ST The Development Of The Sequel Trilogy

You could say the same thing about Lando after ESB, though - there's zero reason to drop Rose. Not only that, but it's highly unlikely that she was cut out becuse peaple found her unintersting, and far more likely that it was done to try and win back segments of the audience becuse of how loudly a certain exceptionally dispicable segement of the fandom complained over her.

Becuse she's a member of a paramilitery outfit, and such organizations don't generally (by which I mean don't ever) allow peaple to go around willy-nilly attacking other members of their group without orders - the very first time Rose brought in a deserter without being told someone would either say A; "good job with your initative, Miss Tico. Where did you find him? The escape pods? Okay, go back down a keep watch for more." or B; say "who the hell gave you orders to do that? You just earned yourself a reprimand, maggot! Go back to your assigned duties!"

She never says she's not, and the movie never presents it as if she's not acting without orders - if she had appointed herself, that surely would have been brought up, and their's no logical reason to assume she's acting without orders then their is to assume Connix is working the comm panel without orders, Tallie is flying her A-wing without orders or

Beggers can't be choosers.

And Rose's dilogue after indicates that she contiued to belive he was a member of the Resistence after he said that - I don't see why she would, since he did'nt say "I'm not a member of the Resistence."

Becuse Rose is a low-ranking scrub who was'nt even present on D'qar when all this went down and has only heard of Finn through gossip and hearsay. She (and most other peaple in the rank-and-file) would have no reason to know Finn had'nt actually joined the Resistence and every reason to think he had.

Anyway, irregardless of why she did'nt know that he was'nt actually part of the group, the fact it she clearly did, ergo she thought he was legitmatly deserting.

Yes, both of those things do happen, but then don't have to have

I think you might be confusing consistency of plot and callbacks to the events of the prior film with setup. Johnson was constrained by what happened in TFA, but the movie did'nt establish any specific setup that needed to be adhered to - setup is specific stuff like, say, Han in carbonite and Luke, Leia and Lando ending the movie resolving and making plans to rescue him/Leia and Han confessing their love to each other but then never getting a chance to deal with those confessions.

A lot of things I can think of in TFA that come the closest to stuff that, like the lines about the training and Finn being in a coma, are'nt really setup becuse TFA was written in a way that could have easily allowed the second movie to pick up after time skip if it wanted, in which case none of those things would need to be adressed.

TLJ did'nt ingore any questions TFA asked, becuse any questions TFA asked were empty questions with no answers that were designed so that the second film could either A; invent any answer it wanted (Rey's origins) or B; ingore it outright (how Maz got the lightsaber).

JJ Abrams has been at this shtick so long that we should all understand how the whole mystery box thing works and not keep falling for it, agian and agian, whenever he makes something new and puts them in there.

 

There not being set answers for something doesn't mean there weren't questions left.

 

Honestly, with the way this thing's run in this, I wouldn't be too surprised if she's running around doing whatever and no one's caring that much.

She's a main character. I would like to know why the character's doing things. I don't think it's my job to assume for the movie.

I think if she wasn't listening or paying attention to him and his situation, that's on her.

Why does being low ranking mean she wouldn't have information about a random ex stormtrooper? Why wouldn't anyone? What's the big secret about? I don't think Fin should have to announce over a bullhorn he's not a member.

There not being set answers for something doesn't mean there weren't questions left.

 

Ignoring the Maz / Lightsaber one was dissatisfying because the implied story of how she came to be in possession of if was literally teased with her on-the-nose statement of "A good story, for another time" statement. It is disappointing then not to have that followed up on and resolved, especially with the circumstances of how it was lost. It is the equivalent of showing Isildur losing the One Ring in the river, and then just showing Bilbo wearing it years later with no apparent explanation as to how that came to be.

I am sure that I read a quote that somebody posted about a rule of storytelling which was something like "If you show it, you must use it", meaning that if you tease the audience with something as part of your story early on, you must resolve why it was shown.

The questions and story branches that JJ Abrams planted in The Force Awakens were possibly open ended, and you are somewhat correct in saying that the disgruntlement is perhaps because they were answered and resolved, just not according to expectation.

However, most of the expectations were reasonable given the legacy, and the momentum that was being built in The Force Awakens. Whilst many people do love The Last Jedi, and all power to them, many others, myself included, were really disappointed.

To my mind, the threads it takes from The Force Awakens are resolved in the most dissatisfying way possible, and it feels as if that was deliberate. A concerted effort to take expectations and say "Hey, remember this bit from Episode 7? Nah......ha ha ha"

And I think that is why it is so divisive and cost the franchise a hell of a lot of goodwill. Subversion of expectations can be a good thing, it makes for surprises and shock moments. Doing that with a beloved franchise such as this is risky, and I don't think that it worked.

 

As already mentioned, there isn't any evidence to suggest that the production phases of ANH were a 'mess' or an 'utter mess', beyond the usual challenges of a production, where the concepts were greater than the budget/resources would allow. Most of us have already read the shooting scripts, and the film (albeit sans the visual effects) is pretty much there on the page to be seen. That is usually the indicator of how significant the editing process has been in reconstituting what was on the page, to what's presented on screen. What you are describing is a typical editing process, where scenes are tightened and a film comes together... which is something that happens on pretty much every film ever made (even the ones you like and respect). It is NOT evidence of the films being a 'mess', or that somehow Star Wars was 'saved' by others.

You mean besides the dialogue that pertains to Han Solo's character? Right...

"And it's going to cost you something extra"
"I ain't in this for your revolution, and I'm not in it for you, Princess. I expect to be well paid. I'm in it for the money!"
"Your friend is quite a mercenary. I wonder if he really cares about anything... or anyone".
"Well, take care of yourself, Han. I guess that's what you're best at, isn't it?"

You are really. Han Solo was depicted in the OT as being somewhat of a mercenary, who was selfish and was more interested in the financial gain from a situation rather than the moral implication. Solo depicts Han Solo as being mostly driven by the love of Kira. Everything he's doing is to get back to Kira. So it does revise that aspect of his character. Pointing to novels and comics as portraying Han Solo as a lovestruck softie prior to Solo, is somewhat moot... as they are, clearly, not the live actions films.

That's not the logical implication. He loves Leia, he loves Luke as a brother and he obviously believes in the cause of the Rebellion. The film is quite specific in stating that he is leaving to try and pay off a debt to Jabba the Hutt... because Jabba has put a bounty on him. Nowhere in the film does it state Han Solo doesn't agree with the Rebels or doesn't like Luke and Leia anymore enough to stay. Far from it.

Point being is that he was on Hoth out of choice. He wasn't conscripted. Nothing had changed other than running into a bounty hunter, which had convinced Han that he must go and facedown Jabba the Hutt.

LOL. The themes and narrative of the OT seem somewhat lost on you my friend... Yeah - feck Anakin. He'd been an ass hole to Padme. Luke should have just butchered him when he got the chance...

Which is the point isn't it??? Off all the possibilities that the sequels could have afforded the characters (in this case Han Solo) in being a Republic General, a diplomat, a senator etc. Instead, Abrams simply regresses him to being a smuggler. The 30 years in between accounts for nothing, as Abrams doesn't have the imagination/will to progress characters or situations... he only has the ability to reduce Star Wars to deserts, smugglers and stormtroopers.

Apples and oranges. Obi-Wan was not Anakin's father. Nor did he have that relationship in the OT. It was the PT where we understood more the relationship between the two, and of course the audience gets to see exactly why Obi-Wan would think Anakin lost. We don't see that with Han Solo and Ben. We just hear that, for some very odd and nonsensical reason, Han Solo has given up on his son. And that, as mentioned previously, is the difference between good and bad writing (IMHO).

As I say, that's projection on your part as you're trying to countenance why the proactive and action orientated Han Solo would do nothing. There's nothing in the film to suggest that Han Solo is suffering from depression??? So it's logical for you make that leap (as I think you yourself are trying to rationalise it), but it isn't reflective of how the story plays out and how the characters are portrayed. As mentioned in another post, it would have played better (IMHO) if Han Solo would have been the one hiding out on the island, living like a hermit, and Luke Skywalker was trying to find him. If TFA had started with the New Republic being attacked and Ben Solo sacking Luke's academy, the immediate fallout/repercussions would have played out much more organically, and the ST would have had more emotional weight.

 

She said brig. A brig is a prison on a ship




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The movie does say why she's doing what she's doing - she's at the escape pods stunning deserters and then taking them to the brig/bridge. The movie does'nt need to clafiy that she has specific orders to do that becuse A; it's not relevent to the plot and B; it's something the audience can inferer on their own.

Who said anything about not listening? She clearly was, becuse after he says he's not a Resistence hero she disagrees with the statement - Finn saying he's not a Resistence hero does'nt equal him saying he's not a member of the Resistence.

The Resistence is'nt going to be posting Finn's status up like its facebook or something, and have far, far more importent things to worry about then clarafying who is

Rose would only know what she heard - which is that Finn took part in the planning and conducting of a vital Resistence mission to destroy a FO superweapon - why would'nt she (or anyone else) not think he was a full-fledged member of the group.

Yes, but if the questions never had set answers then they can't be setting anything up and TLJ can't give any wrong answers, can it?

Maz's statement was so off-handed and the other characters were shown to care so little that it was pretty obvious that it was just TFA throwing something out their for the next film going "look, here's a thing you can do something with if you want to, but if you don't it's fine becuse its not really imporent or relevent" - TLJ (and TROS) could have done something, but it did'nt have to and nothing is actually lost by Maz not explaining how she got the saber, and how she got is'nt relevent to the plot.

Chekhov's Gun - "If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there." - but the Maz thing is'nt an example of that, it's an example of a different literary trope; A story for anouther time (not only that but, in spite of what Chekhov said, sometimes a gun on the wall is just their for decoration).

It's fair to have expectations - I'm not saying it is'nt - and understanable to be disapointed, but that does'nt mean that becuse a film does'nt match up with your expectations the film objectivly did something wrong.

The subversion stuff is overstated, as Johnson wrote TLJ before TFA aired and thus could'nt resonably be subverting any expectations. On top of that the film would have always been subverting expectations in some way, becuse no matter how it was made it was never going to line up with what everyone wanted or expected.

You mean like ANH?

Yes, I know all that, but the point I'm making that it was the editors who patched and cleaned up ANH into the film we got, not Lucas - whose original product was poorly paced and clunky as all hell. He gets credit for thinking it up and writing it, but they get the credit for making it watchable.

None of that precludes him from having a underlying moral code and sense of right and wrong that could compel him to do the noble thing if pushed.

The best estimation is that their's what, a day most between him taking on Obi-Wan and Luke and him leaving Yavin with the money? What, his character underwent a drastic change in that time just from picking up a few randos and spending most of his time with them arguing and getting in danger?

You know there's a full decade between the end of Solo and ANH, right?

Not only that, but it can't revise anything if there's no conflict, and his ANH dipiction does'nt actually conflict with his Solo dipicition becuse his mercenary additude in the former film does'nt preclude him having a moral code deep down instead - indeed, he would have to, would'nt he? Since he ultimatly went back to save the lives of peaple he barely knew.

What does that matter?

Prior to 2014 that backstory of Han was canon, so all Solo did was re-canonize it in a slightly altered form.

That is never once stated in the movie.

Um, I never said he did...

That's not my position and that's not what I said. Of course I understand the themes and narratives of the OT.

But Han Solo does'nt view Star Wars through themes and narratives, he views it as real life, and he does'nt know Vader as a cool bad guy through the eyes of an impartial audience member, he views him as a monster through the eyes of a direct victim. He has no reason to really care about Vader's redemption or even think it mattered or made up for anything becuse, in the eyes of 99.9 percent of the galaxy, it would'nt have.

I can't for the life of me imagine Han Solo as a diplomat or a senator, and a general would seem to be just as regressive as a smuggler. Not to mention just dipiciting him as having gone back to his old career does'nt mean his character has regressed - indeed he seems to be more or less in keeping with his ROTJ self, with a bit more wisdom and understanding, in TFA personality wise.

Anakin flat-out says he views Kenobi like a father in ATOC, and Obi-Wan refers to him as being like a brother. They were clearly very, very close - arguably as close (or maybe even closer) then Han and Ben.

Irregardless of which trilogy came first, the fact is that, in-universe, the PT occured first and always occored. Obi-Wan cared about Anakin, deeply and like family, yet gave up on him very easily, as did Han to Ben.

IMO their are a lot of instances like this - were the PT/OT does something similier or even virtually identical to the ST and, while the former two are given a pass by fans, the later is dragged over hot coals and over-scrutinized.

If Han Solo was hiding on an island, why would anouther bother or even care to find him? Hell, why would he even be their if Ben had'nt fallen yet?

And also a type of ship

 

Something I keep wondering is if when the development of the ST started, LFL already had in mind for it to be the end of the Skywalker Saga. Don't think George had this in mind, obviously, since his lead character was the daughter of Han and Leia. But what happened after George was kicked out?

The Art of The Rise of Skywalker book quotes Pablo Hidalgo back in 2014 talking as if it was clear back then Rey was not going to be a Skywalker by blood. Was the plan all along to kill Ben then? Was this the reason to end the Skywalker Saga? Cause I remember the talk about the ST being the final chapter when TLJ came out. And it got louder when TROS started filming, with all the marketing of the movie refering to it as the final chapter in the Skywalker Saga.

But it is curious. Back in the fall of 2012, I took the announcement of the ST as SW becoming an ongoing saga. With someone of the bloodline always as the lead and the Skywalker name living on forever in the GFFA.

 

I'm positive that Ben was always meant to die because they wanted the end of Skywalkers by blood but not the end of the name as spiritual continuation or whatever. I think that's what Adam Driver was told from the get go, that Kylo/Ben would get redeemed and die. It makes sense since their goal was to remove the name from bloodline and make it almost like a title. Anyone can earn it. It's almost like Captain America shield and name. Steve gave it to Sam. Sam will give it to whoever in the future. Etc. The point is in worth, not blood. I think it's a neat idea but it was terribly executed. Just terribly.

I understand that expanding the family tree is a nuisance so this way they cut the tree and future Skywalkers won't have to explain how they came to be (descended from whom) cause we know it's taking master's name (doesn't matter who the master was from 100 to 1000 years since ST).

 

Yeah, it definitely feels as if the intent was to have Skywalker eventually become a new religion, to replace the Jedi, with the legendary Luke Skwalker as their messiah or figurehead.

I like that idea, I think it has real potential and it's a shame that it wasn't really followed through with conviction.

 

For that to work, they should've clarified from the get go that Rey wasn't related and then built the story toward that Skywalker (title/name) would be "the new Jedi [that] will rise" that Snoke was so concerned about. So Snoke/Palpy behind Snoke/whatever else they had in mind thinks killing Luke will stop that from happening but his death (inevitable in this scenario) only elevates the name to something mythical (new religion/) and Luke to new status.(messiah/figurehead). And then Rey actually earns it.

 

Lucas said he sold the company 'so the films could have a longer life', or words to that effect. So it was more about the end of Lucas' Skywalker saga, together with the beginning of another thing that will involve Rey Skywalker...and maybe Ben (who is called 'the last Skywalker' by Palpatine)

'When VIII was getting started' was 'a billion years ago'. Maybe 2014. It makes sense not to kill 'your' characters (that is, Disney's) too son, while killing Lucas' was to be expected. You don't kill your own money.

The fact is, in TROS Ben disappears, but we don't see his ghost. That's a first, and Lucas never did that. We have Ben not being given closure in the way Lucas used to (ghost) or in the way PH thought billions of years ago (surviving).

In these films they have been toying with characters completing earlier 'paths': Rey completing Leia's; Ben/Kylo wanting to finish what Vader had started and so on. The next step would be characters completing their earlier path: reincarnation. Maybe that's what happening with Ben. Something like moving Jake Lloyd/Christensen (or his 'path') to the ST, together with his backstory.

This, I think, would make the Skywalker saga,or the Disney version of it, less of a (inter)generational thing. Rey and Ben are only 10 years apart, and that's close to the years between ROTJ and 1993 (the year Lucas started to develop the PT) According to KK (2017), they were planning 10 years ahead.
That's also closer to PT Obi-Wan and Anakin, and maybe the audience should keep in mind Obi-Wan's 'you were my brother' in ROTS. Ben and Rey are siblings, if we go by their surnames.
According to Ben Solo, 'everyone' thought he was supposed to be Obi-Wan. Was that his path (the same way Leia had hers, only to be completed, years later, by Rey)?

So, the ending of a certain kind of Skywalker saga, the beginning of another. Maybe that (avoiding the intergenerational saga, and thinking more in generational terms) is behind the lack of a Han/Leia or Anakin/padme romance in the ST. They didn't want to tie their own hands with couples, that is with potential parents; or not yet.

 

I think that "different endings" is really the same Rey, Rey Skywalker ending with slight variations. For example, the awful place holder last shot where Rey, Finn, Poe, Jannah, Chewie, 3PO, R2, BB8, and "please buy my toys pleeeeaaaaseee" D0 look at the twin suns that JediPaxis reported originally and that fans absolutely hated. That could be and most likely was one version while Rey and BB8 walking into twin sunsets that movie ended up with was another. Then we got contradicting reports about Luke and Leia FG, so there may be a version without them, and version that we got (with them). Those are not massive differences but just tweaks. I hope someone has the quote where Daisy said that JJ told her he tweaked the ending a little bit and she liked it more.

 

@ScreamingWoman2019 Whoa, you still have access to Pablo’s twitter.

I real curious on his reaction TROS.

 

His letterboxd account:
https://letterboxd.com/infinata/films/ratings/year/2019/genre/science-fiction/

 

The point you're making is, in my opinion, an entirely false one. Is it your opinion that every film, that has ever been made, is 'salvaged' or 'saved' by the editor? If so, then by definition, the Star Wars films (in this instance ANH) is no exception. If it is your contention that ANH is the exception, then I'd suggest you need actual source evidence to back that claim up. The shooting script for ANH is pretty similar (with some notable exceptions) to what is on screen. The editing process didn't create a different film, not did it require substantial re-shoots to fit in with the film that fell out of the editing process. You are using the natural process of editing a film to denegrate George Lucas role in the success of Star Wars. And as I mentioned before, I think you're better than that dude...

Who said that Han Solo was without morales or didn't have a sense of right and wrong? Point being, he was a selfish individual who learnt to be selfless.

Are you suggesting he didn't have a change of heart then? If so, why would he have left Yavin at all? As a joke?

I'm not sure what that has to do with it? Are you suggesting that Han Solo is stuck within some space/time character development loop of being selfish/selfless, then back to selfish/selfless ad infinitum like he's in Groundhog Day?

As per the above. What you're suggesting is just an endless reinvention of the same character arc. What would have been wrong with depicting a young Han Solo much more morally conflicted? That's a rhetorical question of course because I know the answer...

Because I'm discussing the films, and not factoids from comics or books, which are largely irrelevant. I haven't got the will or inclination to get drawn into a conversation that Han Solo never really had a character arc in the OT movies because some irrelevant novel or pamplet depicted him as being 'really nice guy' prior to ANH.

It's implied. He comes back to fight the rebel cause at the battle of Yavin (ANH). He's with the rebels on Hoth at the start of TESB, and is undertaking dangerous patrols and going outside to destroy probe droids. Otherwise he'd be sat on his ass playing holo chess or whatever right? I've never once heard anyone trying to argue that Han doesn't believe in what the Rebels are fighting for... not once... ever. Well done.

He should care. That seems to be the point you're missing, or not acknowledging. What Han Solo should know, when it comes to so inexplicadly giving up on his only son, is that the biggest baddiest nastiest man in the universe... the one with the black mask and iron lung they were fighting 30 years before, was redeemed by Luke. And if Darth Vader can be redeemed, and find salvation, why can't Ben??? It's this kind of lack of attention to character and motivation where the sequels really fail...

Well that's on you then isn't it? What could you see Han Solo doing in that 30 year time period? Professional chef maybe? Male model perhaps? It's really on the writers to develop characters in new and interesting ways, even if you don't want to see characters developed, writers should at least aspire to it.

Firstly - where in the films does it state that Anakin and Obi-Wan have a closer relationship than Han Solo and Ben??? The reality is that it's not even implied. Ben is Han Solo's child. Secondly, I'd suggest that if Han Solo did have a strained and flawed relationship with his son, then maybe... just maybe... there was more drama to be had in seeing that dynamic play out rather than seeing Han Solo running away from tentacled monsters and focusing on bizarre dynamics such as the Rey and Kylo romance.

Irrelevant. I was given an explanation as to the Obi-Wan/Anakin dynamic viewed both through the lens of the OT and PT. Through the lens of just the OT, the relationship is seen as very informal (they were friends/colleagues) However, in the PT, we see the Obi-Wan and Anakin dynamic on screen. Obi-Wan and Anakin's relationship is not that of father and son, even if Anakin looks up to Obi-Wan as such. However, the crucial point you're missing is that in Obi-Wan's world, Anakin's fall to the darkside, and his betrayal of the Jedi, is without precedence. Obi-Wan can't say, for example, 'well Count Dooku and Maul were redeemed and went on to live good lives doing charity work'. In Obi-Wan's world, Anakin is forever lost. In comparison, come the events of the ST, not only is there an example of a Sith Lord being redeemed, but the Sith Lord in question was Ben's grandfather. That fact should give Luke, Leia and Han confidence that Ben can be saved. Yet they all act like he's done something worse than Vader??? What did he do? Leave the toilet seat up once too often?

Hmmm - none really spring to mind. I think a key strength of both the PT and OT are the character dynamics and the underlying motivations of those characters. Sure, they have their issues, they are not perfect (in terms of how they are drawn), but Lucas focuses enough attention on the elements for it to mostly make sense. With the ST, the OT characters are passengers, they drive very little... they stand about watching events unfold. Han Solo is obviously more active in TFA, as he's involved in the action sequences, but there is (IMHO) no emotional engagement and no real motivation as to what's behind his character circa 30 years after ROTJ. Rey, Finn and Poe on the other hand, have more utility but are very thinly drawn. Their personal relationships are never really explored... and I felt none of them were really developed, in terms of their relationships with each other. The potential was there...

That would be for the writers to sort out wouldn't it? If the fall of the Republic/Kylo's betrayal happened in TFA, then Han Solo could have fallen into despair at the end of that film and be missing for the majority of The Last Jedi. Conversely, you put Han Solo in exile (or prison) at the start of TFA (perhaps because he ****** something up as a 'general' or 'male model' in the New Republic... or perhaps Snoke framed him for something else to get him out of the way???) and then show a vulnerable Ben Solo, without the influence of his father, being manipulated by Snoke. I think there are numerous ways they could have made the ST work better, even within the limited story/timelines they gave themselves.

 

But Rey was not supposed to inherit the Skywalker name in Trevorrow's story. So there was not a plan for that either. I think what LFL wanted is simply to move away from the Skywalkers. I don't think there is mandate for the Skywalker name to be transmited to Rey's next apprentice. Most likely because at some point she will have several padawans. Who knows, maybe at some point LFL decides that, in order not to lose the Skywalker name in future stories, the head of the Jedi Order will carry the Skywalker mantle. But how so? By renouncing to their own last name? Sounds a bit lame to me.

Regarding Ben Solo being dead or not. That is quite clear. Even in the novel Rey hears his voice. I get part of the audience refuses to accept an ending to the story where Ben is no longer part of the saga, but it is what it is.

 

They needed a "this is how reality works" coach on set.

Someone who could step in and say something like, "JJ, do you remember the last time you dropped an object?"

"Yes, why?"

"The object you dropped - did it then rise up into the sky and head out into space?"

 

Kylo could not have lied to Rey about her parents because she is the one who acknowledged that they were nobody and didn't protest when he said they were filthy junk traders who sold her for drinking money. The point of the scene isn't what Kylo said but Rey's reaction and her reaction said it all. It was the truth that she'd been hiding and running from her whole life. TROS changing that is nothing but a retcon.

 

Kylo didn't know the real story until Palpatine told him, right?

 

Reys parent was to be a clone just like Snoke so from this we can deduce that Reys father looks just like Snoke going off of the bottles in Palpatines sith lab on exegol, where the caveat being that Reys mother no doubt was fine AF, concluding that Reys mother would be

 

I think that the whole point of their interaction is that Kylo puts pressure on and pyschologically browbeats Rey constantly to break her will and her resolve. He's an expert tormentor, and what he is doing is chipping away at her self-belief so that she ultimately has no resistance to him. That is why she doesn't protest.

 

I’m still waiting for the story how the First Order leadership went from Rae Sloane to Snoke.