ST The ST: What Would You Change/Revise?

I can empathise, with your opinion, that Poe wasn't served by TLJ. The overall outline of The Last Jedi isn't exempt from merit, however, the Poe storyline of subverting orders is over the top of theme.

In TFA, Poe was a balanced individual.

 

TLJ tried to make Poe a flawed character so he could grow from it. While being balanced doesn't quite create any growth really.

 

Poe was strangely utilised in TFA too.

IMO JJ shoulda just stuck with the script and let Poe die at the start of TFA.

Maybe Finn coulda been the one to save the day at the end, facing his fear of the FO head on, literally flying into the center of it in the Falcon with Chewie or Rey, using his new gunner skills to blow up Starkiller base.

 

Id remove all the bits in TFA where men (usually Finn) are surprised that Rey can take of herself. Seriously, the film acts like we’ve never seen a female action hero before.

I’m talking about Finn going to save Rey from the goons on Jakku and then being surprised that she took care of it herself (the same scene happens in Rogue One too). “I know how to run without you holding my hand”, Rey’s “..Yeah?” after Finn asks if she’s okay, and Han being surprised that Rey is the pilot.

 

Personally I thought that scene was dumb for a different reason, not just that: I don't buy that Finn's in the place of his character development yet where he'd run to help a complete stranger. I think a more stronger take would be him looking at her being harassed, consider doing something, maybe he goes to take a step forward (maybe), but then avoid it, feeling guilty about it. He's currently on the run. He's not on the side of rescuing people, to me, yet. I think the entire premise of the scene is a flawed concept. If Finn isn't rushing to her rescue, the movie doesn't need to have this moment where it pretends like a woman fighting back is some unheard of concept, and Finn is surprised by it. I think not much is really changed by that, plot and story wise.

 

Thats called they never had flaws to begin with as we already progressed them after 1 movie.

 

For me, the biggest single thing worth exploring in a direct sequel to the OT, was what Luke Skywalker's version of a Jedi Order would be like? How would they differ from what went before and how would Luke align his own values/strengths in order to create a new Jedi code. And I believe that was worth exploring, primarily because Lucas explicitly created the events/situations, where the Jedi had become so dogmatic in their views, so embroiled in galactic politics, that they helped create a climate which allowed the Sith to prosper. This isn't to say that it was the Jedi's fault (that was the Sith), but the Jedi had become too removed from the living force for their own good.

Unfortunately for Star Wars, (and for like minded fans) DLF were wholly uninterested in the progression of themes and ideas from the PT/OT, and were focused solely on recreating what they believed to be the most popular elements of the originals. So instead of seeing Luke's Jedi Order, whom are allowed to... perhaps... love, be more pragmatic and 'grey' etc., they (DLF) just decided to burn everything down so they could have the lone Jedi schtick. I imagine we'll get some of this in the Filoniverse, but it's such a wasted opportunity IMO... and it's something that could have made the ST truly unique and given a springboard for future films/shows to jump off of.

 

I think the idea of Grey jedi or Jedi with attachments sounds cool in theory. But ONLY in theory. As long as you don't think too much about it. Its actually rather messy in concept. I mean Lucas put alot of thought into it and its hard argue with his logic. So this idea that Luke creating an order doing various things the opposite to the past jedi would bring peace is actually wrong.

You are basically creating an order of people with attachments or being able to be move towards a grey area and somehow hope everything just works out. Basically freedom of choice. As long as that choice isn't the dark side. Which almost sounds like going backwards rather than forwards.

Just ask Will Smith, he had had his little moment in the dark side because of his attachment. Oopsy

 

There's nothing particularly 'messy' about it. George Lucas purposely showed a Jedi Order that was out of kilter, which had become dogmatic in its approach, and that closed themselves off rather than opening themselves up to new ways of thinking. That version of the Jedi Order, and the Republic, were destroyed by the Sith. When viewed in contrast to the Jedi of the Republic, Luke (via the lens of the PT) was shown to be something different. He was obviously more similar to Qui-Gon and Anakin. Now that could have played out in several ways, but the suggestion is that they were closer to the 'living force', which is something that maybe the Jedi of the PT had lost or moved away from (?), and was a reason for why they became susceptible to Palaptine. In terms of what the alternatives are/were (other than a Luke who was willing to do something different with the Order)... well the ST gave us a version of Luke that was at odds with where George Lucas wanted to go i.e. a Jedi which was more of the same... and patently that 'more of the same' approach didn't work out well for Luke in the period of the ST.

 

But there is new way of thinking, and there is stupid decisions. The Jedi become overconfident and to a point ignorant/arrogant. But ultimately the issue was not seeing what was right infront of them. Not because they believed in a no attachment rule. or that they wouldn't allow students to play in the dark side abit. Because attachments and going grey would only be suitable for a small group of Jedi, not a whole order. It would be like creating a whole bunch of Anakin Skywalkers. That wouldn't lead to peace, that could potentially lead to recreating the days of the sith/jedi wars. factions of force users with different values on power or how to embrace the force.

This belief that embracing attachments is actually the new jedi way is kinda ignoring the fact that what George was ultimately saying is that Attachments is a weakness. Even if you want to say that its what turned Vader good again... its still what turned vader bad in the first place. Its what killed a whole jedi order. All because someone told him hey i can stop your wife from dying and all you have to do is kill a whole religion of people to do it.

Both Luke and Ahsoka are aware of this. now whether Ahsoka is abit more grey, she is still aware of the dangers that come with it. Which is kinda ignored when people say a whole order should be built on love and attachment.

 

The contradictions being discussed here are in and of themselves what the ST should've been all about exploring. It's why I feel so against the idea that the ST should've been set way in the future, because that sentiment completely jettisons the fundamental structure of the PT/OT story and the way that structure could've been turned into a cohesive 3-part story with the addition of the ST.

Did Luke saving Vader prove that the Jedi no-attachments rule was wrong, or was that more of a one-off given it's attachments that led Vader to the dark side in the first place? Was there something fundamentally wrong with the way the Jedi acted as a combative arm of the government, or was the issue primarily their inability to see the sith coming their way? The PT/OT left sooo much for an ST to explore and try and resolve that could've genuinely built on our perception of the overall story, the way I think the PT, for all its flaws, added new layers to the events of the OT.

Definitely can go further with the war/politics stuff as well. In a more lawless world with a weaker central power, it's easy to imagine a number of situations that would call into question what role the Jedi should play with regards to peacekeeping and a new republic.

 

I think you’re slightly trying to over-rationalise a fictional construction. Obviously the Jedi aren’t real (a shock for some perhaps)… and as such, their attitudes, their belief system, their approach to ‘attachment’ etc. etc. is as deep or as shallow, or as problematic, as a given writer decrees. That the Jedi Order of the PT were suffering some sort of schism (we see this reflected in both the attitude of Qui-Gon and Dooku), and were increasingly becoming detached, indicates that Lucas was attempting to show a Jedi Order that was out of step. And if Lucas was trying to show a Jedi Order that was out of step, or in decline, then naturally it presents the question of what a ‘better’, more fit for purpose Jedi Order would look like.

In terms of ‘grey Jedi’, I don’t really buy that as a concept. It’s not, I believe, a Lucas one… and I’m much more interested in the potential for what the difference would be for a Jedi whom was tuned to the living force and one that was not. That’s the key (IMO), and could have been the difference between the failure of the Jedi in the PT, and the success of Luke Skywalker (and what he rebuilt) in the ST… but we sadly never got that version. Also, I don’t buy for a second that Lucas was pushing a message that ‘attachment is bad’. Emotional attachment is one of the most natural and beautiful things we experience. Emotional attachment is far from bad… it’s what makes us love our children, love our parents, husbands, wives etc. etc. and George Lucas, I’m sure, was well aware of how important the power of love was (to coin a phrase) in his Star Wars films. Ultimately, that’s what it’s all about.

 

No lucas wasn't saying Attachment is bad, he was saying that attachments could potentially lead to the dark side. So basically you can have attachments... you just can't be a jedi at the same time.

Attachments can be beautiful... When they are going well. When they ain't, they can also be incredibly toxic and overwhelm us.

Anakin had dreams his wife would die in childbirth, in desperation he was offered the chance to save her as long as he took the first steps to the dark side by killing his fellow jedi. This beautiful attachment cost many jedi their lives because anakin put his beautiufl attachment before everything else. Now how can you run a peaceful order with that potential weakness?

Lucas really did put alot of psychological thought into it. How we react when we are happy, how we react when we have everything we want and how we act when he potentially could lose it. The stages of grief and manipulation.

 

I think there's a difference between attachment and connection. Attachment, to me, suggests that it's something that's clung to, as far as that goes. Connection, to me, suggests something different. Emotional connection may be beautiful, LORD willing, but attachment, like that, I think suggests a more clingy perspective, in my opinion.

 

Yep. Attachment in the philosophical/spiritual/religious sense is the inability/unwillingness to detach when it would be healthy to do so.
No one is denying that infants need secure attachment (the only healthy form of attachment) to their caregivers, or that it has benefits for adults as well, but that's obviously not what the Jedi are talking about.

At least I've always thought it's obvious.

 

I think you’re projecting something onto the films that aren’t necessarily there I.e. that attachment is demonstrably negative. Most people don’t commit genocide and kill children etc. because they’ve formed emotional attachments (even in Star Wars). I think the idea that Lucas was trying to convey is that the Jedi had a strict code (which included forsaking attachment), which worked to alienate Anakin, and allow Palpatine to exploit his building resentment/frustration etc. But that doesn’t mean the Jedi were right, nor does it mean that this was the message that Lucas was trying to convey (attachment is bad). Indeed, Luke Skywalker was emotionally attached to everyone around him, including his father Darth Vader… and up until the ST, Luke’s attachments worked out well for him and his friends. But yes, going into a blind rage because of emotional attachments is a sensible thing to avoid… but I’m not sure that’s the underlying message.

The question for the ST (IMO) was were the Jedi out of step, too removed from the living force and more concerned with sticking to their strict code than doing the ‘right thing’? Did that lead to them being blind sided by the Sith and to Anakin being corrupted? Would Luke have to change the focus of a ‘new’ organised Jedi Order to ensure they didn’t become dogmatic, arrogant again etc. etc.?

 

I think this was infact the message. Loss of attachments are potentially when people are at their worst. Fear of loss leads to obbsession. And that consumes you.

If you listen to lucas in interviews he talks alot about what drives people mentally. So yeah i do think this was infact the message. Not that attachments are bad, but they are a weakness for a jedi. A potential lead to fear of loss, obsession and anger. Which leads to the dark side

 

I was more annoyed at what I felt it meant for what I thought they were trying to say about Luke and the no attachments rule.

I suggest that something to note is that in the movies, when Yoda speaks on attachment and fear of loss, he speaks on the consequences of it, not pointing at Anakin and calling him bad for having it.

 

Toss it in the trash and start over using Lucas' story with Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni leading the project.

 

Its a case of not letting it consume you. Yoda basically says rejoice in those who pass on to the living force. Don't be consumed by regret, revenge, or obsession over what you can't change (vision of the future) ect ect. And Anakin confirmed that there was maybe just abit of a strong desire to not let this person die no matter.

And that desire made him open to manipulation.

Which is the power of attachment. The reason why an order of jedi can't have attachments is that it would potentially be chaotic. You would need about a dozen therapy sessions a week just to make sure you are in a happy commitment. with n jealousy or fear of loss.

 

I think the horribleness of Rey’s upbringing doesn’t really come across in TFA, and as a result, all of Rey’s abandonment issues and emotional weaknesses don’t come across as narratively strong as they ought to.

Rey had no one as a child, essentially raised on a daily dose of (false) hope, in the place of love, which would understandably create a Death Star sized hole in someone and mess them up for the future.

Perhaps seeing a montage of kid Rey (or a story from Rey about what she would go through every day), would help sell this reality. It’s like…the most horrible thing in the world, but it doesn’t feel that way.

And when she decides later to let go of false hope, to drop her smile of denial to move forward, that should be like some Good Will Hunting level cathartic crying. But it doesn’t really play anywhere close to that.

Now I know SW doesn’t need to be a super deep drama, but I can’t help but feel like the character on paper isn’t lining up with what’s on screen.

Same goes for Finn, as many have already expressed.

 

You’ll have to point me towards the quotes where Lucas states that ‘loss of attachment’ is in fact the message of the PT. I can’t recall anything where Lucas states that this is the message of his films… and although yes, Anakin is clearly driven by his fear of losing Padme, is attachment really the root cause or is it more complex? Is it his hubris, his entitlement, his ego, his desire to control and have the power to determine the fate of others that ultimately pushes him to the darkside? I mean, I fear losing the ones I love, as do most people I assume, but I’m not obsessed by it, nor does it make me bad or evil that I’m deeply attached to those I love. So it’s not attachment per se. It’s a complex one.