This, I think the ultimate hope for a war is to end in lasting peace, not a temporary victory. It would be a far more satisfying end to the series for the galaxy to finally see a balance in the force than simply another period of ascendency for one side or the other.
As it was never used in a movie, that doesn't mean THAT much. Of course now that it HAS been used in a movie, it means a lot. I see it as a completely new Force ability, introduced in Episode VIII--as we have no evidence in the movies or cartoons of this ever existing before. I'm not knocking the decision--it's an interesting concept, but if Yoda can be dead and cause lightning, then why can't he stop Snoke himself? These are all creative decisions, but think it about it from a story point of view. What this trilogy has done is basically say that the original trilogy was pointless. Can't win, don't try. All the sacrifices of the first trilogy were in vain. The heroes of the original trilogy were tossed aside like garbage because "out with the old, in with the new." I think this was a terrible way to move forward. They just are essentially repeating the same story, but in a way that invalidates the original trilogy. You can introduce new characters and new challenges without stepping on the toes of the originals. It's been done in other franchises, with no better example than the TV run of TNG. Of course, TNG was set about a century later, but if you want a more recent example, Dallas on TNT brilliantly updated the original show, while keeping the original characters relevant AND introducing new characters. The only reason JR died on the show was because Hagman died in real life. Ultimately, Star Wars, in my opinion, has very much failed in moving forward in part because they have merely used these two movies to swat away the characters that made the franchise great in the first place. And creatively--why should there be no more Skywalkers? It's a bloodline that centered the whole franchise and they are fascinating. This is a creative decision pre-Episode VII. Why only one child for Han and Leia? Why turn him evil? Why not have multiple Skywalker offspring, including a son or daughter of Luke? Luke was almost unrecognizable in the last movie. Creative decision, but ultimately, character assassination. That's IF they use him that way. Until the last movie, we had no evidence that a Force ghost could do anything significant. They mostly showed up, dropped a few lines of wisdom, and left. Yoda was no more than a cameo in this movie, but what he did with the lightning is pretty significant. Luke's death WAS stupid because all he did was die. Yoda died of natural causes. That's not stupid. Obi Wan sacrificed himself so Luke could escape. Had Obi Wan lived though, he might have been a much more powerful force for good in the original trilogy. An interesting thought. In that trilogy, all Obi Wan really did was take a dive, and give Luke a few pieces of wisdom. But Luke? He wasn't in any physical danger. He wasn't an old man. He just died for no reason, and the audience was cheated out of seeing him have a legit fight. Everything was set up. You had Snoke as a worthy opponent for Luke and of course Kylo as an opponent for Rey. But they went another direction. But if Luke could disappear as a young man, whose body took no physical damage, why couldn't he REAPPEAR? It's never been done, but it could be something new. It would even establish Luke as being able to do something that even Yoda couldn't do. You used a Yoda quote--"luminous beings we are, not this crude matter." Fair enough, but by that logic, why would any force user want to be alive? Just master the Force and kill yourself, so you can be free from your body--unless a body does serve a purpose, which is should. I am more accepting of the idea that Leia could fly like Mary Poppins in space than the idea that they could establish peace with the First Order. The First Order is a brutal, evil empire, that has been totalitarian in its rule and put a boot to the face of the galaxy. While a common enemy idea does have intrigue, there's nothing to suggest that will happen. Besides, given the balance of power, the First Order is far more suited to deal with a major enemy alone. The Resistance can help a little, but it would be like the Russia and China going to war, and getting contribution from the Beligian military. The rebels/resistance, by comparison, are not even close to equals to the Empire/First Order. Your idea of a new enemy would have been more interesting in THIS trilogy. But based on the first two movies, we have learned that the rebellion of the first trilogy accomplished nothing. These people are literally no better than the worst of the original trilogy, and now they are just being killed off.
Huh? I don't understand this at all. Thanks to the efforts and sacrifices of the OT heroes, the galaxy apparently enjoyed decades of peace (and loads of worlds/millions of people were saved from the subjugation of the Empire). Just because something bad then happens in the future, that doesn't mean the earlier battles were pointless. A real life context analogy - are the victories and sacrifices in World War I "pointless" and "in vain" because later on World War II came along? If a doctor saves a baby's life but twenty years later, that child (obviously grown up) dies in a tragic car accident, does that make the doctor's efforts and victory in saving that baby "pointless"? Should he not have bothered? "Can't win, don't try" - I cannot see how this is the message of the new films at all...
Luke sacrificed himself for people to escape. He did what Yoda taught him-a Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack. There was no need for Luke to have a "legit fight" other than the "rule of cool." The audience wasn't "cheated" out of anything. It's a story and they took Jedi powers to a new level, allowing them to explore the Force in new ways. The last time I was told as an audience member that I wanted something I got Yoda back flipping all over the place. I would rather a film do something like what they did with Luke that was unexpected than what I expect. As for Jedi and their bodies, Jedi are taught to respect life in all forms, including their own. They won't attempt to kill themselves but neither are they afraid to die. No, that's not accurate at all. The Rebellion established a new government and had 15 years of that government. Now, I'm no political expert but I'm going out on a limb and say that's pretty impressive to build a government pretty much from the ashes of a totalitarian regime. And guess what? A galaxy that lived under totalitarian rule for 20 years might have hold outs that want that type of government. So, it's completely realistic that the First Order would find sympathy among planets who want that type of authoritarian rule. That's completely plausible. The attitude that they accomplished nothing pretty much comes across as nihilism. There is no point so why try. That is not the point of the Star Wars films at all, and they present the idea that in every generation there is an evil to fight and need heroes to rise up and fight it. But, that doesn't mean you can't find people within the First Order who could be negotiated with rather than just complete destruction doctrine. It's almost like the story isn't done yet. Weird
I think what throws salt in the wounds is that not only were the gains undone but the neo Empire is a bunch of whiny brats who seem to lack any clear vision of what their space-Reich is really supposed to accomplish. It's little more than glorified Star Wars cosplay with some family drama thrown in. I mean, everyone loves good villains. What sold the Empire in Episode IV was James Earl Jones and Peter Cushing. But Kylo screaming and tearing up his "dorm room" is borderline camp. And that's all on JJ's watch, not Rian Johnson's. So to some extent Rian got scapegoated for trying to nullify and add gravitas to the utter triviality that JJ established. What I see, intentionally or not, in this new trilogy, is a sort of open critique against the aimless vapidness of Millennials. That's about all I can parse from it so far.
Not based on Episode VII. Looks like right after the Empire crumbled, the First Order rose, and there were NOT decades worth of peace. Seems like it all went to hell after Luke and Leia walked away from the Force ghosts. It's not really a good analogy. WWI wasn't about overthrowing tyranny and getting out from under the boot of a dictatorship. I think a better analogy would be that in 1785, the British invade the US and takes over. What we have seen in this trilogy is that nothing the Rebels did mattered. They have been on the run, fighting as the resistance the whole time, and when the Emperor died, the same brutal government took over. Except now, the writers are killing off all the heroes of the current trilogy. They accomplished absolutely nothing in the original trilogy. Thanks Abrams. Luke wasn't even THERE, so his sacrifice meant nothing other than Rian Johnson wanting to kill him off for no reason. This was worse than Padme dying because she felt like it. Where are you getting this from? Is there some sort of backstory that wasn't in Episode 7? If so, then if you have to research it, it is poor planning. Such info didn't even make the opening crawl. The First Order rose out of the ashes of the Empire. Doesn't sound like there was much prosperity. But going with that, a government that lasts 15 years, is not a good government. Well, having basically the exact same government rise out of the ashes shows that the events of the first trilogy meant nothing. They could have introduced a new evil without making it basically the exact same thing. Kind of the whole point of the speculation thread. If Luke can merge with the Force with no physical damage, then why not have him will himself back to existence? I doubt they do that, but it sure would fix the Luke is dead mess, and yes, that is a mess.
Padme's makes no sense from a strictly biological level. Luke's makes sense from both a training and thematic level. So, I'll take Luke's over Padme's. Would you say the same about the Empire, that it only lasted 20 years? This is all black and white thinking in a situation that is far from black and white. Regardless of what I think of the PT, Lucas introduced the concept of governments shifting and rising and falling in universe due to a wide array of factors. As for my information it is based upon my knowledge of how governments work and the time frames established in the films. No ancillary information needed for me. Nope. You have a government that wants to be the Galactic Empire and expanded as quickly as possible. You have a wannabe. That is far more dangerous. No, dead Luke is not a mess. He will come back, either physically (as Lucas considered for Obi-Wan in ROTJ) or he will be a ghost and be "more powerful than you can possible imagine." I see less mess and far more story telling possibilities with Luke dying.
In the Force Awakens, the First Order is just starting to make its moves. Starkiller Base's shot at the Republic Capital world is them declaring war. So its been more or less 30 years of peace since Return of the Jedi. Longer than the Galactic Empire existed (which was about under 25 years, since it started at the end of the Clone Wars and ended five years after the events of the Battle of Yavin). The entire sequence of events of TFA and TLJ is within the space of weeks to maybe months. We'll see what the aftermath is in Episode IX, assuming they don't try to start up like its just a few days or months later. The First Order does not seem like it would be a stable galactic government on its own, and thus not long lived. So its bound to fall quickly. Replaced by something else rather quickly. The First Order might last, but only if in managed to regroup the remains of the Galactic Empire and reforms a stable government (which means that Kylo Ren can't be the leader, nor can Hux, as both are unstable). Or they resort of building a new terror weapon to keep the other systems in line and follow Tarkin's Doctrine of ruling through fear, and the threat of force, rather than by force itself. The Resistance/Rebellion would need to rally the systems of the Republic into open war with the relatively small First Order, but would also have to come up with a military to fight them, since the core of the New Republic's cruiser fleet was destroyed at the start of the war, and what seems to be the Resistance's fleet was tiny to start with...and destroyed.
Er, no? The First Order was not at war in Episode 7. The the Starkiller Base firing was a surprise attack. No where in the movie is a war mentioned. He distracted Kylo long enough so the what was left of the Resistance could escape. How does that mean nothing? He died from the effort to project himself all the way to Crait. It was established earlier in the movie that such an act can possibly kill someone.
JJ Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan's decisions regarding The Force Awakens created so many misconceptions about the Star Wars timeline that it drives me crazy.
I thought it was made reasonably clear that the First Order was only just starting to make its more provocative moves of defiance (like blowing up the Republic on Hosnian Prime) in TFA. The fact that a new Republic government was set up at all very strongly implies there was peace! (the books make it explicit, but you might not too be keen on them). The "same brutal government" did not take over. Just basing it solely on the films, it's clear the First Order isn't running the galaxy at the start of TFA. WW1 and WW2 isn't directly analogous, but it is valid. The rebels of the OT overthrew the Empire and ushered in a new dawn. 25-30 years later, that goes to hell in a handbasket... but I can't see how that undoes the OT victory. Luke set up a new Jedi school, and had multiple students. We SEE that in flashbacks (I would have loved to see it at the start of TFA in 'present time', but hey). He's not still fighting the Empire/First Order post-ROTJ. Han and Leia had a child and - what? For 18-20 years? (guessing based on the Ben Solo flashbacks of TLJ) - we can assume they were as happy as anyone. EVERYTHING the Rebels did in the OT mattered. They destroyed the Empire. Only remnants remained which, obviously many years later, became the First Order. But I still can't understand how that makes the OT victories - galactic and personal - invalid.
Ep 9 will be focused on Leia's state funeral, with flashback scenes from the previous movies, in which a remorseful Ben Solo revokes his Sith name and disbands the First Order. The movie ends on a high note when Ben and Rey announce their engagement.
Agreed on Padme, but I feel similar to Luke. He wasn't even THERE. He died because of a Skype call. Actually, it took a short break to regroup and rose up again as if nothing happened. They seem exactly the same, with better weapons but not as good villains. The difference is tremendous. If he came back physically, and so did Snoke (or someone evil that is actually relevant), it would fix the biggest issue of TLJ. As Force Ghosts have done little more than give a little advice, there isn't much to do with Luke if he's dead. Doesn't seem accurate, since we met up with these people as "the resistance." They wouldn't be the resistance if the First Order didn't already take over a long time before. Luke disappeared years in the past. The First Order rose in his absence, wanting to kill him. Episode VII did not begin with all things good and a new threat coming. From what is shown, right in the opening crawl, at best, they had a few years of peace and the First Order took over. Essentially the Empire had a devastating loss, regrouped, and took everything back. Only this time, all the heroes of the first trilogy get to die off.
I can't help your misinterpretation of events. You've decided this and we seemingly can't sway you with facts about fiction.
@Kirk Prime, you're just factually and objectively wrong about the SW timeline in between RotJ and TFA. Period.
Which was established in the film. Luke died doing the most Jedi thing imaginable. He used the Force for knowledge and defense, not for attack. Nope. On the surface level, maybe. Underneath is a different story. And yet, we've never seen a Force Skype call or lightning like Yoda did. So, there is clearly some expansion of the lore based upon concepts Luke had, as well as in the books. So, there is a huge amount of assumption going on regarding Force ghosts.
When it comes to Force Ghosts having a physical effect on the world around them, technically we have seen it before. If you watch carefully when Obi-Wan first appears in ROTJ, the vines move around him, so Force Ghosts do have some sort of physical presence.
My feeling is that, ‘Luke as Force Ghost’ may in fact be more powerful and utterly different to that of what ‘Force Ghostdom’ has previously entailed, based on PT and OT. Personally speaking, I can’t wait!
...So? I don't see the problem. He still died doing something heroic. Either way It was said earlier in the film that using that kind of power could kill someone. IIRC he also sits on a log in ESB.