Kathleen Kennedy Damaging Star Wars....?

[DarKush]

Is Kathleen Kennedy the sole person ‘ruining’ Star Wars? No. But she is the front person, so she’s going to take the blame. Plus, we know there were troubled productions with Rogue One and Solo, we know the original Episode IX director got sacked, and I have to suspect that Kennedy was involved in those actions, to what degree, I don’t know. But if she’s going to receive the accolades for the umpteenth billion-dollar box office making film, she’s going to get a lot of the criticism for any failure-perceived or not as well.

I do come down on the side that Star Wars, under Disney, and under Kennedy isn’t that good or enjoyable. I liked Rogue One. I still enjoyed some of Star Wars: Rebels, and the Marvel Star Wars comics (with there being more hits than misses). The novels are a struggle for me, though I did enjoy Lords of the Sith. Lords of the Sith is the only one I’ve been able to finish.

Despite George Lucas’s flaws, he had a vision that I do think is lacking in the new Star Wars. I’m not sure what the new films are supposed to be about, if anything. Lucas wasn’t the greatest writer, but he had an amazing visual imagination and he got themes and spectacle. The new films mimic the spectacle and Lucas’s visual eye, but the heart is missing. And I don’t think the new characters are that engaging. I did enjoy the Del Ray books, Expanded Universe version of the post-ROTJ future far more. I loved the Yuuzhan Vong and would rather seen them than a weaker copy of the Empire in the First Order. I also liked the Solo twins more than Rey or Ben Solo. The Vong, the Lost Tribe of Sith, the One Sith, Killiks, Abeloth, are all better villains than Kylo Ren, Hux, and Snoke.

But I get that Disney wanted to go its own way, which is fine, however what they’ve mostly presented so far is just retreading what we’ve seen before, with some tweaks here and there and some media and internet assisted hype and social pressure to try to convince everyone that the new Star Wars is so different, so fresh, or whatever. It’s not. There’s nothing TLJ did that we haven’t seen in some form or fashion in other Star Wars films. Humble origins have long been there (Luke, Anakin), critiques of social/political scene have long been there (Trade Federation, slavery on Tatoonine and Republic not doing anything about it, Senate corruption, Palpatine’s rise, Nute Gunray (Newt Gingrich), Anakin’s “You’re with us or against us”, echoing George W. Bush. Lucas was inspired by Watergate, but also the Civil War (“Confederacy” of Independent Systems, The Grand Army of the Republic, US Union Army), some big revelation that changes everything we thought we knew ("I am your father."). Strong female characters have been there (Leia, Padme, Mon Mothma, Ahsoka Tano). Deconstructing legends or myths has already been covered (Luke and Yoda on Dagobah, Luke and Vader at Bespin, seeing how misguided and duped the Old Republic Jedi were). So, it’s hard for me to buy that this new Star Wars is so much more groundbreaking than what’s come before. I do think the numbers are increased when it comes to diversity for new Star Wars as opposed to the old, but some of the basic spirit or sentiment was there in the past. And new Star Wars still has some problems on the diversity and inclusion front.

One of the things that bothers me most in critiques of ‘fandom’ is that the criticizers display some of the same intolerance they accuse critics of the new Star Wars as exhibiting. And there feels like a media full court press that you must like these films and embrace these characters, and if you don’t, then you’re a deplorable. And also there’s this kind of false crowning of greatness and deepness on these new films which I don’t think is deserved, but we aren’t supposed to really question that.

And The Last Jedi media/online push criticized ‘old’ fans, but then they try to give us Solo, which is all about nostalgia. It just feels like an uneven way to handle this property, and to have Kennedy, J.J. Abrams, and Rian Johnson say negative things about fans (even if some of it is true), is not a good look either. I think the work should speak for itself, and they shouldn’t tell us how to think about the films.

So, I’m not a fan of Kennedy’s stewardship thus far. The best they’ve come up with for live-action is Rogue One, and the character work there wasn’t great. The cast was solid and the story was exciting-not all the way through-but ended on a strong note. I just don’t think they know how to write characters anymore. And there’s no real purpose for these sequel films. The new Star Wars doesn’t have anything original to say about the world and is only about making money and keeping the behemoth lumbering along. Which is what many franchises do, but those franchises keep getting diminished returns (Terminator, Alien, and soon-once again to be Predator, etc.).

Then again, on the flip side there’s a competing idea that the films don’t have to be about ‘anything’ but just return us to that universe that we love to escape in for a few hours. But the new Star Wars doesn’t even allow for that because they’ve went out of their way to muddy, demoralize, and sideline the original trilogy heroes. It’s a weird feeling for me, because in the EU/Del Ray books I was tired of seeing Han and Leia in them because they were shoehorned in and wanted more development of the Solo twins and the younger Jedi, but in the live-action films, I want to the opposite. I did want to see our old heroes treated with more respect. Star Trek does that much better. They have a reverence for the source material even when they are changing or amending it.

 

[Qonundrum]

^^this

No, she's not killing the franchise, but I wish she would have kept working with GL's ideas the way she claimed:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Oh my...

(To expedite, the fun begins at 4:56, if not 4:46, but if you're so inclined, check out 0:00-4:55 beforehand then 5:21-1:45:06 after the 4:55-5:20 fun stuff. )

GL's prequels had good ideas, let down largely by pacing and poor dialogue issues. Maybe a couple less CGI characters as well...

 

[Tuskin38]

but I wish she would have kept working with GL's ideas the way she claimed:

They did use some of his ideas, Luke being in exile and then reluctantly training a new Jedi came from discussions with Lucas according to the TLJ Art Book.

In fact that was originally the start of the new saga, not the middle of it.

The name of the jedi at the time was Kira, I wonder if the name of Qi'ra in Solo is a recycling of Kira's name.

 

[fireproof78]

@DarKush
While I don't agree with most of what you said, it is well written and well stated.

i think the part were I struggle with criticizing the new Star Wars is that the OT and the PT are now viewed with very heavy nostalgia glasses. Lucas, who was driven out of the film making business by the extent of the criticism, is suddenly back in favor. That's telling to me.

The new films are in an untenable position. Forge forward (Rogue One, The Last Jedi) and they are too different. Tell stories about old characters (Solo) and it's nostalgia. There is no way for this franchise to win.

Personally, I have enjoyed the ST, and the characters presented within. I enjoy the fact that there is a little bit of deconstruction of the mythology of these heroes and allowing them to be smaller, more human, fragile and capable of failure. I'm not sure I want the OT crew to be forever immortalized as grand heroes. Part of the appeal of the OT was Luke as the everyman, someone I can identify with, and go on an adventure. Now, as I have aged, I can appreciate TLJ's discussion of failure,

 

[The Wormhole]

Strong female characters have been there (Leia, Padme, Mon Mothma, Ahsoka Tano).

I'm not sure I'd call Mon Mothma a "strong character." Sure, she's in a position of ultimate authority being the leader of the Rebel Alliance, but there isn't really much to her as a character. In ROTJ she's basically just exposition deliverer, with her distinction being the one who spoke the line about Bothans. Ahsoka wasn't even in the OT or prequels, so I'm not even sure why she's being mentioned here.

Besides, the significant thing is that the new movies have had female characters as their leads (except Solo) and there have been more than one in the movies. Leia and Padme were basically sidekicks and the OT and PT really didn't have any significant female presence besides those two. Just look up that YouTube video about all the lines spoken by females in the OT we weren't Leia and then try to say those movies had an equal representation of women.

And new Star Wars still has some problems on the diversity and inclusion front.

Well, they're leaps and bounds ahead of thirty years ago when Lando was apparently the only black guy in the galaxy.

Star Trek does that much better. They have a reverence for the source material even when they are changing or amending it.

This is the Star Trek way: "We need to reboot the franchise with a new take on TOS to bring in new fans. But to keep the old fans, we're going to make this an alternate timeline which branches off from the main franchise, which will allow us to bring Leonard Nimoy in for pointless cameos where he reminds us he swore a vow not to talk about the future, which he's now going to break anyway."

 

[mos6507]

Diversity and "strong" characters by themselves accomplishes nothing.

Give me characters I care about.

I still feel very "meh" about Rey, Finn, and Poe. Rey is still a Mary Sue. Finn feels like little more than comedy relief and Poe feels like empty beefcake while being simultaneously emasculated at every turn in the interest of "strongifying" women.

Give these characters something to do that will win my interest.

Rey could have, for instance, raised Luke's X-Wing out of the water. Something inspirational like that. Some sort of epic moment of wonder mixed with a callback. Instead she moves a few rocks, has force-skype calls and fights side by side with the bad guy...

TLJ was too busy subverting the source material to realize that its main task is to give the audience a reason to care.

We're left with nobody to focus on other than Luke and, to a lesser extent, Leia.

 

[fireproof78]

I care about Rey, Poe and Finn, and have since the TFA.

 

[DarKush]

@DarKush
While I don't agree with most of what you said, it is well written and well stated.

i think the part were I struggle with criticizing the new Star Wars is that the OT and the PT are now viewed with very heavy nostalgia glasses. Lucas, who was driven out of the film making business by the extent of the criticism, is suddenly back in favor. That's telling to me.

The new films are in an untenable position. Forge forward (Rogue One, The Last Jedi) and they are too different. Tell stories about old characters (Solo) and it's nostalgia. There is no way for this franchise to win.

Personally, I have enjoyed the ST, and the characters presented within. I enjoy the fact that there is a little bit of deconstruction of the mythology of these heroes and allowing them to be smaller, more human, fragile and capable of failure. I'm not sure I want the OT crew to be forever immortalized as grand heroes. Part of the appeal of the OT was Luke as the everyman, someone I can identify with, and go on an adventure. Now, as I have aged, I can appreciate TLJ's discussion of failure,

Thanks for the kind words. I agree that Star Wars is in a tough spot, but the way I see out of it is to tell good stories with good characters and that's where I think new Star Wars is lacking. Lucas got savaged by fans and critics for the PT, and some of that was deserved. TPM is still at the bottom of my Star Wars movie rankings, and until they officially edit Jar Jar Binks out of it, it will remain so.

I think that we saw vulnerable and fragile characters in the OT. The prequels weren’t great when it came to character development, but there as it went on, we saw deconstruction and vulnerability there as well.

As for the sequels, I think they went overboard in making everyone a failure. Where nothing seemed to matter much in the OT when you see that future where everyone is miserable, everyone fails, and yet we are supposed to believe that the new trinity is so great (they aren’t) that they are going to overcome where the OT heroes didn’t?

I don’t think the OT heroes had to be perfect in the sequels-they weren’t perfect in the OT, but I do think the new films went out of the way in throwing dirt on them, perhaps in an effort to deconstruct them, as some kind anti-legends, anti-heroes screed, but that is undercut by producing new and fairly idealistic replacements. It’s almost like they are trying to dim the view of the OT heroes to make it easier to replace them with characters that aren’t as good. So, we got to show how much a screw up the OT characters were and how the new characters will recharge them and make them perhaps come alive again or something. And even in that, they copy the OT, where Leia and then Luke give Obi-Wan new purpose again.

So, with sequel Luke do you find him more relatable because he ran away from his responsibilities after almost killing his nephew? That he didn’t find a way to fix the damage he caused, but instead went sulking while the galaxy went to hell? We can all relate to failure, we all make mistakes, and some of us do run away or avoid dealing with our problems, but the way they handled Luke, Leia, and Han was piling on.

(To me, young Luke was just as relatable because he did live up to his responsibilities, that he aspired to be something more, to join a cause greater than himself, and that he was tempted by the dark side but didn’t give into the temptation. He was someone to look up to. Old Luke is someone that I pity, and in part because it didn’t fit what we had seen him do over three films in the OT. If he had tried and failed against Ben and Snoke more than that flashback, that’s one thing, but him just running away like that, after we had seen Han runaway in TFA, I mean come on).

With Han, they reversed his arc from the OT, from mostly selfish smuggler to rebel leader and willing to trust someone (who wasn’t Chewie) enough to be in a romantic relationship and also to sacrifice himself for. For Leia, she was a war leader in the OT and the sequels, but at least she won in the OT, plus it appears she was fighting an unsanctioned war against the First Order, so does that make her a warmonger now? Also, she was a bad parent (along with Han) to Ben. Why didn’t she use her Force powers and yank his behind away from Snoke? And I’ve already discussed Luke. It was just too much for me. If you want to make one a failure, fine, but all three, in varying degrees? That’s too much.

Star Wars was an escapist fantasy but I didn’t want to see that many mid-life crises in these new films.

 

[fireproof78]

So, with sequel Luke do you find him more relatable because he ran away from his responsibilities after almost killing his nephew? That he didn’t find a way to fix the damage he caused, but instead went sulking while the galaxy went to hell? We can all relate to failure, we all make mistakes, and some of us do run away or avoid dealing with our problems, but the way they handled Luke, Leia, and Han was piling on.

That he made a mistake that he thought was unfixable. That it took his mentor highlighting it for him and teaching him again. It isn't just the mistake and running away. It's the feeling that he could not ever be forgiven. I don't know. There is something about it that resonates with me.

And, with due respect, the EU piled on plenty to the Big 3. Chewie's death, Jacen's fall and Mara's death. Collapse of the New Republic and reforming in to the Galactic Alliance.

 

[Trekkin]

For Leia, she was a war leader in the OT and the sequels, but at least she won in the OT, plus it appears she was fighting an unsanctioned war against the First Order, so does that make her a warmonger now? Also, she was a bad parent (along with Han) to Ben. Why didn’t she use her Force powers and yank his behind away from Snoke?

It took OT Leia a whole trilogy to ‘win’. She has time.

As for The Resistance, they weren’t unsanctioned. It’s mentioned in the first five seconds of TFA that they were connected to the The New Republic. They just weren’t the New Republic military.

With the support of the REPUBLIC, General Leia Organa leads a brave RESISTANCE.

The loss of that connection is also brought up as also why they’re having such a resource problem in TLJ.

Also, beside Leia blaming herself...when is it mentioned she was a bad mother to Ben? Han and Luke both tell her it wasn’t her fault, and even Ben himself seems to lay all the blame on his daddy issues.

Ben is full of shit of course, for reasons that also address your last point...Leia couldn’t just ‘yank’ Ben away from Snoke, because Ben wanted to follow Snoke. He chose to be evil. Made very explicit (to both her and us) by the fact Ben did turn on Snoke, but only for selfish and power hungry reasons.

She and Luke have an entire conversation about it at the end of TLJ, where she flat-out admits she’s previously been in denial, and now had to accept that Ren’s Just A Bad Dude. Even if there is a teeny sliver of hope for him, because, well...there’s always hope.

 

[DarKush]

I'm not sure I'd call Mon Mothma a "strong character." Sure, she's in a position of ultimate authority being the leader of the Rebel Alliance, but there isn't really much to her as a character. In ROTJ she's basically just exposition deliverer, with her distinction being the one who spoke the line about Bothans. Ahsoka wasn't even in the OT or prequels, so I'm not even sure why she's being mentioned here.

Besides, the significant thing is that the new movies have had female characters as their leads (except Solo) and there have been more than one in the movies. Leia and Padme were basically sidekicks and the OT and PT really didn't have any significant female presence besides those two. Just look up that YouTube video about all the lines spoken by females in the OT we weren't Leia and then try to say those movies had an equal representation of women.

Well, they're leaps and bounds ahead of thirty years ago when Lando was apparently the only black guy in the galaxy.

This is the Star Trek way: "We need to reboot the franchise with a new take on TOS to bring in new fans. But to keep the old fans, we're going to make this an alternate timeline which branches off from the main franchise, which will allow us to bring Leonard Nimoy in for pointless cameos where he reminds us he swore a vow not to talk about the future, which he's now going to break anyway."

I think that’s a fair point about Mon Mothma, but to have a woman in a, if not the, leadership role at that time was at least, from a visual perspective, was a nod to her strength.

And you are also right about the greater numbers of female characters in the sequel films. I do consider Leia and Padme more than sidekicks. Padme was instrumental in setting up the end of the Republic but was also show as a daring and noble leader in her own right, and Leia carried on that tradition. Without her, the plans for the Death Star might have been lost and she also was instrumental in the destruction of the second Death Star.

Compared to the sequels, and not counting main character Rey, what great actions have the sequel female characters performed that elevate them over Padme or OT Leia? The only one I can think of is Holdo’s sacrifice. (Granted, Rose’s sister also had a big sacrifice too). Rose prevented Finn from taking out that big First Order weapon, possibly imperiling what remained of the Resistance. Kanata did provide Rey with Luke’s lightsaber and then information about Canto Bight, but is that bigger than freeing Naboo, calling for a no-confidence vote in Chancellor Valorum, fighting against the Military Creation Act, pushing Palpatine for peace? Or essentially anything Leia did in the OT? For Rogue One, Jyn Erso was the main character, and Mon Mothma was in the film as well, but the only other female character I can think of in that film was a reluctant Senator.

Regarding black characters, I think Finn (especially in TFA) was a stereotypical character, more offensive than Jar Jar Binks, and I would rather he not been in the film or the sequels at all. And while we have seen more black characters, they are generally in background, unimportant roles, or covered in CGI, with Finn being the most recognizable and fleshed out. Mace Windu and especially Lando were handled much better than Finn, though they had far, far less screen time. So I don't consider Finn a great advancement on the diversity front. I see him more as a regression and a waste of John Boyega's considerable talent.

Regarding Star Trek, I was thinking more along the lines of how the 24th century shows respected TOS, but even with the Abrams’s films, the inclusion of Nimoy (especially in the 2009 film was reverential and I enjoyed it. He was shoehorned into Into Darkness, as was Khan, but since it was Nimoy’s last time as Spock I am forgiving). And from what I’ve read of Discovery, because I haven’t seen the full series yet, they are tweaking things and changing things but there are some nods to what came before. It’s not a complete junking of what came before with a line like ‘kill the past’ or whatever. And if Star Wars wants to kill the past, then actually be bold enough to do that, and not give us retreads of the Galactic Civil War, Luke, Vader, etc.

 

[DarKush]

That he made a mistake that he thought was unfixable. That it took his mentor highlighting it for him and teaching him again. It isn't just the mistake and running away. It's the feeling that he could not ever be forgiven. I don't know. There is something about it that resonates with me.

And, with due respect, the EU piled on plenty to the Big 3. Chewie's death, Jacen's fall and Mara's death. Collapse of the New Republic and reforming in to the Galactic Alliance.

So, it took Yoda 30 years to come back to teach Luke that? Why couldn't Luke look to his own history, or the journal of Obi-Wan which he recovers in the comics (and that's canon) and see how misguided it was to run way. It goes beyond his personal guilt, the fate of millions or more lives were at stake by allowing Ben to link up with Snoke and for the First Order to get rolling.

You're right about the EU. Being challenged is not an issue for me, failing is not an issue either, but the EU characters kept going, they might have stumbled sometimes but they didn't just give up. Han ran for like a book or two after Chewie's death but he was back. He wasn't gone some 10-20 years. Luke did go away after Mara Jade's death, but only after killing Lumiya and beating the crap out of Caedus, and if I recall, he lent his force presence to Jaina to help her defeat Caedus. He was more involved. He didn't shut himself off from The Force.

 

[fireproof78]

So, it took Yoda 30 years to come back to teach Luke that? Why couldn't Luke look to his own history, or the journal of Obi-Wan which he recovers in the comics (and that's canon) and see how misguided it was to run way. It goes beyond his personal guilt, the fate of millions or more lives were at stake by allowing Ben to link up with Snoke and for the First Order to get rolling.

It took 30 years for Luke to be in a position to be taught that. Last time Luke had seen Yoda, he had been told that he knew what he needed.

You're right about the EU. Being challenged is not an issue for me, failing is not an issue either, but the EU characters kept going, they might have stumbled sometimes but they didn't just give up. Han ran for like a book or two after Chewie's death but he was back. He wasn't gone some 10-20 years. Luke did go away after Mara Jade's death, but only after killing Lumiya and beating the crap out of Caedus, and if I recall, he lent his force presence to Jaina to help her defeat Caedus. He was more involved. He didn't shut himself off from The Force.

As much as I would like to believe that I would keep going, losing a child would be one of the biggest pains to experience. With due respect, I am not certain that these characters would immediately pick up and go.

 

[DarKush]

It took OT Leia a whole trilogy to ‘win’. She has time.

As for The Resistance, they weren’t unsanctioned. It’s mentioned in the first five seconds of TFA that they were connected to the The New Republic. They just weren’t the New Republic military.



The loss of that connection is also brought up as also why they’re having such a resource problem in TLJ.

Also, beside Leia blaming herself...when is it mentioned she was a bad mother to Ben? Han and Luke both tell her it wasn’t her fault, and even Ben himself seems to lay all the blame on his daddy issues.

Ben is full of shit of course, for reasons that also address your last point...Leia couldn’t just ‘yank’ Ben away from Snoke, because Ben wanted to follow Snoke. He chose to be evil. Made very explicit (to both her and us) by the fact that Snoke is now dead, yet Ben still insisted on being evil. She and Luke have an entire conversation about it at the end of TLJ, where she flat-out admits she can no longer be in denial about Ben Just Being A Bad Dude.

Thanks for the clarification. I had bad information I suppose and I really don't want to watch TFA again really. I was thinking that the Resistance was being tacitly supported by the New Republic but that it wasn't official.

Regarding Leia, she and Han left Ben to fall completely into the clutches of Snoke. (Luke as well). That's bad parenting to me. Especially when all three knew about Vader and knew what a dark side Force user could do. Just because Ben wanted to follow Snoke doesn't mean he shouldn't have been confronted, incarcerated, or put down if necessary. Yes, it's harsh, but the OT established that that's what Luke would've had to do if he hadn't come up with an innovative solution. And we did see Obi-Wan put down Anakin in the PT, even if he couldn't finish him off, an bad mistake which cost countless lives for almost 20 years after.

Of course Ben just being a bad dude absolves Leia of any complicity in allowing him to continue his rampage. And that goes for Han and Luke giving her a pass as well by saying it's not her fault. They all let Ben down in some way, and the galaxy is paying for it.

 

[DarKush]

It took 30 years for Luke to be in a position to be taught that. Last time Luke had seen Yoda, he had been told that he knew what he needed.

As much as I would like to believe that I would keep going, losing a child would be one of the biggest pains to experience. With due respect, I am not certain that these characters would immediately pick up and go.

I don't know why it would take 30 years for Luke to be taught that. I mean that could've happened whenever, but it's storyline/plot-line dictated. With Yoda and Luke on Dagobah the time stretch makes more sense because Luke had to be old enough to be taught, since they weren't teaching younglings. Plus, I can accept that Yoda was learning more about the Force, the Sith, and why the Jedi failed. Perhaps in Episode IX, we will get something similar, with either Luke or Yoda's ghost visiting Rey, but until we see what happens there, it just feels more plot-driven to me. Between ROTJ and TLJ, Luke was already a fully-formed Jedi. Yoda should've kicked him in the pants and told him to do his job.

You're right about losing a child. I don't have any children and I couldn't imagine that kind of pain, but I would have liked to have more of an exploration of that and how Luke, Leia, and Han deal with potentially having to do it, more so than the flash back in TLJ. To just say Ben is on the dark side now so let's throw up our hands was a gross dereliction of duty.

 

[fireproof78]

You're right about losing a child. I don't have any children and I couldn't imagine that kind of pain, but I would have liked to have more of an exploration of that and how Luke, Leia, and Han deal with potentially having to do it, more so than the flash back in TLJ. To just say Ben is on the dark side now so let's throw up our hands was a gross dereliction of duty.

Well, that's part of the lesson, isn't it? That the Dark Side isn't forever. But, that's what Luke was taught. The legacy of the Jedi and a lesson that apparently still needed to be learned.

Now, do I think we need more information. Certainly, but we still have one more episode to unpack. I do agree that it would have been nice to have more information but even with the OT we, as the audience, had very limited information. So, I'm willing to wait and see what is born out in Episode 9. Probably not enough to satisfy all questions, but I'm ok with that.

 

[Trekkin]

Just because Ben wanted to follow Snoke doesn't mean he shouldn't have been confronted, incarcerated, or put down if necessary. Yes, it's harsh, but the OT established that that's what Luke would've had to do if he hadn't come up with an innovative solution.

I need to get this out of the way real quick: murdering your child in their sleep over bad vibes, is... ‘good parenting.’

Right, more seriously.

Leia sent Ben to train with Luke once she got an inkling that something was going on with him. Because Luke is the guy who has redeemed Sith before, and could try and nudge him onto the Jedi path. That’s all established in TFA, and Luke mentions it in TLJ.

(Also because, according to the books anyway, Luke was physically on the other side of the galaxy to Snoke.)

And Luke nearly did ‘put Ben down’, and did confront him. It wasn’t that he didn’t bother, or was too soft. The prior attempt just made things 100x worse, and he failed at the latter because Ben blew him up.

(Hey...that’s almost exactly like what happened when Obi-Wan and the Jedi decided to just up and execute Anakin/Vader. Weird coincidence that.)

Also: Ren wasn’t a child when he turned. He was a fucking adult man. Even with the books aside (which put him in his 20’s), he was old enough in the movies to still be played by 34 year old Adam Driver. Boys, I know it’s hard but...there is actually a point where you have to stop bringing everything back to mummy.

Darkush, I don’t mean this in accusatory way, but...your posts kinda read like you haven’t watched the movies. More like someone has just given their summary to you. Which is fine, because you certainly don’t have to see them. I was just wondering.

 

[DarKush]

I need to get this out of the way real quick: murdering your child in their sleep over bad vibes, is... ‘good parenting.’

Right, more seriously.

Leia sent Ben to train with Luke once she got an inkling that something was going on with him. Because Luke is the guy who has redeemed Sith before, and could try and nudge him onto the Jedi path. That’s all established in TFA, and Luke mentions it in TLJ.

(Also because, according to the books anyway, Luke was physically on the other side of the galaxy to Snoke.)

And Luke nearly did ‘put Ben down’, and did confront him. It wasn’t that he didn’t bother trying to stop Ben. The prior attempt just made things 100x worse, and he failed at the latter because Ben blew him up.

Also: Ren wasn’t a child when he turned. He was a fucking adult man. Even with the books aside (which out him in his 20’s), he was old enough in the movies to still be played by 34 year old Adam Driver! Boys, I know it’s hard but...there is actually a point where you have to stop bringing everything back to mummy.

Darkush, I don’t mean this in accusatory way, but...your posts kinda read like you haven’t watched the movies. More like someone has just given their summary to you. Which is fine, because you certainly don’t have to see them. I was just wondering.

I have watched the films, I just didn't commit much to memory because I didn't enjoy the films. So, I haven't watched TFA in depth since it came out and I only watched TLJ in theaters, and have not purchased it on video.

Luke did fail, and he did make things worse, but he survived the explosion, and that should've made him even more determined to correct his mistakes or remove that mistake before Ben committed untold atrocities on the galaxy. Luke kept at it with Vader trying to redeem him, so Leia wouldn't do that for her own son? Or confront her son if need be? We never even got a scene with them together, just during that space battle where they sensed each others presence. It doesn't make much sense that Leia would stay on the sidelines and not more actively try to bring her son home. That she would wait all those years for Han to do it. That doesn't feel in character to me. It's there because the plot needs it to be, but doesn't feel like Leia would not have made some attempt-a personal one if necessary-to intervene.

 

[DarKush]

Well, that's part of the lesson, isn't it? That the Dark Side isn't forever. But, that's what Luke was taught. The legacy of the Jedi and a lesson that apparently still needed to be learned.

Now, do I think we need more information. Certainly, but we still have one more episode to unpack. I do agree that it would have been nice to have more information but even with the OT we, as the audience, had very limited information. So, I'm willing to wait and see what is born out in Episode 9. Probably not enough to satisfy all questions, but I'm ok with that.

You're right we had limited information with the OT (which were better written and acted) than the sequels, and I've heard variations of that argument before. It doesn't work for me because the OT was new, it was the first introduction to that universe, and since then we've had the PT explained more backstory, we had the (now discounted) EU which also provided more information and fleshed out the contours of the Star Wars universe, so I'm not as sanguine about giving the sequels a pass knowing that they already have a rich foundation they are sitting on compared to the OT which was laying that foundation.

 

[mos6507]

Why couldn't Luke look to his own history, or the journal of Obi-Wan which he recovers in the comics (and that's canon) and see how misguided it was to run way.

You have to stop thinking about in-universe for answers and look at real-life.

First, the amount of time between the OT and this new trilogy was just too long. Once JJ decided to get the band back together, it created huge story problems to blend GenX fanservice while simultaneously laying the foundation of new characters that we can care about.

It's very difficult to have two generations of protagonists blending simultaneously without one undercutting the other. You might be able to get away with it in ONE torch-passing movie, but JJ had planned to give these characters useful things to do across all three. Sure, Han dies in TFA but they were going to keep Luke AND Leia alive at least through part of Episode IX before the decision was made to yank Colin Trevorrow and move Luke off the chess-board.

None of these behind-the-scenes issues or actors aging issues come into play in the books, which is why the books seem to have handled the post-ROTJ era more gracefully.

So you've got something with some serious constraints right from the start when setting up TFA. Last Jedi responded by trying to negate everything within TFA, and there's a part of me that liked the idea of that, but then it only left us with a blank canvas. Now JJ will come BACK in and try to make sense of this tug-of-war with the additional task of trying to deal with Carrie Fisher's death.

This is to say nothing of whatever political agenda Kathleen Kennedy may or may not have and whether that is putting the cart before the horse.

It's also saying nothing of the remaining bad taste in our mouths from the prequels...

I think as a writing exercise that each of the films in this trilogy was going to be difficult, but as it's playing out, each one is more difficult than the last. This improvised approach doesn't work that well for epics and I fear it's going to leave behind three films that don't at all fit together as a coherent whole.