ST What do you think of the fact that Han and Leia were no longer together in the Sequel Trilogy?

ANH was nominated for 10 Oscars including best picture. It was not exactly critically panned, and ESB frequently appears on best movies ever lists. Alec Guiness was nominated for best supporting actor. Not exactly paper thin.

 

This a good case of reverse writing. You can tell that the people who wrote TFA wanted Kylo to kill Han on that catwalk.

"So how do we get him there?"

"...Well, maybe Leia says to bring their son home."

"Why does she say that"?

"...idk, she misses him."

"But doesn't she realize that he's been evil for the past few years and Kylo won't just suddenly turn on a dime?"

"Okay, she thinks Snoke has corrupted him."

"Does she know that Snoke isn't on Starkiller Base at the moment? Does she know if Kylo is on the base? Wouldn't Snoke STILL be corrupting her son?"

"JUST HAVE HER SAY IT SO HARRISON CAN GET KILLED BY KYLO REN!"

 

I actually thought the Kylo/Han scene was very well done and acted, although I hated Han dying.

 

The scene itself is great. Harrison gives the perfect, "Did I yell at him too much or not enough" facial reaction. The lighting is great. Everything is great. But you can tell it was one of the first scene's they came up with and they manipulated everything else in order to get us to that point.

 

Harrison is fully invested and gives a great performance, as he has since 2009 or so. Indy 4, despite its mixed reception, seemed to revive Ford acting/career wise.

 

I havent been on here in a little while and as soon as I saw the title of this thread, I knew OP had made a grave mistake. @PendragonM probably cracked her knuckles and went ham all over this thing, no need for me to add anything more.

 

Lucasfilm were not legally obliged to use any character. The choices are all theirs.

Han hasn’t really got an arc, it’s actually an inverse of an arc because they regress him. What you’re describing isn’t an arc. You’re just describing things in the film, which anyone can do for any film for any and every character.

But they don’t know he’s there. Can you quote the dialogue where the rebels determine Kylo Ren is on SKB? No you can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. Kylo Ren is as likely to be on SKB as Snoke. Han is on a mission to help destroy SKB. The line of dialogue is just picked from Leia’s backside, because it’s what the writers believe is needed at that particular point to convey this was ‘a family’ via circa 60 seconds of bad dialogue. But it’s ultimately just reflective of the overall quality/lack of focus, that Han and Leia’s entire post ROTJ relationship is basically reduced to a few lines of relatively meaningless exposition.

I could but I’m not. I’m talking specifically about the ST, given this is an ST specific thread. But what I would say is the the PT manages to push on from TPM re. the themes, concepts, characters and plot... whereas the ST spends each film undermining the previous, and never pushing an idea or character beyond the exceedingly trite.

Well from that criteria Michael Bay must have made some of the greatest films ever made. I think what you’re probably best looking at is the comparative drop off in revenue since TFA. That’s more reflective of how the film/films are ultimately perceived. And even on these boards, TFA isn’t as ‘popular’ as it was, as when viewed in the entirety of the ST, its structural flaws are more apparent.

That’s actually incorrect. It’s very easy to quantify the structural issues of TFA... everything from its overtly derivative nature, its lack of new ideas/concepts, to its painful lack of world building/establishing a wider context, to existing characters being ‘reset’, to characters disappearing and re-appearing, to Abrams use of the tired ‘mystery box’. Whether that bothers one or not is more subjective.

I used it as an example of how focusing writing on the breakdown of a relationship is inherently more dramatic than the alternative. You do get that don’t you?

I used the example specifically as an example of how to depict a breakdown of a relationship between two key characters in a larger story. But clearly you’re having trouble understanding the comparison. How is Don Corleone, for example, more ‘realistic’ than Obi-Wan? Do you mean ‘realistic’ simply in terms of one being set on Earth and one being set in another galaxy, as that isn’t really the definition of ‘realism’ in writing/cinema. The characters in The Godfather, whilst being brilliantly written (IMO), aren’t particularly ‘realistic’ are they? They are quite highly stylised characters, one may even say caricatures (Godfather more than Godfather II).

I’m not sure how that’s relevant to anything??? The mid 70’s were seen as a rather cynical period, and many films reflected a distrust of the government/law and order. Clearly Star Wars was an optimistic fantasy that lifted spirits. But you seem to be alluding to a notion that it was vacuous like the ST? It wasn’t. And it isn’t. It’s packed with ideas, creativity, concepts, themes and engaging characters. The vacuous nature of SW is, IMO, specific to the ST.

I refer you to the previous post.

Why can’t you compare Paul Simon to Prince? It’s perfectly possible. The only thing holding one back would be the lack of insight/knowledge into their influences, and the technical and creative processes involved in how both artists wrote, recorded and performed music. So if you can’t compare between the two, because you haven’t the musical/technical understanding/vocabulary, then I’d say that’s your limitation and not others... and you shouldn’t try to impose your limitations on others.

More of your passive aggressive ‘snide’ comments. Nice.

You do comprehend that the comparison is about how a relationship (husband and wife) breaks down due to the influence of external factors on their marriage right? You do get that no one is stating that Han Solo should actually be played as a mafia mobster right?

I like SW. I just think that the ST are exceedingly bad examples of it. That many people believe the ST, to varying degrees, are inferior is just something you’ll have to accept and respect. Otherwise you’ll find fandom rather depressing, given that most talk of the ST seems to be negative across the spectrum fandom. But maybe, just maybe, that’s on the films?

 

For sure. Yet, did you just not say that you wanted more focus on the Organa/Solo family? This seems to indicate that Han and Leia would be more of a central focus than they were. I'm not sure this was ever on the table. The sequel trilogy was to always be about the next generation of heroes. Was it not? Even the details we have about Lucas's proposed trilogy/treatment seems to suggest that the focus would NOT be on Han and Leia as much as your suggestion/idea would warrant.

For sure Han has an arc. He has to be made whole again. He left his life as a rebel general, war hero, father, and husband behind. TFA illustrates his struggle to reconcile all that happened and "return home."

As the film progresses, Han has his own inner journey/transformation that occurs. Again, he has to reconcile with his role as a father, galactic hero, husband. In addition, Han returns to a leadership role. However, this is time we see Han evolve into a new role: Mentor. Han mentors Rey and Finn. He becomes/transforms into the teacher/father archetype that role that Obi-Wan once held. We literally see Han do these things on screen and evolve as a character in the process. He shows growth. This is the very definition of a character arc. The fact that you aren't satisfied by this arc doesn't negate it.

It's more than reasonable for Leia to assume one of the main bad guys (her son) is on the main bad guy base. Thus, she says, "If you see our son, bring him home." Not: "You will definitely our son, on Star Killer Base. " I'm not sure what your issue is with this. It's too convenient for you that our characters will meet up at the climax of a Star Wars film?

Also, you fail to consider the following: Leia has The Force. Perhaps she senses Ben may be there.

In any event, Han sees him and this is crucial to Han's character arc in the film/saga: We see Han Solo, once the most emotionally guarded, self centered, reluctant, characters in all of Star Wars emotionally naked for the first time. Han has never been more earnest, emotional, or vulnerable in Star Wars than he is with his own son. Not in the Carbon Freeze, not at Jabba's palace, not on Endor. This is Han Solo as we've never seen him before. This is the very definition of seeing a character evolve/change/grow. This is a character arc. We don't get this if the film is about Han and Leia "breaking up."

Fair enough. I am not interested in turning this into a PT vs. ST thing. I will say this: There is decades worth of reviews/commentary/fan complaints devoted to pulling apart the PT for the very things you are leveling at the ST. Those criticisms then are as valid as yours now.

One can find reviews from (what I consider) stodgy old critics back in the day calling the themes, characters, plot, etc of the OT things like "thin" and "trite." Point being: You are leveling accusations at the ST that can be (and have been) leveled at any of the Star Wars films by people who don't really like the movies.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with Michael Bay comments. Maybe I am uninformed and the Transformer movies have been a cultural phenomenon on par with Star Wars? I struggle to think of a Michael Bay film that was a warmly regarded, well received, or popular as The Force Awakens. Again, not sure where you are going with that. If you like TFA as much as a Michael Bay film, that says more about you than the actual films.

As far as drop off goes: The Empire Strikes Back made half as much as the original Star Wars. Return of the Jedi made a bit less than that. So what? Does that indicate anything about audience perception of A New Hope?

Fact of the matter is: The Force Awakens (in terms of box office) is the 2nd most popular Star Wars film of all time. Movies don't make that kind of money if they don't connect with the audience on a massive level of some kind. A movie has to have legs, tap into the cultural zeitgeist, and be extremely popular to generate those kind of returns. Again, if a movie doesn't connect with audiences, you won't see those kind of numbers. It doesn't matter if you don't like the movie, TFA resonated with an enormous amount of people.

Whether is bothers one or not is the key issue. If you are looking to do so, one can tear any Star Wars movie apart on one thing or another. As I said, disgruntled Star Wars fans/critics have been ripping the PT to shreds for years. People love Star Wars for different reasons.

More to the point, as I have already said, Han and Leia being separated simply doesn't bother me at all. It's a valid take, and their story/dynamic is handled better than some other romantic relationships in other Star Wars films.

Right, but that's not what TFA was about. The movie was never going to be a story about the fracturing of the Skywalker family. Maybe it should/could have been. It certainly seems to be what you wanted. Realistically, I think we were about 25 years too late to really feature our OT3 in that type of story.

Plus, does the movie going audience really want to witness another Skywalker tragedy unfold in "real time"? How dark would a trilogy centering around the destruction of Han, Luke, and Leia's family have to be? Does this sound like a crowd pleaser that Lucasfilm/Disney was looking for? I don't think so. I'm not saying you couldn't do it, but I think it's a very tricky proposition. In any event, this is (once again) talking about completely rewriting events, which is not really what the topic at hand is about. Is it?

No need to get mean. :-( I asked you nicely for clarification.

The characters in Godfather are more realistic because they are more subtle, nuanced, and realistic in terms of dialog, acting, and characterization. While elevated, they are still more like realistic in how they are written.

I'd argue that, as Don Corelone, you see Marlon Brando go through a myriad of human emotions, reactions, moods, etc . Alec Guiness, on the other hand, doesn't have as many different gears to switch when playing Obi-Wan.

Alec Guinness was an all time great actor, yet the character of Obi-Wan is written as a flatter, more archetypal, character than Don Corleone...which is a more rounded character. It's an intentional and stylistic choice. It's the difference between Star Wars and The Godfather, and it's why I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

Again, it's the apples and oranges thing. You are comparing Godfather to Star Wars to suggest flaws inherent to the ST. This could just as easily be done with any of the Star Wars films. I think the characters, genre, tone, style, and target audience of these films are far enough apart that is strains the comparison you were making. Star Wars is (largely) written to feature with characters that are much more broad and understandable to a younger (more innocent?) audience than characters in The Godfather.

I refer you to the previous gif.

I should not impose my limitations? You are the one banging the "Sequel Trilogy sucks" drum. I largely think negative art criticism is an exercise in futility. What does it get you? People are going to like what they like.

Art is not a competition and does adhere to analytics as you suggest.

Let's say we compare Prince to Paul Simon. You could come up with a 10 page presentations illustrating that Paul Simon is a more talented/skilled/technically proficient musician than Prince (he's not) and I'd still tell you that I liked Prince better. Opposite of that, if I came up with a fact based, well vetted, analysis that Prince is a more skilled musician than Paul Simon, I'm not going to spend my time trying to prove my Paul Simon loving best friend wrong. People like what they like despite analytics. Art is about taste. You have a distaste for the ST, and the Han and Leia separation, for all of it. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm simply saying why it worked for me.

This wasn't directed at you. Are you a movie critic? I don't find you particularly snide. I am sorry if you thought that was a swipe at you. If I meant you, I'd have said something about fans. I'd have put it in quotes though....like "fans."

I do. Thanks for re-explaining. I think, the key difference for me is the plot. The Godfather centers around Michael turning evil and rising to the position of Godfather. Thus, it makes sense to show the break down of his marriage.

The Force Awakens is partly telling a tale of Han Solo making his way home (to his ship, to the rebels, to Leia), mentoring Rey/Finn, and trying to reconcile with his son/family. For Han, it's largely a tale of his attempt redemption/restoration. I don't think a film showing the destruction of Han and Leia's family is the place for film about the redemption/restoration of Han Solo.

Now, a film about Ben Solo's fall/turning evil: Sure. Show the Skywalker/Solo/Organa family obliterated, separated, split apart, etc. However, this was NEVER the movie that Disney, Lucasfilm, nor George Lucas himself was going to make. I can find no evidence that this was ever on the table. Can you?

Believe me, I respect and accept the fact that people don't like various aspects of Star Wars, including the ST. I'm just trying to share my point of view that, these movies (all of them) aren't that different from one another and that you could pick any Star Wars movie apart if you really want to. As you said, all depends on what bothers you, or not.

 

The Last Jedi has the patient up out of bed and leaving the hospital as far as I’m concerned. Just unlucky that the patient gets hit by a reversing bus full of lunatics on a day trip when he steps outside.

 

In no way does that scene with Kylo make Han “emotionally naked” or “earnest, emotional or vulnerable.” And certainly not more than carbon freeze, Jabba’s palace or Endor. Han is more vulnerable saying goodbye to Luke or in the scenes on Bespin in Empire then in any moment of TFA.

He’s handed, again, a bunch of exposition that doesn’t pay off and begs his son to come home without summoning any other reason than he misses him - for what reason, I am completely at a loss to say. I honestly have no idea why anyone likes that scene, even if it had ended differently. I think it’s horribly written and Ford is basically acting by himself. I would say it’s the most horrible thing I’ve seen onscreen but I did see the lizard ep of ST Voyager and the years of Homicide that featured Jon Seda, who was the Adam Driver of that show aka the most overhyped. But it’s easily top 5. Parts of TLJ are there too.

What’s he teach Finn and Rey? Outside of how to hold a blaster and that women always find out? Rey was basically teaching him

‘What the hell is the ST but a trilogy centering around the destruction of Han, Luke and Leia’s family?

Aww thanks @Def Trooper !

 

I always assumed PendragonM was a guy for some reason.

 

MISOGYNIST HATER CONFIRMED /s

 

I'm assuming your joking.

 

Yes, the /s is for sarcasm lol.

 

For me it never really bothered me. I actually like it. Not everything needs to be and they loved each other forever and it was perfect.

 

No I didn’t say that. I said, from what’s actually presented in the films, the focus of the story should have been on the elements that were inherently more dramatic e.g. Luke’s fall, the breakdown of the relationship between Han, Leia and Ben.

He’s not made ‘whole again’... he has a hole put through him if that’s what you mean? His issues with Leia aren’t resolved and his son kills him. That’s not an arc. Certainly not an arc with any modicum of quality.

Why would she assume that when Snoke isn’t even based there? What is presented in the films to show that Leia would suspect that her son is on SKB when the Supreme Leader is sitting on the galaxy’s biggest war ship? It’s like Obi-Wan assuming he’d bump into Anakin/Vader on the Death Star.

It’s not the convenience of it. It’s more about the amount of absolutely redundant dialogue, and that the film (in this instance) expends more energy on pointless dialogue than building the drama. It would be like Luke saying to Obi-Wan on the approach to the Death Star ‘oh what if we bump into that Darth Vader dude here?’...

Then perhaps Leia was more equipped to actually ‘bring her son home’ than Han, given she’s like a Jedi Master and all? Did you ever consider that possibility? Did the writers ever consider why Leia would sit back? No... obviously Abrams wouldn’t have considered that, because Leia was just a piece of wallpaper in his film. And this is then doubled down on in TLJ when it’s Luke who gets to face Kylo down, whilst Leia hides in a cave. Shocking really how both filmmakers make Leia so irrelevant.

What you are describing isn’t an arc. It isn’t growth or evolvement of a character it’s just a ‘change’... just as Luke being a grumpy old hermit was a change. But without it playing out on screen, is not an arc. You may as well be citing Han having grey hair in the ST as a character arc.

I’m not talking about the PT. I’m talking about the ST specifically, and all the flaws/issues contained therein. Trying to bring other films into the mix is, IMO, is just deflecting from the criticism.

The Transformer films have been hugely popular and have made lots of money for the studio. You, seem to be putting forward that this is some measure of quality, and of capturing the ‘zeitgeist’, which is at best, hugely debatable.

That a direct sequel to a hugely popular film makes less money is common. The point germane to the ST is they’ve seen a decline with each successive film. That’s a huge issue which clearly Disney were aware of... hence the strategic change. Also, ROTJ didn’t make less than TESB.

As already mentioned, it’s Star Wars, it’s the first Star Wars film in over a decade, it has the original actors/characters in it... it was probably one of the most marketed films of all time. It was always going to be a huge film. That has very little to do with overall quality.

I’m not sure that’s a robust defence of the criticisms levelled at the ST.

Deflection. You seem to not want to focus on the films in question (the ST)... which, IMO seems to show an absence of a counter argument.

Why not? Who says??? What we effectively have presented is the death of the Skywalker family.

Not at all. I’d have rather a sequel trilogy been either about the OT 3, with new supporting characters, or it feature all new characters without the OT3. I stated this explicitly in an earlier post.

Hmmm.... And yet with get Han Solo DEAD. Luke Skywalker DEAD. Princess Leia DEAD. Ben Solo DEAD.

But clearly you are having trouble understanding what I’m putting forward. I’ve tried to elucidate several times.

How are the characters more subtle and nuanced in The Godfather? The Godfather, as much as I love and rate it as a film, is full of cliches. It’s not particularly subtle or nuanced... but I would say that the Godfather II is more nuanced.

But you’re comparing arbitrary characters. I happen to think that, for example, Han and Leia (TESB) are written and performed just as well as Michael and Kay. I think Palpatine (PT) has all the ‘nuance’ and ‘subtlety’ of any character in The Godfather... sure the dialogue may be inferior, but the intention, the aspiration and the performance from McDiarmid is absolutely present. And I strongly believe that TESB is as good (technically) as any Godfather film. There’s no reason why Star Wars films can’t aspire to be better. But that’s obviously a different argument .

I wasn’t comparing Star Wars films to the Godfather films actually. I was comparing Michael and Kay’s relationship in The Godfather II to The Godfather III, as a relative comparison of each other as to where the drama was best served i.e. breakdown rather than reconciliation.

This, below, is what I actually wrote. This leads me to believe you were not understanding the point being made:

‘What do you think it added to The Godfather II, for example, by having Michael and Kay Corleone still together at the start of the film? Do you think The Godfather II would have been better if it had instead been The Godfather III, and showed Michael and Kay as estranged from the beginning?’

I’ll make the point again Jamie... it was YOU that replied to one of my posts. So why bother to reply just to tell people they are ‘wrong’? With all respect, that’s where the futility is IMO.

Who was stating that ‘art is a competition’? What does that even mean? Also, I’m not even sure I’d constitute the ST as ‘art’, but again that’s a different argument.

You said one couldn’t compare Paul Simon with Prince. I see little in your response to justify that claim. Also, given that you often bring up the previous Star Wars films (specifically the PT), to make the point that the ST was better than this, or the ST was better than that, shows a modicum of inconsistency in what you’re trying to argue vis a vis ‘art’ and ‘technical merit/craft’. Also, for the record, nobody here is trying to invalidate your (or anyone else’s) view of the films. Your perception of them is as valid as anybody’s. But this isn’t about that. You seem to want to debate several people in order to show they are ‘wrong’.

You didn’t mention ‘professional critic’. You wrote:

‘An accusation that basically has been leveled at Star Wars characters by snide critics since 1977’

If your saying that you meant ‘professional’ critic, then I take you at your word.

The drama inherent in seeing how relationships break down isn’t, or shouldn’t, be restricted to characters that are ‘turning evil’. Why would you think that? There’s lots of examples of great drama (and comedy) where it revolves around the breakdown of relationships between ‘good’, or ‘normal’ people... and that’s because most people (in the real world) experience the breakdown of a relationship... it’s relatable... it encourages empathy... which invariably leads to ‘drama’.

Is it? I don’t see that at all. I can see how you perhaps may interpret it that way, but in terms of what’s actually presented on screen, Han has less arc in TFA than Jar Jar Binks has in TPM.

I think you’re getting caught up in the semantics of your own argument. Of course Disney were never going to make a film that spent time showing how Luke lost his mojo, or how the challenges of living in a post Empire galaxy would/could lead to the breakdown of key relationships. What’s being put forward is the idea that if Disney had been willing to invest focus in ‘drama’, rather than nostalgia and derivative filmmaking, it would/could have resulted in something considerably better than what they presented. And I certainly believe George Lucas’ treatments would have been more engaging.

I believ the ST is as different from the Lucas era of films than any films could be within the same franchise. Which is why I, and many others, are talking about it. And it also kind of underlines the point being made too... as I think Lucasfilm/Disney thought they could just squeeze out a film, and as long as it had X-Wings and lighsabres, it would be as good (if not better) than everything else. Which is, I’d argue, patently not the case. But obviously that’s my opinion.[/QUOTE]

 

Again, I don't necessarily disagree. Yet, this movie/story was never in the cards for this film. As I said, it seems as if (even when Lucas was in charge) Lucasfilm was NEVER going to make a movie showing the destruction of the Skywalker family.

Nice pun. It's an arc in every sense of the word. It ends tragically in TFA. You just don't like how it plays out.

Again, Leia's line is: "If you see our son, bring him home." The movie clearly illustrates she doesn't know for sure that he's there, or not. Why is this an issue? Han's going to the heart of darkness/the bad guy base. Surely there is a chance he'd run into Kylo Ren. In fact, Ren comes looking for him.

It's redundant? How so? It's a set up. This line is the impetus for Han confronting Kylo on the bridge. Han's doing this for Leia/their family.

I am not disagreeing with you. Surely one could write this movie in any number of ways. However, I thought we were talking about the film as it actually exists, rather than hypothetical versions we would have liked to of seen. You are trying to suggest the internal logic of this scene is broken, but I just don't see it that way.

I get that you really dislike these movies. I feel like this is getting off topic a bit. I am not dismissing what you are saying, I just think this is a separate conversation/topic.

Han's arc does play out onscreen in TFA. When we see him, he's reluctant to get involved with Rey and Finn's adventure. He's running from who he used to be rebel, hero, leader, father, husband. He is convinced Leia doesn't want to see him, yet he goes back to her and they reconnect/reunite. By the end of the film, he is face to face with his son and baring his soul. This is change that plays out onscreen. Again, this arc doesn't happen if Han and Leia are already together. The entire movie changes.

Yes, I know you are being specific to the ST. Yet, when you step back and look at the larger picture, when you look at negative critiques of previous Star Wars films, you'll see that the criticisms you are leveling at the ST can essentially be (and have been) leveled at any Star Wars movie.

When critiquing Star Wars films, it's perfectly valid to compare/contrast criticisms and perceived weaknesses of other films within the series.

You suggested that The Force Awakens failed to connect with audiences.

I countered by saying TFA was enormously popular/well regarded and that it connected with a massive amount of people. I then pointed out that it was the 2nd highest earning Star Wars film of all time for evidence. Being the second highest earning film in the franchise (and one of the biggest films ever)suggests that the movie connected with a lot of people.

You then twisted this to suggest that I think movies making money = artistic quality by bringing up Transformers and Michael Bay.

Your reasoning is flawed (which I think you know) because you are likely aware of these two things:

1. Transformers films are widely regarded/mocked as not having a lot of artistic merit, but still earning money.
2. Transformer films actually don't come close to earning the box office that The Force Awakens did.

Tell me, do you honestly think the Transformers films are (or ever have been) the cultural phenomenon that Star Wars films are/have been?

Right. So, despite your claim, TLJ's box office drop is not necessarily an indicator of the audiences feelings about TFA.

I was always under the impression that ROTJ made more money than ESB. Yet, box office mojo suggests otherwise. I also searched for Star Wars box office numbers (adjusted for inflation of course) and found the same thing here.
If you use different data for all time box office, please let me know.

I'm not talking about quality. This is not what we are arguing. Again, you suggested TFA failed to connect with people. This is false.

The fact is: TFA connected to audiences and was massively popular. A movie doesn't make this kind of money without connecting with a large number of people.

Surely, I could round it out for you. If you want to get way into the weeds and set up a thread where we look at negative complaints from critics/fans about all of the Star Wars movies and compare/contrast them, I am up for it.

Fact of the matter: Your criticisms of the ST aren't dissimilar from what OT and PT naysayers say/said.

Nonsense. The question is: "What do you think of Han and Leia no longer being together in the ST?" I've given my position on it repeatedly. I've stated that, if Han and Leia were together in TFA, this would fundamentally change the film.

Now is the thread talking/asking for a wholesale restructuring of the ST? Because that's what happens if Han and Leia are together, and it seems as if that's where you wanna take things.

You are the one putting forth "whatif" ideas about how you think the film should have been written/constructed.

Meanwhile, I'm talking about the other SW films to draw parallels and comparisons to TFA and Star Wars as a whole to illustrate that your critiques (while aimed at the ST) could largely be aimed at many of the other Star Wars films.

You are conflating two separate things. A movie about the death of John Lennon is not the same thing as a movie about The Beatles breaking up.

Fair enough. You want a movie with the OT3 as the main characters (they are largely supporting characters in the ST), or you don't want the OT3 characters at all. No wonder you don't like the ST.

Yes. Yet, they aren't the main characters of this trilogy. What you are doing is similar if one were to frame the OT this way: Obi-Wan DEAD. Yoda: DEAD Anakin: DEAD.

Listen, as much as I'd love to go down this rabbit hole, I think we could spend hours/weeks comparing the difference in characters, writing, acting, structure, style, and genres between the characters in Star Wars and the characters in Godfather. If you think Star Wars characters are as nuanced as the characters in the Godfather, I am happy for you. Again, this is not a knock against SW...they are simply different movies utilizing characters in different ways.

Dude, your the one that asked me about Obi-Wan and Don Corleone. I much prefer the portrayals of Han and Leia to Michael and Kay. I don't even really like The Godfather films that much.

I am just saying, I don't think these films make for great comparisons when it comes to relationships. Han and Leia are much more old school movie romance bantering like Tracy and Hepburn, where as Michael and Kay are like a more "real" character study of an abusive/power struggle of a relationship. As I said, apples and oranges. Both great films/portrayals, yet totally different. Worth comparing? I guess.....but it's a reach.

Sounds good. Let's just stop here then. Thanks for the talk. I'll try to watch out when responding to your posts in the future.

 

Speaking of assumptions, I thought @jaimestarr and @shawnsolo3000 were different people...

 

For a long time I could not log in to my original account so I created a new/2nd account. I accidentally logged into the new one when responding to Darth PJ. I am not trying to misrepresent myself. As you can see, I am responding in earnest to Darth PJ. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I thought I was making a joke and I wasn't! Thanks for clearing it up