ST How do you build off the Sequel Trilogy moving forward

yes, but I don’t consider Babu Frik to be a secondary or background character, he’s the hero of the ST

 

Babu Frik is the chosen one.

 

In a climactic episode 9 where Babu Frik redeems Snoke.

 

Based Snoke already redeemed himself

Spoiler

 

his growth did happen. His growth wasn't how to become a family man and function in a normal sociiety throw that in with his son turning evil and murdering children yeah i'd say Han running away is exactly what he would do.

 

Well, kids lap up plenty of stuff, it doesn't require for something to be like Marvel

KOTOR was told from Revan's point of view in the sense of the player being Revan without knowing that he was Revan, until the big twist happened. Revan wasn't even all that relevant to what was going on, beyond being mentioned as the heroic Jedi who turned Sith, caused the civl war, and who died due to the betrayal of his apprentice. He was referred to quite a bit, but not in a way which suggested that he was essential for the outcome anymore. The game and its story were epic indeed, but more in the way Star Wars has always been epic, a swashbuckling adventure type of story, not the more drawn out way of LOTR or GOT. It also was decidedly more modern in its appearance compared to those two. In general, it would lend itself extremely well to all audiences.
KOTOR 2 might be somewhat more similar in tone to LOTR and GOT, though if people didn't like the force-powers in the ST, they are unlikely to like "wounds in the force" who in their hunger can strip a planet of all its life, or the rotting body of a Sith who can can't really die unless he decides he wants to.

There are the old Tales of the Jedi comics, which are far more in line with LOTR or GOT in terms of style. They are older than KOTOR and deal with an even further past than KOTOR.

 

Babu bring balance.

 

I guess that explains why you only seem to rate the ST.

'Witnessing' and the intellectual process of critical analysis are two completely separate things.

You think the PT is pretty bad, but you only think AOTC is the only bad film?

That's rather a self defeating philosophy to hold in a discussion... if you don't mind me saying. It's the 'if you don't perceive it, it doesn't exist' approach.

Again that seems rather self defeating. For example, the strategy, after Batman and Robin, wasn't to double down on all the things that were crap and green light another George Clooney Batman. Instead, Batman was mothballed, and was left to a far more creatively intelligent filmmaker to do something new with it... which of course, was the anthesis of Batman and Robin. And I'd posit that Lucasfilm will probably take the same approach (not in terms of mothballing, but taking a completely different approach).

Clearly. I favour the one that is aligned to the actual meaning of the word i.e. 'Main' meaning 'leading', 'central' or 'principal'.

Who said anything about Obi-Wan (ANH) being the first ever use of an 'older mentor guiding the protagonist' function??? That this is the the function of the character is the point... not that it was a function unique to ANH. Function does not mean trope, although it's not mutually exclusive of course.

What are you talking about? Function and utility are generic terms. Luke having the same function or utility as Anakin, Jyn Erso or Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz doesn't mean they have to be the same (or replicated) characters. It's about the purpose they serve within the story, how they move the plot forwards, and how that story is predominatley focused on their journey/experience. Frodo Baggins isn't the same character as Luke Skywalker, but they both share the same function and utility.

I thought you'd just conceded that point?

Then what is the purpose of the films alluding to those romances?

As I've said previously, I think TLJ has the better technical application of skill for sure (out of the ST)... and many of the issues TLJ has are (IMHO) a consequence of TFA.

You say that films don't need a romantic subplot, which I would't disagree with, however the ST spends a dipraportionate amount of time establishing several potential romances... all of which, apart from Rey and Kylo (which is a bizarre relationship, but lets not go there), are not progressed. That's a writing issue.

How did it really 'flesh out' his story though? When TLJ rolled to credits, was anyone thinking 'I hope Finn bumps into an ex girlfriend in Episode IX? Of all the subplots they could give that character, that was the one worth 'fleshing out'? Did the OT need an ex girlfriend of Han turning up in ROTJ? Or an ex of Obi-Wan in ROTS?

I thought he'd been with Leia and co since being a kid?

So everyone must like it then because I find it funny...

I just don't buy it. But I'm sure he once liked Star Wars as a kid.

 

Dang, I really like the sound of KOTOR2. So off the wall, very Filoni lore craziness.

 

I don't think he did - I thought TLJ did far more for him the TFA did (it gave him his own storyline and allowed him to grow beyond the "REEEEYYYY" aspect of his character, while IMO he was really just a glorified sidekick in the first film) and I thought it rocked how he got to play such a central role in the final battle and be the co-leader of the Resistence.

But to each their own

As someone else said Nathan Drake is a video game character in the same veign as Indy and Lara Croft. More importently...

Though, if we're being fair here, Drake himself barrowed that particuler look from someone else himself

It did...from a certain point of veiw

You say that like it's a bad thing

I would indeed say that all three games (the RPG's and the MMO) are epic in scope and storyline, but I'd say the first is less LOTR/GOT and more...well, the OT, becuase's it's very much crafted as a tribute/omage/invocation of those films (to the point of echoing character designs and visuals). It's very fun and very enjoyable, and the storyline is well written, it's just that it's also deliberatly campy (and as I said before a lot of the dilogue choices when it comes to DS/LS choices have a cartoonish aspect because of this).

KOTOR is much darker and serious, and has a philosphy that is in some ways very similer to that of TLJ. It also does have a portion of the game that includes Game of Thrones-style political scheming.

It's a great game (so is the first). If you have'nt played them I'd definantly give them a try. IMO BioWare/Obisdian at their respective bests.

Well, it could be worse I guess...

...it could be Reylo

I don't think TFA and TROS has much hope of standing the test of time, but I truly believe that TLJ - like TPM - will be viewed much more positively years down the line as something unfairly maligned and underappeciated in its time.

Yes, I was particulerly upset that the KOTOR series did not afford me the oppertunity to marry my sister or

Remember everyone, Babu Frik is the secret Jedi Grand Master, and in the final Star Wars film he'll have his climatic dull we Darth Jar Jar.

"Mesa have waited a long time for thisa, moole little tan boya."

"HeyHEEEEY! Gungan Sith go dead! Dead DEAD!"

Meanwhile, on Mustafar...

"Ai! Wag Wah! Yub yub!"

*adorable yet threatening cooing laced with venom*

I don't follow your meaning.

Your denying that I lack(ed) the ability to intellectually analysis what I was witnessings?

I'm impressed, PJ, becuase for someone who does'nt know and has never met me that's a pretty bold statement, especially since it would mean you apparently know me better then myself as I'm pretty sure I did posses the sufficient intellegence to analyze what I was watching.

It's possible to consider a movie badly made and still think it's a good movie in the sense that you enjoyed it. I did'nt enjoy ATOC, though, so unlike ROTS*, which I consider a good movie that's just badly made, it's simply a bad movie that's also badly made.

*in all honestly it's really only the second and third PT films that I think are badly made. I think TPM has some issues but overall I think it was very well done, it's just due to being just a 1 out 3 when I say "the PT was badly made" it gets lumped in their with the other too.

No, it's the "if it does'nt affect me, why should I let it bother me?" approach.

Neither TLJ nor TROS, however, are Batman and Robin.

You can have multipule main/leading/central/principal characters, though, and I would classify Obi-Wan/Padme/Qui-Gon in the PT, Leia/Han/Lando/Vader in the OT, the other members of Rogue One in R1 and Lando/Qi'ra/Beckett in Solo as main characters alongside Anakin, Luke, Jyn and Han, even if those four are the centerpeices of their respective ensambles.

Did'nt you? Your the one who seems to be, if I'm not mistaken, alluding to the fact that becuase Han was an older mentor figure in TFA he

I feel like I must be misunderstanding what you mean by "function" and "utility."

Characters have different functions within a story and serve different ultities, and characters in one group of movies don't need to have the same functions and ultilities as characters in different films; Vader and Kylo, for instance, are both villains who occupy similer positions within their respective trilogies, and while they both happen to share the function of dying to redeem themselves/save the hero at the end, they also have different other functions (Vader functions as a menace for the hero of his trilogy, while Kylo functions as a mirror for his) and utilities (Kylo is utilitized in a much more sympathitic and vulnerable fashion then Vader is, and is also featured much more prominantly as a "POV character")

Aside from both being Campbellian hereos I can't really see that much similarity in Frodo and Luke, to be honest.

Had things gone to play Rose/Finn and Rey/Poe, both of which were set up (to differing degrees) in TLJ would have come into play in DTOF. So this issue is really a TROS one - IMO TLJ does the exact opposite of set up a romance between Rey and Kylo and Rey/Finn was never anything more then a passing, obviously one-sided crush.

It tells a bit about who he was before he joined the Resistence.

No?

Not sure who told you that, but prior to TROS the only things we knew about Poe were that he was the son of two ex-Rebel soldiers, was raised at a New Republic colony on Yavin 4 and served in the NR military before Leia recruited him a few years before TFA. We were never told when he joined the NR Military and that last bit of information we had on his younger years was that his mother died when he was eight, so there was a huge gap of his life that was left unaccounted for that his career as a spice runner fits nicely into.

By his own admission he never stopped liking it, and I see no reason not to believe him; after all, why would he lie?

Well, when I critize Padme it's mainly due to her writing and her apparent in-universe political naivity. I think the writing of her courtship with Anakin is terrible, but I don't actually dislike the coupling itself or see the relationship as negative (minus, you know, the part where he kills her and the occosinal thing like how stupidily paranoid/jealous he gets over the Clovis thing in TCW). I really don't see how either of them "fixed" the other, as Padme did'nt really seem to change after their marriage and at the start of ROTS Anakin seemed to have mostly changed for the better (though that could just be due to the improvments in HC's acting skills between the second and third PT film).

Clara>Donna/River>>Bill>Jack/Martha/Team Tardis>Amy>>Mickey>>>>Rory>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jackie>Rose>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that loser who only lasted on episode and put the computer spike in his head

IMO this might seem controversial but I never got the hate for Clara. I love the character to bits - I even have a cardboard cutout of her in my apartment; in fact the only companions I'd rate higher are Romana, Sarah Jane and the Brig, with Nyssa and Jamie (and Donna/River) being equal on a good day.

(*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>x10,000>>>Adric)

Look sister, insulting Mara Jade is one thing, but you insult my boy Corran and you've crossed the line! Pistols at dawn!

 

That, although you were of the PT generation, your access point was comics and various other EU.

If you are stating that your capability for intellectual analysis is the same now as it was when you were a child, then who am I to argue with that critical appraisal of yourself???

As per above.

Are you Donald Rumsfeld in disguise?

Hmmm... ok.

The 'if it's not on my doorstep' approach is something I don't agree with, in any aspect of life.

Why do you state that? Everything is art isn't it? What distinguishes the ST from Batman and Robin in your opinion? Apart from the obvious production values the ST has over B&R, I see very similar issues between them e.g. films not understanding (or ignoring) the source material, inconsistency in characterisation, gaps in logic, lack of creativity, films designed as a reaction to the previous etc. etc.

You can't have a 'multiple' of main characters.... what you are proposing is actually the opposite meaning of 'main', 'leading', 'central', 'principal' etc. etc. You can certainly have a film without a central or leading character, but fiction by and large (certainly Star Wars) doesn't tend to go down that route. And certainly the ST attempts to put Rey front and centre in TFA.

You didn't finish your sentence off... so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue?

'Function' is the role/purpose a character plays within story, and is usually linked to a character archetype e.g. to create comic relief (the fool), to engender a sense of peril/danger for the protagonist (the villain), to impart wisdom or knowledge (the sage) etc. 'Utility' is related to how those characters are used, and how they are utilised to advance the story forwards. For example, Luke (TLJ) has the same basic function as Han (TFA) i.e. he's set up to be the wise, mentor figure... However, I would argue that Luke has very little utility in TLJ, as he doesn't actually move the story forwards in a meaningful way. He's basically used for exposition.

As per above. This is about comparable functions, within a story, not colour of eyes etc.

So those elements ultimately serve no purpose within the story. Which is an obvious (IMHO) issue with the writing.

But it doesn't serve the story. Zori Bliss (spelling?), and their earlier 'relationship', is an unnecessary addendum to Poe's character. Each moment she has on screen is a moment they could have used to add more substance to a more meaningful relationship e.g. Poe/Rey, Poe/Finn etc. etc. Which is an obvious (IMHO) issue with the writing.

So how old was he when he joined the NR military... just out of interest?

 

25 when he enrolled at the Academy, 28 when he was a full member of the NR military.

 

Thanks.

 

No, I'm stating my perspective of the PT has'nt changed that much, just the way I feel about that perspective. So while your right in that my maturity has cuased me to see the PT differently, your wrong in the sense that it altered (or at least noticably altered) my original view of the PT; I've always though the trilogy was bad, it's just now, as an adult, I'm more forgiving of its faults and more willing to step back and see what Lucas was trying to do.

Drat, you caught me. I best go tell Karl Rove that your plot to undermine Star Wars has been uncovered...

Depends on what it is to me. If somebody is being murdered on my neighbors porch I'd care, but if my neighbor is drinking a soda on his porch I'm not going to get upset just becuase I know he's diabetic and probobly should'nt be drinking soda. Things that inconvincence peaple but don't affect me tend not to bother me.

Yes, but while all art is valid and should be respected, not all art is of the same quality.

A whole lot, IMO, but that's irrelevent, off topic and something we probobly won't agree on, so let's just move on.

Do you live in an alternate reality? Plenty of fictonal works have multipule main characters - just off the top of my head aside from Star Wars and sticking just to Disney films there's the Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy films, as well as Frozen, Princess and the Frog, The Rescuers and The Aristocrats (along with numerous others), and going beyond to other famous fictional works there's Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones as two notable examples.

Sorry, my bad. I meant to write "your the one who seems to be, if I'm not mistaken, alluding to the fact that becuase Han was an older mentor figure in TFA he must be meant to invoke Obi-Wan, as opposed to just happening to share the same stock character role that Kenobi did at one point."

Have you considered that's becuase Luke's function in TLJ is'nt as the wise mentor figure? I mean, he's imparts very little wisdom (and what he does impart, while well-founded IMO, is more born of cynicism then it is being a wise old man).

Yes, courtesy of JJ Abrams and TROS.

Agree to disagree. Honestly it was one of the few additions TROS made that I think was good.

Just curious, but where is that from? I'm aware that he was eighteen when he joined the spice runners, but I had'nt heard of his enlistment age.[/QUOTE]

 

TROS Visual Dictionary. He was around 16, not 18, when he joined the spice runners (he was born in 2 ABY), and 21 when he returned home, though he might not have spent all that time with them.

2 ABY - Poe born
18 ABY - Poe joins spice runners
23 ABY - Poe returns home
27 ABY - Poe enrols at Academy
30 ABY - Poe is flying with the New Republic navy, with BB8
31 ABY - Poe leaves New Republic military and joins Resistance
34 ABY - The Force Awakens events.

 

I said nothing about it altering the perception of your view. I was alluding to the notion that you were an ‘unreliable witness’ (in the sense of you being a child), to how the wider world perceived and/or critically analysed Star Wars back in 1999. I loved Star Wars when I was a kid, I love Star Wars now... but that doesn’t mean I had any more insight into the mindset of the wider audience, when I was 7, than I did about American foreign policy in circa 1990. I can tell you about American foreign policy of the 90’s, as an adult reflecting back in 2020, but as a child? Not so much...

I have a much stronger emotional connection to Star Wars, than I do a can of cola, which is why I’m more interested, and concerned, about Disney’s strategy than I am Coca Cola... especially when the big drop off in audiences reflects those concerns.

So if there is such a thing as ‘bad’ art (given there’s a qualitative factor)... what constitutes it being called ‘art’ in the first place? Can anyone produce ‘art’ even if they just blew their nose into a hanky and called it ‘musings on mucus’? Or does ‘art’ only exist if the observer perceives it as ‘art’? Is it in the eye of the beholder?

It is relevant because I see Batman and Robin being on par with the ST (in terms of creative intelligence and technical application). And given that the next Batman film was Batman Begins, that example is analogous with what Lucasfilm could do with the next live action film I.e. they went from (what is perceived to be) the worst of the franchise to one of the best.

There you go with that ‘alternate reality’ schtick again... You having a poor lexicon, and using a word incorrectly (again) is not the same thing. You clearly can’t differentiate between ‘lead’ character and ‘supporting’ characters, if you believe The Lord of the Rings doesn’t have a main, primary, leading character I.e. Frodo.

The same ‘stock character role’? I think you mean function.

It’s a failure of his function within the film i.e. he doesn’t have one in TLJ. He is there primarily to impart exposition.

You haven’t articulated how it specifically serves the story???

 

Look the point is I remember quite clearly all the negativity and hate being poured at the ST. I don't know what you trying to tell me, a person you don't know, that I must be remembering things incorrectly becuase I was young proves, becuase I know what I rememeber. Furthermore I know for a fact that are peaple older then me who remember the same thing, so clearly I did'nt imagine it.

Well, then it seems the difference between us is I think Disney's strategy is good. Beyond that big drop off in audience does'nt effect me, since I was not part of the audience that quite the francise nor am I being made to suffer, fiancally or otherwise, from said drop off.

The question of what the limits of what consitutes art are is a very difficult and complex question and on that peaple far smarter then either of us have been contemplating far longer then either of us have been alive.

As for if there's such a thing as bad art, that's also a complex question, and one that really has no answer becuase art is subjective, even to the point were actual artists can't answer the question; Cezanne would tell you "there is only good art and bad art," while Rukeyser would say "there's no such thing as a bad artist."

Well, I'm not going to argue with your personal, subjective opinion regarding Batman and Robin, but I think it should be pointed out that Batman Begins is not only not a sequal to B&R, but is part of a total reboot of the francise and, aside from remaining a warner bros proporty, did'nt involve any of the same peaple in it's production. The Burton/Shoemaker films are, for all intensive purposes, a complelty different series then the Nolan films, while the ST and, as far as we know, and films made afterwards by LFL, are part of the same series as all the other Star Wars films.

In the books Aragorn is also a main/primary/leading character (the third novel is named for him and what he does in it, after all), and in the film series the entire fellowship are main characters.

Call it what you will. The point is that yes, Obi-Wan also served that role, but so did Qui-Gon and Yoda, let alone countless other characters across fiction that predate those three.

Maybe that - along with his sacrafice at the end - was his function?

IMO it seems less that he lacked a function and more like your trying to force a function on him that he did not serve.

I did. It expanded his backstory. I thought that was interesting and helped tell us more about the character.[/QUOTE]

 

It's not for me to tell you that you're remembering things incorrectly. I'm just stating a quite obvious fact re. the capacity to critically analyse something when you're a child. And given that you'd already stated you were a self professed 'hater', as a child (and I don't use that term lightly), I think there's evidence to suggest that your perception was 'skewed'.

Their strategy has been a demonstrable car crash, regardless of whether you like the content or not e.g. sacked directors, delays, scrubbing their 'live action movie' schedule, falling merchandise sales, a sizeable decline in audience appreciation etc. It's something that most fans agree on, regardless of the films merits i.e. the overall strategy/handling had been poor.

Not smarter than me kid. My first MA dissertation was on the mechanical reproduction of art and how it affects the aesthetic experience. I can speak for hours about it...

Therefore, it can be argued, that one cannot state as fact that TFA or TLJ, for example, are better films/pieces of art, than Batman and Robin.

I think that has little relevance. I'd argue that The Force Awakens was more a soft reboot than a sequel (IMHO). However, this is more about how the 'creatives' react to a negative or positive response to their product/content.

No they are not. They are all secondary to the primary objective, and primary character, which is Frodo. That there is a primary character does't exclude the notion that the other characters are hugely significant and vital to the story (that's where function and utility come in), but it's really a very personal story about Frodo, his quest and the heavy burden placed on his shoulders. That's the whole thrust of the books and is what drives the story onwards.

When I say that you sometimes obfuscate.... this is what I mean. That has no relevance to what I was stating i.e. that the characters in both the OT and PT have (more often than not) clear functions, where the characters in the ST do not. They share similarites of character archetypes, but without (often) the function. Chewie was the sidekick to Han, and now he just seems to be the driver. Luke is clearly supposed to be the 'mentor', but does't really function as a guide or teacher as such etc. etc.

That's not really a function any more than Obi-Wan's function in ANH was to be a sacrifice. It's a plot point not a function.

Any character whose prime function is to provide exposition, tends to be a badly written character.

IMHO it told us nothing more about the character than Jar Jar standing in Bantha **** told us about him.

 

I stopped being a hater while I was still a child, however; by the time ROTS came out I enjoyed TPM well enough and my own real issues were with ATOC (which at that time I actually liked more then I like now), and while I did'nt much care from TCW when it came out, that changed when I actually sat down and really watched it.

I think their were some mistakes and misteps, but that's to be expected and IMO I've found Disney/LFL to have don a fairly solid job overall.

Waving around a hoight-toity collage dissertation while stating your opinions does'nt make your opinions any less then just...your opinions...

But neither can it be argued or stated as fact that Batman and Robin is a better or equivilient peice of work to TFA and TLJ (and TROS)

Agree to disagree; I've read LOTR multipule times and the way I (and a lot of other peaple) interpreted it is that Frodo and Aragorn are both main characters of two semi-overlapping yet independent storylines of more-or-less equal importance that run parallel to each other; those being the destruction of the One Ring and the return of the king.

Agree to disagree.

If Luke is "clearly" supposed to be the mentor, but yet does not fufill that role, then it seems to me that...he's not the mentor...

Well, I think Luke's writing in the ST was excellent, so agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree - prior to TROS he was the only one of the four main leads who the films had not bothered to give a backstory/origin too, so not only do I think it fleshed him out in an interesting way, I think it was them giving him as fair a shake as Rey, Finn, Kylo and Rose, all of whom had been given backstories by the films while he had not.

 

Well I agree... it was very much a 'hoighty-toity' dissertation... but I'm just pointing out that I'm actually more than qualified to discuss it...

It can be argued by me, because I don't actually ascribe to that criteria for what constitutes 'art'. I happen to believe that the ST (and B&R) are of the same ilk.

Then I'd believe they were incorrect too. From both a literary and cinematic perspective, the central premise of TLOTR is the quest to destroy the one ring. All other side quests/goals are in support of that, as are the characters. Aragorn's journey, that results in him being crowned King, whilst of course significant, is no more significant than Gollum's quest to find his 'precious' etc. This isn't to take anything away, or diminish significance from the characters, or their story arcs... and of course one of the reasons why TLOTR is such powerful fiction, is the way Tolkien develops these characters, and story arcs, over the course of the books. And that Aragorn, Samwise, Gollum, Gandalf etc. are all significant characters in TLOTR, they don't have the same function in the books as Frodo Baggins, who is written as the central/lead protagonist. But I can see I'm not going to convince you...

But that's the point of the criticism. Function without the utility. It's obvious to me that they approached the OT 3 as being the mentor figures of the ST, with Han being Ben Kenobi (ANH) and Luke being Yoda (TESB).

I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm explaining why I think they are technically poor.

But your comment, in itself, suggests poor development of Poe in the previous two films. If you take the OT as being the best template, one has to ask why Luke, Leia or Han didn't need a new back story featuring an ex girlfriend/boyfriend/other adding in ROTJ? The answer is of course, that they were already well drawn characters (comparatively speaking) with motivation already established. Most of that is baked in from ANH, and is naturally developed over the course of V and VI.

 

You might have missed the part were I said "peaple more qualified then both of us."

Well, art is subjective by it's very nature, so you should'nt be suprised if peaple don't agree with you.

No, probobly not, but even if I agreed their would still be plenty of other examples of series with multipule main characters.

I watched an episode of Law and Order the other day. Whose the main character there? Is it Lenny Briscoe? Jack McCoy? What about Battlestar Galactica? Or Game of Thrones?

That reading it's obvious at all to me - I see surface similarities between Ben and Yoda and Han and Luke, but I'm also aware their different characters who have different roles in the story; Yoda was'nt a bitter cynic who wanted Luke to get off his lawn and actually put real effort into training him. Luke's not supposed to be Yoda, he's supposed to be Luke, and IMO the root of your problem is that - for some reason that I really don't understand - your trying to force Yoda's utility on Luke.

No it does'nt. Don't put words in my mouth. I think Poe had great devolopment in TLJ.

I will admit, however, that he was lacking in the backstory department relative to the other four main characters (insfar as the movies were concerned, that is, the non-film works had already fleshed it out somewhat) and TROS fixed that oversight.

I'd say Poe's motivation has been well-established since TFA. All they did was add stuff to his backstory, which is really no differenent to me then what ESB did with Han when they introduced Lando and their falling out to the story (except TROS, to it's credit, did what ESB could not be bothered to do and explained why the falling out occured). I don't really see an issue with expanding a characters backstory, I don't think it hurt the film at any rate and I think it only helped the character overall, so I don't see the harm.

 

For me, it's all about Finn. Whether he's a Jedi or not, the Force is an integral part of his journey. Plus it'd be fun to see him taking on monumental odds since he's still an underdog. Maybe develop his relationship more with Rose and Jannah.

I thought Rey had a very complete arc and took up a lot more screen time than the other heroes. Whether Finn's rescuing her, or she just takes more of a backseat role in the future, I think it's best to let the other characters shine.

 

Only if one uses the term in an inconsistent fashion. I don't subscribe to the notion that my art is better than your art because I prefer my art etc. etc. It seems counterintuitive.

I think you misunderstand the contention. It wasn't that all stories must have a central character/protagonist, that undertakes a heroes journey etc.; I can name plenty of stories that don't have a leading character per se. It's that Star Wars specifically sets itself up as having a central lead protagonist. Anakin, Luke and Rey... and that the ST fails in being consistent with how it positions Rey. The ST, IMHO, doesn't know whether the lead character should be Rey or Kylo. That isn't by design, it's what happens when you have different filmmakers with differing preferences re. the characters. And that the example you cited TLOTR, is very much centred on Frodo's journey, both physically and spiritually, which is why I challenged your view that TLOTR doesn't have a central/lead character/protagonist.

You're conflating function and utility with characterisation. Having the same function doesn't mean (at all) that the character has to have the same characterisation or do the precise same things. For example, Obi-Wan and Yoda have the same function within ANH & TESB respectively. But they are not the same characters, they have different charctersiation and differing utility within the films.

Stating that you 'suggest' something is obviously different to 'putting words in your mouth'. You say 'lacking in backstory' and I say woefully under developed. Finn may have not been killed off in TFA (like Abrams originally planned), but his utility was DOA straight after they crashed on Jakku in the first film.

Comparing Lando (as a character in TESB), to Zori Bliss is a really weak defence of the ST's poot writing. Not only is TESB (IMHO) infinitely better, in pretty much every technical and creative aspect to TROS, but it actually works as an apt comparison in 'how' and 'how not' to introduce new characters organically, that creates effective characterisation which actually adds something to the plot. You'd have been better off using someone like Dex Jettster as an example, apart from the fact that no one would try and argue that Dex was introduced in order to give Obi-Wan much needed 'backstory'...

 

Neither do I.

And agree to disagree, 150 percent; all Star Wars films, even the one literally named Solo, are ensamble films and I don't know any way to discribe Han, Leia, Lando, Vader, Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, Padme, Ashoka, Qi'ra, Beckett, the R1 team and, heck, even Chewie, R2/3P0 and even freaking Jar Jar in TPM besides as "main characters." Luke/Anakin/Rey are the central protagonists in their respective films, but they are not the sole main characters.

It's both (along with Poe, Finn and, in TLJ, Rose); just like Luke and Vader were main characters in the OT alongside Han, Leia and (in ROTJ) Lando.

I cited several other examples alongside LOTR.

This whole "function and ulility" thing is essentially gibberish to me. The definition of these things seems to be, no offense, largely of your own making, and how you are applying them to the films seems both arbitrary and a bit inconsistent.

Not really - if you claim I'm suggesting something that I was'nt actually suggesting, then your putting words in my mouth.

I assume you mean Poe, not Finn, and I fail to see how he lack utility after the Jakku crash - he served his ultility amply by saving Finn, Han and Chewie and destroying SK Base.

I did'nt compare Zorri to Lando, I compared the expansion of Han's backstory that we got via his relationship with Lando with the expansion of Poe's backstory we got via his relationship with Zorri, and stated that at least TROS bothered to explain what went down between Poe and Zorri while ESB never even bothered to tell us what happened between Han and Lando.

Except ATOC does'nt tell us diddly squat about how Obi-Wan and Dex know each other and we don't find out anything new about Obi-Wan's backstory from their exchange.