Why Do People Hate the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy?

[DarKush]

I do not see this at all, so it is difficult for me to comment. Finn's energy makes sense in an effort to please people and put himself out in very alien situations. It's the equivalent of trying too hard in a new situation.

Again, I completely do not see this. I thought Kirk was one of the best characters in Kelvin films because we have a very flawed person, full of potential, who dealt with difficult life circumstances and then jumped in just to prove himself.

Not to snip, as I'll right up more later, but this part stood out to me. Honestly, I do not need to see Luke physically kick ass, nor is that the point of the Jedi. So, as a fan, I feel no deprivation and in fact feel the opposite now-Jedi should not be all about physical prowess and lightsaber skill. So, please deprive me of the physicality and give me more spirituality.

Lightsaber duels and other superhuman or amazing physical feats are part of the Jedi and Star Wars, and have been there since ANH. The conflict between being 'keepers of the peace' and yet 'soldiers' goes to the contradictions of the Jedi, which Lucas explored in greater depth in the prequel films. I did want to see a Luke at full power, it could've added so much need lightsaber action to the sequels which is lacking thus far.

If there was no lightsaber fights, if Luke, Rey, Ben, etc., just sat around and made wise pronouncements, how exciting would that be?

 

[fireproof78]

If there was no lightsaber fights, if Luke, Rey, Ben, etc., just sat around and made wise pronouncements, how exciting would that be?

I don't need lightsaber fights to have excitement in my Star Wars movie. Two, I love seeing the depth of the nature of the Force so seeing less physical feats and more spiritual feats interests me a great deal.

Third, this is going to an absurd length. I didn't say "no lightsaber fights." I stated that I didn't need to see Luke in a lightsaber fight. I personally thought the scene at the end of TLJ was some of the most Jedi thing he could have done in the face of evil. Give me more of that. That's just as superhuman and leaping high.

You talk about the PT and yet what did we see with the PT Jedi? They were not guardians of peace and justice. They failed time and again because they became soldiers of the Republic and not servants of the Force. Why would I want to see that again?

 

[JD]

For me, Finn never felt anything like a clone trooper who suddenly developed a sense of self

Well, the fact that Finn isn't clone might explain why he doesn't feel like clone. He had a regular human birth, but he was taken from his family when he was very young, and then raised to become a Storm Trooper.

 

[DarKush]

I don't need lightsaber fights to have excitement in my Star Wars movie. Two, I love seeing the depth of the nature of the Force so seeing less physical feats and more spiritual feats interests me a great deal.

Third, this is going to an absurd length. I didn't say "no lightsaber fights." I stated that I didn't need to see Luke in a lightsaber fight. I personally thought the scene at the end of TLJ was some of the most Jedi thing he could have done in the face of evil. Give me more of that. That's just as superhuman and leaping high.

You talk about the PT and yet what did we see with the PT Jedi? They were not guardians of peace and justice. They failed time and again because they became soldiers of the Republic and not servants of the Force. Why would I want to see that again?

I think that's fine if no or few lightsaber fights work for you. But lightsabers are a hallmark of the Star Wars franchise, like the Jedi and Sith. If you take away some of those things it becomes less and less uniquely Star Wars.

There's nothing wrong with seeing more spiritual feats, but I would prefer to see more physical and less spiritual because this these are films, that rely on visual storytelling. I think having novels or comics that dwell much deeper into the spiritual side of the Force, to have the deeper debates works better than making a big budget blockbuster film and not delivering on the action.

It's also fine that you didn't want to see Luke in a lightsaber fight. I did. I wanted to see how much he had learned and to see him display it. I was ready to forgive TLJ its many faults when Luke showed up on Crait, only to be 'brilliantly' subverted by Rian Johnson yet again. I don't think Luke's projection was the most Jedi thing he could've done, though it was an admitted display of Force power. The most Jedi thing he could've done IMO was let go his personal issues and go after Snoke and Ben much earlier. Though if they had spun it like his emotional attachment was his undoing, like Anakin's and also had been Luke's 'failing' in TESB, but his ace in his ROTJ, then perhaps I could've accepted TLJ Luke better because I can then square it with how he was portrayed in the OT. But we really didn't get that because TLJ Luke had given up on Ben by the time of their confrontation on Crait.

The PT Jedi were full of contradictions, which is one of the most interesting things Lucas did with them. They were hypocrites perhaps without even knowing it, and that lack of self-awareness, perhaps resulting in some kind of institutional or bureaucratic inertia or malaise had made them weaker in the face of the growing power of the dark side. The Jedi did not fail time and time again in the PT. In Episode I, just two Jedi helped free Naboo from the Trade Federation, a dwindling number of Jedi won the Battle of Geonosis in Episode II, Obi-Wan and Anakin rescued the Chancellor at the Battle of Coruscant; another loss for the Separatists; and they had at least fought the Separatists to a stalemate in Episode III and were on the verge of winning that war after Obi-Wan defeated Grievous. It was only Order 66 and Anakin's turn that took out the Jedi. So, as soldiers of the Republic they were pretty effective. And they were far more successful thus far than the Resistance has been. It remains to be seen if Rey will in fact be a servant of the Force or not. She does seem pretty handy with both a staff and a lightsaber. In terms of failure, the sequels are drenched in failure. Almost everyone has failed in the sequels. There's the personal failures for most of the characters, but also the larger political ones. The Resistance scored a big victory by destroying Starkiller Base, but only after it had had wiped out a good deal of the New Republic, and in the second film, the Resistance is reduced to just the people on the Millennium Falcon, which has to be the biggest defeat we've seen since Order 66 in Star Wars.

 

[fireproof78]

I think that's fine if no or few lightsaber fights work for you. But lightsabers are a hallmark of the Star Wars franchise, like the Jedi and Sith. If you take away some of those things it becomes less and less uniquely Star Wars.

Again, that's twisting what I said. I don't want no lightsaber fights or fewer. I just don't need them for their to be excitement.

And, blasters and starships also make Star Wars, as Rogue One and Solo demonstrated.

There's nothing wrong with seeing more spiritual feats, but I would prefer to see more physical and less spiritual because this these are films, that rely on visual storytelling. I think having novels or comics that dwell much deeper into the spiritual side of the Force, to have the deeper debates works better than making a big budget blockbuster film and not delivering on the action.

Then that is a point of disagreement. Physical and spiritual feats can happen together, as I think Luke's projection at the end demonstrated. But, that clearly wasn't what everyone wanted.

Spiritual feats do not just mean debate and discussion. Rebels and Clone Wars demonstrated that they could explore the nature of the Force in a lot of different avenues and those are interesting (dare I say exciting?) to me to find out more. The Jedi and the Sith are not just lightsabers and Force battles.

It's also fine that you didn't want to see Luke in a lightsaber fight. I did. I wanted to see how much he had learned and to see him display it. I was ready to forgive TLJ its many faults when Luke showed up on Crait, only to be 'brilliantly' subverted by Rian Johnson yet again. I don't think Luke's projection was the most Jedi thing he could've done, though it was an admitted display of Force power. The most Jedi thing he could've done IMO was let go his personal issues and go after Snoke and Ben much earlier. Though if they had spun it like his emotional attachment was his undoing, like Anakin's and also had been Luke's 'failing' in TESB, but his ace in his ROTJ, then perhaps I could've accepted TLJ Luke better because I can then square it with how he was portrayed in the OT. But we really didn't get that because TLJ Luke had given up on Ben by the time of their confrontation on Crait.

Luke used the Force to protect and defend those of the Resistance without taking a life. How is that not a Jedi thing? How is using the Force to save people not a Jedi thing?

I don't need Luke to "square with" his OT portrayal. It's been 30 years. I expect people to change. I think Luke's character flowed from his training with Obi-Wan, his successes and his failures. He was a man who struggled with his legendary status and his failure to live up to that wore him down. That's not only something I would expect but is very human.

The PT Jedi were full of contradictions, which is one of the most interesting things Lucas did with them. They were hypocrites perhaps without even knowing it, and that lack of self-awareness, perhaps resulting in some kind of institutional or bureaucratic inertia or malaise had made them weaker in the face of the growing power of the dark side. The Jedi did not fail time and time again in the PT. In Episode I, just two Jedi helped free Naboo from the Trade Federation, a dwindling number of Jedi won the Battle of Geonosis in Episode II, Obi-Wan and Anakin rescued the Chancellor at the Battle of Coruscant; another loss for the Separatists; and they had at least fought the Separatists to a stalemate in Episode III and were on the verge of winning that war after Obi-Wan defeated Grievous. It was only Order 66 and Anakin's turn that took out the Jedi. So, as soldiers of the Republic they were pretty effective. And they were far more successful thus far than the Resistance has been. It remains to be seen if Rey will in fact be a servant of the Force or not. She does seem pretty handy with both a staff and a lightsaber. In terms of failure, the sequels are drenched in failure. Almost everyone has failed in the sequels. There's the personal failures for most of the characters, but also the larger political ones. The Resistance scored a big victory by destroying Starkiller Base, but only after it had had wiped out a good deal of the New Republic, and in the second film, the Resistance is reduced to just the people on the Millennium Falcon, which has to be the biggest defeat we've seen since Order 66 in Star Wars.

Every single victory the Jedi won in the PT was for the Dark Side. So, yes, they failed to protect peace and justice in the Republic.

Yes, they failed.

 

[DarKush]

^
It was not my intention to twist your words. My response is based on how I interpreted what you were saying. Blasters and starships make Star Wars, yes, but not to the degree that the things I highlighted do. Almost every space opera has blasters and starships in some form, but lightsabers, Jedi, Sith, etc. are things when you hear them or see them, that read Star Wars to you. I think if you see a particular blaster, like Han Solo’s, maybe Chewbacca’s bowcaster, or you see particular starships like Star Destroyers, TIE Fighters, X-Wing, and the Millennium Falcon that would also read Star Wars to you. However, if you just drop a person in front of a television with starships zipping past and then showing people having blaster fights without some other Star Wars tie that could just as easily be Babylon 5, Stargate, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, etc.

You are right that the Jedi and Sith are not just lightsabers and Force battles however those are often used as visual demonstrations or representations of the philosophical, war of ideas between the two opposing groups.

What Luke did on Crait was a Jedi thing, but so would have been attempting to rectify his earlier mistakes much sooner and that might have resulted in saving more lives, including the millions wiped out by Starkiller Base.

Luke isn’t a real person, he’s a character, and yes, I do think to make the character work, to appear more ‘real’, to fit within the preestablished rules of the universe, if not fiction itself, Luke works better if his character is a logical, organic progression from where we last saw him, and if there is a break in that, then it should be better explained, preferably shown, to explain why the hero character of the OT has turned his back on everyone, which was very out of character from the Luke we had come to know in the OT.

The Jedi were being manipulated by Sidious, but it doesn’t remove the fact that there were battles they fought and won, lives they saved, planets they protected, even if the end if it led to the destruction of the Jedi Order. And the audience got to see the protagonists face challenges and overcome them each film, until the end of ROTS. It’s a little different for the sequels which don't have to get to a predetermined outcome, but I thought failing and having characters grapple with failure, as TLJ Luke is doing (and Han and Leia also) is what made him so compelling to you? Why is it not the same for the PT Jedi? Further, since Episode IX has not come out, we don’t know what the ultimate fate of the new heroes will be. They could also be pawns in a long-game by Ren or Snoke’s second heretofore unrevealed apprentice. Or someone else, as one of the rumors I’ve heard may suggest.

 

[JD]

I disagree that what we saw of Luke in TLJ was inconsistent with his behavior in the OT, Luke was constantly running off and making purely emotional decisions throughout the OT and that was exactly what he did after everything with Ben. It might be a bit more extreme, but the situation was also more extreme than what he went through in the OT.

 

[fireproof78]

^
It was not my intention to twist your words. My response is based on how I interpreted what you were saying. Blasters and starships make Star Wars, yes, but not to the degree that the things I highlighted do. Almost every space opera has blasters and starships in some form, but lightsabers, Jedi, Sith, etc. are things when you hear them or see them, that read Star Wars to you. I think if you see a particular blaster, like Han Solo’s, maybe Chewbacca’s bowcaster, or you see particular starships like Star Destroyers, TIE Fighters, X-Wing, and the Millennium Falcon that would also read Star Wars to you. However, if you just drop a person in front of a television with starships zipping past and then showing people having blaster fights without some other Star Wars tie that could just as easily be Babylon 5, Stargate, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, etc.

I personally disagree on this point. Even as a younger person, I could identify space battles from different properties quite well. Now, mind I am a bit of a spaceship nerd, but Babylon 5 looks different than Star Wars, than Stargate, largely because the visual language is very difficult. Each world has a unique look to it, even with weapons, and the lightsaber is not the only thing that makes Star Wars what it is.

Again, Rogue One demonstrates this very well.

You are right that the Jedi and Sith are not just lightsabers and Force battles however those are often used as visual demonstrations or representations of the philosophical, war of ideas between the two opposing groups.

If the only way to demonstrate a conflict is through a laser sword battle then I feel that the Force and the world are inherently limited.

What Luke did on Crait was a Jedi thing, but so would have been attempting to rectify his earlier mistakes much sooner and that might have resulted in saving more lives, including the millions wiped out by Starkiller Base.

Ah, so Luke should have known that many would die and not have gotten mired down in depression after his failure? I'm sure many would prefer that, but it doesn't strike me as realistic. Certainly doesn't change the feat that Luke does on Crait.

Luke isn’t a real person, he’s a character, and yes, I do think to make the character work, to appear more ‘real’, to fit within the preestablished rules of the universe, if not fiction itself, Luke works better if his character is a logical, organic progression from where we last saw him, and if there is a break in that, then it should be better explained, preferably shown, to explain why the hero character of the OT has turned his back on everyone, which was very out of character from the Luke we had come to know in the OT.

I disagree on a number of levels.

One, after 30 years in universe I would not expect Luke to be the same as he was at the end of ROTJ. That would be completely outside the realm of realism, unless he was frozen or lost in hyperspace. So, it is logical to expect changes.

I feel like Luke's failure is fully explained for his withdrawing. He was taught that, shown that, by two Jedi Masters. His response to the Dark Side was brief, instinctual, but the failure was far more stinging. Despite the assertion that because he was so close to Ben that would somehow motivate him to keep trying, I personally know that psychology can make it more difficult, more painful, when the loss is so personal.

Also, the truly harshest part is the fact that Luke would feel a lack of support because he didn't just fail Ben, but Han and Leia too. Maybe it could have been better portrayed in the films but I can follow the line of events and understand the character fine.

The Jedi were being manipulated by Sidious, but it doesn’t remove the fact that there were battles they fought and won, lives they saved, planets they protected, even if the end if it led to the destruction of the Jedi Order. And the audience got to see the protagonists face challenges and overcome them each film, until the end of ROTS. It’s a little different for the sequels which don't have to get to a predetermined outcome, but I thought failing and having characters grapple with failure, as TLJ Luke is doing (and Han and Leia also) is what made him so compelling to you? Why is it not the same for the PT Jedi? Further, since Episode IX has not come out, we don’t know what the ultimate fate of the new heroes will be. They could also be pawns in a long-game by Ren or Snoke’s second heretofore unrevealed apprentice. Or someone else, as one of the rumors I’ve heard may suggest.

If that is the case with Episode IX I will reconsider my approach. However, the difference for me between than and the PT is what I think about the characters. Namely, that I don't really feel the PT characters are, well, characters. The Jedi all feel very one dimensional, victims of destiny with no agency. The fact that Sidious manipulates them all is more distressing to me because it makes them feel like they had no choice in the matter, that all they could do is what happened in the films, with no possibility of it happening otherwise. All their victories that you go on about feel naught but hollow because it was in the service to great evil to the galaxy.

So, what makes Luke, Han, and Leia more compelling? They feel real. They feel like they are struggling with their failure, and seeking to act in face of difficult situations, while the Jedi go passively along. Han, Luke and Leia feel active. The Jedi feel passive, unconcerned and slaves to fate.

 

[LJones41]

However, the difference for me between than and the PT is what I think about the characters. Namely, that I don't really feel the PT characters are, well, characters. The Jedi all feel very one dimensional, victims of destiny with no agency. The fact that Sidious manipulates them all is more distressing to me because it makes them feel like they had no choice in the matter, that all they could do is what happened in the films, with no possibility of it happening otherwise. All their victories that you go on about feel naught but hollow because it was in the service to great evil to the galaxy.

Of course their victories were hollow . . . especially since they were doomed to fail in the end. And of course the major PT characters had choices . . . and they made them. Sidious could only manipulate them to a certain degree. He didn't cast some spell that led them to make poor choices. He created certain situations. And it was up to the protagonists on whether they would follow through or not. And they did.

I don't know what it is, but I get this feeling that one the main reasons so many are critical of the PT was the ambiguous portrayal of the main protagonists. It seems as if the audience harbors this belief that they would have never made poor choices in the way that the Jedi, the Senate and the Galaxy's citizens would. And yet . . . history has taught us that the general public, along with political, religious and other organizations have made such poor choices . . . choices that have led to a good number of disastrous events.

I have no problem with this. I found it interesting to watch how Palpatine's manipulations, along with the protagonists' poor choices led to disaster for the Galaxy.

 

[fireproof78]

If I felt like the heroes had choices and would actually have made them and it would have had an impact that would be one thing. The problem is, Palpatine was always one step ahead of them at all times. Even the Legends EU portrayed this with Palpatine anticipating the Vong. Literally it feels like Palpatine cannot be wrong. It makes the stories less interesting, characters less real, and the outcome woefully predictable.

I don't know what it is, but I get this feeling that one the main reasons so many are critical of the PT was the ambiguous portrayal of the main protagonists. It seems as if the audience harbors this belief that they would have never made poor choices in the way that the Jedi, the Senate and the Galaxy's citizens would. And yet . . . history has taught us that the general public, along with political, religious and other organizations have made such poor choices . . . choices that have led to a good number of disastrous events.

The same is true of the ST. People expect Luke to behave as a paragon of virtue, incapable of making the mistakes of his teachers. And yet, history demonstrates that students often learn their masters mistakes.

 

[Ithekro]

We had a lightsaber fight in the film. Rey and Ren's stand against the minions with other weapons, plus Luke dodging Ren's blade with skill kept Ren's attention away from what he was suppose to be doing.

 

[DarKush]

I personally disagree on this point. Even as a younger person, I could identify space battles from different properties quite well. Now, mind I am a bit of a spaceship nerd, but Babylon 5 looks different than Star Wars, than Stargate, largely because the visual language is very difficult. Each world has a unique look to it, even with weapons, and the lightsaber is not the only thing that makes Star Wars what it is.

Again, Rogue One demonstrates this very well.

If the only way to demonstrate a conflict is through a laser sword battle then I feel that the Force and the world are inherently limited.

Ah, so Luke should have known that many would die and not have gotten mired down in depression after his failure? I'm sure many would prefer that, but it doesn't strike me as realistic. Certainly doesn't change the feat that Luke does on Crait.

I disagree on a number of levels.

One, after 30 years in universe I would not expect Luke to be the same as he was at the end of ROTJ. That would be completely outside the realm of realism, unless he was frozen or lost in hyperspace. So, it is logical to expect changes.

I feel like Luke's failure is fully explained for his withdrawing. He was taught that, shown that, by two Jedi Masters. His response to the Dark Side was brief, instinctual, but the failure was far more stinging. Despite the assertion that because he was so close to Ben that would somehow motivate him to keep trying, I personally know that psychology can make it more difficult, more painful, when the loss is so personal.

Also, the truly harshest part is the fact that Luke would feel a lack of support because he didn't just fail Ben, but Han and Leia too. Maybe it could have been better portrayed in the films but I can follow the line of events and understand the character fine.

If that is the case with Episode IX I will reconsider my approach. However, the difference for me between than and the PT is what I think about the characters. Namely, that I don't really feel the PT characters are, well, characters. The Jedi all feel very one dimensional, victims of destiny with no agency. The fact that Sidious manipulates them all is more distressing to me because it makes them feel like they had no choice in the matter, that all they could do is what happened in the films, with no possibility of it happening otherwise. All their victories that you go on about feel naught but hollow because it was in the service to great evil to the galaxy.

So, what makes Luke, Han, and Leia more compelling? They feel real. They feel like they are struggling with their failure, and seeking to act in face of difficult situations, while the Jedi go passively along. Han, Luke and Leia feel active. The Jedi feel passive, unconcerned and slaves to fate.

I think you are assuming because you get the distinctions between properties that everyone will. Rogue One is a film that had an awesome lightsaber scene in it, and while not specifically mentioning the Jedi or Sith, from what I recall, did incessantly mention “The Force”, another hallmark of Star Wars. I’m looking at this, or trying to, from the perspective of someone who isn’t like us, and spaceships/starships and blasters (or laser guns/ray guns) are more generic and are seen in almost every space opera, but when you see/say “lightsaber” that draws you right to Star Wars in a way that a blaster doesn’t. Mentioning Rogue One means little because it’s the eighth live-action feature in the Star Wars franchise. I think that argument would have more weight if it was the second or third and the name Star Wars wasn’t attached. More like how UPN experimented in the first few seasons of “Enterprise” by not attaching the Star Trek brand name. Though “Enterprise” was a big clue to what the show would be about, perhaps not enough to get all the Star Trek fans, or others who might be drawn to a Star Trek show.

When it comes to lightsaber duels, I feel you are projecting your personal likes onto the masses. Movies are visual, action catches the eye, keeps attention. Certainly, you can have Jedi feats without fighting, but since such dueling was established in ANH, it just is part of the franchise now, and each movie has had a lightsaber duel of sorts. What you’re suggesting seems to me like doing a Predator film where they are meditating on the nature of the hunt as opposed to the Predators hunting people/beings down. You can do both, but generally I lean toward action more than meditation. The meditative parts, the debating about the meaning of it all, can be done in forums like these.

When you mention Luke, you bring up realistic. This is a space fantasy, with wizards, black knights, space princesses, and Wookiees, etc. I expect more realism from Star Trek and Babylon 5 than I have from Star Wars. But in light of the history established in the PT and OT, Luke was well aware of what his inaction could result in. He knew-somehow-of Darth Sidious in TLJ, so it stands to reason he knew about Order 66 and the fall of the Republic. He had lived through the Galactic Civil War and the fall of the Empire. He had destroyed the Death Star and played a role in destroying the second one. So it also stands to reason that he could infer that another group emulating the Empire, in the First Order, led by a mysterious, powerful dark side user in Snoke, and with another powerful dark side enforcer in Kylo Ren, that was waging war against the New Republic, was going to cause countless deaths. The previous films showed just where it was going to lead.

While Sidious did have a master plan, the Jedi were not completely without agency. Sidious was helped by his insight into psychology, but also by coincidence, and if possible the will of the Force. And that’s not much different than what we’ve seen in the OT or the sequels for that matter. Turns, quirks of fate. That’s part of Star Wars storytelling, for good or bad. If anything, the PT made me appreciate how much of a manipulator Palpatine was and reinforced the admonitions the Jedi Masters gave Luke in ROTJ to be wary of him. Palpatine/Sidious was the character burnished most by the PT IMO.

I think part of your problem with the PT Jedi are that Lucas had to get to a predetermined outcome, so by the end there had be a Jedi massacre, there had to be the rise of the Empire, and so forth. Without that, you did see Jedi and others struggling, perhaps gripped by fate, or the Force, but still having some agency within it. Yet, they were destined to fail from the first second of the first scene in TPM. And Lucas decided to try to tell a story of why they failed and how democracy can turn to tyranny. I don’t think he did a great job, but there were some good things there, and also built on a lot in the Clone Wars cartoon series.

I agree with you that Luke, Leia, and Han, feel more real than the PT characters, but also more real than the sequel characters. And I think that connection is one reason why Disney and Lucasfilm keep going back to them, keep stoking that nostalgia. And it’s another reason why some ‘old’ fans were upset with the treatment of the original Big Three because they did connect with them, they cared about them in ways they didn’t care about other Star Wars characters and didn’t like the shoddy mistreatment they received in the sequels, which is even more galling when you look at how poorly developed their replacements are.

 

[DarKush]

I disagree that what we saw of Luke in TLJ was inconsistent with his behavior in the OT, Luke was constantly running off and making purely emotional decisions throughout the OT and that was exactly what he did after everything with Ben. It might be a bit more extreme, but the situation was also more extreme than what he went through in the OT.

That's a very good comparison. I hadn't considered it from that angle. I will say though that while OT Luke did make emotional decisions, we saw him running towards things in the OT, even if its not too wise to do so, and not running away from. I agree with what you said about extreme. This long self-exile to stew on his failure was too much. If Luke had taken a few months or year to figure it out, that would've been better, but to just shut himself off from his friends and family-the people who he had made those emotional decisions often for in the OT-does feel out of character.

If they had had TLJ Luke confront Snoke and Ben and get soundly defeated, and then he runs away to figure things out I could accept that better. But to just leave a mess he created, that doesn't wash. OT Luke took on responsibility, while sequel Luke doesn't (like sequel Han). They have to be disparaged perhaps as part of the Disney/Lucasfilm take on Star Wars.

I think the sequels have decided IMO to go with a generational divide angle, where the older generations (i.e. Baby Boomers/Generation X) have failed or are screw ups and it's up to the young generation (Millennials and Generation Z) to save the day. I've been trying to figure out just what these sequels are about, what they are trying to say, and I think it could be a story of generation divide, more so than in the previous films.

 

[fireproof78]

I think you are assuming because you get the distinctions between properties that everyone will. Rogue One is a film that had an awesome lightsaber scene in it, and while not specifically mentioning the Jedi or Sith, from what I recall, did incessantly mention “The Force”, another hallmark of Star Wars. I’m looking at this, or trying to, from the perspective of someone who isn’t like us, and spaceships/starships and blasters (or laser guns/ray guns) are more generic and are seen in almost every space opera, but when you see/say “lightsaber” that draws you right to Star Wars in a way that a blaster doesn’t. Mentioning Rogue One means little because it’s the eighth live-action feature in the Star Wars franchise. I think that argument would have more weight if it was the second or third and the name Star Wars wasn’t attached. More like how UPN experimented in the first few seasons of “Enterprise” by not attaching the Star Trek brand name. Though “Enterprise” was a big clue to what the show would be about, perhaps not enough to get all the Star Trek fans, or others who might be drawn to a Star Trek show.

Perhaps. Though, I have family and coworkers who are not genre fans who can still identify Star Wars from the spaceships to the blasters. They are familiar enough to make that connection. Even my mom, who hates scifi, can do it.

So, maybe my personal experience is rather slanted but that's what I've experienced...

The other side is the fact that Star Wars, even the OT, wasn't just about the lightsaber. The reason why there are iconic duels is because the saber was used sparingly in the OT. So, give me more of that, not more physical feats, is what I am trying to say.

When it comes to lightsaber duels, I feel you are projecting your personal likes onto the masses. Movies are visual, action catches the eye, keeps attention. Certainly, you can have Jedi feats without fighting, but since such dueling was established in ANH, it just is part of the franchise now, and each movie has had a lightsaber duel of sorts. What you’re suggesting seems to me like doing a Predator film where they are meditating on the nature of the hunt as opposed to the Predators hunting people/beings down. You can do both, but generally I lean toward action more than meditation. The meditative parts, the debating about the meaning of it all, can be done in forums like these.

Perhaps I am not being clear. I love lightsaber duels. I have choreographed them, designed them, imagined different scenarios, studied bokken, fencing, longsword and broadsword. I have watched "7 Samurai" multiple times to appreciate that style. To say that I don't like lightsaber duels is not accurate.

What I am wanting is more of the Force feats, and not just the acrobatics. Things like what Luke did strike me as incredibly powerful and exciting. I want more Force, more of them using it to expand upon their power, either through manipulation of the physical world, or journeying in to the spiritual, like in Clone Wars.

There is room for both. And I don't feel "deprived" that Luke didn't do more lightsaber combat.

I'm not asking for quiet introspective scenes. I'm asking for more use of the Force in a wider variety of ways, like what Luke did.

When you mention Luke, you bring up realistic. This is a space fantasy, with wizards, black knights, space princesses, and Wookiees, etc. I expect more realism from Star Trek and Babylon 5 than I have from Star Wars. But in light of the history established in the PT and OT, Luke was well aware of what his inaction could result in. He knew-somehow-of Darth Sidious in TLJ, so it stands to reason he knew about Order 66 and the fall of the Republic. He had lived through the Galactic Civil War and the fall of the Empire. He had destroyed the Death Star and played a role in destroying the second one. So it also stands to reason that he could infer that another group emulating the Empire, in the First Order, led by a mysterious, powerful dark side user in Snoke, and with another powerful dark side enforcer in Kylo Ren, that was waging war against the New Republic, was going to cause countless deaths. The previous films showed just where it was going to lead.

This is a good point and I do appreciate it. But, that is not what I want from any story, Star Wars included. If I do not believe that the characters actions are realistic then it ends up being meaningless. Unfortunately, that's what the PT did. I don't believe Anakin would go ten years without mentioning his mom or trying to free her. So, the precipitating event in AOTC for Anakin feels very hollow.

Luke might have been aware but he was also afraid of what his own action might cause. Fear and doubt and depression are very powerful and I feel that keeps getting ignored because of personal dislike or how we would like to believe we would react in the face of failure in the same situation.

While Sidious did have a master plan, the Jedi were not completely without agency. Sidious was helped by his insight into psychology, but also by coincidence, and if possible the will of the Force. And that’s not much different than what we’ve seen in the OT or the sequels for that matter. Turns, quirks of fate. That’s part of Star Wars storytelling, for good or bad. If anything, the PT made me appreciate how much of a manipulator Palpatine was and reinforced the admonitions the Jedi Masters gave Luke in ROTJ to be wary of him. Palpatine/Sidious was the character burnished most by the PT IMO.

This is amusing. On the one hand, there is dismissal of real psychology on the part of the characters. On the other hand, Palpatine's ability to manipulate the Jedi psychologically is a strength of the character.

Now, I'll completely grant that Palpatine was absolutely build up in the PT, and was a stand out character in those films. But, Palpatine also came across as infallible and unbeatable. Yes, it's a possible will of the Force but it felt so railroaded as to cause me to feel like the Jedi had zero chance to win against him. That's very frustrating.

I think part of your problem with the PT Jedi are that Lucas had to get to a predetermined outcome, so by the end there had be a Jedi massacre, there had to be the rise of the Empire, and so forth. Without that, you did see Jedi and others struggling, perhaps gripped by fate, or the Force, but still having some agency within it. Yet, they were destined to fail from the first second of the first scene in TPM. And Lucas decided to try to tell a story of why they failed and how democracy can turn to tyranny. I don’t think he did a great job, but there were some good things there, and also built on a lot in the Clone Wars cartoon series.

Again, in the broad strokes this sounds very good. And the fact that the Clone Wars and novels told good stories within testifies to that. That doesn't change the fact that the Jedi felt like they lacked agency to me.

I agree with you that Luke, Leia, and Han, feel more real than the PT characters, but also more real than the sequel characters. And I think that connection is one reason why Disney and Lucasfilm keep going back to them, keep stoking that nostalgia. And it’s another reason why some ‘old’ fans were upset with the treatment of the original Big Three because they did connect with them, they cared about them in ways they didn’t care about other Star Wars characters and didn’t like the shoddy mistreatment they received in the sequels, which is even more galling when you look at how poorly developed their replacements are.

This is a fair point. I just disagree largely because I am invested in how the Big 3 are going to deal with their obstacles as well as how the new characters are going to find their place.

 

[LJones41]

If you had asked me why I hate the Sequel Trilogy, I could have answered your question. But since you didn't ask, I won't answer.

 

[fireproof78]

If you had asked me why I hate the Sequel Trilogy, I could have answered your question. But since you didn't ask, I won't answer.

That's ok. We already know

 

[USS Firefly]

This is a fair point. I just disagree largely because I am invested in how the Big 3 are going to deal with their obstacles as well as how the new characters are going to find their place.

I am disappointed in the storyline of the big 3 because two of them ran away because they were scared.

I can't believe i would give up on my child like han did, or my nephew like Luke.

 

[fireproof78]

I am disappointed in the storyline of the big 3 because two of them ran away because they were scared.

I can't believe i would give up on my child like han did, or my nephew like Luke.

I would like to believe that I wouldn't either, but having experienced depression and despair, I can sympathize. It's far more realistic than any of us are truly comfortable with.

And I know, the Star Wars films are supposed to be escapist fantasy. For me, they ceased to be that when I watched a man nearly burn to death, while political commentary raged on. These movies have moved past their strictly fantasy elements and in to a lot of character development, which I think is a good thing.

 

[DarKush]

Perhaps. Though, I have family and coworkers who are not genre fans who can still identify Star Wars from the spaceships to the blasters. They are familiar enough to make that connection. Even my mom, who hates scifi, can do it.

So, maybe my personal experience is rather slanted but that's what I've experienced...

The other side is the fact that Star Wars, even the OT, wasn't just about the lightsaber. The reason why there are iconic duels is because the saber was used sparingly in the OT. So, give me more of that, not more physical feats, is what I am trying to say.

Perhaps I am not being clear. I love lightsaber duels. I have choreographed them, designed them, imagined different scenarios, studied bokken, fencing, longsword and broadsword. I have watched "7 Samurai" multiple times to appreciate that style. To say that I don't like lightsaber duels is not accurate.

What I am wanting is more of the Force feats, and not just the acrobatics. Things like what Luke did strike me as incredibly powerful and exciting. I want more Force, more of them using it to expand upon their power, either through manipulation of the physical world, or journeying in to the spiritual, like in Clone Wars.

There is room for both. And I don't feel "deprived" that Luke didn't do more lightsaber combat.

I'm not asking for quiet introspective scenes. I'm asking for more use of the Force in a wider variety of ways, like what Luke did.

This is a good point and I do appreciate it. But, that is not what I want from any story, Star Wars included. If I do not believe that the characters actions are realistic then it ends up being meaningless. Unfortunately, that's what the PT did. I don't believe Anakin would go ten years without mentioning his mom or trying to free her. So, the precipitating event in AOTC for Anakin feels very hollow.

Luke might have been aware but he was also afraid of what his own action might cause. Fear and doubt and depression are very powerful and I feel that keeps getting ignored because of personal dislike or how we would like to believe we would react in the face of failure in the same situation.

This is amusing. On the one hand, there is dismissal of real psychology on the part of the characters. On the other hand, Palpatine's ability to manipulate the Jedi psychologically is a strength of the character.

Now, I'll completely grant that Palpatine was absolutely build up in the PT, and was a stand out character in those films. But, Palpatine also came across as infallible and unbeatable. Yes, it's a possible will of the Force but it felt so railroaded as to cause me to feel like the Jedi had zero chance to win against him. That's very frustrating.

Again, in the broad strokes this sounds very good. And the fact that the Clone Wars and novels told good stories within testifies to that. That doesn't change the fact that the Jedi felt like they lacked agency to me.

This is a fair point. I just disagree largely because I am invested in how the Big 3 are going to deal with their obstacles as well as how the new characters are going to find their place.

I don't have much more to add to this discussion but I did want to say I'm not dismissing 'real' psychology when it comes to Star Wars. Though I will say that real psychological reactions or motivations are not automatically going to result in the character behavior you-or me-for that matter agree with,which is what I take from your belief that Luke's actions are based mostly on real psychology. From what I've seen of Luke's behavior, if not psychology, in the OT, the TLJ Luke didn't work for me. That being said, I also do caution applying strictly real world understandings to fantasy characters.

In particular, many of the Star Wars characters were created to be archetypes and not super well developed. I recall up to the prequels, Lucas saying that Palpatine was pure evil. There was no complexity when it came to Sidious in Lucas's mind, which I didn't really agree with, but Ian McDiarmid was so great in the role I just shrugged my shoulders and enjoyed his performance. So, the idea of Star Wars characters being black or white, Manichean, even if that isn't how humans really are, is not alien (pun intended) to Star Wars.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't have much more to add to this discussion but I did want to say I'm not dismissing 'real' psychology when it comes to Star Wars. Though I will say that real psychological reactions or motivations are not automatically going to result in the character behavior you-or me-for that matter agree with,which is what I take from your belief that Luke's actions are based mostly on real psychology. From what I've seen of Luke's behavior, if not psychology, in the OT, the TLJ Luke didn't work for me. That being said, I also do caution applying strictly real world understandings to fantasy characters.

This is true. And I come from a strong psychological background so characters who make sense to me often have differing levels of depth from a psychological POV that I can infer. I think that's part of Luke's appeal to me, that desire for a sense of adventure, as well as reflecting upon his struggles in the ST.

Now, I'll grant that Luke from OT to ST is off putting, and I sympathize with that moment, largely because that is how I felt with Obi-Wan in the PT. However, having more and more of the pieces put in by Episode 8 has helped me fill it in myself. But, I completely grant that it would have been better to show rather than tell some of these facts.

Here's the thing for me-stories today are going to be different than stories 40 years ago. Luke's character is not just being informed by the OT but by understanding of real world psychology and storytelling today. To me, that is part of the engagement process: to recognize how a character would logically change after 30 years and dealing with a traumatic event. We know more now about trauma than even was known 10 years ago. To me, to dismiss that understanding is to really do a disservice to any character's development.

Now, as you state, the idea of black and white characters is now new to Star Wars. In point of fact, the original banked heavily on this. However, that idea was slowly expanded, in a new way, as we were introduced to Anakin's story in ESB, Obi-Wan's lying/POV bull, and even more in the PT and Clone Wars. There was a discovery in that series of shades of gray. So, in my opinion, while black and white is not alien to Star Wars, it also isn't alien for them to explore far more depth, again, as evidenced by Palpatine.

Now, do I think the ST was the only or even the best way to tell this story? No, I don't. I think Luke could have been a lot more involved with TFA, rather than being a Macguffin, and that Han could have still been involved in the Resistance, possibly leading it, with Leia trying to deal with the political side. Have them still meet up at Takodana. I think Luke hunting for Jedi knowledge to support his battle against Snoke would have been an interesting take as well.

So, believe me when I say that the ST isn't going exactly the way I wanted it to. I just still find enjoyment out of it.