ST The ST: What Would You Change/Revise?

That's a good post... and I agree with much of it. The bone of contention is (IMO) the extent of the Jedi's more dogmatic approach, and how that plays into their ultimate downfall. Had the Jedi always been dogmatic/rigid in their approach and disconnected from the 'living force', or was that (in part) caused by the growing influence of the Sith over the galaxy? Were the Jedi in a bad place (philosophically/politically) to take Anakin into their ranks as the 'Chosen One', or if it had been the Jedi Order of a 100/1000 years previous, would they have handled Anakin differently?

This is all obviously subjective, and we can interpret the source material in many ways, but for me it's more about the intent of the writer (in this case George Lucas), and I think he was trying to show that the Jedi were *part* of the problem and not *the* problem... and in surrounding Anakin with teachers/instructors/masters, the Jedi forgot the thing he most needed... a father figure.

 

As long as there are Star Wars fans, I suspect they'll be debating and discussing "why Anakin turned out the way he did". Since that's ultimately beyond resolution, it's the kind of thing that we're never done with. And the thing is, I do think it is largely beyond resolution, and would be even if Anakin was a real person, and we had a LOT more access to detailed information about him over the course of his life.

On a personal level, I know plenty of people who were, as far as one could see, good parents, who have had sons or daughters who go on to become...well, not every nice people (sometimes along with siblings who turned out the complete opposite). I've seen people who had rough childhoods and/or difficult parents who've turned out to be really admirable people. From what I can tell, one of history's great monsters, Adolf Hitler, had a fairly "meh" childhood. By some accounts his father was a short tempered, dominating jerk (AHA!) but honestly, if you read about Hitler's childhood and didn't KNOW it was Hitler's childhood, I don't think there is anything that would make you say "Oh wow, this guy is going to turn out to be a monster". On the flip side, Charles Manson's childhood was full of instability, poverty, violence, criminality, and probably abuse. Given all that, it would seem that it would have been miraculous if Manson had turned out to not have, at least, some very very serious issues. And yet...some people come from pasts just like Manson's, or worse, and turn out very differently.

Its probably obvious from my post above, and others, that I cut the Jedi more slack than many care to, in regards to Anakin. One thing I struggle with is that the Obi-Wan I see in the movies is anything but gruff, tough, stoic, humorless, and impersonal, some kind of distant and remote authority figure (I find it strange, and kind of funny, that the Jedi most often mentioned as being a better fit for Anakin is Qui-Gonn, who, while a favorite of mine, is, in TPM, gruff, tough, stoic, humorless and often impersonal!). Anakin, after all, wasn't Mace Windu's padawan.

Like I said, think we'll be at this forever - it's an interesting puzzle. I have no real issue with Darth PJ's comment that, perhaps the Jedi were PART of some bigger problems, versus being THE problem. But yeah, I tend to be a bit more critical of Anakin's role in his fall, versus the Jedi's role.

 

I think this is less about applying the logic of an external world view to the fictional elements i.e. the Anakin nature v nurture debate, and more about the creative possibilities afforded to a story where the Jedi Order *could* have been seen to learn from their past mistakes and evolve. I personably think that this was a lost opportunity for the ST, where I believe some focus should have been placed on what Luke Skywalker wanted to put in place post ROTJ, and how he (as a next generation Jedi) had a different perspective on what the Jedi should be. That, IMO, is a more organic extension of what we saw in the OT/PT, and provides an opportunity to actually move Star Wars forwards.... rather than showing a failed Luke Skywalker who had all the frailties and issues of the previous Jedi... and which directly led to their destruction... again...

 

I don't think there was really any point in the OT where Luke is given the impression he needs to change the jedi. the Jedi are gone, so its more about bringing them back. But obviously, there are many factors that hurt the jedi more than just the Jedi. Its really hard to argue with an order that existed for 100's of years and act like they need to be fixed.

Luke fixing a jedi sounds abit more like a fantasy. he fixes them by... the details don't matter.

 

Forget reformed Jedi with tweaked philosophies based on things Luke learns in the Ot. I would have settled and been happy with just ... Jedi. Like actual Jedi in the movie. Not just Exiled Luke, and Rey.

But yes, Luke could have easily 'fixed' the order by simply being a bit more accepting of people like Anakin, and realizing that the Dark Side is not a forever destiny as they once assumed. The PT Jedi judged Anakin for having fear right from the moment they met him, and never treated him without that insight. Bt the PT Jedi had fear too. It ruled their lives. They were constantly looking to the horizon, and so fearful of the the dark side, a fate that they thought was permanent, that they did everything they could to avoid it all together.

That's the change - and the details - that could have been interesting to see how Luke built a new Order with that in mind. It could have been cool to see those beliefs tested and tried. Luke was the perfect person to teach about it too, considering just how close he came to be tempted, and yet managed to pull away and remain on the light.

 

That's like saying 'I don't think there's anything in the OT that gave the impression that Luke and Anakin were particularly special, nor that Palaptine was a Sith Lord who undermined the Republic from within' etc. etc. Point being, the OT was given a much wider context by the PT. There's little point in pretending that wider context doesn't exist. And in relation to your point about the Jedi institution not needing to be 'fixed', that would be like looking at policing in 2022... and saying 'Nah the Police have been around for years... so they must be perfect and in absolutely no need for reform'. 'Gun control? People have had guns for years. It's fine. Nothing needs to be fixed'...

 

So there is basically nothing to change beyond the idea that there is something to change.

 

"Too sure of themselves they are. A flaw more and more in common in Jedi, even with the older more experienced ones". Yoda: Attack of the Clones

 

So be more aware of their suroundings. Actually. Thats a good start i suppose. Admittedly Luke did fail at that.

 

I love this topic, but I am wary of beating a dead horse.

I think this is something that has developed after the Prequels, and mostly in EU materials (and among certain portions of the fan base) ...the idea that OT Luke had concluded that the Jedi approach needed major reforms. I get that Luke had disagreements with Yoda and Obi-Wan over whether Vader could be turned back to the Light side, but I don't think that's the same as saying there is any indication in the OT that Luke had major disagreements with fundamental Jedi principles. I think this idea gained traction because to a lot of the creative folks working on Star Wars properties, the stoicism and general philosophy of the Jedi didn't sit well, especially after we saw more of that, in some detail (some) in the Prequels.

I think it is also worth noting that the Jedi approach apparently worked well, very well, for ...decades? centuries? The movies don't specify, apart from Obi-Wan saying that the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice for over a thousand generations. A "generation" isn't a fixed period of time; you can find all sorts of estimates from 15-30 years but even that is just an assumption. But let's go with the low figure of 15 years... even if Obi-Wan is exaggerating quite a bit that's still in the neighborhood of 15,000 years. Maybe Obi-Wan was guilty of hyperbole...but even if it was 7,500 years.. 5,000 years... 1,000 years....the idea that the system was deeply, inherently flawed is hard to align with that, isn't it?

Of course, the answer to THAT is generally that over time the Jedi had ... well, something. Gotten too involved in politics? Gotten arrogant? Complacent? Again, the movies give us very very little to go on there. There are hints in a (very) brief discussion between Yoda and Obi-Wan (it's in Darth PJ's post above). I know I keep saying this, but the movies simply don't give us much of ANYTHING to go on. What were the Jedi doing, specifically, at the time of TPM that they weren't doing 50, 100, 200 years before - and where in the movies is this made plain? If the problem is the Jedi's increased role in government, what was the relationship, if any, between the Jedi and the government 500 years before Palpatine? 100 years? Twenty years? Respectfully, I feel like the general sense that the Jedi have to take the blame for failing to stop Palpatine (at the time of the Prequels) has led to those put off by some of the Jedi rules to point to those rules as 'the problem". I've heard that 'the" problem was they were too involved in politics. I've heard that "the" problem was their rules on attachment. I've heard that "the" problem was their specific rules against "love" or "getting married" or "having a romantic partner". I've heard that they became too detached from everyday life and people. On the other hand, I've heard that they became TOO involved in "earthly" issues and everyday life. I've heard a lot that they were "too dogmatic". Yoda suggests the Jedi have become to sure of themselves, but that's a very human problem that can afflict ANY organization, without having anything to do with rules or esoteric philosophies about this, that ,or the next thing.

While I have issues with the Sequels...many ... one thing that pleasantly surprised me was that they didn't turn down the "The Jedi suck and its all their fault" road I feared they might. I LOVE the scene where Yoda and Luke talk, as the tree burns... the point isn't that the Jedi are flawless or blameless. Far from it. They try and sometimes fail. But recognizing failure doesn't mean everything was in vain, or that everything you knew was worthless. At the end of the day, the Jedi failed to stop Palpatine's rise to power, and they feel responsible for that (although, as has been well discussed... it wasn't the Jedi voting him all those "emergency powers"!). Surprise - the Jedi are human (whether they are a farmboy from Tatooine, a three foot tall pointy eared wizened green sage, or whatever!).

My point isn't that the Jedi are flawless (they aren't), it's not that they can't be wrong (they definitely can), it's not even that they didn't blow it big time by not discovering Palpatine earlier, or that they "handled Anakin perfectly". It's just that I don't think the movies are meant to bolster the case that the Jedi are fundamentally flawed and in need of major overhaul, or that OT Luke had come to that conclusion.

 

Make the whole thing in black and white.

 

I’m not sure it’s that the films needed to show the Jedi were to blame or needed major reforms per se. It’s that them (the Jedi) needling to be reset or show progression in the application of their ‘code’, would have given (IMO) Luke more function and utility in the sequels (of which he had pretty much zero). And this isn’t to say the Jedi were bad (I think some are misinterpreting their flaws/weaknesses, in the PT, as them being presented as fundamentally ‘bad’ ), it’s more that the Jedi of the PT (and we don’t know how many years prior to TPM), were being negatively influenced by the Sith, but they couldn’t see or understand it. They were being sucked into galactic politics etc. So I think it’s for this reason that Luke being a more reflective, progressive Jedi in the ST, would have been much more fitting to Lucas’ vision.

 

One thing that always struck me as a bit odd, considering the history of faction names in the Saga, is "The First Order". If you look at all the other organizations and what they are called, you'll find that they're all very basic descriptions: Republic, Separatists, Trade Federation, Commerce Guild, Corporate Alliance, Empire, Rebels, Resistance... Even the official name of the Separatists - the Confederacy of Independent Systems - tells you something about what they are.

In light of that, "The First Order" is quite an oddity. It sounds pretty cool, I guess, but how does it connect that organization to the story? How does it relate to their role? If you ask me, it doesn't, really.
We can read things into it for sure - and in hindsight, in light of TROS with its Final Order and the revelation that the First Order was part of Palpatine's greater plan, it actually does make a bit of sense - but at the end of the day, I'd say they just tried to come up with something to differentiate it from the Empire and this was the best they could do.
Because really, the First Order is the Empire in all but name.

Anyway, my point: If there had to be a Neo-Empire, I would've tried to come up with something more basic, something truly descriptive, to use as a name for it. You know, to keep up the tradition.
I can't think of a good one at the moment, though

 

I know what you mean, but it does have connotations with fascism I suppose i.e. the Nazi 'New Order'... so it's not the name per se which is the problem for me... rather, it's that the First Order have no basic motivation (as the antagonists) or goal really. The Empire were already established in the OT i.e. a totalitarian state run by a dictator, already controlling the galaxy... so that was relatively self explanatory. The Sith of the PT were the anti-Jedi and were out for revenge against them and the Republic they policed. The First Order, as an organisation/regime are less defined... and it's not that it needs to be established with lots of dialogue/scenes, it's more that it's just a lazy retread of the Empire... but when one examines it further, it doesn't have much internal logic underpinning it, and is not developed at all really.... and this is all further compounded when it turns out that Palaptine is the head of it...

 

Yeah, the problem is that TFA (nor the rest of the trilogy, but especially TFA) doesn't actually tell us what the FO is, nor what it's motivations are. I mean, it says something, It makes an attempt. But it's mostly gibberish.

Here's Hux's speech, where they basically lay out the 'setting'.

Today is the end of the Republic. [Again? We haven't even seen the New Republic yet]
The end of a regime that acquiesces to disorder. [???]
At this very moment in a system far from here, the New Republic lies to the galaxy while secretly supporting the treachery of the rogues of the Resistance. [No idea what this means. Lies about what? Working with the Resistance? So the NR is supposed to be at peace with the FO, but are secretly at war with it?How is that a moral reason from the FO's POV. Why is the Resistance treacherous? Did the Resistance betray someone? Why does the FO care so much about that? So all of this is because the NR is lying to the galaxy about actually trying to fight the FO?]
This fierce machine which you have built, upon which we stand will bring an end to the Senate, to their cherished fleet. [So the FO did in fact build SKB, it wasn't a holdover from the Empire. These FO maniacs built it. And I guess the NR has one cherished fleet. Why do they cherish it? Why only one?]
All remaining systems will bow to the First Order and will remember this as the last day of the Republic!" [Remaining systems? Does that mean the FO already controls systems? If that's the case, how are they a secret still? That means they must have violently taken them. That means the NR has every right to protect itself and the galaxy]
​

Hux isn't just laying about the plans. He's making a moral argument for why the NR has to go. Clearly the FO are mad that the NR rules the galaxy, disorderly, and are lying about their relationship with the Resistance, who betrayed something. It sounds the NR is doing such a sucky job at fighting the FO, in secret, and lying about it to the galaxy, that they have no moral right to rule said galaxy.

This isn't much to go on. It's basically fooling the audience into feeling that this is world-building. This basically looks like a speech Hitler would give or something, but none of it really explains anything.

So what would I change? All of it. Focus on the NR, our heroes, and let us know why they should win. What are we fighting for. We almost don't need to know anything about the FO, who we shouldn't really even know about. This is the one area that genuinely could be a mystery box for later. We should be just are shocked at their attack, as the NR is. The less we know about them, the better. They're the Empire, and that's all we need to know. They want to regain control. Hux's speech just confuses things. We know they're evil. We've been watching the Empire for 6 episodes now. If anything we should have seen a scene where Leia makes an impassioned speech to the NR/Galaxy about why they need to fight the FO. The creators of TFA got it backwards.

 

I agree. The function of The First Order is limited to them being merely a visual proxy for the Empire. Abrams/Kasdan obviously felt that by the FO having stormtroopers and star destroyers etc. that it would alleviate the requirement to establish them as an antagonistic intergalactic force. However, by making them not the Empire, but with all the iconography and internal machinery/structure of the Empire, only increases the amount of establishment/development actually required to justify them and create the internal logic within the story.

 

• Good writing
• Real characterization of new and old characters
• Not ignoring the Prequels
• Not steal 90% of ideas from the OT
• Actual connections to the rest of SW, like the Filoniverse
• Not use the Empire, Sith, blahblah as villains
• Not unravel Return of the Jedi completely

 

I would start over completely. Part of the foundation for my story would be something I outlined in the BTS thread a couple of years ago:


The most interesting galactic conflict I can think of for the ST is one that's centered on the Jedi and the Skywalkers. Not just in that they're once again highly involved in the war, but that it's ABOUT them. People are afraid of the Jedi messing up again, of history repeating itself (especially once it's become public knowledge that the Sith, who ran the Empire, were founded by a renegade Jedi), so they try to end them for good. Others side with the Jedi and try to defend them.
The conflict isn't made any easier when it's revealed that Darth Vader was the father of two celebrated Rebel heroes who also happen to be two of the most prominent figures in the new Republic - AND JEDI. This even leads to great discord within the family itself.

All of this goes hand in hand with the fact that people can't seem to agree on how to best govern the galaxy. They have very different ideas of what true freedom is and some have a hard time letting go of the sense of stability and security they feel the Empire provided.
Again, fear of history repeating itself causes people to take drastic action.

Everything escalates quickly and soon, the galaxy has a desperate war on its hands. A war born out of fear that puts the Skywalkers and the Jedi front and center, which raises the emotional stakes of the galactic conflict to a more personal level than before and, to me, signals that this is it. The grand finale. The big showdown that will decide the future of the galaxy and end the saga of the Skywalker family.


There would be much more to it, of course, but that would be the gist of the macro plot.

 

Well, there are a ****-ton of things I would revise. But one thing I would have preferred was for Max von Sydow to have more to do. I like his performances in a few movies and Game of Thrones, and he does a good job here. However, he barely gets anything to do.

Additionally, I would have preferred for Andy Serkis to get more to do as Snoke, and Gwendoline Christie was criminally under-utilized. She should have been a recurring adversary for Finn...you know...to give him something to do after TFA. He should have been recruiting ex-stormtroopers in TLJ, for example.

 

Shoulda made Max/LST Rey's "grandpa"/caretaker.

1: He's been watching her for a long time. He and Luke agreed that she would be trained, but when the academy was destroyed, that never happened. He's been telling her tales of Luke, the Skywalkers, and the Jedi ever since.

2: When Kylo destroys the village and kills LST, Rey is watching from a hiding spot. She doesn't know why gramps was talking to that Resistance Pilot for, but in the chaos, Poe is taken prisoner, and as he's dying, LST tells her to get BB8 to the Scavenger Port. Get off world. Find....Leia.

3: This now gives Rey additional motivation to hate Kylo beyond just what he does to her physically, mentally, personally. He killed the only family/town she's ever known. It also gives her a bit more impetus to start her adventure. This really is her story. She's got to find Leia... for gramps. She doesn't even know that the map to Luke is with BB8. Additionally, if LST was the only one that Luke trusted with his location, and had a deal to train Rey, it might make sense that he above all people would know the route to the first temple.

4: TFA ends with Rey going off to find legendary Luke who she thought was just a myth, a reassuring story told by gramps all these years. Rey's story closes the circle.

5: And if they did actually want to do a Palpatine Returns story, that would work better with a Rey who already has a grandpa. Her journey begins and ends with grandfather figures telling her tales about the force, etc. Maybe LST even knew her real history, but guarded it close because if anyone ever found out, she'd be hunted and destroyed.

 

Tutto.

 

These are good ideas.

 

I wish Darth Sidious also used Trade Federation/Separatist droids and ships in Rise of Skywalker. I would have enjoyed that acknowledgement that he was behind the Clone Wars.

 

They were basically tools. I think there wouldn't be much of a reason for him to use the ships that once belonged to his patsy's maybe over 50 years before. Plus, I think the rebels are using some similar ships as the trade federation did in the OT at one point, if I remember correctly.

 

I mean, we already technically got that in the PT.

To me, none of the ST characters really have anything to do with Palpatine himself. There's no connection to the man. There is a connection to his legecy, which they are all living through still. But I doubt if anyone got to Exogol and Palpatine started ranting "it was I who arranged the Trade Federation embargo of Naboo, and ordered the clones, got the jedi to start the war, and ...

None of them would really care. Rey barely cares that she's his clone-daughter. It's why one of the biggest changes I'd make is to leave Palpatine be. Leave him in the past. Dead. It's kind of amazing how many TLJ fans who "want to kill the past", are also fans of bringing back Palpatine. Funny that.