that Luke was already very human in the OT, and his impatience and his impulsiveness as a youngster WERE some of his flaws, but he overcame those and learned to be more patient.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
  5. obi-arin-kenobi

    obi-arin-kenobi Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Jun 10, 2005


    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
    K2771991 likes this.
  6. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 5

    Jul 31, 2013
    It's a logical extrapolation. I've already explained, as others have, how Luke is portrayed in the OT... and more specifically ROTJ. It doesn't matter how much you protest, there is nothing in the OT that suggests the natural progression of Luke's character is that of a sad loser who sits back whilst his friends die...

    The decreasing box office suggests otherwise... and I know that can't all be pinned on Luke Skywalker's characterisation in TLJ, but I think it didn't jive with a 'large' section of the audience, and those character issues, coupled with the lack of narrative momentum, resulted in a loss of interest in both Solo and TROS.

    He clearly believes everything is about him. He lets the galaxy turn to **** because, for some inexplicable reason, he thought Ben's future was set in stone.

    You're kind of describing Han Solo... Hot headed and impatient perhaps (in ANH/TESB)... but clearly you have spent too much time reading the comics and playing the games, rather than watching the films. Yes, I'm sure that Lucas' intention was for the audience to think that Luke was just another entitled and arrogant MF at the end of ROTJ... [face_laugh][face_laugh][face_laugh]

    I think you need to throw away whatever dictionary/thesaurus you use. Making controversioal choices IS NOT the same thing as making malicious choices. You do underdstand the difference right? It's quite fundamental.

    Because it's difficult to argue that any creative choice in TLJ was generally well received by audiences (which you seem to be doing), when TLJ started the downward trend in box office. I mean, it's all conjecture, but at least I can point to diminishing returns as a possible consequence of bad creative choices.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
  7. K2771991

    K2771991 Jedi Master star 4

    Dec 21, 2019
    That's not how I interpreted it - I reconize that he was playing a role, but I've never read it as his demenor was an act, since it fits with his demenor elsewhere in the film.

    He was impatient in ESB and fairly hot-headed in ROTJ, and he was an adult in both of those films. Not to mention age and even experience does'nt always led to temperence or wisdom.

    No we don't - or at least I don't (as I can only speak for myself); I liked Luke in TLJ becuase it made him seem more Human, not becuase he never seemed Human to begin with, and my comparsion of who he's more Human relative to is Luke as dipicted in the EU post-ROTJ, not Luke as dipicted in the OT in a vacuum.

    There's nothing that I can see in the OT that suggests the natural progression of his character can't be what he was in TLJ; who are you to decide what the natural progression of his character *must* be? You don't own him.

    Why is your interpritation of how the character *should* turn out more valid then mine? Or Rain Johnsons? No offense, but this attitude of "we know the character better then anyone else and he would'nt end up X way becuase we say so" is very grating.

    You know, it really baffles me that you guys hav'nt realized yet that going "bu...bu...buuutt. Decreasing box office revenue!" does absolutly nothing for me as an argument agianst the film.

    That's not remotely how I interpreted TLJ and I highly doubt that is what Johnson intended to convay to the audience, but you do you, and if that's the way you want to interpret the films hey, more power to you.

    Maybe I have, but considering I'm explicitly referring to how I viewed the character in the movies I don't see what bearing that has on the conversation.

    I don't pretend to know what Lucas's intentions for the audience was at the end of ROTJ, but considering he did'nt write TLJ and sold his rights to the francise years before it was made I don't see what baring what he may or may not have thought regarding how the character would evolve going forward after the end of the OT has.

    In my experience when a person is being controversial just for the sake of being controversial that's a bad thing, and if you don't think Johnson was doing something bad when he was allegedly being controversial, then why bring it up as if it's an issue?

    It was very well received by me, and I'm a member of the audience. Not only that but I know plenty of peaple whose perception of the film was somewhere between "I enjoyed it" and "I thought it was great," so it definantly seems to me that if I were someone to claim that it was generally well-received they would not just talking out by rear end.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
  8. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 5

    Jul 31, 2013
    I'm not sure you really understand the nature of the issue. It seems your take from the entirety of the OT re. Luke's character, was that he was arrogant and entitled... (which I'd posit is out of kilter with most peoples view of Luke Skywalker), and that you believe it was Lucas' intention to close the OT showing that the man tasked with rebuilding the Jedi order, and restoring peace to the galaxy, was himself, arrogant and entitled (kind of like the Sith). That's your view, but it's my view that this interpretation (although interesting) has nothing to do with what's presented in the OT/PT... and I'd be really interested to see if your interpretation is backed up with any quotes from Lucas.

    And yet you believe you have the monopoly on 'interpretation'??? I'm not sure I've ever said 'I know the character better than anyone else' (I think that's just a weak defence on your part), but I can interpret the material and make a judgment on what George Lucas' intentions were in the preceding 6 films. I don't think it's that difficult.

    It demonstrates that less people went to see each film. It baffles me that you don't understand that...:p

    Given that you haven't even tried to rationalise Luke's actions, as a counter argument to the criticism, I think the interpretation that Luke Skywalker (in TLJ) was depicted as a bit of a sad loser, who was willing to let the galaxy go down the pan, and see his friends die, was an accurate one (even if you disagree).

    Primarily because you seem to have a different value system re. the films, than I do. And to flip it, I'd imagine I'd be less critical of a film (e.g. Tomb Raider), if my prime interest was in the tie-ins and associated comics/games.

    That's a completely different argument... and somewhat of a strawman. That Abrams and Johnson had the right to do whatever they want isn't being contested. What is being contested is the relative success of what they did with the material.

    Controversial and malicious are not the same thing. I shouldn't be having to explain. I, or no one else I've seen, have suggested that Johnson made creative choices to maliciously undermine Star Wars or Lucasfilm... I think we're just saying he made a bit of a crap SW film because of some really poor creative choices.

    I'm not sure what that has to do with the point your contesting??? I know plenty of people who both liked and disliked TLJ. However, the fact remains that each successive film (which started with TLJ) has seen a substantial drop off in revenues. I don't think it's a big reach to associate that drop off with the audience reaction to TLJ. It's worth stating that this doesn't necessarily reflect on the quality of the film per se (as I happen to think TLJ is the better of the sequels), but clearly there was less audience take up/interest after TLJ.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020
  9. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Sep 4, 2012
    You must have missed several parts of what was going on in these scenes.
    Luke did not attack Palpatine after he made clear that this was a trap, he even stood and watched as the rebel fleet was getting decimated for a while.
    But during this time, his hate and anger was growing. But Luke still had a certain amount of self-control and he knew that giving in to his hate and attacking would accomplish nothing and only make him turn.
    So he resisted. But eventually the hate grew too powerful and he took his weapon and attacked.

    You seem not to understand how strain and stress affect people.
    Most people can endure considerable stress and strain for a while. But most people have a breaking point, where they will no longer feel ok, act normal etc.
    Someone mentioned the Joker and "One bad day". In "The Killing Joke", the idea is not that it was just getting a bath in a vat of chemicals that made the guy snap and become the Joker. It was more than that.
    He lost his wife and unborn child, his life was not happy. The chemical bath was the breaking point.
    Hence "One bad day" not "One bad second."
    Same thing with the Joker film. Arthur Fleck had endured a lot crap, lived a pretty miserable life and eventually he snapped. It wasn't one thing, it was a lot of things over time.

    So the film is very clear, Luke is put under tremendous stress over an extended period of time, his friends are dying, the rebellion is lost and all that. He tries to stay clam but it boils over and he attacks. He fights for a while, letting his anger come out.
    But the manages to clam down a little and stops attacking. But his hate and anger did not go away. They were still there, he just kept them under control, barely.
    So then Luke hides, he knows that his friends are still dying, he is thinking about them, Vader picks up on that. So Luke is trapped, he can not aid his friends, attacking Vader/Palpatine will accomplish nothing other than turn him evil. So he feels hopelessness. And then Vader adds even more on top of that and Luke snaps hard this time.

    Trying to argue that it was just Vader making a threat about Leia and nothing else matters is a very flawed argument.
    Take Anakin's turn, it wasn't ONLY that he had dreams that Padme would die.
    He missed and worried about his mother for ten years, had bad dreams about her for some time. Bad enough that he had trouble sleeping. He tried to save her, failed and killed a lot of people. Then he ahd dreams about Padme and so on.
    To simplify his turn as being due to just one thing and context and circumstances don't matter, Anakin would have reacted the same regardless is again not an argument I can buy.

    Your argument is that prior events does not matter, what is actually happening does not matter.
    You say that Luke would react in the exact same way to the threat that Vader made regardless of circumstances.
    I can not see that as anything other than ignoring context.

    Nope, I did not assume that Luke would not suffer setbacks or failures, nor did I think that some sequel would just be sunshine and rainbows. There would be a threat, struggles to overcome etc.

    What I am saying is that Luke after the OT is fairly well established character.
    We have a pretty good idea what he would do or not do. Like I said before, I would consider it to be out of character for Luke to use the mind trick to get women to sleep with him.
    So whatever story the ST has and what role Luke plays, lots of options existed.
    So if say a few of Luke's old friends in the rebellion has been taken captive by a drug cartel and Luke goes to help them. That would not require much explanation as to why. Because it fits Luke's character.
    If he instead did not care and said "Screw'em, let them die." That would be out of character and thus would need an explanation.

    So I was not opposed to a failed Luke in theory, I just think that what TLJ did was not very good for several reasons.

    That's my point, TFA established that Kylo/Ben was conflicted and had been conflicted for some time.
    If Luke could see the future and at no point was Kylo/Ben conflicted, then that is a contradiction.

    "Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehova, Jehova, Jehova..."

    But Luke says that Snoke had already turned Ben, so Luke being in the hut makes no difference.
    Ben was already Kylo and would join Snoke and kill Luke's students regardless.
    So if Luke had done nothing, the same thing would have happened, it might take a bit longer.
    And he also said that the darkness was beyond anything he had imagined. So probably greater than Palpatine then.
    So an evil greater than Palpatine and Luke thinks that the best course of action is to stand aside and let it destroy the galaxy.
    Yeah makes sense this does not.

    No, you got it the wrong way round. Luke has actions that are in character and out of character.
    Luke in some ST doing things that are in character, that needs no explanation and makes sense.
    Luke doing something massively out of character, that needs a good explanation in order to make sense.

    And if you think that Luke's friends being killed as this was happening has no impact on Luke or what has happened not long before. That Luke has been struggling to keep his hate and anger in check does not matter. That all what he has worked for is being destroyed is irrelevant.
    Then what is it if not dismissing context and circumstances?

    Yes, you want to strip away all context, all the circumstances, all previous and current events and simply boil it down to one thing.
    Luke reacted this way to a threat to Leia in this circumstance therefore he will ALWAYS react this way to a threat to Leia, no matter what.
    This reasoning, to me, makes no sense.

    Take Anakin again and how he reacted to his mothers death. Do you think Anakin would have reacted like he did no matter the circumstances of Shmi's death?
    That if Shmi had died age 95, peacefully in her bed, that Anakin would have gone kill-crazy?
    I do not, I think circumstances matter.
    Anakin was separated from her at a young age, he missed her and worried about her for ten years and was unable to do anything. Then he had nightmares for some time and eventually he disobeyed his orders and went to save her. But he was too late and she died in his arms from torture.
    And he snapped and killed a lot of people, including women and children.
    I have my issues with this scene but I do think that there was build up to Anakin snapping.
    That previous events mattered.

    And I don't think the film does not support your reasoning.
    Luke is able to keep his anger under control for a time, while the rebel fleet is getting decimated and knowing that Han and Leia have walked into a trap.
    But eventually he snaps. Thus showing that Luke did not give in to hate right away, it took some time for the pressure to build.

    On Endor, Vader tells the Imperial officer to look for Luke's friends and bring them to him.
    Luke reacts slightly but says nothing and does not loose it and attacks Vader.
    Instead he tries to reason with Vader, plead with him. And yet you argue that Luke will go nuts if someone threatens his friends.

    Except that wasn't what happened. Mace was told that Palpatine was a sith and he went to arrest him, not kill. Then Palpatine resisted arrest, killed three Jedi and tried to kill Mace. Mace disarmed him and was still in arrest mode. Then Palpatine unleashed his lighting at him. Mace could hold it off and eventually Palpatine stopped.
    Only then did Mace switch to kill.
    And because 1) if he lowered his guard then Palpatine might very well kill him. He tried twice already.
    2) Palpatine was too powerful, what prison could hold him?

    So Mace did not have much in the way of options.
    Luke was not thinking about any "greater good" he was just enraged.
    Mace I will grant was likely a bit angry after the death of the three Jedi and Palpatine's attempts to kill him.
    But his thinking is quite different from Luke.

    Bye for now.
    Old Stoneface
  10. JohnWilliamsSonoma

    JohnWilliamsSonoma Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Aug 7, 2003
    Can’t believe Luke abused those guards like that

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    K2771991 likes this.
  11. K2771991

    K2771991 Jedi Master star 4

    Dec 21, 2019
    Don't put words in my mouth. I did'nt say Luke was only arrogant and entitled as you seem to be trying to assert, I said he was *somewhat* arrogant and *a bit* entitled, and I never said he was anything like the Sith.

    Why would there be qoutes from Lucas backing up my own personal interpratation of the film?

    And I could flip that around on you and ask if their are any qoutes from Lucas saying that Luke would never experience faliure and would be 100 percent sucessful in his efforts to restore the Jedi? Considering that as I recall the Luke in his personal drafts for TFA was pretty close to what we got in TLJ, I'd wager his personal vision for the character was closer to Johnson's then you might like to admit;) (not that it matters anyway, since what he thought stopped mattering to the course of the francise when he sold it).

    No, I just don't think my headcannon is any better then anyone elses.

    To be blunt, whatever Lucas's intentions *may* have been, they stopped mattering the moment he decided to sell his rights to the fracise; at that moment he no longer had any say over how Luke evolved post ST and the decision to decided what was or was not a valid evolution for the character passed on to other peaple.

    Okay, so less peaple went and saw it, your point is?

    I still went to see it, so other peaple I don't know deciding they did'nt want to do the same does'nt bother me any. It's not my place to decide what peaple do with their money and their saturday night.

    Would you like me to?

    I mean, I did'nt think I had to as I think the film lays out its reasoning for what happens quite clearly.

    And I think they were successful, but to each there own I guess[face_dunno]

    When phrases like "burned the francise down," "disrespected the character" and "ruined Star Wars" are frequently thrown around on these threads I don't know how you could argue peaple are'nt suggesting that Johnson (to say nothing of Abrams and Kennedy) are trying to undermind Star Wars.

    And that matters to me why? You guys keep saying that like I should care; I don't - the film could have made 25 cents and be hated by 99.9 percent of the peaple on Earth and that would'nt bug me one bit so long as I still enjoyed it.

    That was me who brought up the Joker qoute, and yes, it was multipule things; just like it was with Luke - Luke saw his nephew get corrupted and was apparently unable to do anything about it, then witnessed his inner darkness in the hut. He subsqently considered (briefly) killing him for the greater good, with led to the thing he was trying to prevent and resulted in his academy and all of the students he had been entrusted to train and protect dying while he was laying right there, out cold and impotent, while a monster he believed he had created was unleashed on the galaxy.

    Works for me[face_dunno]

    The film does'nt seem very clear on that to me; I always read it as Luke flipping out on Palpatine and then Vader in a moment of anger becuase he was tuanted in just a right way. I never interpreted it as their being some sort of "building anger and stress" being involved.

    Seems to me that I'm not ingoring context, your just adding context that's not there, becuase a lot of the above just seems like supposition and assumption to me; I certainly don't recall any of it being on-screen.

    Then it's a good thing I'm not making that argument.

    I love how I'm not allowed to view the film in a different context from you guys without being accused of ingoring context. It's sooo nice to know that I'm not allowed to have my own opinion seperate from yours without their being something wrong with it.

    Yes, we do, but Luke in the ST is'nt Luke in the OT, he's older, less idealistic and overall more cynical, so expecting him to act and react like his decades-younger self is just silly.

    Yeah, including the one they chose.

    And TLJ does give an explanation.

    "Always in motion is the future" - what Luke saw in the hut* is not necesserly going to be what ended up happening.

    *there's also the fact that A) him seeing Ben's future does'nt nesseserly equate to him seeing Ben's feelings in said future and B) we don't actually know if he saw the future in the hutt per say, as opposed to just seeing Ben's dark, subconscious thoughts on what he might do after turning.

    And guess what? I consider the explanation the film gave to be both good and make sense.

    Well, see that's becuase I don't think Luke was struggling to keep his hate and anger in check.

    It's viewing the context differently.

    My god, I don't understand how many times I have to explain this. I'm well aware of what the scenes leading up to Luke's freak-out show, I just don't A) view those scenes the same way as you do and B) don't think they played a role in cuasing his freak-out; I'm not ingoring anything, I just don't think the things you insist I am ingoring mean the same thing you do.

    Dude, I've made it quite clear that I'm not "stripping away" anything, and what's more my personal interprations of the film's don't need to make sense to you, nor do I need to justify or defend said interprations becuase they don't line up with yours.

    No, becuase I don't see the two situations as remotely comparable.

    See, but I don't interpret it as "his anger is building the whole time and then he snaps when it becomes to much" I interpret it as "he was fine and then Vader - like Palpatine earlier - said just the right thing to set him off."

    Vader did'nt threaten anyone, nor did he bring up Leia specificly; there's a difference between saying "capture those peaple" and "bring me Leia Organa so I can twist her into a Dark Side monster."

    No matter you - or Mace's - justification it does'nt change the fact that he was doing the wrong thing and commiting an act a Jedi should never consider commiting and he was absolutly wise enough and experienced enough to reconize that - if Mace can slip up, then so can Luke.

    "I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I'd seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart. He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become. And for the briefest moment of pure instinct, I thought I could stop it. It passed like a fleeting shadow."

    Seems to me like he was thinking about the greater good.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020
    Iron_lord likes this.
  12. ChildOfWinds

    ChildOfWinds Chosen One star 6

    Apr 7, 2001
    @K2771991 , I have heard you say a number of times that you don’t care that TLJ made less than it should have ( started out very strong, but fell off when quite a few people reacted badly to it by not giving it repeat business) and likely caused Solo and TROS to make less than expected . You have said that you don’t care if anyone else liked the film as long as you did. That it didn’t matter to you whether other people liked it or not. You liked it, and that’s all that counts.

    However, I think that you SHOULD care. The fact that TLJ and the next two films made less money than Disney and LFL expected, still DOES affect you. Up until the falloff in box office take, Disney had planned to make at least one SW film every year. Because a large number of people did not like TLJ and then TROS, and because they made less bank on those films and SOLO, Disney has suspended production of SW films indefinitely. We really don’t know when the next one will come out now. I have heard rumors of maybe December of 2023, but there is no guarantee of that. As far as I know, they haven’t started even preliminary work on the next SW film. If TLJ and TROS had met expectations, we could have had a film THIS December. So, had more people enjoyed TLJ and TROS, you could have been looking forward to enjoying a new SW film this year and every other year. Now, who knows when there will be a new one? So, the popularity of a film DOES affect you, even if you like every single thing that Disney puts out. If a lot of others don’t like it, you lose the opportunity to see new SW films on a regular basis.

    Plus, it’s nice to think of others too, and to wish ( hope) that all fellow SW fans could enjoy a SW film as well.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020
    2Cleva and K2771991 like this.
  13. K2771991

    K2771991 Jedi Master star 4

    Dec 21, 2019
    I think you may have missed that I think Disney's original "one Star Wars film a year" idea was a bad one and am glad they changed their minds, as well as also missed the fact that I'm fine waiting a couple years before I get a new movie;)

    Yes, that's fair, and I do, as I've also said several times that I do wish that the peaple upset over disliking the films were able to have enjoyed them. "Not care" that other peaple did'nt like the ST is probobly a bit harsh, as I do care to an extent - it's simply that my sympathy for other peaple's dislike of the ST films does not outweigh my enjoyment of said films, and given the choice between keeping the ST and getting rid of it or replacing it with a more appealing version to appease those peaple who did'nt enjoy it I'd take keeping the ST every time.
    Iron_lord likes this.
  14. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 5

    Jul 31, 2013
    They were your choice of words... and not mine. That you selected those words, to describe Luke Skywalker in the OT, and that it's those words you believe make his ST characterisation more 'logical' is the pertinent point. Otherwise, why describe Luke Skywalker as such???

    Because you are not just sharing your interpretation, you are telling other posters that their interpretation is incorrect. Which is totally fine, given the nature of the debate, but it's usual to provide some supporting material when making that claim. I asked if there was any supporting evidence (from Lucas), to back up your hypothesis, that Luke was written/characterised (in the OT) as someone who would give up on his friends/family, turn his back on the galaxy, not try and correct his mistakes etc. etc. And I'm not trying to catch you out... I was genuinely interested if Lucas had actually said anything to indicate that Luke Skywalker was not the Jedi we thought he was at the end of ROTJ.

    That's a bit of a strawman. I would never expect Luke Skywalker to be 100% successful in everything he did. And I doubt Lucas would have ever expected that in any continuing adventures. That's a bit different from him totally giving up on the New Republic/Jedi Order, his friends and family, and sitting back whilst the galaxy falls into ruination.

    I think you miss the point of contention. Luke's characterisation in the OT is very specific. There is nothing in the OT that suggests he will become an abject failure post ROTJ. That Luke would give up on everything he believed in, including his friends and family, is the very anthestis of Luke Skywalker as presented in the OT. You seem to be making a claim that those traits were already there. I see little evidence of that. If you are stating that its the writers prerogative to write him how they see fit; no one is contesting that. What is being stated is that the end product isn't particularly good. It's certainly not a sophisticated (I'd argue it's very unsophisticated) examination of how someone so 'heroic' becomes so abject in their self pity.

    You're missing the point... and, I suspect, obfuscating with intent. It has nothing to do with Lucas having any continued 'say'; it's about the inconsistency of characterisation and concepts that plague the ST, and in this instance, Luke Skywalker's character in TLJ.

    That should be fairly obvious...

    I'm not sure what that has to do with declining box office???

    I think Luke's characterisation in TLJ being so contentious is evidence enough that the film doesn't 'lay out its reasoning' adequately. But feel free to keep ignoring that... I mean, I still believe "I hate sand" is brilliant dialogue... ;)

    Jeez - hyperbole much??? You didn't seem to understand the difference between 'contentious' and 'malicious', which is fine... and now you're bringing in the whole of the internet into your point? Why would anyone, worth listening to, seriously believe that Kennedy and Johnson are/were actually trying to maliciously destroy Star Wars, as a franchise, from within? C'mon now... [face_laugh]

    I think you're conflating two separate points i.e. your appreciation of the film with the perceived structural issues re. the story/plot and characterisation. The declining box office shouldn't have any adverse effect on your appreciation of the film (why should it?), but it is evidence to suggest that maybe the things you liked about TLJ (in this instance Luke Skywalker's characterisation), didn't jive particularly well with general audiences.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  15. K2771991

    K2771991 Jedi Master star 4

    Dec 21, 2019
    My choice of words was *somewhat* arrogant and *a bit* entitled, and again I never said he was anything like a Sith.

    And yes, I think that makes makes his characterisation more logical, becuase that's how I interpreted the character and I think that interpration lends itself to what we got in TLJ; I mean, what, am I not allowed to view the character differently then you?

    Becuase...that's how I see the character?



    Yeah, no I'm not. I never ONCE did that. In fact I've been quite clear that not only am I only stating my personal interpretation but everyone is entitled to interprete the scene in question the way they want. I mean, I'm almost tempeted to say you must be trolling, given that not only am I clearly not arguing that other peaple are wrong in their interpratations but I'm the one whose been constantly accused of "ingoring context" as if my interpration is incorrect.

    It's not a hypothesis, it's a personal interpration of the character and how he acted

    So certain are you?;)

    Another major character who appears to have gotten a similar arc to their original version is Luke Skywalker. Phil Szostak, the writer behind the art books for both The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, gave a small description of the Luke character in a tweet about Episode 8.

    ”So, the late-2012 idea of a Luke Skywalker haunted by the betrayal of one of his students, in self-imposed exile & spiritually in ‘a dark place’, not only precedes Rian Johnson’s involvement in Star Wars but J.J. Abrams’, as well,” Szostak wrote."

    In 2018, concept artist Christian Alzmann posted a Lucas-approved image on Instagram that looks incredibly close to the version of Luke we see in The Last Jedi. The painted piece portrays a grizzled, older Luke Skywalker. “Luke was being described as a Col. Kurtz type, hiding from the world in a cave,” Alzmann wrote.

    Small wonder he thought TLJ was beautifully made and complimented Johnson personally...;)

    As far as I can tell there's nothing to suggest he won't either; Luke future was more or less fair game as far as I'm concerned.

    No, I'm just saying that the traits I saw in the character during the OT don't make it super hard to believe that he eventually came in the ST.

    Oh hey, an opinion. I love those;)

    Oh, am I now? Well, you know me better then I know myself, apparently, so you would be able to tell:rolleyes:

    Well, speaking for myself given how I interpreted him at the end of the OT, the explanation Johnson gave in TLJ and the fact that third years have passed, I don't find his characterisation all that inconsistent.

    I'm honestly not sure, but if I had to guess it's that "less peaple went and saw it then did TFA and it made less money, so it's a bad movie" or something. That seems to be the narrative being thrown around by the anti-TLJ crowd as far as I can tell.

    I'm pointing out that while some members of the general audience did'nt want to go and see it, others had no issue doing so and enjoyed the film quite a bit.

    Ingoring what? The personal opinion of you and others that you don't think the film laid out it's reasoning well enough? I'm not ingoring that - your allowed to feel any way you want about the film - I just don't agree.

    I don't know, ask the peaple on this forum - on this very thread in fact - who constantly bring up how the characters were "disrespected," "ruined" and "thrown under the bus" and the francise was "burned to the ground."

    And yes, I do understand the difference between contentious and melicious, I just don't understand what the point of you bringing up the allegation that Johnson was being "controversial for the sake of being controversial" as a critism if you did'nt think it was a bad thing?

    A) I'm am a member of the general audience, and it jived well for me (and a lot of other peaple I know who are also, incidently, members of the general audience).
    B) the opinions of other peaple does'nt really matter to me when it comes to my enjoyment of the film.
    C) I don't consider box-office sucess an indicator of quality.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    Fredrik Vallestrand likes this.
  16. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 5

    Jul 31, 2013
    'Somewhat' and 'bit' are not the key adjectives you use are they???

    Some people watch Batman & Robin and see 'art', indeed, they view it as one of the best Batman films to date... It doesn't mean that the film is free of technical issues and bad creative choices.

    Yet your defence of describing Luke Skywalker as 'arrogant' and 'entitled' is that he's only a 'bit' and 'somewhat'... He either is or isn't. Which is it? It suggests to me that you don't really believe Luke Skywalker is those things... :p

    You're having the same argument with several different posters... clearly it is not just about your 'interpretation'. I think you're projecting re. trolling TBH.

    It's one and the same really. You were putting forward the notion that Luke's characterisation, in the OT, was signalling (or at least consistent) with his failure in sequel stories.

    C'mon now... Luke Skywalker in the ST is not presented as a Colonel Kurtz type figure. And again you miss the main point of contention. It's not that Abrams pulls a right hand turn on the expectations of how Luke Skywalker would be characterised, it's that it's poorly conceived and written and is inconsistant. During TFA production, I was totally on board with the speculation that Luke Skywalker was guarding a Sith tomb (or other) and he'd disappeared/left the New Republic for the greater good. Even within that speculation, there was a kernel of logic to it.

    What was 'fair game' was that they could develop his characters in new directions. What the ST presents is a fait accompli. There's absolutely no development involved.

    These are all opinions. I thought Peter Sellers the best James Bond (not really).

    You do have a *bit* of a habit of going off at a tangent... which I don't mind, but it does sometimes feel more like deflection. Obviously that is only my *interpretation*... ;)

    We've established that you believe Luke's characterisation is consistent. The point in question was about your contention that 'character' has to stay true to Lucas' original intention.

    I can't speak for others. As already mentioned, I don't think diminishing box office is evidence of a 'bad' movie, just as much as I don't believe increased box office is evidence of a 'good' one. But I do think it reflects audience perception. And I believe, in part, that was to do with Luke Skywalker's portrayal in the film. Not only in terms of those familiar with OT Luke, but in terms of the overall lack of function of several characters (Luke being one of them).

    I'm sure others did enjoy the film. I don't believe anyone is arguing that.

    You are of course entitled to not agree. This point wasn't about that. It was more about ignoring the fact that this was a major issues for many fans, and that this contributed (in some way) to some of the negative audience reaction to the film (and Solo). You don't have to agree with them.

    So if you don't know, why you are ascribing malice to their views on what Johnson was trying to do?

    Clearly you don't know the difference. I never once brought up the word 'malice'. It's you that has equated one word with the other. Being knowingly controversial, and making unpopular choices for creative/artistic reasons, is not the same as being malicious. Malicious implies the explicit intent to inflict damage or harm.

    And so are all the people who didn't bother going back to see a Star Wars film.

    Who stated it should???

    Nor should you. But it is reflective of relative popularity, and the swing between one film and the next.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  17. obi-arin-kenobi

    obi-arin-kenobi Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Jun 10, 2005
    -Galaxy is at peace

    -Snoke turn Ben to the dark side

    -One of Lukes students turned against him and destroyed it all

    -Luke went looking for the first Jedi temple

    -Luke crash land on Achtoo.

    -Luke begins to question his faith in the force.

    -Rey shows up

    -Luke get more development in TLJ.
    Fredrik Vallestrand and K2771991 like this.
  18. K2771991

    K2771991 Jedi Master star 4

    Dec 21, 2019
    Their an importent part of them, as the difference between someone whose "a bit" entitled and a person whose entitled is pretty big as far as I'm concerned - as in the difference between a simple flaw and a serius negative trait; for comparison I would consider Luke to be only a bit entitled, and would view that as a character flaw but not really a notably negative trait, while I'd say Anakin was entitled and that was more then just a flaw as well as a serius negative trait.

    Not sure what that has to do with anything, but okay.

    No, actually that's not my defense of me saying those things, it's me correcting you when you misqouted me.

    He is; a somewhat arrogant and a bit entitled, and again I never said he was anything like a Sith.

    Well it kinda feels to me like I'm being dogpilled becuase - *gasp* - I interpreted a scene in a thirty-plus year old fantasy film different then a few randos online.

    Yeah, becuase I think it was. I'm not claiming that that's anything other then my own personal interpration of the character, though.

    I'll take "what is an opinion, not a fact" for 500, Alex.

    I know you and others think it's poorly written, conceived and inconsitent with the way you assumed Luke would turn out based on your perception of the character at the end of ROTJ, and your 100 percent entitled to your opinion, but that does'nt mean it's anything other then your opinion and it does'nt change the fact that yours, mine and Johnson's opinions on the matter are any less or any more valid then each other.

    You know, PJ, this may shock you, but your not the sole arbiter of what is and is'nt logical for the character of Luke Skywalker.

    Honest question, but if these are all opinions then why are you presenting your opinions (such as those about Luke devolopment) as if they are facts?

    That's um...that's not my contention...

    My contention is that he does'nt have to stay true to Lucas's original intention and that Lucas's intent stopped mattering the moment he sold the francise.

    Okay, fine, we can agree that it reflects audience perception (amongst other things, IMO) but where you and me differ is on thinking that matters.

    I'm not ingoring that Luke's dipiction was a major issue for some/many fans, I just don't think those fans are owed anything special over the rest of us.

    Well, if your going to claim someone disrespected someone and destroyed something you loved then it seems logical to me that you'd think the person your accusing of said things is being melicious, otherwise I can't see any reason to present it that way.

    Fine, whatever, fair enough. I still don't understand why you brought it up and (seemingly) presented it as as critism if you did'nt think it was a bad thing.

    As far as I can tell? You and all the other peaple who constantly throw the box office numbers at me as if I should care and recontexulize my view of the film in light of them or something.

    If I cared about what was popular, rather then simple what I like, I'd have a twitter account and sing Baby Shark all the time; reflectors of "relative popularity" don't really mean much to me, I'm sorry to say.
  19. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 5

    Jul 31, 2013
    One is either entitled/arrogant, or one is not. To what point it becomes an issue is dependant on the situation. That you choose those words to describe Luke Skywalker suggests you believe he was those things.

    Because people find value in anything and everything. That they do, doesn't mean it's beyond criticism.

    I'm not sure I misquoted you? I just questioned your choice of words.

    How is one a 'bit' entitled etc? You either are or are not. Also, I'm not sure I said you were likening him to a Sith. I said you sounded like you were describing a Sith.

    I'm just replying to posts where you've directly quoted me??? I'm not sure that consitutes 'dog pilled'. Also, the point in question is really about Luke's characterisation in TLJ.

    Interpreting the source material, and having a perception formed through that, is obviously something that is unique to everyone. However, that doesn't negate a common understanding/perception that is built off the same material. I think the vast majority of people here would agree that Luke Skywalker (as depicted in the OT), was a character who was shown to not run away from battles, would risk his own life to save his friends, would try and do the 'right thing', and and not give up hope. That's not just a random interpretation of Luke that I've just made up. That comes from watching ANH, TESB and ROTJ. And I'd posit that the vast majority of people would share that interpretation. The problem is that, for me and many others, there isn't the quality/sophistication in the writing to make Luke's behaviour in the ST seem remotely consistant or believable.

    It should be obvious that it's an opinion... and all opinions are valid, regardless of wether they form a consensus or not. And I would expect we're all cognisant of that.

    Neither are you... and I know that you like this idea that, for anyone who doesn't agree with the character choices in TLJ, they are just clouded by 'expectation' (which is something you often cite)... but I find that quite baseless... which is why I referred to some of the original speculation re. Luke.

    I could say the same thing to you. What I'm doing is presenting the points that (I believe) Lucas set out in the OT; be it characters, situations, concepts etc.

    Um... that was your contention... unless you're now arguing that the characters should adhere to what Lucas original intended???

    So the point you were contesting (as pointed out above) was that characters/situations don't need to adhere to Lucas' original intentions. Which is what I stated in the original post....

    It matters in so much that it qualifies the critique. It shouldn't matter to your overall enjoyment of the film. It should matter when making a case for whether your 'interpretation' of the film, or characters, constitutes a consensus or not.

    Of course they are not 'owed anything' (apart from being entertained). It's not about ownership, but willing suspension of disbelief that allows audiences to enjoy the medium.

    You're still ascribing something to those people that you can't qualify. I've not seen a single person trying to argue that KK, Abrams or Johnson purposely made **** films in order to destroy Star Wars and Lucasfilm.

    I think the ST is full of bad decsions and poor creative choices. It was the hubris surrounding the overall production of the ST (certainly TFA and TLJ IMHO) where bad choices were allowed to propagate. To some extent, by the time of TLJ, I think Johnson thought he could do what he wanted with the material with no adverse effect. It afforded him the ability to make contentious choices where, IMHO, they weren't necessarily warranted. I don't think for a second Johnson was trying to sabotage his own film.

    I have not once stated that. Please refer me to where I've stated that other peoples opinions should influence your appreciation/enjoyment of a film??? I think I've been quite explicit in stating the exact opposite.

    It's not about 'popularity'... it's about assessing whether ones interpretation of the material is shared, given that we were on opposing sides of the debate re. Luke's characterisation in TLJ.[/QUOTE]
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  20. K2771991

    K2771991 Jedi Master star 4

    Dec 21, 2019
    No offense, but it seems a lot less like your questioning by choice of words and more like your just nitpicking them.

    Peaple can be entitled to varius degrees of sevarity - I.E, one person can be much more entitled then anouther - same goes for arrogence. I think Luke's entitlement and arrogance was fairly minor, ergo the use of the words "a bit' and "somewhat."

    I can't really think of anything in my original statement that would lead someone to believe I was making him sound like a Sith.

    Look back a few pages and look at the peaple constantly accusing me of "ingoring context" over and over agian despite the fact that I explained my position quite clearly, and balking at the fact that I dared view the film's events differently then them. And my honest apologies if I confused you with them, but it's very hard to tell some posting styles apart around her sometimes.

    Which I think fit with his characterisation in the OT just fine.

    But the Luke presented by TLJ, whose grown more cynical, lost the idealism of his younger years and experienced severe personal truama brought on my his own mistakes, would.

    At the end of the day we're not talking about Luke at the end of ROTJ, we're talking about Luke thirty-so-odd years down the line after decades of change and evolution.

    Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's not a problem for me and many others who do find his behaviour consistant and believable, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

    Tell that to the peaple who have spent the past two days and four pages telling me that I'm "ingoring the context" present by the Luke/Vader duel in ROTJ just becuase I don't interprete it the same way they do.

    You referred to peaple's disprove my belief that peaple are clouded by their own expectations?o_O

    You could, sure, but I'd scratch my head if yo did so becuase not only am I not doing that, I take great pains to present my arguments in a way that makes it clear I'm only ever stating my opinions.

    You must have mistyped, becuase you said...

    We've established that you believe Luke's characterisation is consistent. The point in question was about your contention that 'character' has to stay true to Lucas' original intention.

    My contention is not that he has to stay true to Lucas's original intention, but rather then he does'nt have to stay true to it.

    Well, I was never intrested in making a case for any of that, so if that's why you brought all this up you need'nt have bothered.

    Everyone has a different ability to suspend disbelief and if someones personal tastes, expectations and standards don't allow them to do that for the ST that's not the ST's fualt (nor is it their fault, it's just what is).

    The fact the you - and others - constantly bring up box-office views and go "oh, see, look, less peaple went and saw the films as time went by. Probobly becuase they were mad" IMO always struck me as you guys trying to tell me that my opinion should be influanced by the masses or something. But whatever, apologies if I misunderstood the intent.

    Well I don't really care if anyone shares my interpration of the material, nor did I ever say I was, so you need'nt have bothered.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    Iron_lord likes this.
  21. PendragonM

    PendragonM Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Mar 7, 2018
    I was not citing fans saying that the franchise was burned down, I was citing reviews of Last Jedi, saying it was a great thing that Star Wars was burned down, like old Star Wars had shot their dog or something:

    Of course, these guys are big fans of Johnson. Frankly, I wouldn't hire him to direct traffic and I really am questioning the taste of Vince Gilligan (although I didn't see Breaking Bad so maybe all his XF work was a fluke). He's a step above JJ but that's not exactly great praise. Also Lucas only said it was "beautifully made" not anything about the plot, etc. Sort of like saying "well, your story has nice margins."
  22. obi-arin-kenobi

    obi-arin-kenobi Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Jun 10, 2005
    Break down Star Wars in a good way. If you look at many of the complaints of the Sequel Trilogy many people take issue that it breaks certain rules, but these rules were never there from the start. These rules were created by years upon years of EU material, video games, books, fan films, fan fiction, community gatherings, etc you name it. The praise from many people, specifically TLJ, is more about it breaking down those walls while ironically returning it much closer to the source material and its own original inspirations.
    Fredrik Vallestrand and K2771991 like this.
  23. PendragonM

    PendragonM Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Mar 7, 2018
    Having Luke, Han and Leia not only fail but sire the villain and therefore all die because of him, so I have to read his fans going on about how they died in vain since Kylo died, isn't breaking down Star Wars in a "good way." I'm sick of nihilistic grimdark being sold as the "mature" thing. I'm also sick of being told that breaking down Star Wars is a good thing. Why buy the franchise if you're going to destroy the characters that made it a hit in the first place, so a bunch of hipsters can say it's the best thing ever?

  24. Fredrik Vallestrand

    Fredrik Vallestrand Jedi Master star 5

    Jan 15, 2018
    tear down the old as some say. everytihng grows old and die and that is true to Star Wars too, how long before the creator kicks the bucket. Sure Luke,Han and Leia could have lived little longer, but their time has come. And the PT went and teared down certain characters like Anakin, Obi Wan, Yoda. I think the nihilistic grimdark of the ST is thanks to the PT with Anakin, Obi Wan and Yoda along the with the republic dying wether it's a prequel or not it inlfuence the ST in it's tone.
    K2771991 likes this.
  25. vaderito

    vaderito Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Feb 5, 2016
    SW franchise is much bigger than the Saga now. It encompasses the Saga, anthology movies, Mandalorian, animated shows and soon a whole bunch of live action shows and some new movies (Waititi). So the talk about "breaking the franchise" is really "breaking the Saga". ST didn't kill the interest in SW entirely, just in continuation with ST characters. And that's hardly a problem if there are so many other characters ready to replace them. Heck, it's the live action show that gave Disney Wars its most popular/iconic character (Baby Yoda). So ST isn't a deal breaker. It made enough money for the studio not to regret it but now they can move on.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
    Bor Mullet and K2771991 like this.