Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Wars
Byrne Robotics > Star Wars << Prev Page of 4 Next >>
Topic: Rank The WARS! Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Brian Rhodes
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2728
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 5:02pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

...maybe as an adult but as a child Empire was the 1st star wars movie I saw and I didn't feel it was incomplete then.

So, you were cool with Han being frozen and in the hands of a bounty hunter, and the movie ending minutes after Vader's revelation? Luke is now a defeated, confused amputee. Everyone is sad. A solid win for the Empire. Did you take a warm and fuzzy everything-tied-up-in-neatly-in-a-bow feeling away from all that?

Most of us who saw it in theaters when it was first released sure didn't. And we had to wait THREE YEARS to get resolution to all that.

EMPIRE had a beginning a middle, and an end. But its beginning was  STAR WARS and its end was RETURN OF THE JEDI.

But not really, as it turns out. Much as EMPIRE erased our heroes' victory from the end of STAR WARS, TFA erased the victory from the end of ROTJ.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Warren Scott
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 July 2016
Posts: 167
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 5:13pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

I hesitated to comment on this one at first because I figured I'd just be offering a variation on the lists everyone else has posted. But I've been enjoying the commentary on what makes each good, not so good or bad.
My two favorites are "Star Wars" and "Return of the Jedi." I know a lot of people knock the latter for its kid-friendly elements but the original was aimed at adults and kids. I don't mind the darkness of "Empire" but I can't enjoy it without following up with "ROTJ" to resolve all of the storylines. At the bottom of my list are "Revenge of the Sith" and "The Phantom Menace." I actually liked the big battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin, but it took a while to get to that point (whether you're thinking of the three prequels or just the movie itself). I think the prequels sorely needed a second storyline, with an ending no one knew, to take us through them. Otherwise, we only really needed one prequel and that was "Sith."
"The Phantom Menace" just doesn't seem like a "Star Wars" film. Perhaps it's a little too heavy on the kid elements. And when it's not, we have boring parliament sessions.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Warren Scott
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 July 2016
Posts: 167
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 5:26pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

The discussion of plot points in the original three, for me, has raised a point that has been brought up before:
Should Darth Vader be Luke's father or a straight movie heavy? Making Vader Luke's father made him more three-dimensional, but it also may have been a bit of a cheat. You see, after the first one, everyone predicted Luke and Vader would eventually battle. Well, Lucas and others may have been reluctant to have Luke actually kill Vader. Much of the audience was kids and the hero usually didn't kill the villain in family-targeted films of that time. An easy solution is Luke won't kill him because Vader is his father. That's something everyone can relate to. But the underlying message in the "Star Wars" films ("Empire" included) is that Luke should not give in to his anger or he risks becoming like his enemy. Would the audiences have accepted Luke not killing Vader for this reason alone?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
L’Homme Diabolique

Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7595
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 5:42pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Although I think it's a technically well made film with enjoyable parts, I don't like EMPIRE as much as many STAR WARS fans do for two main reasons.  One has already been mentioned -- it doesn't tell a complete story, and essentially has to be watched with JEDI, a film I dislike more with each viewing.

The second reason is that EMPIRE and JEDI make the same inexplicable error: they split up the cast.  So much of the magic of the first film is the interactions of the main characters once they're assembled, and the sequels bend over backwards to keep them apart.  I'd trade Luke being trained by a puppet in a studio swamp for more Luke-Leia-Han interactions in a heartbeat.

And while I mostly enjoyed FORCE and am reasonably optimistic about the Disney films as a whole, it was a heartbreakingly bad choice to not reunite the main characters when given a chance.


Edited by Thom Price on 18 May 2017 at 5:44pm
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Brian Rhodes
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2728
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 6:00pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply


But the underlying message in the "Star Wars" films ("Empire" included) is that Luke should not give in to his anger or he risks becoming like his enemy. Would the audiences have accepted Luke not killing Vader for this reason alone?

I think so. And it could be quite powerful.

Assuming much has gone the way it originally did up to this point, with Vader having tried the 'father' gambit, but it being merely a ruse to confuse young Skywalker.  Luke could still be a powerful ally to the Emperor if he's turned to the dark side. And so we're at the clash aboard the Death Star...

But after a heated battle, he downs Vader, cuts off his hand, and sees how he's started down the path of becoming just like him...with that revelation, he also realizes Vader is beaten and no longer a threat. Spare the life of this despicable man-machine that's killed so many people, including your own father, then you've truly resisted the Dark Side.

Maybe then we'd have gotten a Neo-like "I am the One!" moment from Luke, and he could have defeated the Emperor handily.

Heh. One Handily.

Luke then departs, figuring even if the two of them are able to escape the Death Star before it explodes, they'll be no match for him after this day.



Edited by Brian Rhodes on 18 May 2017 at 6:02pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14351
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 6:35pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

There is very little "wrong" with STAR WARS.  Sure, Lucas has stated he wasn't happy with the effects, whatever. But from a story standpoint, I don't think it was "missing" anything. And, again, the prequels and sequels take away from the original...


Nicholas Meyer said, "Art thrives on restrictions." His WRATH OF KHAN is evidence of this. JAWS, similarly. And STAR WARS. Probably the most damaging thing that movie did to itself is make a ton of money.

STAR WARS, as a movie, is near-perfection. 

++++++++

Agreed. STAR WARS has definitely become a victim of its own success. But, the standalone original is still a perfect movie, and I'm eager to rewatch it for the bazillionth time on May 25th!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14351
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 6:42pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

But not really, as it turns out. Much as EMPIRE erased our heroes' victory from the end of STAR WARS, TFA erased the victory from the end of ROTJ.
++++++++

This is what I keep saying. Yes, the sequels provided retcons aplenty, but JEDI left things pretty much where they had been at the end of STAR WARS: the Death Star destroyed, and the Rebels victorious. It's not as if Lucas (the creator of the property, which gives him more clout to do this sort of thing than other people, in my opinion) came back decades later and took away the happy ending of STAR WARS. Over a period of six years, he basically just stretched out the story and reaffirmed that original ending, then put the toys back in the box.

Comics and novels aside, 32 years' worth of moviegoers accepted that ending as gospel truth. But, no, it now turns out that the Rebels didn't actually win, and everyone we cared about is now a loser (or dead!). Lucas (who stated many times that JEDI was the end of the story) was apparently wrong, and so were we.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14351
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 6:45pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

By the way--I don't think I've mentioned this, but I recently got back into touch with my pal, Michael Kaminski, and he's hoping to publish a revised and expanded version of THE SECRET HISTORY OF STAR WARS, hopefully next year (for the tenth anniversary of the first edition). We had a nice long chat.

I really hope that the second edition comes to pass, because a lot of new information has come out in the last decade about the films and their production history.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14351
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 6:54pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

The discussion of plot points in the original three, for me, has raised a point that has been brought up before:
Should Darth Vader be Luke's father or a straight movie heavy? Making Vader Luke's father made him more three-dimensional, but it also may have been a bit of a cheat. 
+++++++

I totally understand (and mostly agree with) the idea of keeping Vader "pure" as a icon of evil. Still--and I know I'm in the minority on this--I really do kinda like the reveal that Anakin was just a moody, impulsive kid who made a rash mistake that he ended up paying for (and making others pay for) over the rest of his life. Because it's not what people expected.

Unfortunately, the whole arc of his turn to the dark side was rewritten and reshot fairly late in the game, and doesn't come across as effectively as it could have, had there been more time to thoroughly rethink and reshoot it. The whole "deal with the Devil to save Padme" stuff was not really the primary motivation, originally. It was supposed to be a legitimate show of loyalty to Palpatine, and a genuine belief that the Jedi were traitors. The final film basically splits the difference, and, as a result, it doesn't come across as strongly as it might have.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14351
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 6:59pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

The second reason is that EMPIRE and JEDI make the same inexplicable error: they split up the cast.  So much of the magic of the first film is the interactions of the main characters once they're assembled, and the sequels bend over backwards to keep them apart.  I'd trade Luke being trained by a puppet in a studio swamp for more Luke-Leia-Han interactions in a heartbeat.
++++++++

I think that problem falls more on the side of JEDI. Splitting up the cast and putting them in danger for the darker second act works quite well. The problem is that JEDI doesn't quite reunite them in a satisfactory way. Yes, we get the rescue of Han Solo, but that's tangential to the main plot, which again splits them up. Yes, it makes thematic sense to have Luke confront Vader and the Emperor alone and unaided, but the core trio of STAR WARS is the beating heart of that film. JEDI really needed to do something to affirm the bond between the characters, and have them successfully function as a unit for the series' finale.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Jonathan A. Dowdell
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 24
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 7:32pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Star Wars
Empire Strikes Back
The Force Awakens
Return of the Jedi
Rogue One
Phantom Menace
Revenge of the Sith
Attack of the Clones


I would argue that Phantom Menace is the best of the prequels. It has a beginning, a middle and an end -- and a good villain in Darth Maul. It is not a story I care about in the least but it actually follows a more logical path than either of the other two prequels. There are moments in the other two prequels where I am not sure what is going on. Phantom Menace at the very least has a structure that I can follow. I will never watch any of the prequels again but I found AotC and RotS nonsensical. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5011
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 8:16pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

The Force went from an all-binding energy that anyone could tap into if they believed and trained...to microscopic bugs that you have to be born with. OR....made of (?????)

------

It's my duty to correct this every time someone mentions it. Midi-chlorians are present in the blood of Force-sensitive beings. They are not the source of the Force. It is a way for the Jedi to identify younglings that can be trained. Something Lucas needed for the story.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 6973
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 2:48am | IP Logged | 13 post reply

He didn't need them. The midi-chlorians are simply a means for Qui-Gon to report to Yoda over his communicator a specific number that would be scientifically convincing enough for the Jedi council to take on this boy as a trainee. Had Qui-Gon simply reported that he himself was convinced of Anakin's role as the prophesied "bringer of balance," absolutely and without question, having felt it to be true through the Force, it would have then been up to Yoda to decide how much he trusted Qui-Gon. It would have been a nice character moment for Yoda to have believed in our hero that much. It could also have been rather effective for Yoda to sense that it was true upon meeting the boy.

Unfortunately, no. The Jedi Council and Yoda don't operate on feelings of trust or loyalty. They need hard numbers to crunch, and even then, they're going to be dicks about everything. Midi-chloridians undermined more than just the ability of everyone to tie into the Force. They helped make the council a bunch of genetically elitist jerks as well.


Edited by Brian Hague on 19 May 2017 at 2:52am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5011
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 5:04am | IP Logged | 14 post reply

The council do need to be in conflict, though. Showing that they don't always agree with each other shows they are not perfect, and their lack of trust is one of the things that leads to the Jedi's downfall. They've become too closed off from society and too elitist.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Brian Rhodes
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2728
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 7:35am | IP Logged | 15 post reply

Midi-chlorians are present in the blood of Force-sensitive beings. They are not the source of the Force. It is a way for the Jedi to identify younglings that can be trained.

The implication, then, in how I read it, is that if midichlorians are absent, you have no real connection to the Force.

Whereas (again, my interpretation) in STAR WARS (and EMPIRE, to some degree), it seemed like anyone could tap into it, if they just believed (and were properly mentored).

Which is why Solo showed no aptitude for it...although...he did sneak up on Vader in the Death Star trench. And operated a lightsaber pretty easily. And was a notorious loner* and scoundrel who formed quick bonds with Luke, Leia, and to some extent, Obi-Wan. *His one/best friend (pre- and post-Luke) is Chewbacca, who goes way back with Yoda (and, presumably, Obi-Wan). And his offspring exhibited Force abilities even his grandfather didn't have...did he double up on Force parents??

Sounds kinda silly. But that's what happens when you start picking...
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14351
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 8:22am | IP Logged | 16 post reply

Unfortunately, no. The Jedi Council and Yoda don't operate on feelings of trust or loyalty. They need hard numbers to crunch, and even then, they're going to be dicks about everything. Midi-chloridians undermined more than just the ability of everyone to tie into the Force. They helped make the council a bunch of genetically elitist jerks as well.
+++++++++

I think the first and foremost problem with the execution of the prequels is the lack of emotional connection with the characters. Back in the day, we all probably assumed that the Jedi were likable warrior-heroes who were tragically extinguished.

I still can't quite decide if Lucas simply bungled the depiction of the Jedi and made them unsympathetic, or if he was again going against expectations by deliberately showing them to be flawed, complacent, and cold. It certainly provides a contrast later on with Luke, who is sympathetic, rebellious, and compassionate. 


As for the much-maligned midchlorians, I understand why Lucas put them in, but I never got as upset about it as some people. I kinda like the idea that the Jedi are mystical, but also have a certain level of science mixed with with their religion. 

It should also be noted that Midichlorians appead in Lucas' early post-STAR WARS story notes from late 1977. Something I find quite fascinating is how fandom has adopted STAR WARS and built up certain expectations, which have played out in a variety of ways. Lucas has certainly whitewashed some story elements, but others have been consistent from the start. People who rail against the Midichlorians feels that it's some kind of betrayal of the story they've taken to heart, but Lucas intended them to be part of the story pretty early on. They're not just something he lazily threw in when writing PHANTOM MENACE, so many years after the original film. This wasn't a 180-degree turn in the story, or a major retcon. It was a reveal that clashed with fans' preconceived notions and assumptions.

Me, I don't really have a problem with the Midichlorians. They explain why some people are more naturally attuned to the Force than others, but I don't think that automatically disqualifies those wth lower Midichlorians counts from using the Force, or paints the Jedi as genetically-superior elitists. That's like saying a short people can't play basketball. Just because they're not genetically-predisposed to be tall doesn't mean they can't play. It just takes more training and effort to hone their skills.

So, basically, this is a case of the fandom embracing and enshrining a certain version of the story in their minds, only to then feel betrayed when they find out that's not at all what the creator intended, and blaming him for simply following through on the ideas he'd had from the start. I think that really says something about how we all project our own ideas and experiences into art, and why sequels (and prequels!) can be a real threat to our perceptions of that art, especially when our perceptions are revealed to be in direct opposition to what the artist had always intended. 

I mean, I read a lot of interviews with Lucas before and during the prequels, and so I was not at all surprised by the political stuff and whatnot. He SAID--as far back as 1983--that the prequels would be different, and would be more political and Machiavellian. People seemed legitimately stunned when the prequels did not meet the expectations they'd set up in their minds. I get the impression that people simply wanted more STAR WARS--Stormtroopers and rogues and bounty hunters and starfighter battles. Nevermind that new elements like the battle droids served a thematic and story purpose. That's just not what fans wanted to see

I've often noted that STAR WARS fans tend to seem like drug addicts who are constantly trying to recapture that initial high of seeing the original film(s). When Lucas tried new things, and didn't try to give them the same high, they turned on him. The Disney films have been much more beloved because they're at least trying to provide the same kind of experience--to allow fans to wallow in nostalgia and relive their childhoods by stimulating the nostalgia centers of their brains.

The experience of STAR WARS for each viewer meant one thing, but that thing didn't necessarily match up with the beliefs of its creator. And, when people saw what he was actually driving at, they turned on him. I wouldn't exactly call it an "Emperor has no clothes" moment, but it really does speak to the idea that art is very subjective. Was Lucas "wrong" for sticking to his guns and not trying to meet fan expectations, or were fans "wrong" for so rigidly embracing a certain version of STAR WARS in their minds, and being unwilling to accept ideas that Lucas had intended to be part of the series from the start (like Midichlorians, the Jedi having literal superpowers, etc.)?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108896
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 8:58am | IP Logged | 17 post reply

I still can't quite decide if Lucas simply bungled the depiction of the Jedi and made them unsympathetic, or if he was again going against expectations by deliberately showing them to be flawed, complacent, and cold. It certainly provides a contrast later on with Luke, who is sympathetic, rebellious, and compassionate.

And underscores that Obi-Wan is/was a manipulative liar.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14351
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 9:10am | IP Logged | 18 post reply

There's another weird disconnect, too--Lucas depicted Obi-Wan as a charming and heroic guy in the prequels...but then Obi-Wan and Yoda basically pack up shop and plan to leave it to the next generation to solve their problem. Which, yes, underscores him as a manipulative liar. He basically wants Luke to kill Vader, because he didn't do it himself, when he had the chance.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Rhodes
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2728
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 9:24am | IP Logged | 19 post reply

[Midichlorians are] not just something [Lucas] lazily threw in when writing PHANTOM MENACE, so many years after the original film. This wasn't a 180-degree turn in the story, or a major retcon. It was a reveal that clashed with fans' preconceived notions and assumptions...

So, basically, this is a case of the fandom embracing and enshrining a certain version of the story in their minds, only to then feel betrayed when they find out that's not at all what the creator intended, and blaming him for simply following through on the ideas he'd had from the start.

This smacks of "...from a certain point of view..."

Intent is one thing. What makes it onscreen is another. These little Force-mites didn't rate cinematic mention until 20 years after the original film, despite two other opportunities to do so.

Mostly, I think, because it was just a bad idea. And definitely a retcon, in that it took so long to manifest.

It removes some of the mystery of The Force. And that is an underlying problem with continued Star Wars efforts. We don't need to know everything!

 We don't need to know Vader's literal life story. Or about Boba Fett's Dad.

The Clone Wars could have remained a mention in a throwaway line of exposition. We didn't need to see it as a prologue, main movie, and aftermath film. And an animated series.

We didn't need a whole movie dedicated to the stealing of the Death Star plans and to discover it was booby-trapped from the get go.

Less would be a lot more, as this franchise goes.



Edited by Brian Rhodes on 19 May 2017 at 12:13pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14351
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 9:37am | IP Logged | 20 post reply

Yeah, less is more. I think a big part of the success of the franchise comes down to all those nooks and crannies which were left to the audience's imaginations to explore. The sense of a galaxy and a history existing just beyond the edges of the frame.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Rhodes
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2728
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 9:43am | IP Logged | 21 post reply

Obi-Wan and Yoda basically pack up shop and plan to leave it to the next generation to solve their problem.

I've had a notion that Yoda and Obi-Wan were secretly seeking to be Sith Lord and Apprentice.

They were clearly, as stated, liars and manipulators.

They set into motion events that led to the eradication of all the Jedi...except, conveniently, the two of them.

Then they used Luke as a pawn, training him enough to take out the Emperor and Vader, but not enough to become a full-fledged Jedi.

That's why they didn't train Leia. In case Luke failed in his mission, she could be their next hope. But because he succeeded, he remains a quasi-Jedi and she's Force sensitive with no training.

Obi-Wan allows himself to be struck down, admitting to Vader it will make him "more powerful than you can possibly imagine." Yoda also just ups and dies, even though he was clearly spry just 20 years earlier (in his 900 year life span). So, now they're super-powerful Force-ghosts, hoping that sorta-Jedi Luke will destroy Vader and the Emperor. Which would leave the two of them as the sole remaining full-fledged Force entities in the galaxy.

But, Luke would not give into the Dark Side, thus their plans were thwarted.

Until they combined their Force spirits to create Snoke and the First Order. To combat this, Anakin, who was truly swayed to the good side by Luke, channels his spirit into the unborn form of Rey.


Edited by Brian Rhodes on 20 May 2017 at 12:59pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108896
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 11:35am | IP Logged | 22 post reply

There's another weird disconnect, too--Lucas depicted Obi-Wan as a charming and heroic guy in the prequels...but then Obi-Wan and Yoda basically pack up shop and plan to leave it to the next generation to solve their problem. Which, yes, underscores him as a manipulative liar. He basically wants Luke to kill Vader, because he didn't do it himself, when he had the chance.

Lucas got trapped by his own mythology. The appalling ending of "Revenge of the Sith" was forced upon him by his own youthful self, telling stories about how things played out based on the first movie without any real consideration of the other movies he "planned", or how they would play out.

Likewise, he had to get Ben to the position he was in when first seen in STAR WARS -- and altho there are an infinite number of better ways to do it, since Lucas had already retconned Ben into being Bantha butt, he just continued in that line.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Rhodes
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2728
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 12:19pm | IP Logged | 23 post reply

And please don't think I'm trying to crap on your insight, Kirkman (which I find generally brilliant), just saying where I'm coming from on some of this.

You're probably correct in citing the incongruence of fan expectation vs. artist intent as one of the key issues in fan dissatisfaction.

Though I think some fault must be found with a few less-than-great decisions of said artist(s).


Edited by Brian Rhodes on 19 May 2017 at 12:44pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108896
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 1:24pm | IP Logged | 24 post reply

When an "artist" declares THIS IS MY STORY, not following thru on that story is not "playing with expectations," it is BETRAYING those expectations.

Too often "creators" forget there is more to be served than their own egos.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5011
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 4:31pm | IP Logged | 25 post reply

If you don't like Lucas retcons, you're only going to like Star Wars. Some people seem to love the retcons and reveals in Empire and Jedi, but don't like it when the same thing happens in the Prequels. I'd think nothing is a bigger retcon than Luke's parentage.

As to how far the saga can go: There was never a need for a sequel, but the survival of Darth Vader made it implied that there could be one. The original trilogy tells a nice, complete story, and Lucas even admitted that. The Prequels add to that story. Rogue One has no reason to exist. It adds nothing. Force Awakens had the opportunity to tell new stories, but it's too much retread.

As for fans who don't like it when a story goes a different direction than the fans wanted-- the Harry Potter books! When I read the final volume (the week it was released) and then read comments from upset fans...sheesh!!
Back to Top profile | search | www
 

<< Prev Page of 4 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login