Why is toxic fandom destroying everything?

[Gaith]

As to that 'permanent peace', I would chock that to being naively optimistic after having been victors. They've won, their comfortable, they're not expecting resistance. But in 30 years, a lot can happen. For any sequel to happen, that 'peace' would have to be shattered.

But not necessarily right away. In the Thrawn Trilogy, for example, Thrawn's Empire doesn't become a major threat per se until the end of the second book. Instead, the threat was built up gradually by making the baddies actual characters with challenges of their own, not just Emperor/Vader copy-pastes, and the heroes, while they got into fights and battles, weren't facing Death Star-level threats and Sith Lord Big Bads right away - they got development, too.

Just because the Republic won in RotJ doesn't mean it would enforce peace across all worlds. A new hero such as Rey could still have grown up in a hostile environment, and faced an attack of some kind, even an Imperial one if necessary, in a world or system not under direct Republic control.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I was satisfied with some parts of the 1990s post-ROTJ stories taking place in novel form (Zahn) or comics (Dark Horse's Dark Empire), as more of a what if, and that was fine. I did not feel the SW story needed another go-around as movies set anytime after ROTJ. Certain movie IPs are better off not being sequel-ized to death, but $ and other issues will never let reason guide anyone behind that property.

Right? If anything, 30 years after a franchise in itself creates massive expectations. I would have been fine with no movies too, but then Disney aquired SW and they had to make money with the IP. I guess I'm trying to say I expected them to handle it with more grace.

But not necessarily right away. In the Thrawn Trilogy, for example, Thrawn's Empire doesn't become a major threat per se until the end of the second book. Instead, the threat was built up gradually by making the baddies actual characters with challenges of their own, not just Emperor/Vader copy-pastes, and the heroes, while they got into fights and battles, weren't facing Death Star-level threats and Sith Lord Big Bads right away - they got development, too.

Exactly. Gives them time to ferment and rise up. In point of fact, I felt like what was lacking in the ST was a good villain akin to Thrawn rising up to become a major threat. Beyond Ren, the ST didn't have anything like that. And as you point out, even if the Republic won, that peace isn't necessarily assured everywhere. In other words, it's not absolute. There would be cracks that would only worsen over time.

 

[evilchumlee]

Right? If anything, 30 years after a franchise in itself creates massive expectations. I would have been fine with no movies too, but then Disney aquired SW and they had to make money with the IP. I guess I'm trying to say I expected them to handle it with more grace.

Honestly I thought TFA was a totally fine start to a new trilogy... but then TLJ ran the whole thing into the ground.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Honestly I thought TFA was a totally fine start to a new trilogy... but then TLJ ran the whole thing into the ground.

I'm mixed on it. As a new SW movie, hell yeah, it's fun, and it showed potential. But as you watch the other movies, you start to realize that potential hasn't really gone anywhere, or cemented itself a legacy of its own. It needed to build on that backstory way more than they did. I'm wary of the Rey movie because of this.

 

[The Realist]

I'm way past trying to tip toe around the issues and prefer now to just state the issue.

Although in the interests of discussion, maybe let me try to rephrase my feelings somewhat. To begin with, for the record, I think that having more representation in media is a good thing and that's great. I do not think it should be the primary focus of a work... story, writing, acting, etc. should the primary focus, and after all of that if a more diverse cast makes sense then sure go for it. By and large, I honestly and truly don't care about the gender, race, or sexual orientation of a character. None of those things are of particular relevance to me.

Where I take issue with many more recent works is not only just an apparent, but an outright stated, intent to place diversity at the forefront of the decision making process. I disagree with that on a fundamental level, as I deem ensuring diversity as among the least important aspects of a work because I view race, gender, etc. as largely irrelevant in many contexts. Given that I would prefer to focus on a creator crafting a great story rather than building a story as a secondary goal over ensuring representation for x group, when I hear the creator say something like "this is the gayest Star Wars"... it does not fill me with confidence that said creator went into the project to create a great story. It makes me believe that the creator when into the project with the intent to create a gay story with Star Wars stuff in it. Some people might enjoy that, and if you do, that's ok! I personally am not interested in that, so if I think that is what the work is going to be about, i'm probably going to skip it. That is not the say I don't think there should not be LGBT representation in media. Quite the opposite, it's totally fine. I would just prefer that it is not the goal of the work.

Beyond that, I take issue with the notion that anyone who criticizes a work that features a female or minority either main seems to be automatically assumed to be some kind of a racist, generalized and stereotyped into "the usual crowd" or some other type of group suggesting they are only against that work to due prejudices against those people. They refer to these as "toxic fans", although I would argue the true toxic fans are those who engage in stereotyping and generalization against others... behaviors that really seem to betray what they apparently stand for. It is perfectly acceptable to not like a work, and simply because it has a diverse cast does not mean that it is the reason why some might not like it.

I find it to be far more problematic for people to have kneejerk reactions and start making accusations of racism, homophobia, or whatever they may be accusing simply because a person did not like a piece of media. There are many different reasons why one might like it. Sure, for some it might be that. But to simply assume that for everyone is quite literally the exact thing you seem to fighting against.

TBH, skepticism about such claims is usually learned from experience.

We used to have a poster on this forum (before he was banned) who would constantly rail about "woke" this and "pandering" that and "virtue signaling" the other thing. But he wasn't a bigot, because of course not. Why would anyone think that?

I don't know if you ever watched the show Supergirl, but in the second season there was a storyline in which Supergirl's adoptive sister, Alex, came to understand she was gay, cautiously embraced the new personal identity she was discovering, and embarked on her first lesbian relationship. The first season had already established her as clearly the most important supporting character on the show, and the subplot of her journey of self-discovery and new romance played out very naturally, organically, believably, and sensitively.

But, boy oh boy, was our friend the non-bigoted woke hater upset. The show's creators were "shoving an agenda down his throat." Of course, he wasn't prejudiced against gay people, it was just that this wasn't what he tuned in to a superhero show for. He also claimed that the subplot "took over" the show (it didn't), and that Alex didn't deserve to have her story featured so prominently (though again: second most important character in the cast).

Funny thing was, he was never able to adequately articulate why he just happened to be so upset about the portrayal of this particular relationship. When confronted, he was forced to acknowledge that the show featured other romantic subplots, that other supporting characters received focus in subplots of their own, etc. But somehow, only Alex's storyline was objectionable to him. Gosh, whatever could account for such an inconsistency?

(This same guy, by the way, was also loudly offended anytime a female character bested or exceeded a male character in anything. But hey, he liked the Wonder Woman movie, so clearly he wasn't a sexist or misogynist.)

So again, people's skepticism about such arguments is understandable, based on our real-world experience.

 

[fireproof78]

I learned that Star Wars can be mediocre in 1983.

True.

I'm just more amused by the "Disney is ruining Star Wars," when Lucas was accused of the same thing with the PT and people wanted him to sell to Disney or another company to make it better.

 

[BillJ]

I learned that Star Wars can be mediocre in 1983.

Compared to Empire…, Return of the Jedi was shit.

 

[Anwar]

Sure, and the Allies won WW1, and we still ended up having WW2.

WW1 was not a "And they all lived happily ever after, the end forever" ending where they killed all the Germans and all conflict threads were resolved. ROTJ was.

Just because you have one 'happily-ever-after' doesn't mean their lives, their galaxy can't continue. History has shown that there will always be adversity. Disney is the business of creating stories, it's their job, so I expect them to find a way to continue the saga. The galaxy doesn't just end there, it's always evolving, with new stories to tell.

Not the way Lucas left things, there's a reason why the EU novels kept using Imperial Remnants and new Superweapons and revived the Darksiders.

I've never watched the Disney+ series, but this kind of thing should have been done there and then. But otherwise, agreed. It felt like it didn't do nearly enough to establish itself. Sure liked to borrow from the OT when it suited itself though. IMHO, it was the Skywalker Saga. Build upon what came before, but also tell your story.

SW ultimately being the "Skywalker Saga" was another problem that limited things. Should never have been that way.

I think it's safe to say we all had big hopes for a new trilogy set 30 years after the OT.

The hope was that the new movies would be a 1:1 of those awful books.

But not necessarily right away. In the Thrawn Trilogy, for example, Thrawn's Empire doesn't become a major threat per se until the end of the second book. Instead, the threat was built up gradually by making the baddies actual characters with challenges of their own, not just Emperor/Vader copy-pastes, and the heroes, while they got into fights and battles, weren't facing Death Star-level threats and Sith Lord Big Bads right away - they got development, too.

Maybe...if you pick up right after where ROTJ left off and continue from there. Which the Sequels couldn't do thanks to the 30 year gap.

Just because the Republic won in RotJ doesn't mean it would enforce peace across all worlds.

Lucas himself seemed to think so, he said that when the Emperor died all evil died with him.

A new hero such as Rey could still have grown up in a hostile environment, and faced an attack of some kind, even an Imperial one if necessary, in a world or system not under direct Republic control.

IE, have the new heroine be some unimportant person on some backwater planet having a meaningless adventure and remain completely overshadowed by the OT characters who did all the important stuff that mattered.

If Star Wars had been done more like the MCU, where the Universe was actually built and expanded on with each movie instead of constraining itself, this wouldn't have happened.

 

[Gaith]

IE, have the new heroine be some unimportant person on some backwater planet having a meaningless adventure and remain completely overshadowed by the OT characters who did all the important stuff that mattered.

No. The OT heroes shouldn't have appeared in the first movie until the very end.

For example: a running plot point in the movie could have been Rey sending pleading messages to the Republic for help with a local matter that threatens her life (i.e., not "meaningless" to herself or the audience), and her community in general. She could have been a daring outlaw fighting against a corrupt system, barely surviving, and not knowing if her messages were even being heard. The climax could be a big ol' fight between herself the local baddie, where, despite all her courage and resilience, she gets beaten is about to be killed... until old-ass Luke and his pupils show up and save the day.

She'd tell Luke he was awesome for being a righteous Jedi Master, and he'd say, no, she was the awesome one for holding out as long as she did by herself. And, for some bureaucratic yadda yadda, the planet will now fall under Republic protection, so she can join his temple without feeling like she's abandoning her home.

Now that the audience is invested in her and has spent time with her, the OT heroes can take a prominent role in the second movie, while keeping to her general POV, without overshadowing her. They learn of a looming galactic threat with a connection to the baddies Rey was fighting all along, thus keeping her story relevant and prominent. Moreover, after a time jump of several years, she's become one of the temple's leading apprentices, and Luke himself is too beat up from decades of battles to be rushing into fights himself. Instead, he mostly provides backup and guidance from orbit.

And, as a shocking low point to the trilogy, at the end of the second film, Luke heroically sacrifices himself for his squad.

This approach:
- Introduces and foregrounds a new hero Disney can make money off of for years (maybe decades) to come, without being overshadowed by the OT heoes.
- Doesn't just rehash the OT, and doesn't trash the legacy of the OT heroes. Because the first movie isn't a rehash of ANH, the writer/director of the second movie doesn't feel compelled to toss all its setups, thus all but forcing the team to write the infamous words "Somehow, Palpatine returned."
- Keeps Luke from being an invincible, all-powerful superhero who can solve any problem, and keeps him mortal and vulnerable without betraying his heroic character.
- Gives the audience a few scenes of the main OT heroes interacting and working together one last time, while still keeping the main focus on the new characters.

See, it's not impossible. It's not even all that hard. It just requires a bit more patience and forethought, and a willingness to risk a somewhat lesser initial box office in order to reap even greater rewards down the line.

 

[fireproof78]

and a willingness to risk a somewhat lesser initial box office in order to reap even greater rewards down the line.

That's called delayed gratification and humans, especially in Hollywood, suck at it.

As for the rest, we have a whole rewrite thread in the SW section. I hope you share more

ETA: Here's the link.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

SW ultimately being the "Skywalker Saga" was another problem that limited things. Should never have been that way.

The lone reason for the SW movies was the Skywalker story. It was never intended to be like other franchises, which go on and on and on and on with infinite, unrelated stories flowing out. There was a beginning, middle and end to the SW concept, with the Skywalker story as its core--the reason to be. There is not a single thing "limiting" about that, and was one of the great appeals of the OT being a focused example of modern myth-making. That said, being a businessman, not long after ROTJ, Lucas lost his focus, and tried to print money with spin-offs no one asked for (2 Ewok TV movies, the Droids / Ewoks cartoon, etc.), and the rest is the steady degradation of the SW property.

 

[Owain Taggart]

WW1 was not a "And they all lived happily ever after, the end forever" ending where they killed all the Germans and all conflict threads were resolved. ROTJ was.

Point is that even while something ends, such as a different era, another begins. I don't agree that just because every thread ended neatly in the OT, that they couldn't develop from that. There's always a way when you have creativity to tell a story. When you close one door, another opens. What the ST should have been was another chapter in the continuing Saga. And that's the key, a chapter. Rey's journey would have kicked off a new chapter.

SW ultimately being the "Skywalker Saga" was another problem that limited things. Should never have been that way.

It's only limited if you think it that way. For others, it's limitless potential. And I don't agree that the 30 years limited things. I actually feel it would have helped given the passage of time, to help built a better backstory. And SW had always been about the Saga. The PT was, and the ST needed to followup on the legacy the OT left behind. It just requires an open mind to see possibilities.

 

[Nerys Myk]

My counter would be why are companies producing absolute garbage like The Acolyte, Doctor Who, Rings of Power

Furiosa, House of the Dragon, and Fallout all have incredibly high audience scores... all of them have female leads and diverse casts. Personally, for the record, these three works are absolutely awesome.

I'd rather watch The Acolyte, Doctor Who or Rings of Power than the slog that is House of the Dragon. Fallout is great, though.

 

[fireproof78]

I'd rather watch The Acolyte, Doctor Who or Rings of Power than the slog that is House of the Dragon. Fallout is great, though.

I still wish people could define this "bad" things that people watch. I'm clearly living in an alternate universe were Rings of Power and Fallout were both good and entertaining pieces of fiction.

The definition of garbage continues to elude me.

 

[jaime]

The really telling part is the business about, "Is it because she wasn't white enough or male enough for you?" and "Why don't you just go put on your MAGA hat and cry to your Incel buddies."

I've criticized and complained about plenty of things in my time, but I've never once received those types of accusations in response. Funny, that.

Guess I just haven't been making the right kinds of complaints.

To be fair *sometimes* when it’s these fandoms, that can and does happen really fast (it’s happened to me on these very boards) and frankly it’s offensive when it does. I think the current run of Doctor Who is pretty terrible, and Ncuti is the first Doctor where I’m not entirely blaming the writing. It’s got bugger all to do with his ethnicity (we’re on what, the fourth Scot? I kid. I would have preferred Adrian Lester tbh.) or his sexuality (Ben Whishaw would also make a good Doctor.) but that won’t stop some people putting me in the bigot camp for not liking the thing. (And *potentially* because the assumption is due to my perceived designated boxes.)
Same with GB Answer The Call. (That managed to be offensive about everyone, frankly, which is quite the feat. It’s just misanthropic in general.)

The idea of ‘toxic fandoms’ is (a) a falsehood, because if you look at other fandoms — football for example — it isn’t really logical to expect some sort of blind following for fans, or for them to shut up and go away. That doesn’t even work for religions, so good luck with your SF franchise, and (b) has become a handy deflection tactic or way to drive up column inches (in precisely the way bad faith critics will get their clicks, it’s a parasitic two way relationship) as a way to circle the wagons or boost bad productions. It is probably true that *if* people just turned off and went away, then the things would fade into obscurity. (Which happens to things that didn’t get the critical mass to generate a real lasting fandoms all the time.)

 

[Anwar]

No. The OT heroes shouldn't have appeared in the first movie until the very end.

Then the "fans" never would have gone to see the Sequel movie in the first place.

For example: a running plot point in the movie could have been Rey sending pleading messages to the Republic for help with a local matter that threatens her life (i.e., not "meaningless" to herself or the audience), and her community in general. She could have been a daring outlaw fighting against a corrupt system, barely surviving, and not knowing if her messages were even being heard. The climax could be a big ol' fight between herself the local baddie, where, despite all her courage and resilience, she gets beaten is about to be killed... until old-ass Luke and his pupils show up and save the day.

"Wow, what a loser. Needs the old guy to save her because she was too pathetic to do it herself. Luke didn't need the old guy to do anything but say 'Use the Force'!"

She'd tell Luke he was awesome for being a righteous Jedi Master, and he'd say, no, she was the awesome one for holding out as long as she did by herself. And, for some bureaucratic yadda yadda, the planet will now fall under Republic protection, so she can join his temple without feeling like she's abandoning her home.

A real heroine would find a dead Jedi skeleton who still had their lightsaber, figure out how to use it in basic ways on their own and already be tougher than a Jedi Padawan by the time Luke shows up. Showing they didn't need Luke to do it all.

Now that the audience is invested in her and has spent time with her, the OT heroes can take a prominent role in the second movie, while keeping to her general POV, without overshadowing her.

And the "fans" would demand she be killed off ASAP so they could be the only characters again. Which is what they hoping would happen in TFA, that it would end with Kylo Ren effortlessly killing all the new characters and thus Luke has to be the lead again.

And, as a shocking low point to the trilogy, at the end of the second film, Luke heroically sacrifices himself for his squad.

She'd be blamed for his death by the "fans" and they'd never forgive her for.

- Doesn't just rehash the OT, and doesn't trash the legacy of the OT heroes. Because the first movie isn't a rehash of ANH, the writer/director of the second movie doesn't feel compelled to toss all its setups, thus all but forcing the team to write the infamous words "Somehow, Palpatine returned."

Really they wouldn't have needed to do that if the response to Ren being the main villain hadn't been so poor.

- Keeps Luke from being an invincible, all-powerful superhero who can solve any problem, and keeps him mortal and vulnerable without betraying his heroic character.

Old Luke NOT being portrayed as an Invincible Supergrandmaster would be seen as a betrayal. The hope would be that when Rey is beaten by Snoke and Ren, Luke would walk in and defeat them both in seconds and then destroy the First Order with the wave of his hand.

- Gives the audience a few scenes of the main OT heroes interacting and working together one last time, while still keeping the main focus on the new characters.

Ideally, the first scene of the first movie would be the old characters all together before the new villain kills them all.

The lone reason for the SW movies was the Skywalker story. It was never intended to be like other franchises, which go on and on and on and on with infinite, unrelated stories flowing out.

Thus, inherently limited.

There was a beginning, middle and end to the SW concept, with the Skywalker story as its core--the reason to be. There is not a single thing "limiting" about that, and was one of the great appeals of the OT being a focused example of modern myth-making.

That's like saying that the MCU should have made every other character secondary to Iron Man and have every last thing revolve around only him and just end it with his death and never do anything with all the other characters introduced. It's a waste.

Point is that even while something ends, such as a different era, another begins.

Not the way the OT ended it.

I don't agree that just because every thread ended neatly in the OT, that they couldn't develop from that. There's always a way when you have creativity to tell a story. When you close one door, another opens. What the ST should have been was another chapter in the continuing Saga.

And the problem is that ROTJ ended the saga too definitively. It's the same reason all attempts at doing any new series in the Babylon 5 universe all failed, because the main series wrapped up everything to such and extent new things couldn't exist.

Or Highlander, the first movie ends things in such a way that no proper Sequels could follow.

It's only limited if you think it that way. For others, it's limitless potential. And I don't agree that the 30 years limited things.

The only enemy Lucas left that was usable were Imperial Remnants, since Alien Invaders from outside the Galaxy don't work. And after 30 years, those Remnants would be all gone. So there's nowhere to get a new villain.

I actually feel it would have helped given the passage of time, to help built a better backstory. And SW had always been about the Saga. The PT was, and the ST needed to followup on the legacy the OT left behind. It just requires an open mind to see possibilities.

And a place for new villains to emerge from, and for ROTJ to not end on a "It's all over" note.

If, say, the Rebellion had been nearly annihilated and the Empire still ruled the Galaxy and the only real victory was the Deaths of Vader and the Emperor and Luke, Han and Leia would have to rebuild the Rebellion from scratch and Luke saying something like "Now the true war begins", then there's something to do Sequels about.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Thus, inherently limited.

Nonsense. The OT as released was never intended to go on endlessly like other franchises, so there is nothing "limiting" in that. some people know when a series should end, while others continue to animated a rotted corpse. Lucas once had a deliberate cut off point he--and now Disney would open up to utter mediocrity more often than not.

That's like saying that the MCU should have made every other character secondary to Iron Man and have every last thing revolve around only him and just end it with his death and never do anything with all the other characters introduced. It's a waste.

Iron Man is not the center or reason to be of Marvel movies, nor was he ever intended to be that, hence the Easter Eggs for other characters in every early MCU film. He was merely one player, not the motivating factor of the entire franchise in the way Luke was to the OT. No Luke, and Star Wars has no reason to exist.

 

[Anwar]

Nonsense. The OT as released was never intended to go on endlessly like other franchises, so there is nothing "limiting" in that. some people know when a series should end, while others continue to animated a rotted corpse. Lucas once had a deliberate cut off point he--and now Disney would open up to utter mediocrity more often than not.

Then Lucas should have stuck to his guns instead of doing failed attempts at expansion if he saw it as such a limited thing. And he should've done his own sequels in the early 90s when it was the right time instead of wasting time the way he did on superfluous things.

Iron Man is not the center or reason to be of Marvel movies, nor was he ever intended to be that, hence the Easter Eggs for other characters in every early MCU film. He was merely one player, not the motivating factor of the entire franchise in the way Luke was to the OT. No Luke, and Star Wars has no reason to exist.

No, if Star Wars had been expanded right then Luke wouldn't have to be the lynchpin of it all. That's the problem.

 

[JD]

My counter would be why are companies producing absolute garbage like The Acolyte, Doctor Who, Rings of Power, etc. It's sad to me that we are living in what should be an absolute golden age of geek culture but... so much of what is being producing is just pandering garbage.

I find it to be incredibly offensive that seemingly any criticism directed towards things I think are poorly written are just generally not good is not judged on the merits of the criticism, but almost entirely based on my sexual orientation, gender and race.

It's not about people not liking things, it's about the way the people who don't like them talk about them. There are certain phrases and code words that bigoted people use, that make it pretty clear what they're really talking about, and that is what tends to set people off.
I've seen plenty of people complain about productions, but the only time people have a problem with it is when those code words/phrases pop up.

1) Sex work and sexual assault aren't synonymous, but, even if they were,

Sexual assualt tends to be a pretty significant occurance in sex work, so yeah they kind of are. When I was in college I did a research project on human trafficking, which is where the majority of sex workers come from, and the stuff that happens to the victims is pretty horrific.

I'm way past trying to tip toe around the issues and prefer now to just state the issue.

Although in the interests of discussion, maybe let me try to rephrase my feelings somewhat. To begin with, for the record, I think that having more representation in media is a good thing and that's great. I do not think it should be the primary focus of a work... story, writing, acting, etc. should the primary focus, and after all of that if a more diverse cast makes sense then sure go for it. By and large, I honestly and truly don't care about the gender, race, or sexual orientation of a character. None of those things are of particular relevance to me.

Where I take issue with many more recent works is not only just an apparent, but an outright stated, intent to place diversity at the forefront of the decision making process. I disagree with that on a fundamental level, as I deem ensuring diversity as among the least important aspects of a work because I view race, gender, etc. as largely irrelevant in many contexts. Given that I would prefer to focus on a creator crafting a great story rather than building a story as a secondary goal over ensuring representation for x group, when I hear the creator say something like "this is the gayest Star Wars"... it does not fill me with confidence that said creator went into the project to create a great story. It makes me believe that the creator when into the project with the intent to create a gay story with Star Wars stuff in it. Some people might enjoy that, and if you do, that's ok! I personally am not interested in that, so if I think that is what the work is going to be about, i'm probably going to skip it. That is not the say I don't think there should not be LGBT representation in media. Quite the opposite, it's totally fine. I would just prefer that it is not the goal of the work.

Beyond that, I take issue with the notion that anyone who criticizes a work that features a female or minority either main seems to be automatically assumed to be some kind of a racist, generalized and stereotyped into "the usual crowd" or some other type of group suggesting they are only against that work to due prejudices against those people. They refer to these as "toxic fans", although I would argue the true toxic fans are those who engage in stereotyping and generalization against others... behaviors that really seem to betray what they apparently stand for. It is perfectly acceptable to not like a work, and simply because it has a diverse cast does not mean that it is the reason why some might not like it.

I find it to be far more problematic for people to have kneejerk reactions and start making accusations of racism, homophobia, or whatever they may be accusing simply because a person did not like a piece of media. There are many different reasons why one might like it. Sure, for some it might be that. But to simply assume that for everyone is quite literally the exact thing you seem to fighting against.

The problem is whether you realized it was your intention or not, you literally sounded exactly like the people who you say are not like. When it comes to posting in places like this where nobody knows you personally and all we have to go by are your posts, you have to be very very careful when talking about sensitive topics like race and sexual orientation, because it doesn't take much to come across in a way you might not have intended.
And just to warn you saying I can't be a bigot, I like these characters, is pretty much the same as saying I can't be racist, I have a black friend.

Thus, inherently limited.



That's like saying that the MCU should have made every other character secondary to Iron Man and have every last thing revolve around only him and just end it with his death and never do anything with all the other characters introduced. It's a waste.



Not the way the OT ended it.



And the problem is that ROTJ ended the saga too definitively. It's the same reason all attempts at doing any new series in the Babylon 5 universe all failed, because the main series wrapped up everything to such and extent new things couldn't exist.

Or Highlander, the first movie ends things in such a way that no proper Sequels could follow.



The only enemy Lucas left that was usable were Imperial Remnants, since Alien Invaders from outside the Galaxy don't work. And after 30 years, those Remnants would be all gone. So there's nowhere to get a new villain.



And a place for new villains to emerge from, and for ROTJ to not end on a "It's all over" note.

If, say, the Rebellion had been nearly annihilated and the Empire still ruled the Galaxy and the only real victory was the Deaths of Vader and the Emperor and Luke, Han and Leia would have to rebuild the Rebellion from scratch and Luke saying something like "Now the true war begins", then there's something to do Sequels about.

There was nothing in ROTJ that would indicate that defeating the Emperor and Vader would never again be any kind of conflict in the galaxy again. They didn't instantly wipe out ever single person who was loyal to the Empire, and there was no reason other villains couldn't have come from somewhere else.
And even with the Dark Side all defeating Vader and the Emperor did was end the Sith, who were just one group, there could still be non-Sith Dark Side users out there.

 

[Anwar]

There was nothing in ROTJ that would indicate that defeating the Emperor and Vader would never again be any kind of conflict in the galaxy again. They didn't instantly wipe out ever single person who was loyal to the Empire, and there was no reason other villains couldn't have come from somewhere else.

The Empire and the Darksiders are the one true enemy of SW. Alien Invader enemies don't work and nothing in the OT indicated there were other villains in the Galaxy beyond the Empire and the Sith.

And after 30 years there'd be no major Imperial Remnants left to fight.

And even with the Dark Side all defeating Vader and the Emperor did was end the Sith, who were just one group, there could still be non-Sith Dark Side users out there.

Lucas said that the Prophecy that Anakin fulfilled was the permanent destruction of the Dark Side itself, as in there'd be no new Darksiders in any form after ROTJ. Thereby robbing the Sequels of the one true enemy of SW.