Did TFA diminish the significance of the previous Star Wars films?

[Quetzalcoatl]

This is a continuation of a discussion that began in another thread. What I am going to do here is attempt to spell out specifically why I believe TFA cheapens the story that preceeded it, and I'll also make an effort to turn my arrogance down an notch.

 

First, I think an analogy will go a long way toward driving my point home. Consider Nolan's Batman films. Like the SW movies, they too were loaded with symbolism and metaphor. They weren't your ordinary super hero flicks. They had a depth to them that you don't see in other super hero franchises like, say, the Avengers. I remember reading a Christian Bale interview shortly after the third film was released. He was asked if he would consider doing a fourth Batman film, to which he replied that The Dark Knight Rises was supposed to be the last one. Now, my question is, should there be a fourth installment? As much as I liked those films, I say no. There's no good way to pull it off without somehow back-peddling on what was done in TDKR. First, the movie made it pretty clear that Bruce is no longer physically capable of continuing his life as Batman. Secondly, we witness Bruce move on with his life. The cape and cowl were always treated as symbol's of Bruce's grief in those films. Bruce giving up Batman symbolized him letting go. He has a real chance to be happy now. In a sense, you could say Batman did die in this movie, and only Bruce now remains. Wouldn't a fourth film, where we see Bruce return to Gotham and put on the Bat suit again, ruin those very meaningful events of TDKR? Wouldn't a film like that upset the closure that the previous film beautifully established? Can't movies be appreciated for more than entertainment purposes? Can't they be seen as works of art too? Can't an argument based on aesthetics be made against a fourth Nolan Batman film, even if it was entertaining?

 

For these reasons, Driver, I have to disagree with comments like these...

 

 

 

I think anyone who doesn't want more Star Wars and is a Star Wars fan is a confused individual.

 

Not true. One can be a fan of the Nolan Batman films while being wholeheartedly opposed to a fourth one. One can be a fan of Harry Potter and argue that another book is a bad idea. What makes SW different? Movies and books mean different things to different people, and for some, more doesn't always mean better.

 

Now, onto Star Wars. The SW films can be appreciated on many different levels. Yes, they are great action films but, like Nolan's Batman movies, they have a lot depth to them too, which I think often goes unrecognized by fans. Even the prequels, as disliked as they were by fans, had a lot of depth to them. I sometimes think this even hurt the movies. Sometimes it seemed that Lucas was so concerned with symbolism and conveying the right metaphors that he forgot that the movies should be fun and entertaining too. Lucas never made it any big secret that SW was influenced by mythology and the works of Joseph Campbell. Campbell argued that certain mythological motifs were universal, existing in some form or another in every culture. We see some of these in the OT, and he practically crammed the rest of them in the PT in an effort to tell a six-part story that touches on every universal motif, what Campbell calls the monomyth. It is obvious to anyone who's studied mythology that this is what Lucas's vision of SW had become when writing the PT. He was shaping SW into a space version of the monomyth. As a huge mythology fan, I can really appreciate this. Even if some of the chapters are mediocre and littered with bad acting and dialogue, the six movies do contain all of the "ingredients" of the monomyth that are woven together in a very elegant way. Maybe the films (the prequels) did fail in some respects. But Lucas did succeed in constructing his own unique version of the monomyth, and that alone is enough to gain my appreciation of the movies. Maybe they aren't the action/adventure flicks that fans were hoping for, but the movies did succeed from a "mythology" standpoint. The six Lucas films contain all the recurrent mythological motifs found the Joseph Campbell's mothomyth, all the stages in the life cycle of the achetypal hero. Its all there, all nicely wrapped up in a bow. To add to that a lot of unnecessary chapters covering random stuff that happens after the monomyth is complete seems like overkill from an artistic standpoint, even if the new movies do produce the warm fuzzies that people found lacking in the prequels.

 

 

 

But if you liked the PT and you don't want more sequels? You crazy.

 

Its not about liking or disliking the PT. I know this might seem like a messed up thing to say, and I don't expect anyone to understand, but while I can acknowledge that TFA was a better made movie, I have a greater acceptance and appreciation for the prequel story by virtue of its place in the monomyth. I guess what I'm saying is that I find the prequels, even if of a poorer quality than TFA, more "critical" to Star Wars.

 

Now, here is my biggest problem with TFA in relation to the previous six films. In the language of mythology, Anakin was a "world-redeemer". He was born miraculously, as most world-redeemers are, and it is made evident that he had an important destiny to fulfil. The rest of the story sees him screw up. He becomes his own worst enemy in regards to fulfilling his role as the chosen one, and pretty much fails...until ROTJ. In mythology, when the hero fails, the rest of the world suffers for it. It slowly begins to decay and die. This is why Anakin falling to the dark side is correlated with the formation of the Empire. It is why the galaxy lives under the Empire's heel until Anakin is redeemed. Whatever the galaxy was experiencing was a reflection of Anakin/Vader's own internal struggles. The hero fulfilling his or her destiny means some kind of rejuvenation of his or her society. In the case of the world-redeeming hero, it is the cosmos itself that is renewed. In short, the world-redeemer is supposed to make his world a better place. That's his role in mythology. TFA showing us a galaxy that is just as f***ked up as it ever was undermines this. So, for the sake of the "world-redeemer" theme Lucas introduced when writing the prequels, the story really needed to end with the ewoks singing and everyone celebrating over the Empire's demise. The story had to end with the promise of hope and the galaxy rising from its own ashes. It is the only way the "world-redeemer" motif still works. How does TFA not negate this important theme that is played out in eps. 1-6? At the risk of sounding arrogant, if you don't believe that TFA doesn't diminish the mythology set up in the previous films in this way, your just plain wrong. The "world-redeemer" theme and TFA plot is taking us in completely opposite directions. One runs contrary to the other. That's just a fact.

 

So yes, from a mythological standpoint, the presence of TFA does diminish what has come before. There is no denying that. I can understand people being so blown away by TFA that they simply don't care. I can also understand people's need for entertainment outweighing their considerations for esoteric stuff like Joseph Campbell's monomyth. But I really can't understand people arguing that TFA does not negate the motifs employed by Lucas as outlined above. It does. Maybe that's not a big deal for most of you, but it doesn't make it any less true.

[Dark Wader]

Apologies because I'm not really addressing any of your arguments, but I don't see how TFA can cheapen the previous films when the original plan was to always have around 6 - 9 films. Lucas just "retconned" his original plan to go from three movies and then to six movies.

[Jedigoat]

The prequels more than diminished the significance of SW than any sequel trilogy or anthology film could ever dream of doing.

[Stevil]

Omg you used that word. I hate that word.

 

Did you know that Lucas planned for 12 movies? Even as far back as 1976?? Mark Hamill recalled a conversation whilst shooting in Tunisia where GL asked him if he'd like to come back and play Luke in 30 years time. At that time GL told Hamill that he envisioned the Saga to be between 9-12 movies.

 

The above is paraphrased from "The Making of Star Wars". Below is a clip from 1983 where Hamill shares similar info:

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/mark-hamill-star-wars-episode-7-80s-interview-2014-12?r=US&IR=T

 

Lucas didn't change his plan.

[pavonis]

Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert wrote horrid prequels to Frank Herbert's Dune. Some people claim they diminish the original stories. I never agree. Dune is still awesome no matter what tripe is tacked on to its coat tails.

 

Maybe TFA isn't going to last. Maybe the sequels will be crap on the level of the prequels. But Star Wars will still be awesome.

[The Kurgan]

Omg you used that word. I hate that word.

 

Did you know that Lucas planned for 12 movies? Even as far back as 1976?? Mark Hamill recalled a conversation whilst shooting in Tunisia where GL asked him if he'd like to come back and play Luke in 30 years time. At that time GL told Hamill that he envisioned the Saga to be between 9-12 movies.

 

The above is paraphrased from "The Making of Star Wars". Below is a clip from 1983 where Hamill shares similar info:

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/mark-hamill-star-wars-episode-7-80s-interview-2014-12?r=US&IR=T

 

Lucas didn't change his plan.

Well, he sort of did change his plan. During the filming of Return of the Jedi if I'm not mistaken. That's when he "officially" dropped the idea of a sequel trilogy. Leia had to be shoehorned into the role of Luke's sister, a character originally intended to be more prominent in the sequel trilogy. Someone like Rey, except as Luke's sister rather than whatever relation he is going to end up having with her.

[DANA-kin Skywalker]

Lucas didn't change his plan.

*coughbull*****

 

Hey you're all invited to my retirement party in thirty years, so check your calendars and save the date! I'm making the preparations as we speak. Lucas didn't have any consistent, elaborate, grandious plan like he'd have you think in his interviews.

 

Im George Lucas and im writing a movie called Star Wars. One movie.

It's a little bit too big. Better make it NINE to TWELVE. From one... To maybe twelve.

It's a hit, so I can do two sequels, and end the story there. Thats three movies.

Hey Mark Hamill do you have any plans THIRTY YEARS from today? You gotta do 7,8, and 9. Six movies.

Time for more movies but first...HORAAY! Special Edition Trilogy! Time to make alterations to my beloved movies! CUZ Y NOT

Okay time to go back and do 1,2, and 3 because Darth Vader. That six movies still technically, they're different ones though.

Whew! I'm done. No more star wars. Its goona stay at six movies indefinately.

JK! Not done! I'm going to finish 7,8, and 9. Dial up Mark Hamill. Hey Mark! You didn't forget about 7,8, and 9 did ya? Nine movies.

Fukit sell to Disney have THEM finish 7,8, and 9, and whatever else they want. BOOM! 9-12 movies.

 

^ does this actually sound like a man with a plan to anyone? Sounds more like a crazy person.

This plan is like the plot to TPM; a series of nonsensical events that happen and inexplicably arrive to the final outcome.

[Jacen123]

[Driver]

Consider Nolan's Batman films. Like the SW movies, they too were loaded with symbolism and metaphor. They weren't your ordinary super hero flicks. They had a depth to them that you don't see in other super hero franchises like, say, the Avengers. I remember reading a Christian Bale interview shortly after the third film was released. He was asked if he would consider doing a fourth Batman film, to which he replied that The Dark Knight Rises was supposed to be the last one. Now, my question is, should there be a fourth installment? As much as I liked those films, I say no. There's no good way to pull it off without somehow back-peddling on what was done in TDKR.

That version of Batman/Bruce Wayne reached his logical end-- but he passed his mantle to "Robin" at the end, implying somebody else would take on being Batman. And near as I can recall, a LOT of people would have been happy to see a Joseph Gordon Levitt Nightwing movie. So I don't buy the comparison. Bruce Wayne was done, and had they continued the story wouldn't be his any more.

 

Just like how TFA includes Luke, but he is no longer the central character.

 

 

For these reasons, Driver, I have to disagree with comments like these...

 

 

I think anyone who doesn't want more Star Wars and is a Star Wars fan is a confused individual.

Not true. One can be a fan of the Nolan Batman films while being wholeheartedly opposed to a fourth one. One can be a fan of Harry Potter and argue that another book is a bad idea. What makes SW different? Movies and books mean different things to different people, and for some, more doesn't always mean better.

 

You'll get no argument from me that the books and comics blow-- but like I said in that other thread, Star Wars was designed to imply a big universe that was lived in, beat up, and full of stories. The way Obi-Wan spoke of the Clone Wars alone told us the story was bigger than what we were seeing. It's a world worth exploring.

 

Star Wars to me has always been a movie first, so more movies is fine by me. Maybe now I can get the enjoyment EU fans got.

 

Even the prequels, as disliked as they were by fans, had a lot of depth to them.

Describe your version of depth. If you mean subtle layers of character motivation and mystery, I pretty much disagree. If you mean a clusterfuck of ideas as deep as the ocean, sure, okay.

 

 

But if you liked the PT and you don't want more sequels? You crazy.

Its not about liking or disliking the PT. I know this might seem like a messed up thing to say, and I don't expect anyone to understand, but while I can acknowledge that TFA was a better made movie, I have a greater acceptance and appreciation for the prequel story by virtue of its place in the monomyth. I guess what I'm saying is that I find the prequels, even if of a poorer quality than TFA, more "critical" to Star Wars.

 

Translation: TFA's existence messes up your thesis. You'd sacrifice a good movie in order to maintain a structure that interests you despite it's individual parts blowing mythic sized chunks.

 

And my response-- yeah, it's crazy. It is ABSOLUTELY about liking or disliking. These movies were inspired by and narratively told like myths, but they are movies meant for the biggest, widest audience as possible.

 

Like I said in the other thread, Lucas may have accomplished his goal, but that doesn't mean it is a success. And he can have all the influences and structural inspirations he wanted-- but if he is making a movie, then making a movie well should be his priority.

 

 

How does TFA not negate this important theme that is played out in eps. 1-6? At the risk of sounding arrogant, if you don't believe that TFA doesn't diminish the mythology set up in the previous films in this way, your just plain wrong. The "world-redeemer" theme and TFA plot is taking us in completely opposite directions. One runs contrary to the other. That's just a fact.

Because you can still watch 1-6 and have that play out to its end. TFA doesn't involve time travel. I said early on I was worried about Luke's success in ROTJ being undone-- but they skirted this by the dark side returning in a different way.

 

Mythology is full of echoes. Luke and Anakin's stories echo each other for the most part-- save for one failing where the other succeeded. Kylo Ren is another echo of that theme.

 

So yes, from a mythological standpoint, the presence of TFA does diminish what has come before. There is no denying that.

I'm denying it.

 

Why? Because Star Wars is inspired by myth, and takes it's narrative cues from myth, and is intended to be modern myth, but by using the narrative of cinema instead of prose. Adapting one form to another means you take subject from one form and apply it to the rules of destined form. Star Wars is, was, and will be first and foremost, a movie.

 

Also, I think you're confusing Star Wars as a franchise with Anakin's specific story.

 

I can understand people being so blown away by TFA that they simply don't care. I can also understand people's need for entertainment outweighing their considerations for esoteric stuff like Joseph Campbell's monomyth. But I really can't understand people arguing that TFA does not negate the motifs employed by Lucas as outlined above. It does. Maybe that's not a big deal for most of you, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Once again, not agreeing with you does not mean I don't get it.

 

Stop looking at your thesis as covering Star Wars on the whole and realize it is specific to a certain character. Same for your Batman example. You're describing Bruce Wayne's personal mythology, that doesn't mean somebody else with their own story in the same world could take over.

 

The ST is clearly establishing that every trio of movies is about the next generation of Skywalkers. Certain themes and tropes, most from mythology, will be played out in similar ways over and over as history repeats itself.

[The Kurgan]

I likewise don't think that TFA diminishes the monomythic themes of Star Wars. It's merely shifting focus.

 

You see, it doesn't look like Luke's hero journey arc is itself complete. His big role in the OT was to actually assist Anakin in the completion of his heroic narrative. Anakin had, in a way, been taken captive by the Emperor and required rescuing by his son before he could do what he needed to, which was destroy Palpatine and bring down the Empire. With that, Anakin did his job. Or part of it.

 

In TFA, however, we notice that the galaxy isn't appreciably better off as a result of this. The First Order has picked up where the Empire has left off. And like his father before him in the OT, Luke has gone off track in his development as a hero. While the First Order ravages the galaxy, he's hidden himself away somewhere a-la Yoda and Obi Wan. Not too heroic, really. So Luke's, and by extent, Anakin's work is not truly done.

 

But there's more to the Skywalker saga. Kylo Ren is, we know, a grand child of Anakin, and the smart money is on Rey being of Skywalker lineage as well. Their hero-journey arcs are going to be necessary in order to complete this. In Rey, we have a much needed feminine version of the monomyth, although Leia's story kind of goes that way also. The idea of a feminine yin to counterbalance the masuline yang is, I think, essential to the concepts of balance, "balance of the force" as the prophecy said. This cannot be sealed up and done until the masculine AND feminine versions are done. That means closure to the sagas of Luke, Leia AND Kylo Ren via the defeat of the First Order, and Rey is the lynch pin in all of this.

 

We were left with the impression that it will fall upon Rey to get Luke back in the game, just as Luke redeemed his father before him. The works of his children and his grand children are also echos of Anakin's ongoing involvement in the SW universe. The threat to the galaxy did not die with the Emperor - this Snoke character seems to have picked up in his place. His eventual defeat will be at the hands of the offspring of Anakin Skywalker, suggesting perhaps that his heroic destiny was not merely to slay Palpatine, but to father Luke and Leia and by familial descent, Kylo Ren and (I assume) Rey as well. Thus, Snoke's defeat required Anakin Skywalker no less than Palpatine's defeat did, if looked at from a certain point of view.

[Dark Wader]

I think under Lucas was there was never a clear focus to what Star Wars was really about. It seems he kept changing his mind - it was about Luke, then it was the greater story of Anakin Skywalker, and now it's the story of the Skywalkers. Because don't forget that it wasn't Disney's idea to continue the saga, it was Lucas. He developed the treatment and got the original cast back before Disney was involved, and was even going to direct the next one.

His original intention had been to stay on for a few years, as his successor transitioned into the company. He would then release the first film in the new trilogy and sell it off, with her at the helm. But, he says, things moved much faster than anticipated.

From <http://fortune.com/2015/09/10/kathleen-kennedy-lucasfilm-star-wars/>

 

I'd actually argue that it's not Lucas, it's the women behind the scenes that have given Star Wars a clear direction and seem to really understand what it's true essence is - the characters and their journeys. Marcia Lucas from all accounts was the only person who could tell Lucas things straight, whether he wanted to hear them or not, the story was better for it. The less input she had the more the character of the movies faded. By the prequels there was no character left anymore. (This is a long read but well worth it: http://fd.noneinc.com/secrethistoryofstarwarscom/secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html )

And now we have Kathleen, who really does seem to "get it" and is bringing back the energy of the series, and the things I loved most about Star Wars. I don't think TFA has diminished Star Wars, I think under George it did but now with Kathleen we have its heart and soul back. I care about Star Wars again, I'm excited to see what comes next.

[Stevil]

 

Lucas didn't change his plan.

*coughbull*****

 

Hey you're all invited to my retirement party in thirty years, so check your calendars and save the date! I'm making the preparations as we speak. Lucas didn't have any consistent, elaborate, grandious plan like he'd have you think in his interviews.

 

Im George Lucas and im writing a movie called Star Wars. One movie.

It's a little bit too big. Better make it NINE to TWELVE. From one... To maybe twelve.

It's a hit, so I can do two sequels, and end the story there. Thats three movies.

Hey Mark Hamill do you have any plans THIRTY YEARS from today? You gotta do 7,8, and 9. Six movies.

Time for more movies but first...HORAAY! Special Edition Trilogy! Time to make alterations to my beloved movies! CUZ Y NOT

Okay time to go back and do 1,2, and 3 because Darth Vader. That six movies still technically, they're different ones though.

Whew! I'm done. No more star wars. Its goona stay at six movies indefinately.

JK! Not done! I'm going to finish 7,8, and 9. Dial up Mark Hamill. Hey Mark! You didn't forget about 7,8, and 9 did ya? Nine movies.

Fukit sell to Disney have THEM finish 7,8, and 9, and whatever else they want. BOOM! 9-12 movies.

 

^ does this actually sound like a man with a plan to anyone? Sounds more like a crazy person.

This plan is like the plot to TPM; a series of nonsensical events that happen and inexplicably arrive to the final outcome.

That's opinion. At least I backed my argument with fact!!

[Guest]

I don't think this diminishes it more than the prequels did. Not because of any quality, but because with the prequels Lucas convinced people that the narrative was always about Anakin. That diminished the fact that the OT was Luke's story. Lucas may have had some grand plan all along, but his storytelling doesn't back that up at all. And if he can't back it up in story, in that case screw anything he says outside because he's incapable of telling the story he wants. Again, for 20 years Star Wars was Luke's story. Deciding to tell a different story after that and saying that it was never about Luke does way more to diminish the story than anything else.

[Guest]

And before you say I don't get your point - I do, I just think that you are wrong and spewing marketing campaign nonsense in an attempt to make George Lucas seem smarter than he is. And since the guy is a creative genius, it stinks that he felt the need to lie.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

I don't think this diminishes it more than the prequels did. Not because of any quality, but because with the prequels Lucas convinced people that the narrative was always about Anakin. That diminished the fact that the OT was Luke's story. Lucas may have had some grand plan all along, but his storytelling doesn't back that up at all. And if he can't back it up in story, in that case screw anything he says outside because he's incapable of telling the story he wants. Again, for 20 years Star Wars was Luke's story. Deciding to tell a different story after that and saying that it was never about Luke does way more to diminish the story than anything else.

 

And before you say I don't get your point - I do, I just think that you are wrong and spewing marketing campaign nonsense in an attempt to make George Lucas seem smarter than he is. And since the guy is a creative genius, it stinks that he felt the need to lie.

I like the Prequels, even with the flaws, but agree 100% here.

 

I don't understand why each trilogy can't simply be its own story: PT is the rise and fall of Anakin, the OT the story of Luke, and LUKE'S quest to redeem his father, and the ST being about Rey (whether or not she is a Skywalker is irrelevant). I never got this obsession to define, then redefine who's story Star Wars really is. Each of the trilogies are connected, and are all chapters in the greater Star Wars story, but each trilogy is also self contained. If one just wanted to see the PT, while it clearly sets up the OT, one really could stop there. If one just wanted to see the OT, you get enough of the back story within OT to understand what's going on. If one walked into TFA without seeing any other Star Wars movie, they get all they need to know to understand what is going on.

 

When things are connected in such a way, then for me, it is impossible for TFA to diminish the OT, or PT. The PT did not cheapen the OT for me, so I don't see how the ST can cheapen the OT, either.

[Mara Jade Skywalker]

Star Wars to me has always been a movie first, so more movies is fine by me. Maybe now I can get the enjoyment EU fans got.

 

The great thing is we're getting movies AND more books. I get to relive my favorite era all over again. It's a win-win for all of us!

[Lord Darth Hunter]

 

I said early on I was worried about Luke's success in ROTJ being undone-- but they skirted this by the dark side returning in a different way.

I don't understand what you mean by this. I'm not being a jerk, I really want to know your thoughts because as soon as the sequels were announced the first thing that popped in my head was that making more would undo not only Luke's ROTJ success, but the success of all our heroes. And I felt that's exactly what happened while watching TFA.

[Driver]

 

 

I said early on I was worried about Luke's success in ROTJ being undone-- but they skirted this by the dark side returning in a different way.

I don't understand what you mean by this. I'm not being a jerk, I really want to know your thoughts because as soon as the sequels were announced the first thing that popped in my head was that making more would undo not only Luke's ROTJ success, but the success of all our heroes. And I felt that's exactly what happened while watching TFA.

 

I wouldn't discount the way you feel as wrong-- I think there's certainly room for the argument. ALL of the OT heroes seem to be living in a world that suggests they failed with what came to them post ROTJ. I think 30 years after that's the case-- but if you really think about it, 30 years is a long time and things change. If they'd all been exactly where we expected, or worse, exactly where we left them off, I don't know if that would have been believable.

 

But more to your point about Luke...

 

My first worry about a sequel was that Luke defeated the dark side, and to say oops-- "here's more red lightsabers" might seem like a slap in the face to what Luke had done. I felt pretty strongly about that actually.

 

But I slowly came around to thinking there had to be some threat from the dark side-- because a Star Wars movie without lightsaber duels wouldn't seem right.

 

So then I started to think how else could that work? I could only see three ways in which I'd accept it:

 

1. If it came from some other sect of Force-users. The Jedi and Sith being two of the more known sects-- but another group that used the force in their own way might work.

2. If the dark side returned as part of Luke's legacy. Not that he himself would go bad-- but that in being the only Jedi he accidentally births some new form of darkness that he must stop

3. If the Sith truly were damaged by their defeat and the story focused on ancient learnings being discovered and taken up by somebody else

 

Basically it needed to be big deal, and the fact that Luke had stamped out the dark side 30 years before needed to be part of the story. More so-- that it's on Luke to do something about it because it's still on his watch.

 

Buying the galaxy 30 years of relative piece is still a pretty big victory.

 

What we ended up getting in TFA was a bit of a hodge-podge of those three ideas, along with lines like Maz saying the dark side always returns eventually-- which makes some sense.

 

All that, plus the fact that TFA was just plain fun and I liked it, helped me change my perspective a bit.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Apologies because I'm not really addressing any of your arguments, but I don't see how TFA can cheapen the previous films when the original plan was to always have around 6 - 9 films. Lucas just "retconned" his original plan to go from three movies and then to six movies.

That's irrelevant. It in no way weakens my argument. If Lucas himself had made TFA, I would still argue that it takes away from the other films for the same reasons outlined above.

[Driver]

So which is it?

 

You can't say Lucas made a perfect thing on purpose, but then discount what he might do if he'd made TFA (which at one pioint he planned to do).

 

I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

Again, you're discounting anything that doesn't fit into your thesis.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Because you can still watch 1-6 and have that play out to its end. TFA doesn't involve time travel. I said early on I was worried about Luke's success in ROTJ being undone-- but they skirted this by the dark side returning in a different way.

 

I really want to buy that as a legitimate argument. I was actually pleased to see the dark side return in a different way (just so I'm clear, Snoke and Kylo Ryn aren't technically sith, right?), and I do appreciate that Abrams is making an effort to preserve what transpired before, but I still can't help but see it as weak and flimsy. Anakin's destiny was to eliminate the sith from the galaxy. He did that. But from a story-telling point of view, isn't creating more dark side users with red lightsabers who aren't sith a cheap copout? If something looks like, sounds like, and smells like a duck, then its a duck. Are we supposed to believe the happy ending we saw in ROTJ is still preserved just because we aren't calling these new force users "sith?" Aren't they practically playing the same role in the movies? If they play the same role and pose the same threats, can we really say that Anakin's fulfillment of his role as world-redeemer is all that meaningful? It kinda looks redundant now, after the way Lucas packaged his six movies as one long story of the hero's journey. Before the PT, Anakin's victory over the dark side was a personal one, and probably should have stayed that way. But the PT has recast those events in ROTJ in a different light. Watching them in chronological order, we see that the climax in ROTJ was the fulfillment of a prophecy, the culmination of a plot point that (again after the PT was added) runs through all six films. How is the relevance of this not mitigated by TFA showing us those same threats that the chosen one was supposed to remove? The fulfillment of Anakin's hero's journey is only meaningful if he eliminated the dark side. Simply eliminating the title of "sith" is an empty and meaningless gesture.

 

After seeing TFA, part of me would really like to see Disney redo the prequels, because the TFA existing in the same universe as Lucas's prequels just doesn't work that well.

 

 

 

We were left with the impression that it will fall upon Rey to get Luke back in the game, just as Luke redeemed his father before him. The works of his children and his grand children are also echos of Anakin's ongoing involvement in the SW universe. The threat to the galaxy did not die with the Emperor - this Snoke character seems to have picked up in his place. His eventual defeat will be at the hands of the offspring of Anakin Skywalker, suggesting perhaps that his heroic destiny was not merely to slay Palpatine, but to father Luke and Leia and by familial descent, Kylo Ren and (I assume) Rey as well. Thus, Snoke's defeat required Anakin Skywalker no less than Palpatine's defeat did, if looked at from a certain point of view.

 

I like that. I still can't help but see interpretations of this type as attempts to rationalize away the cognitive dissonance created by adding TFA to the saga, but I do think that is an interesting way of looking at things.

[Quetzalcoatl]

So which is it?

 

You can't say Lucas made a perfect thing on purpose, but then discount what he might do if he'd made TFA (which at one pioint he planned to do).

 

I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

Again, you're discounting anything that doesn't fit into your thesis.

 

Sure I can. Isn't it possible for an artist to cheapen his or her own work? Had Lucas chose to make additional films after he had already introduced all the "prophecy/chosen-one" stuff into the prequels, I would say he was being short-sighted, as that stuff sets up a perfect ending in ROTJ.

[Darth Palpatine]

I don't think this can be answered until this trilogy concludes. If you are looking at it as the story of the Skywalker blood line, then it makes sense to continue until the bloodline is dead. Which or course depends on Luke having any off spring to go along with Kylo Ren. Now if Luke and Kylo Ren die and Luke has no off spring, then that would be the logical end of the story.

 

I also think it will depend on how the anthology movies do. Theres no argument that there are other stories to be told, it all depends on if you want to see them. If the Skywalker line dies in this trilogy, then the only other stories worth telling would be side stories.

[Good God a Bear]

If you feel it diminishes the significance of the previous SW films then don't watch it and pretend it doesn't exist.

[The Choc]

Myths are supposed to teach us lessons. This trilogy teaches that there are far reaching and long term and unintended consequences for our actions. Episodes 1-6 tell us basically the story of Anakin falling to the dark side, doing all kinds of evil stuff, then doing one good thing at the end of his life and everyone lives happy every after. He gets to go hang in Jedi heaven with Obi Wan and Yoda.

That's really kind of a crappy lesson. Anakin's turning to the dark side resonates throughout the Galaxy for a long time in this trilogy. His grandson worships Darth Vader, this is the unintended consquence. You can't just essentially have a death bed confession and be forgiven and go to heaven. Anakin's actions are still being felt decades later. Now he gets to look on from the Jedi afterlife at his grandson doing the same things he did. This is Anakin's penance.