The LAF star wars discussion thread. SPOILERS!

[Daeothar]

I was a wee bit older than that (about 10 or 11) when I first saw epIV (on TV, at home; I was 4 at the time of the theatrical release), but with me too, it has stayed with me my entire life. And as much as I try to be as objective as possible when seeing new Star Wars films, I think it's ultimately impossible.

...One more thought on plot structure: complexity requires coherence. Complex plots can work if they have a very coherent background. But if the rules of the universe are a bit loose, the complexity undermines the setting...

last night, I found a very interesting dissemination of epIV, focussing on the editing process, and how that actually saved the film. Basically, without this gifted team, Lucas' dream would have faltered and failed. And I think this is what lies at the heart of the issue with most of the later films: directors have too much to say about the entire project, with nobody to rein them back in.

Lucas' then wife was part of the editing team and probably had a lot to do with the fact the team was not overridden by Lucas. There's an interesting piece of behind the scenes footage on the Phantom Menace DVD I have, in which we see the reactions of the team after the first screening of the film. Lucas can be heard saying 'maybe I overdid it'.

And we all know he did. But by then, he was so big in the business, that he was surrounded by sycophants instead of people that would every now and then dare to speak out against questionable decisions. No longer a team effort, but a runaway one man show...

Interesting viewing at any rate:

[N.C.S.E]

Haven't seen the latest - nor intend to so I suppose I'm clear to read the thread!

I must chime in to the discussion of the original films. I saw IV late in life and whilst I found it to be a quite ordinary film, there was something about it that stuck with me for days afterwards, this almost magical quality that kept you thinking about it long after you'd actually watched the thing. I felt the same coming away from the later Harry Potter films and (horror of horrors) the recent Spiderman film!

Maybe its something about the hype/marketing machine that these megafranchises have. I don't know the answers, but I sense the constant exposure to references to those products in some form makes it impossible to avoid them.

[The Voivod]

And this is one of my major opinions, and not so popular with my friends: the original trilogy was also flawed at many levels! (but I still love them Wink )

TRAITOR!!!

No, I agree.
I found the movie lacking on many points. I got out of the prequels pretty hyped and it wasn't untill later I started seeing them for what they where.
I think they shattered  my rosey glasses and made me far more sceptical about future movies.

Out of this I was dissappointed that it wasn't what I wanted it to be, but I still think that after a few viewings I'll still like this one better then the prequels.

-The acting/dialog was better
-The characters weren't (all) grating
-I wasn't bored
-Most effects looked good, some a little less so, some where amazing

There was a waste of characters/potential, but I'm curious where they'll take Rey/Kylo.
I liked their dynamic. They seemed to have found something with eachother, but neither willing to come over to the other side.

I really wonder how they'll finish this up in one more movie, though.
With the entire rebelllion now fitting in the Falcon.

They should just stop making it a trilogy here and continue as a series a la Firefly...

[vodkafan]

I decided after I was duped into seeing the last Star Wars film that I would never watch another one....can't understand the appeal.

[nic-e]

The red letter media review of the film captures my feeling very well.
in short they describe it as "The homer simpsons makeup shotgun of cinema"

[OSHIROmodels]

Saw it a second time. A bit more shit than the first time.

[beefcake]

Bit shit really.

Saying that. I may see it a second time if my son wants to go again.

[Manchu]

"No one said 'no' to George" is the most widely accepted explanation of why the Prequels were garbage. I have another, not mutually exclusive theory but let me start by saying, The Last Jedi is not bad because Rian Johnson had carte blanche.

The Prequel Trilogy was funded by Lucasfilm, a company owned and run by George Lucas. Rian Johnson, by contrast, was answerable to a committee of Disney employees headed by an executive specially responsible for managing the Star Wars IP, a.k.a., Kathleen Kennedy (formerly of Lucasfilm Ltd.). Now, I can believe there was a strategy to have The Last Jedi ride on Rian Johnson's reputation, hence him getting the writer credit. That way, if The Last Jedi failed he could be blamed while Disney and Kathleen Kennedy enjoyed "plausible deniability." But there's no way in hell the House of Mouse gave real power to Johnson.

The Last Jedi isn't bad because no one said 'no' to Johnson. It's bad because it doesn't need to be good. The Original Trilogy was made for a market where the film itself was the main product. In those days, even a sequel to Star Wars needed to be able to stand on its own because profit was a function of how well the sequel actually performed. This is no longer the case. Filmmaking today is more risky, because it's more expensive, than ever before. The upshot, however, is that companies can use films to seed other marketing channels - not just action figures and lunch boxes but also TV networks and streaming services.

These channels are less expensive and risky than filmmaking and, potentially, much more profitable. But wouldn't a good movie make these subsidiary marketing channels more potentially profitable? One would think so! But in reality, the profitability of said channels depend on their content. The other thing about our market is, it's content-saturated. Audiences (customers) need a clear reason to dial into Streaming Service X instead of, or at least in addition to, Streaming Service Y. That's why it's important for these films to be intentionally incomplete. The strategy is to raise issues in the film that are not addressed in the film in order that the filmgoer will affirmatively engage with the IP more broadly: not just in terms of traditional products like novels and comic books but also more widely, such as YouTube videos, podcasts, and blogs.

In this way, the customers are encouraged to voluntarily become increasingly invested in the IP. You won't only go see the next Star Wars movie, or Marvel movie, you'll also become enmeshed in a whole way of life ("geek culture") that makes you more likely to spend on licensed products, that makes you more susceptible to certain kinds of advertising (selling non-SW products by referencing SW), that makes you more likely to engage in the corporation's other IPs.

On an admittedly much smaller scale, George Lucas realized this in the mid 1990s when he decided to make the Prequels Trilogy. Some of you may remember Shadows of the Empire. This was a neat experiment where Lucasfilm generated all the licensed products (novel, video game, action figures, comic books, even a soundtrack) that traditionally go along with a Star Wars movie - except there was no movie. Lucas concluded from this experiment that not only was there extensive market appetite for more Star Wars but also that it didn't depend on a film. In effect, Star Wars was no longer a series of movies or even a movie franchise. It was what we now call an IP.

Armed with that knowledge, Lucas proceeded to make the hugely profitable but critically panned Prequel Trilogy. Far from being a failure, the Prequels demonstrated the point of the Shadows of the Empire experiment on a much larger scale. In the 1980s or 1990s, making a widely loathed movie like the Phantom Menace (much less two further, also hated sequels to the Phantom Menace) would have sunk any franchise (see the RoboCop franchise). What happened instead was Star Wars increased in value such that Disney bought it for $4 billion.

The unspoken promise was that Disney would make good Star Wars movies. But why would we have ever fallen for that? Lucas not only sold Disney the Star Wars IP; he sold it to them by demonstrating how it could make them tremendous amounts of money regardless of quality.

[huesped]

 
I was REALLY disappointed on how Johnson has thrown away many of the questions TFA had left:  the Ren Knights, Snoke, 10-seconds-scene Phasma.
The whole story sucks and lacks of the intrigue, energy, and rythm that needs SW.  its the WORST space chase in the SW History. Rebs are too stupid to divide the fleet (!) and the imps did'nt swarmed with ties the cruisers(!??!!!!). BORING.
The casino intrigue is uneffective. Not even Benicio del Toro's Character had the charisma needed to last in the film. (DISMISED!, like almost half the characters)
About Leia's last Flight, awful. And leaving her alive is a coward option, letting the problem being solved by the next director, J.J.
And about Luke. OMFG. At least we could have seen dying in combat - in a real combat-  i think Luke hs't faded with the Force. HE Quitted the film.

[dinohunterpoa]

"No one said 'no' to George" is the most widely accepted explanation of why the Prequels were garbage. I have another, not mutually exclusive theory but let me start by saying, The Last Jedi is not bad because Rian Johnson had carte blanche.

The Prequel Trilogy was funded by Lucasfilm, a company owned and run by George Lucas. Rian Johnson, by contrast, was answerable to a committee of Disney employees headed by an executive specially responsible for managing the Star Wars IP, a.k.a., Kathleen Kennedy (formerly of Lucasfilm Ltd.). Now, I can believe there was a strategy to have The Last Jedi ride on Rian Johnson's reputation, hence him getting the writer credit. That way, if The Last Jedi failed he could be blamed while Disney and Kathleen Kennedy enjoyed "plausible deniability." But there's no way in hell the House of Mouse gave real power to Johnson.

The Last Jedi isn't bad because no one said 'no' to Johnson. It's bad because it doesn't need to be good. The Original Trilogy was made for a market where the film itself was the main product. In those days, even a sequel to Star Wars needed to be able to stand on its own because profit was a function of how well the sequel actually performed. This is no longer the case. Filmmaking today is more risky, because it's more expensive, than ever before. The upshot, however, is that companies can use films to seed other marketing channels - not just action figures and lunch boxes but also TV networks and streaming services.

These channels are less expensive and risky than filmmaking and, potentially, much more profitable. But wouldn't a good movie make these subsidiary marketing channels more potentially profitable? One would think so! But in reality, the profitability of said channels depend on their content. The other thing about our market is, it's content-saturated. Audiences (customers) need a clear reason to dial into Streaming Service X instead of, or at least in addition to, Streaming Service Y. That's why it's important for these films to be intentionally incomplete. The strategy is to raise issues in the film that are not addressed in the film in order that the filmgoer will affirmatively engage with the IP more broadly: not just in terms of traditional products like novels and comic books but also more widely, such as YouTube videos, podcasts, and blogs.

In this way, the customers are encouraged to voluntarily become increasingly invested in the IP. You won't only go see the next Star Wars movie, or Marvel movie, you'll also become enmeshed in a whole way of life ("geek culture") that makes you more likely to spend on licensed products, that makes you more susceptible to certain kinds of advertising (selling non-SW products by referencing SW), that makes you more likely to engage in the corporation's other IPs.

On an admittedly much smaller scale, George Lucas realized this in the mid 1990s when he decided to make the Prequels Trilogy. Some of you may remember Shadows of the Empire. This was a neat experiment where Lucasfilm generated all the licensed products (novel, video game, action figures, comic books, even a soundtrack) that traditionally go along with a Star Wars movie - except there was no movie. Lucas concluded from this experiment that not only was there extensive market appetite for more Star Wars but also that it didn't depend on a film. In effect, Star Wars was no longer a series of movies or even a movie franchise. It was what we now call an IP.

Armed with that knowledge, Lucas proceeded to make the hugely profitable but critically panned Prequel Trilogy. Far from being a failure, the Prequels demonstrated the point of the Shadows of the Empire experiment on a much larger scale. In the 1980s or 1990s, making a widely loathed movie like the Phantom Menace (much less two further, also hated sequels to the Phantom Menace) would have sunk any franchise (see the RoboCop franchise). What happened instead was Star Wars increased in value such that Disney bought it for $4 billion.

The unspoken promise was that Disney would make good Star Wars movies. But why would we have ever fallen for that? Lucas not only sold Disney the Star Wars IP; he sold it to them by demonstrating how it could make them tremendous amounts of money regardless of quality.

PERFECT!!!  

[dinohunterpoa]

And please let me add two words to this SW discussion: Felicity. Jones.

 

[Elbows]

Having thought on it a bit more, one of the biggest issues I have with the Last Jedi is that it all but says "f_ck you" to the potential new plot points that were begun in Force Awakens.  Force Awakens spent most of its time setting up a bunch of the potential scenes for Last Jedi, and then they were tossed away with a casual, borderline sarcastic approach.

It makes me think back to improv classes in theatre in school.  One paramount rule was "never deny".  This meant when creating a story ad-hoc during a scene or sketch, you never said "nope" to something a fellow actor put forward.  Why?  Because it makes the scene more difficult and you're intentionally undermining your partner(s) in the scene.  I feel this kind of approach follows through to films.

-Sets up final moment in Force Awakens, the return of Luke, the passing of the light sabre...tosses it over his shoulder.
-Sets up mysterious Snoke figure...kills him instantly.
-Creates mystery around Rey's family and...they were nothing.

I felt very little connection between Force Awakens and the Last Jedi, and even though I disliked Force Awakens as well, Last Jedi shat all over the potential of building some meaningful building blocks for a new generation.

[dinohunterpoa]

Having thought on it a bit more, one of the biggest issues I have with the Last Jedi is that it all but says "f_ck you" to the potential new plot points that were begun in Force Awakens.  Force Awakens spent most of its time setting up a bunch of the potential scenes for Last Jedi, and then they were tossed away with a casual, borderline sarcastic approach.

The scene in which Luke gets the lightsaber in what was shown in "The Force Awakens" as a solemn and decisive moment... and then in the beginning of "The Last Jedi" casually toss it over his shoulder without a second thought was for me an emblematic moment of what the whole movie was gonna be.    

And the destruction of the same lightsaber near the end of the movie is also very emblematic...
 

[chamberlain]

-Sets up final moment in Force Awakens, the return of Luke, the passing of the light sabre...tosses it over his shoulder.
-Sets up mysterious Snoke figure...kills him instantly.
-Creates mystery around Rey's family and...they were nothing.

It did this within the movie itself
- sets up turning of Kylo or Rey... goes back to Kylo vs Rey
- sets up prolonged multiscene quest/infiltration to shut down tracker -- escape didn't require the tracker shut down
- creates a moment where Kylo chooses not to kill his mother-- she goes out into space anyway -- and then goes back in again

If I were to sum up the movie:

Things happen, but they don't matter or are undone.

[FramFramson]

"No one said 'no' to George" is the most widely accepted explanation of why the Prequels were garbage. I have another, not mutually exclusive theory but let me start by saying, The Last Jedi is not bad because Rian Johnson had carte blanche.

The Prequel Trilogy was funded by Lucasfilm, a company owned and run by George Lucas. Rian Johnson, by contrast, was answerable to a committee of Disney employees headed by an executive specially responsible for managing the Star Wars IP, a.k.a., Kathleen Kennedy (formerly of Lucasfilm Ltd.). Now, I can believe there was a strategy to have The Last Jedi ride on Rian Johnson's reputation, hence him getting the writer credit. That way, if The Last Jedi failed he could be blamed while Disney and Kathleen Kennedy enjoyed "plausible deniability." But there's no way in hell the House of Mouse gave real power to Johnson.

The Last Jedi isn't bad because no one said 'no' to Johnson. It's bad because it doesn't need to be good. The Original Trilogy was made for a market where the film itself was the main product. In those days, even a sequel to Star Wars needed to be able to stand on its own because profit was a function of how well the sequel actually performed. This is no longer the case. Filmmaking today is more risky, because it's more expensive, than ever before. The upshot, however, is that companies can use films to seed other marketing channels - not just action figures and lunch boxes but also TV networks and streaming services.

These channels are less expensive and risky than filmmaking and, potentially, much more profitable. But wouldn't a good movie make these subsidiary marketing channels more potentially profitable? One would think so! But in reality, the profitability of said channels depend on their content. The other thing about our market is, it's content-saturated. Audiences (customers) need a clear reason to dial into Streaming Service X instead of, or at least in addition to, Streaming Service Y. That's why it's important for these films to be intentionally incomplete. The strategy is to raise issues in the film that are not addressed in the film in order that the filmgoer will affirmatively engage with the IP more broadly: not just in terms of traditional products like novels and comic books but also more widely, such as YouTube videos, podcasts, and blogs.

In this way, the customers are encouraged to voluntarily become increasingly invested in the IP. You won't only go see the next Star Wars movie, or Marvel movie, you'll also become enmeshed in a whole way of life ("geek culture") that makes you more likely to spend on licensed products, that makes you more susceptible to certain kinds of advertising (selling non-SW products by referencing SW), that makes you more likely to engage in the corporation's other IPs.

On an admittedly much smaller scale, George Lucas realized this in the mid 1990s when he decided to make the Prequels Trilogy. Some of you may remember Shadows of the Empire. This was a neat experiment where Lucasfilm generated all the licensed products (novel, video game, action figures, comic books, even a soundtrack) that traditionally go along with a Star Wars movie - except there was no movie. Lucas concluded from this experiment that not only was there extensive market appetite for more Star Wars but also that it didn't depend on a film. In effect, Star Wars was no longer a series of movies or even a movie franchise. It was what we now call an IP.

Armed with that knowledge, Lucas proceeded to make the hugely profitable but critically panned Prequel Trilogy. Far from being a failure, the Prequels demonstrated the point of the Shadows of the Empire experiment on a much larger scale. In the 1980s or 1990s, making a widely loathed movie like the Phantom Menace (much less two further, also hated sequels to the Phantom Menace) would have sunk any franchise (see the RoboCop franchise). What happened instead was Star Wars increased in value such that Disney bought it for $4 billion.

The unspoken promise was that Disney would make good Star Wars movies. But why would we have ever fallen for that? Lucas not only sold Disney the Star Wars IP; he sold it to them by demonstrating how it could make them tremendous amounts of money regardless of quality.

Absolutely.

One of the points I've made about Star Wars is that, no matter their flaws, the original Star Wars stories stand on their own, both as individual films, and as a trilogy.

The underlying structure is a rock solid modern interpretation of the traditional Hero's Journey - in fact it's often used as THE example of that trope. The story is tight, the characters work well and are well-acted and cast, events go where they go for good reasons not "just because". Maybe there's a loose shingle or an ill-fitting window, but the foundations and overall structure of the original trilogy are rock solid, founded on quality storytelling drawn from very long tradition.

However, neither the prequels nor the sequels stand on their own - neither as individual movies or as ongoing series. Without the original trilogy no one would be raving about how great these bodge jobs are.

In any case, the sequels are, in my mind, mere fanfiction. For good or bad, they weren't written or touched by Lucas in any way (Also, Mark Hamill reportedly had grave disagreements about the fate of Luke and his treatment in this film, but is a true professional, so he spoke his peace once and then left it at that).

In fact this is really why the sequels don't bother me all that much - they can never disappoint me as profoundly as the prequels did. There's a lot of things which are absolutely terrible about the prequels, but unlike these mishmash corporate rerun sequels, the underlying story (stories) was, conceptually at least, something which COULD have stood on its own. Lucas at least had worked out a true story to tell even if the execution was abysmal. All the ingredients were there for a tragedy of a sort which has a long and illustrious history.

A great and talented man rises to prominence, becoming a great hero and leader. Talented man is tempted by evil or succumbs to hubris (or both, in this case and others). Talented man falls, destroying everything he built or taking many with him.

It's one of the oldest story structures in history. Where the OT was the Hero's Journey, the PT could have been a Greek tragedy. Perfect bookends - a fall, then a rise.

The single biggest mistake they ever made in the prequels isn't Jar Jar, or podracing, or the amount of time wasted pandering to Boba Fett fans, or endless dull doddering bureaucracy, or even those stupid, stupid, stupid midchlorians; it's that Anakin never really gets to be a great hero. The audience is never given a chance or reason to actually LIKE him (with a frankly atrocious performance in the bargain), so the entire story doesn't matter - who cares about this whinging shithead? You cheer when he gets his ass beat by Obi Wan and fricasseed, because Anakin fails completely at being the great hero that the prequel is all about.

This is why in my imagination the prequel should have roughly gone:

1st film: Eps 1&2 combined, mostly 2, ending with Anakin being knighted. Like Ep 1 should be condensed to at most a third of the film.
2nd film: The Clone Wars
3rd film: Ep 3 more or less as it was only not terrible

This solves two big problems. 1) The romance between Anakin and Padme becomes vastly less bizarre and creepy, because you can have Anakin meet Padme as a teenager or 20-year old and she's of a similar or at least somewhat close age, and 2) Anakin can still be an annoying little shit in Ep 1, but you use the Clone Wars to make a man of him, to tell the story of Anakin as a hero. Essentially, you reverse the structure of the OT - the middle movie is the bright point, the one full of hope and promise and great victories and the last one is the disaster where everything falls apart.

I'd love to see that story be told. Properly. By a writer who can write, starring actors who can act, and a director who actually knows what they're doing. But now that will probably never happen.

If the story of Star Wars ends at RotJ, or the sequels are all awful disaster, I can live with that - wouldn't be the first time. It's a great note for a story to go out on. But missing the tragic story of how things came to be the way they were in Star Wars really hurts. Like Eli Wallach missing the starring role in Duck You Sucker!, we'll never see the great story which might have been.