-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Star Wars sequel trilogy treatment by George Lucas from 2012 also had Episode VIII be the one wherein (SPOILER) would (SPOILER)
- Thread starter DiipuSurotu
- Start date
- News
I'm not going to say ROS needed to do something specific with Luke like you're suggesting, because I don't think it did. But it did need to do -something- with him, especially given TLJ explicitly sets up Luke not being done with Kylo, and then ROS subsequently does not pay that off. Whatever form that took I would potentially entertain. Instead we got nothing of the sort. Just a single cameo scene that basically amounted to nothing.
But look, even putting aside ROS dropping the ball. I still have issues with the way Luke's death was executed (not the fact he died). And also I still think the story's effectiveness would have been amplified were Luke introduced earlier in the story (episode 7) and actually had some sort of real bond with Rey.
I think most Star Wars fans are aware and accepting of the fact that the Sequel trilogy would have some sort of send-off for the OT trio(Luke, Han, Leia). Disney Lucasfilms just happen to botch it. Hard to do a proper send-off to these fan-favourite historical characters in the SW universe when the Sequel Trilogy seem to be intent in ignoring the history of these characters.
Like why is TFA Han acting like ANH Han . . . . what happened to his character development in ESB? Did he and Leia had a fight that's why he left her alone to deal with the First Order? Show don't tell us or force us to hunt down a book. Or how about TLJ Flashback Luke acting impulsive and violent like the padawan trainee that he was in ESB . . . . what happened to his character development in RotJ? Why is he acting like a noob towards Force visions again? Explain. Set it up. Show in the movie what happened in the past 30 years or so that made him forget the lessons he learned at the end of RotJ. That TLJ flashback scene is very important to Kylo and Reclusive Luke's character development. It is imperative that it does not appear as a cheap and contrive excuse to start a conflict but they botched it by making Luke act out-of-character with little to no explanation.
In fact why did the Sequel trilogy played it safe (at least the ones i've watched: TFA and TLJ) and just copied the story beats of the Original Trilogy in general? TFA copied ANH almost exactly and while TLJ tried to disguise it by re-arranging the scenes in different order, the ESB story beats it copied are still glaringly obvious. That's not how you move forward and future-proof the IP.
Like why is TFA Han acting like ANH Han . . . . what happened to his character development in ESB? Did he and Leia had a fight that's why he left her alone to deal with the First Order? Show don't tell us or force us to hunt down a book. Or how about TLJ Flashback Luke acting impulsive and violent like the padawan trainee that he was in ESB . . . . what happened to his character development in RotJ? Why is he acting like a noob towards Force visions again? Explain. Set it up. Show in the movie what happened in the past 30 years or so that made him forget the lessons he learned at the end of RotJ. That TLJ flashback scene is very important to Kylo and Reclusive Luke's character development. It is imperative that it does not appear as a cheap and contrive excuse to start a conflict but they botched it by making Luke act out-of-character with little to no explanation.
In fact why did the Sequel trilogy played it safe (at least the ones i've watched: TFA and TLJ) and just copied the story beats of the Original Trilogy in general? TFA copied ANH almost exactly and while TLJ tried to disguise it by re-arranging the scenes in different order, the ESB story beats it copied are still glaringly obvious. That's not how you move forward and future-proof the IP.
The core problems with the ST do stem from the decisions made in TFA in terms of their starting point and the redo of the Empire vs Rebels story from the OT. Absolutely. And TFA in many ways is just a soft remake of ANH. Absolutely.
But I do take issue with TLJ just being ESB re-arranged or whatever. I think there's a lot more thought put into it than that. On an extremely superficial and shallow level there are some similarities (Yoda to Luke, Hoth to Crait, Luke/Rey rushing off from training to save their friends in danger). But all of these plot points and the way the characters act is significantly different. And most other things in TLJ are WILDLY different from ESB and have no direct analogue.
That said, TLJ has many massive issues. You don't need to resort to the weakest and laziest form of criticism (saying it's just a carbon copy, or slightly rearranged from an existing movie) to make the point its problems exist, when you could instead talk about the actual problems. And for all its flaws, TLJ did actually point the franchise in a potential new and interesting direction -- it just wasn't followed up on.
Harrison Ford flinching as he sees Leia does more than a redundant flashback ever could. And Leia saying "it was Snoke" does likewise. Show and tell don't literally mean that you have to show an entire flashback.
Han lost his son and went back to his old ways in a sort of escapism to not confront the truth. You don't need a flashback to see that, there is enough text and subtext to understand this in the scenes we got. Han has a new arc in confronting Kylo in stead of running a way. Focussing too much on backstory is uninteresting, and is atcually a form of 'telling' in stead of 'showing'. Show don't tell is revealing a character through action, not laying out his backstory in perfect detail.
Luke doesn't react to force visions. He feels the darkness building in Ben. He goes to his hut when Ben sleeps and reads his mind, and senses the darkness has gotten way more hold of him than he could've imagined. And then - in a fleeting moment - he ignites his saber in reflex, and IMMEDIATELY regrets it. He didn't forget any lesson. He's human, even when you've learned to supress them, emotions and instincts still pop-up from time to time. Not acting on those impulses (thus, not striking but immediately thinking: wtf am I even doing) shows the growth he made in ROTJ.
Whenever we're talking about Luke going to Ben's hut, I feel everyone takes the Kylo version for truth, while we only really see what happened in the third version. Luke is an unreliable narrator the first time, and Ben sees it colored from his perspective the second time.
And while TFA does copy storybeats from ANH a bit too much (which I feel was done above all to bring the audience back, telling them this is the SW they remember), TLJ tells quite a different story. Are some bits similar? Sure (apprentice seeks an old master, heroes are chased by the bad guys, main baddie offering main hero to join). But the way they are developed are quite different, and so are the themes. It's actually by taking some beats we know and doing something new with it, TLJ progresses the series. Luke is a completely different master than Yoda was, and in the end it feels like Rey is teaching him more than the other way around for instance. (Yoda doesn't have an arc, Luke does and becomes a main character in that plotline). The 'join me' scene is the only one in the entire saga where you can actually wonder what the hero will do. It's not a misguided offer from Kylo, it's truly one he believes Rey can accept.
So yeah, taking certain well-known elements and beats of the previous films, but doing new stuff with it to craft a compelling story is imo exactly how you move forward an IP.
Exactly!
I really don't get the need some feel to have the lore and backstory exactly spelled out for them. TFA tells you the basics, and then shows how it affected the characters.
There was certainly a lot of thought hiding the story beat similarities between TLJ and ESB but it failed to mask them. Maybe because the TLJ writers/director relied on something superficial like subverting ESB tropes to hide it. Even when TLJ is trying to do something different to distance itself, it keeps reminding viewers to reference a similar scene/character in ESB (ie. oh! there is a family reveal scene in TLJ just like in ESB, i wonder who it- natch!, she is nothing; oh look its Snoke, the Emperor v2, we got introduced to the final vill-nope he is dead; oh! a shady, untrustworthy character, maybe DJ is going to be like Lan - oops, nah, he is a scumbag). Its ineffective and lazy if you ask me. Watching a movie filled with subversions (either from ESB or the dangling plot points from its predecessor, TFA) can be very exhausting.
Im sure most TFA viewers are aware that there are unsaid disagreements between Han and Leia when they saw each other. The question for SW fans was how truly "big" these disagreements were and was it compellingly "big" enough for Han Solo to abandon his wife and friends while they are dealing with the FO. Scumbag Han Solo . . . . thats what you get if you scrimp on scenes explaining the status quo between 30 year SW fan-favourite characters.
Cinema is movement. It is not about inserting flashbacks or exposition in the middle of scenes, stopping the film dead in its tracks, to explain shit that is crystal clear by Harrison's Ford facial expressions. I am sorry that you are seemingly incapable of understanding this, but TFA and TLJ would not be improved with more flashbacks or characters telling each other exactly what they're feeling in excruciating detail. And films are also not designed to fill in every conceivable gap, you, the viewer, are expected to fill in certain gaps or make assumptions about shit on occasion.
Also, I should add, if you run into someone you knew thirty years ago and parted on bad terms with, you don't immediately explain to each other what happened thirty years ago. You know what happened. Characters in films are meant to act like human beings, not like information robots trading power levels and backstory,
I cant believe I have to spell this stuff out in 2020 on a message board. Jesus Christ...
I had no idea this book was thing will have to pick it up at some point, always liked the little facts he would post on twitter.
I mean you don't actually have to spell this stuff out in 2020 on a message board.
I mean you don't actually have to spell this stuff out in 2020 on a message board.
The Star Wars Sequel trilogy is in a rather unique place as a piece of cinema. It is part of a continuity of movies stretching as far back as 30+ years ago. Think of it more as late season episodes of a TV series and Han and Leia as important characters in the early seasons but disappeared completely in the middle but are later brought back for a couple of important scenes in the finale so yes some sort of recap moments is required to update viewers with the status quo between them especially since fan-favourite Han Solo is acting like a scumbag abandoning his wife and friends. Just how big is their disagreement that it have to come to this? It doesn't have to be flashback per se that stops the narrative in its tracks, it could be passive-aggressive banter while Han and Leia are flying the Millenium Falcon towards Starkiller Base that explains their disagreement and the nature of Han's out-of-character actions.
Or you know they could just say that Leia sent Han in some mission and avoid 'the abandoned his wife and friends' issue and save some running time.
I really do given this poster is still posting the same bollocks over and over again. But you're right, I'm out of this thread. Star Wars fans are the worst thing about Star Wars, and there is no way to debate with them without turning into an angry asshole.
OP
OP
It's much easier (and healthier) to not engage in pointless arguments about fiction if it turns you into an angry asshole yeah. Least you came to that realization, some others are happy to moan about how toxic the fanbase is while happily contributing to it with zero introspection on their part.
With that said it would be cool to be able to read more about Lucas treatment. The concept art in the Force Awakens artbook was pretty cool from what I remember.
Last edited:
But doesn't the fact he abandoned Leia and his friends tell you exactly all that? It SHOWS you that Han really suffers from Kylo falling to the dark side. Having some banter in between would only reaffirm this and TELL us. There isn't even a big disagreement between them. They just cope with it in different ways and grew apart. The way it is handled, with unspoken pain and love is way more interesting and touching than some quick banter about a disagreement or something. It shows us how these characters feel and how they struggle. There is no issue at all with having a well-loved character acting like a scumbag, especially not as by the end of the movie he atones and makes things right (And I don't think he acts like a scumbag at all. I think he acts very human and I understand that's how he copes. It's tragic more than anything else)
Dramatically it's also way more interesting to have Han act this way in stead of 'sending him on a mission'. It makes the arc he has to complete more difficult and more compelling. It gives him a huge mistake to rectify. It makes his step to confront Kylo and to try and bring hem back bigger and harder. In your case it wouldn't even be much of a struggle. Leia and Han would be perfectly fine with each other and suffer the same trauma the same way and be on the same side on the issue. That's flat-out boring, because it avoids any conflict, any difficult truths, any need for characters to grow.
I'm not saying TFA does this perfectly (Han is still a sidecharacter), but the elements are there and they make all things considered for a compelling and tragic arc.
Never had a problem with Luke dying. Him being in exile is okay too, depending on how it was set up. But in TLJ, it felt forced and heavy handed. I expected something more traumatic causing him to leave. And him tossing the saber will never not annoy me.
Han abandoned Leia on her own waaay before Ben Solo turned to the Dark-side judging from one of the nu-canon novels(Bloodlines, I think, the one with the Leia poster cover). Judging from the timeline, Han had plenty of time alone to digest the terrible developments with his son before the First Order declared war. The moment the hostilities started, the scumbag should have stopped moping and should be fighting right there beside his wife instead of gallivanting around the galaxy looking for his old ship.
Barring some really compelling disagreements like insubordination or because he is in a secret mission in TFA, its out-of-character for Han to not be involved. He is not some free-wheeling smuggler anymore like in ANH. By this time in the old EU, he was a ranked General.
Why should i care what a book (published after the movie) tells or implies to judge the text and subtext of a film?
Then we go back to my original argument. The reason provided by TFA is not big enough, is not compelling enough, to explain why Han would abandon Leia alone to fight a conflict with the First Order.
Its OK to mope around a bit, go someplace for a while to process the fact that Ben Solo went to the Dark-side but Han's love for his wife, his sense of duty and loyalty, or hell even sense of revenge should have put him back on Leia's side in no time. The moment Leia started recruiting for the Resistance or the fighting starts with the FO, he should've been the first in line to help his wife instead of being reluctantly dragged into it by Rey and Finn. He already went through the "reluctant hero" schtick in ANH. Our favourite reformed scoundrel had already acquired a strong sense of duty and loyalty as part of his character development in the OT . . . . whatever happened to them?
The OT trio are not blank new characters. You can't just insert 'reasons' to explain their behavior to expedite the story and expect SW fans to just go along with it . Character continuity is a pain in the ass to take into consideration but that is the price you pay for using legacy characters. You need to set things up properly if you want to change things up at the very least. This idea that Han or Luke for that matter would just run away in shame and leave Leia alone to fend things off for herself simply because of Ben becoming Kylo Ren is just unbelievable coming from what we've seen from the OT.
We're gonna go around in circles now, but of course the reason from TFA is big enough. And no, it is not a regression of his character. We never seen Han as a father before. So if a movie tells us he has a fucking hard time reconciling with what he feels is a failure towards his son, than it is not a regression but a new aspect of his character. And the movie gives us exactly what we need to understand that. It shows us through his actions and reactions, not tells us through flashbacks that would bring the story to a grinding halt.
Same with Luke, who is grappling with both his responsibility as a master and his legacy as the last Jedi and the hero of the last war. TLJ also LITERALLY tells us he shut himself of from the Force, so he has no clue what is happening outside of Ach-To untill Rey arrives, and by then he has been wallowing in guilt and doubt for years.
Both are not unbelievable at all from what we've seen from the OT, because in the ST we see them in a different stage and role in their life, and see them cope with different (Internal) conflicts than the ones they conquered 30 years ago. We get to see new aspects of them, and new arcs.
And yes, both are very much flawed in their ways and actions. That's what makes them interesting and makes their arcs compelling. You might have them in your head as these heroic and loyal characters, beacons of hope or whatever, but that would make them oh so fucking dull.
cue the "they already upgrew these characteristics in ROTJ" responses.
Just letting moviegoers assume that Luke, Han and Leia are 'old, human and flawed' in the ST is a piss-poor explanation as to why they would abandon each other (and give-up on Ben Solo) given that this 3 were written as larger than life pulp heroes in the OT. Your movie is going to need more scenes to ease Star Wars fans into that Sequel trilogy mindset and explain the new status quo.
In the Original Trilogy we have:
- Han breaking protocol and went outside to save Luke in Hoth
- Luke against the advice of his Jedi masters went after Han and Leia to Cloud city
- Leia against the advice of Lando went back for Luke in Cloud City
The OT trio has this habit of going out of their way to help and support each other and its not unreasonable to expect that they would do the same thing to new family like Ben Solo. That's why its utter nonsense that the Sequel trilogy conveniently wrote them to just give-up on Ben easily and subsequently abandon each other to go their separate ways. This is the sort of thing that should galvanize them together even more. Neither Old Man Han nor Reclusive Luke needs to be reluctantly dragged into Leia's conflict with the FO or be convinced to try and reach out to Ben Solo. Making the OT pulp heroes appear less heroic is not the way to humanize them or make them more interesting in ST.
If OT writers were writing Luke in RotJ the same way they wrote him and Han in the ST , we would have something like "Woe is me, Luke Skywalker, a mere human. I am paralyzed with shame and embarrassment for not being there for Han in time to save him. Because of that, Im going to give-up on any attempts to get him back. Also I want to be far away from your side Leia while you deal with the Empire and Death Star 2 as i am preoccupied with wallowing in my guilt for failing to save your boyfriend."
TFA made 2 billion. TLJ 1.3 billion. I don't think fans or moviegoers in general took issue with, you know, presenting characters as flawed in stead of larger than life and writing a story with compelling drama in stead of perfect heroes. The characters were flawed too in the OT, they overcame those flaws. In the ST they overcome new flaws, and we get enough text and subtext to understand where they come from (yup, this is the circle I was talking about). A good story is build on conflict, and forces characters to overcome them by changing
(And don't get me started on the generalisation of 'Star Wars'-fans, as if I wouldn't be one because I easily stept into the new reality of the ST and enjoyed not only a good story, but a good Star Wars story too)
Yes, and? These have all very different (and more superficial) conflicts at their core. None of these handle the theme of failure in parenthood/mastership that is at the core of TFA and TLJ (which are part of a trilogy that in essence is about handing the baton over to a new generation) None of these tell us how these characters would react when they are in the role of a parent or master and feel they failed a child or aprentice.
And who says they abondoned on Ben easily? We come into the conflict late, and the first dialogue between Han and Leia has enough text and subtext to tell us how they struggled with Ben, and how and why Han gave up (too much Vader in him. If Luke couldn't reach him, how could I, ...). Sure you could show us some flashbacks where Han tries to bring Ben back and fails and yada yada, but it would only slow the actual story down and we can already infere these things already from the text and subtext we get.
And Han IS heroic, because he DOES confront Ben at the end. This is a core aspect of almost every story. Heroes make mistakes because they try to overcome conflicts in the wrong way, and along the way gain insight, and learn to rectify it. Having Han being a big good old general doing everything he could to save his son and squash the First Order would be fucking boring. It would make all conflict external and superficial, and give him nothing internal to overcome. It would make him way less compelling and dull.
Same with Luke. Luke's conflict in TLJ is very different from anything we've seen him struggle with in the OT. He didn't fail to fight evil, he feels like he created it. He feels that by being the big hero or wise master everyone expects him to be, he makes things actually worse (a bit like how when he went to Cloud City he made things worse too). And having pondered on that island for years and reading into the history of the Jedi, he came of the opinion that the Jedi themselves were not the force of good they are though to be.
Again this is first and foremost an INTERNAL conflict he has to overcome. And one he does overcome in a very heroic finale. By making him flawed and showing him struggling you make his heroic act even more heroic, because you have contrast and growth. And above all, it makes him a way more compelling character than the sort of supersayan goodie goodshoes Luke people want him to be.
Apart from the silly reduction of the core conflict of Luke in TLJ, and the complete bullshit comparison you make to completely different type of conflict, you do realise that TFA (the movie that tells us Han 'bailed' on Ben en Luke ran away frmo it all) was written by the same writer as Empire and Jedi, right?
Those billion dollar numbers are due to the appeal the IP, specifically, the long years of waiting for a new Star Wars movie but there is a reason the Sequel Trilogy's engagement, merchandising and box office are trending downwards and that's because SW fans - after the initial honeymoon period of the TFA - are slowly realizing and rejecting what Disney LucasFilms were doing with the characters especially the OT ones. Han's death distracted people from noticing his scumbag nature in TFA but thanks to the passing of time (and ironically, nu-canon novels) people are increasingly realizing how shitty it was.
Also where did you get the idea that larger-than-life characters have to be written perfectly? They can have flaws and struggles too just like a mundane character but they have to be big and appropriate to their larger-than-life nature to trigger a reaction. The key as always is to maintain a balance tilted in favor of course to the positives and not on the negatives(ie.flaws).
The Sequel Trilogy's desire to write Old Man Han and Reclusive Luke as 'old, human and flawed' tilted the characterization of these two fan favourite characters into the negative. That is the problem. Flaws alone does not make a character or story interesting. Abandoning Leia alone and having to be later coerced to join the fight at a later time against the First Order severely reduces the positive heroic aspects that Star Wars fans love and come to expect about these OT characters and really go against the established characterization that we have of them. Running-away is not an appropriate reaction for an established larger-than-life hero.
Do you think similar heroes like Batman or Flash Gordon would've been cheered by their fandom if they were written as running-away with crippling shame from their duties and friends in the JLA or DoE just because they think they have a hand on a close family member or friend or student going to the side of the enemy? I certainly won't. If anything, this experience with that loved-one would've driven these heroes to be more protective, to reach out and do even more heroics to set things right . . . . which is the kind of reaction that Star Wars fans wanted and expected from any of the OT trio once they found out Ben has fallen to the Dark-side.
Sequel trilogy Han Solo could have been shown and written to grapple with his failures as a husband and as a father without appearing un-heroic by abandoning Leia and the rest of the galaxy in the struggle against the First Order. He could've been on a secret mission for Leia and the Resistance to retreive data in the missing Millenium Falcon. No need to use crippling shame to keep him away.
The same with Luke. He could have been shown and written to grapple with his failures as a teacher and disillusionment with the Jedi Order without appearing un-heroic by abandoning Leia and the rest of the galaxy due to crippling shame in the struggle against the First Order. He could've been protecting everybody else by hiding a dangerous Sith artifact.
All of the OT trio could certainly use more scenes detailing what went wrong with their relationship with Ben before he fell to the Dark-side to better convey the context and impact of his defection. Dialog alone("Snoke has already turned his heart" . . . . Nani? How did this happen? Show don't tell.) ain't enough to convey it.
Kasdan had George as his writing partner and source of ideas for ESB and RotJ. For TFA, he has JJ Abrams and iirc, half-a-year to crunch a movie screenplay AND establish a framework for the rest of the Sequel trilogy. I have no doubt that a ton of ideas were not hashed properly and that plenty more narrative shortcuts and mistakes were made in the latter compared to the former.
I'm not gonna go into detail anymore, because we are definitely in full circle mode.
It's common for trilogies to have a downward box office trend (Didn't help that TROS was a dud) and merchandising is in general less big than before, not only for Star Wars. If people disliked the ST that much, it wouldn't bring in the BO numbers.
Why wouldn't a larger-than-life character not be able to struggle with responsibility and failure? Again, it's not because it doesn't fit your headcanon, that it makes for a bad story. The ST shows us new aspects for these characters, gives them new internal conflict and shows how they overcome it. In the case of Han his 'shit behaviour' is even pure backstory, because once he is reunited with Leia he does decide to help. You know what would be problematic and untrue to the characters? If 'running away' and succumbing to guilt was the conclusion of their story, not a conflict they could heroicly overcome.
And no, flaws alone aren't what makes a character interesting. But they are a huge part of building an interesting story though, and having a character overcome these flaws is what makes us relate. Simply put, a character without flaws or internal conflict just doesn't lead to interesting stories.
Having the legacy characters just do heroic things to set things right would be a fucking dull story, because they would have nothing internally to overcome; Their conflicts would all be external or intra-personal, with nothing at their core to learn. I mean. 'Han was on a secret mission' or 'Luke is guarding some McGuffin' is just boring as hell dude. It's way more interesting to see them struggle with responsibility and having them at a low point, and coming back from that. Because you know, THAT is heroic. One saying in screenwriting is to make sure your character has a big hill to climb. TFA and TLJ gives them that.
And no, you don't need any explaining scenes or flashbacks at all (that would be 'telling' something we can easily infer from what's happening on screen). I don't think you really grasp what 'show, don't tell' means. It pertains first and foremost on the plot and story, and not on the backstory. It doesn't mean you need EVERYTHING on screen and cant tell a part of the backstory in dialogue and subtext. (That's why it is called backstory) It means first and foremost you define your characters by their actions, and SHOW how they react to situations and obstacles. It also means you show the important events within the timeframe of your story, and don't have characters retell them. You can't have Rey telling Leia Kylo killed Han without showing it, because that's the story. You can tell that Kylo was seduced by Snoke and that Han went back to his old ways in a way to cope. Because that is not the story. The story in this case is how Han tries to rectify his mistake.
Basically, show don't tell is about drama and story, not about information (which you need as few of as possible in a film, thus you'd rather put it in a throwaway line or subtext in stead of spending story-halting flashbacks on it)
Showing = showing Han and Leia see each other again and show how they react to each other, wince and struggle and try to reconsile. Telling is having 3PO on the side saying to Rey or Finn: hey, Han and Leia have had some marital troubles after Han went back to smuggling as a way to cope with Ben's downfall.
It also seems like you take more issue with Han because of some canon books. Well, why should I care about some possibly retconning novels or judge a movie by them?
Oh yeah, You really should stop talking about 'the star wars fans' as if it is some monolithic bloc or as if every Star Wars fan agrees with you. It honestly comes of a bit as if people who don't think Han and Luke were 'mistreated' aren't true fans.
Dude, Wall Street analysts lowballed TLJ domestic box office estimate from the highs of TFA . . . . and it still came in $200 million short at only $625 million. Industry analysts also lowballed TRoS in comparison to TLJ in particular its opening weekend. And even though TRos have the highest number theater showing for all the ST movies, shit did not even came close to the $200 million OW estimate at only $177 million. The Star Wars Sequel trilogy was losing viewers faster than anticipated. Star Wars is still a popular IP but these are not healthy signs. Its showing that Star Wars fans are not liking what they are getting from the Sequel trilogy. Maybe that's why Disney LucasFilms decided to take a pause, cancel or delay a couple of planned movies and rethink their future strategy.
Look just in case you missed it the first time i mentioned it; the key to writing a good character is to maintain a tilted balance favoring his/her likeable positive aspects over his/her negatives (ie. flaws). The flaws are just there to complement and not be the main draw especially for the kind of pulp hero Han and Luke is. Both characters were written in the ST with having too much of them flaws.
Take the way Han was written in TFA using your arbitrary descriptions:
- a wise cracking scoundrel (old EXTERNAL plus, i guess)
- an ace-pilot (old EXTERNAL plus)
- a failure of a father (new INTERNAL flaw)
- a failure of a husband (new INTERNAL flaw)
- an unreliable friend (a new EXTERNAL flaw that contradict his OT depiction. Abandoning a fellow, former Rebel Alliance general while she is planning and conducting a war against the First Order)
. . . . what we now have are long stretches of the movie where there is very little to like about scumbag Han's character. And when he finally, supposedly overcame all of these flaws and internal struggles, it came out like a wet fart because our larger-than-life OT Star Wars hero, Han Solo, was written to have no will or agency in TFA. He has to be reluctantly dragged by Finn and Rey before "he decides" to join the fight against the First Order. Leia has to tell him, to convince him to reach out to Kylo before "he decides" to confront his estranged son. So much for coming to grips with and overcoming your flaws, 'internal' or other-wise.
In addition, writing Han Solo as an unreliable friend to Leia was especially bad considering he was written to be such a reliable one to her and Luke in the OT. The ST writers could've written him or Luke dealing with their failures as a family-man or as a mentor without writing them as utter failures as a friend. Giving them a crippling shame strong enough to abandon her alone in her time of need not only makes them look unheroic scumbags, it also misses the point of Star Wars. There is a reason why "the OT trio having no scene together" is always cited as one of the biggest, if not THE biggest missed opportunity of the Sequel trilogy (aside i guess from having a ST showrunner) . . . . its because the strong bonds of friendship between these larger-than-life protagonists and their shared struggle against a common foe is the beating heart of Star Wars. More scenes of our OT and ST protagonists bonding, sharing and helping each other overcome their problems and shameful failures is a Star War-sy thing to do.
Also, if Han Solo or Luke Skywalker was a new character, a ST movie could probably get a way with providing as little background info about them as possible via throw-away dialog or blink-or-you-would-miss-it facial reactions. But these characters are not. These are established, continuity-heavy, larger-than-life heroes. Any vague, unexplained changes to their character development that contradict their established characterization will appear as bad writing. Why take the risk? Show it clearly and don't just be content with telling them. And yes, a well-developed screenplay - something that the ST movies is not - can combine dramatic flair and drop detailed background info at the same time whether it be done via flashbacks or banter or something else.
Worldwide drop-off between TFA and TLJ was similar as between ANH and ESB and TPM and AOTC. If you need to narrow it down to domestic to made a point about 'THE' Star Wars fans (again: not a monolitich bloc) Yeah.
TROS dropped the ball hard in quality. Word of mouth didn't do it any favours at all. That's what you get when you 'listen to THE fans' in stead of logically following up on what was set out before. (TROS is also the only film in the trilogy that didn't get an A cinemascore. You know professionaly polled, not some review bombed RT-thing)
We'll be talking in circles again, but the basis for writing a compelling character is to write someone who is relatable in some way, and has a good conflict to overcome, so we can root for them. In sequels it is important to give them new stuff to overcome as they generally have overcome their flaws in the original already.
You're reductive take on Han in TFA ignores that him being 'unreliable as a friend' is a direct result of the new internal conflicts, in which he reacts differently and shows a different side. Being a loyal rebel being heroic when your friends are in danger (in a situation you had no responsibility in) is way different than feeling you've failed and losing hope. This is especially true for Luke, who believes by returning he will only make things worse, because he believes created the problem in the first place. Characters evolve (change is the basis of a good story). Again, we see them react to a COMPLETELY NEW conflict for them, and both characters are in a different stage in their life. Retaining aspects of those characters while introducing us to new ones is what you do to tell new storys. To say it in your words from a few posts back: to push the franchise forward.
And no, you don't need heavy exposition 'because they are legacy characters'. Show don't tell is keeping exposition as rare as possible and show us how characters react. Exposition flashbacks are often a form of 'telling', because they can grind a story to a halt for a round of exposition. Even more, because we know these characters and because they surprise us in a way in how they handle their new internal conflicts, we are SHOWN how hard they struggle with it. There is nothing vague about their changes. We get the explanation with little exposition and in the case of Luke we even heavily explore it.
I really feel you have a certain image of these characters fueled by the old EU and some new-cannon stuff, and are unable to just look at the text and subtext of the films themselves and what they tell us and how.
And lol @ TFA and TLJ - two critical successes - not having well-developped screenplays. Especially TLJ's screenplay is a prime example of how to write a great blockbuster, with a good eye for theme, structure and character. It's an amazing piece of work, that's great to analyse if you want to learn more about screenwriting, conflict and structure.
Armchair financial analysts are the worst thing about ST discussion because it boils down to "These three billion dollar movies could made even MORE money" 🙄
On top of ignoring that the original AND a prequel trilogy had nearly idential dropoff.
I can't imagine the disdain people have for these movies so much that it compels them to argue about it like this.
If it upsets you and you dislike the movie why do you want to talk about it? Maybe it's just not for you anymore.
Personally the ST with the flaws it has is fantastic. I think TFA is the best movie in the franchise and the ST delivered a great experience. Sure there's some issues and I think they could and should have been avoided by working out more of the overall structure from the start, but we got some amazing new characters, planets, aliens, force abilities and it was a great rollercoaster ride.
I think TFA was the best developed and execute movie, TLJ has the highest highs and lowest lows of the three and TROS just moves far too fast and clearly needed more time, but the core ideas were good and I really like where most everything ends. Compared to the PT I don't know why anyone would be so mad, and I love those movies but man are they filled with way more issues.
If it upsets you and you dislike the movie why do you want to talk about it? Maybe it's just not for you anymore.
Personally the ST with the flaws it has is fantastic. I think TFA is the best movie in the franchise and the ST delivered a great experience. Sure there's some issues and I think they could and should have been avoided by working out more of the overall structure from the start, but we got some amazing new characters, planets, aliens, force abilities and it was a great rollercoaster ride.
I think TFA was the best developed and execute movie, TLJ has the highest highs and lowest lows of the three and TROS just moves far too fast and clearly needed more time, but the core ideas were good and I really like where most everything ends. Compared to the PT I don't know why anyone would be so mad, and I love those movies but man are they filled with way more issues.
That's not surprising. A lot of the DNA from Lucas' version of Episodes VII-IX were there, just executed in a different way.
As much as I love Luke Skywalker, I very much expected him to die in the middle film (if only because he was the cliffhanger ending for Episode VII, so he couldn't die in that one, and the passing of the torch of saving the day had to happen at some point; this was Rey's story, after all). I also loved his arc in TLJ. Often times, I think people prefer their heroes to be blemishless and flawless, but that's boring. Even Captain America and Superman have flaws, despite, on the surface, them appearing to be perfect individuals who can do no wrong.
One of the things that makes these heroes worth admiring and rooting for is seeing how they persevere through difficult struggles. Luke's journey is one of the best ones in genre film, across the 5 films he appears in. He had his awakening in Episode IV, his coming of age in Episode V, and his triumphant victory in Episode VI. But that's not the end of his story. Although the sequel trilogy wasn't about Luke, he still managed to have an intriguing arc, even when off screen. For VII, it was the mystery surrounding his disappearance, and learning that shortly after his moment of triumph, he was forced to face a new threat. His own flesh and blood betrayed him, which cut deeper than the "betrayal" of the father he never knew (whom he ultimate redeemed and turned back to the light side). It was his nephew. The child of his sister that he loved enough to flirt with the Dark Side of the Force himself to protect.
That type of blow, the betrayal of family, cuts fucking deep. So seeing Luke a shell of his former self for the majority of The Last Jedi was both heartbreaking and fascinating to see. But what was even more wonderful, and cements Luke as the best character in the entire Star Wars saga of films, is that he overcomes that struggle, like heroes do. By the end of The Last Jedi, he was the Luke Skywalker we remember from the original trilogy. He had once again come full circle. His shattered hope and lost faith was restored thanks to Rey, as well as him digging deep and confronting his trauma and his failure, instead of running away. There was no way we weren't going to get a very different Luke Skywalker in Episode VIII than what we were expecting. I applaud Rian Johnson for that move.
I enjoyed the entire sequel trilogy; each film for different reasons, but TLJ is just as much of a strong character piece for Luke Skywalker specifically, as The Empire Strikes Back was for Luke. I certainly have issues with aspects of it (primarily the missed opportunity with Finn and Rose's plotline; the plot itself would have been fine, but it didn't really serve Finn particularly well, although it did serve Rose, so it wasn't a complete loss). I wish Rise of Skywalker had stuck the landing better. There are definitely some noteworthy moments in that film that I appreciate despite a handful of absurdities that could have been reworked or excised completely. And no, Palpatine returning didn't bother me; it's 60's era sci-fi space opera melodrama goofiness, so I just rolled with it; it's two primary things I disliked, Rey's heritage, and her last scene with Kylo Ren. Change those two things, and I'd say Rise would be an infinitely better movie. Luke's arc across the sequel trilogy certainly isn't one of its flaws.
As much as I love Luke Skywalker, I very much expected him to die in the middle film (if only because he was the cliffhanger ending for Episode VII, so he couldn't die in that one, and the passing of the torch of saving the day had to happen at some point; this was Rey's story, after all). I also loved his arc in TLJ. Often times, I think people prefer their heroes to be blemishless and flawless, but that's boring. Even Captain America and Superman have flaws, despite, on the surface, them appearing to be perfect individuals who can do no wrong.
One of the things that makes these heroes worth admiring and rooting for is seeing how they persevere through difficult struggles. Luke's journey is one of the best ones in genre film, across the 5 films he appears in. He had his awakening in Episode IV, his coming of age in Episode V, and his triumphant victory in Episode VI. But that's not the end of his story. Although the sequel trilogy wasn't about Luke, he still managed to have an intriguing arc, even when off screen. For VII, it was the mystery surrounding his disappearance, and learning that shortly after his moment of triumph, he was forced to face a new threat. His own flesh and blood betrayed him, which cut deeper than the "betrayal" of the father he never knew (whom he ultimate redeemed and turned back to the light side). It was his nephew. The child of his sister that he loved enough to flirt with the Dark Side of the Force himself to protect.
That type of blow, the betrayal of family, cuts fucking deep. So seeing Luke a shell of his former self for the majority of The Last Jedi was both heartbreaking and fascinating to see. But what was even more wonderful, and cements Luke as the best character in the entire Star Wars saga of films, is that he overcomes that struggle, like heroes do. By the end of The Last Jedi, he was the Luke Skywalker we remember from the original trilogy. He had once again come full circle. His shattered hope and lost faith was restored thanks to Rey, as well as him digging deep and confronting his trauma and his failure, instead of running away. There was no way we weren't going to get a very different Luke Skywalker in Episode VIII than what we were expecting. I applaud Rian Johnson for that move.
I enjoyed the entire sequel trilogy; each film for different reasons, but TLJ is just as much of a strong character piece for Luke Skywalker specifically, as The Empire Strikes Back was for Luke. I certainly have issues with aspects of it (primarily the missed opportunity with Finn and Rose's plotline; the plot itself would have been fine, but it didn't really serve Finn particularly well, although it did serve Rose, so it wasn't a complete loss). I wish Rise of Skywalker had stuck the landing better. There are definitely some noteworthy moments in that film that I appreciate despite a handful of absurdities that could have been reworked or excised completely. And no, Palpatine returning didn't bother me; it's 60's era sci-fi space opera melodrama goofiness, so I just rolled with it; it's two primary things I disliked, Rey's heritage, and her last scene with Kylo Ren. Change those two things, and I'd say Rise would be an infinitely better movie. Luke's arc across the sequel trilogy certainly isn't one of its flaws.
Last edited:
I actually singled-out the domestic box office in my previous posts to illustrate how the Sequel trilogy movies' boxoffice - post-honeymoon period of TFA - failed to meet industry expectations to show that even at its most favorable fan environment, US & CA, it was losing its viewing appeal to Star Wars fans. I did not include the international data because its actually showing much worse.
Modern Hollywood blockbuster: ~35% domestic vs ~65% international boxoffice split
Sequel trilogy: ~45% domestic vs ~55% international
Prequel trilogy: ~45% domestic vs ~55% international
Original trilogy: ~60% domestic vs ~40% international
Modern Hollywood have the luxury of padding their box-office numbers with the rapid growth of emerging international markets such as China, Russia etc. but Star Wars, namely the Sequel trilogy, is inexplicably stuck with that 45/55 split like its still 2005. What happened to the expected growth? It's almost as if Star Wars nostalgia is the only thing keeping it strong on its core markets and the ST is not gaining new fans for the IP on new markets based on the strength of its own merits. Just as well, a lot of existing Star Wars fans are not liking what they are getting from the Sequel trilogy.
You are NOT suppose to write Han Solo (or Luke) as a relatable, Average Joe like he is suppose to star in some daytime soap or Hallmark channel movie. He is a larger-than-life pulp hero. He is on the same level as Batman and Flash Gordon. His characterization should be tilted heavily favoring his likeable positive aspects over his negatives (ie. flaws). He is suppose to be braver, better, stronger than your Average Joe characters because we, Star Wars fans relate to him by projecting ourselves vicariously through him and his heroic exploits and not because we relate to him as an average flawed person.
A debt-riddled, smuggler abandoning his wife while she deals with a dangerous threat alone because he is too consumed with crippling shame and perceives himself as an utter failure as a husband and father is a reaction that you would expect from an Average Joe character but not from a swashbuckling, larger-than-life hero like Han Solo. The ST writing him this way misses the point of his character and is a change for the worse. Its better to write characters like Han as someone bravely fighting the good fight and doing the heroic things on their own volition even though they are being weighted down emotionally by internal conflicts. The Sequel trilogy writers should've just went full Talon Karrde on Han; surreptitiously leading a group of smugglers to help Leia's and the Resistance and simultaneously, sabotaging the First Order while still dealing with his emotional hang-ups as a father and husband.
The best way to avoid expositions whether its via long flashback scenes, throw-away dialogs or blink-or-you-would-miss-it facial reactions when reintroducing legacy characters in a continuity heavy IP like Star Wars is to don't write them contradicting their established characterization from their old depictions in the new movies. Simple isn't it. Stick with the latest character development from the OT for each of the OT trio and just add minor additions especially if they are just going to have supporting roles for the new movies. ST trilogy writers should've known that subtracting from, deconstructing or regressing the fan-expected characterizations of our larger-than-life OT heroes like Han Solo and Luke Skywalker would require more time and energy for them to work around the character's continuity with even less guarantees that existing Star Wars fans would like it. If they wanted to do risky, creative character-work, they should've flexed on the new ST characters. Use the OT characters to fulfill fan expectations (like the OT trio reuniting, something that Mark Hamill fought for but was turned down).
Also, look TFA and TLJ are not examples of a one and done film. They are part of a longer form of movie story-telling. It could have the tightest narrative, the finest cinematography but if it keeps making mistakes on and subverting existing Star Wars lore and continuity, it would still be a bad Star Wars movie and it would turn-off Star Wars fans. And considering that the 3 ST movies could not even maintain a cohesive storyline between them let alone the OT elements, i fail to see how it could be used as a fine example of a movie screenplay.
I'll just keep repeating myself, so whatever dude. But let me say one more time.
The way to progress characters in a sequel is to push them through new conflicts and thus explore new aspects of them. Especially when you're trying to bring a 40-year old series into a modern age. Both movies even reaffirm how heroic these characters in the end are, because even when they are at their lowest and hit at their most personal (something the OT never did at this extent), they come back from it. Luke literally transforms into the myth he has become at the end of TLJ.
Larger than life, heroic characters are dull as fuck (you know what, the trio wasn't larger than life heroic in the OT either. They had flaws and struggled. We could relate to them as they overcame those. That's what stories are about in the first place). Again, nothing in the ST contradicts who these characters were or are, as we see them reacting to a NEW conflict. (and again, you don't need a fuckton of backstory and lore to understand. Because generally an audience can fucking read characters and subtext and can easily fill in the blanks. The problem with some is that they've filled in the blanks before they've seen the movie, and are then angry when it doesn't match)
You should really get out of your headcanon too. Most of your arguments seem to boil down too 'but Han wasn't like this in the EU or I didn't see this aspect of him in the OT (well yeah, it's a new fucking story exploring new themes). It's not because a story doesn't go the way you want it or expect it too, that it is a terrible story. Every single alternative you gave turns these characters in dull, flat characters and puts plot over character. That's good for fan fiction, not for a 21st century blockbuster.
TLJ is a fantastic example of a good screenplay. Because you can use examples from it to teach almost every challenge or aspect of a screenplay. It not only it succeeds in waving three stories exploring different aspects of the same theme, but also succeeds in setting up a clear internal conflict for each of its important character and pushes them through compelling arcs. It's also a good example of installing wants and needs into characters, and it's an amazing example of the main rule every screenwriter should keep in mind: give your characters hell, never give them what they want and force them through insight and change. It is written with characters in mind, always seeking to give them the hardest truths and the hardest lessons, never giving them what they want. It's great example of using side characters to explore themes too, as in every subplot you have the main character accompanied by sidecharacters that embody different aspects of the struggle they are confronting. You can analyse the shit out of its screenplay and learn a fuckton. As blockbuster scripts go it's one of the best in recent memory. And that TROS shit the bed continuity wise with retconning Rey's lineage is not the problem of TFA and TLJ. TLJ doesn't contradict TFA's continuity at all.
The way to progress characters in a sequel is to push them through new conflicts and thus explore new aspects of them. Especially when you're trying to bring a 40-year old series into a modern age. Both movies even reaffirm how heroic these characters in the end are, because even when they are at their lowest and hit at their most personal (something the OT never did at this extent), they come back from it. Luke literally transforms into the myth he has become at the end of TLJ.
Larger than life, heroic characters are dull as fuck (you know what, the trio wasn't larger than life heroic in the OT either. They had flaws and struggled. We could relate to them as they overcame those. That's what stories are about in the first place). Again, nothing in the ST contradicts who these characters were or are, as we see them reacting to a NEW conflict. (and again, you don't need a fuckton of backstory and lore to understand. Because generally an audience can fucking read characters and subtext and can easily fill in the blanks. The problem with some is that they've filled in the blanks before they've seen the movie, and are then angry when it doesn't match)
You should really get out of your headcanon too. Most of your arguments seem to boil down too 'but Han wasn't like this in the EU or I didn't see this aspect of him in the OT (well yeah, it's a new fucking story exploring new themes). It's not because a story doesn't go the way you want it or expect it too, that it is a terrible story. Every single alternative you gave turns these characters in dull, flat characters and puts plot over character. That's good for fan fiction, not for a 21st century blockbuster.
TLJ is a fantastic example of a good screenplay. Because you can use examples from it to teach almost every challenge or aspect of a screenplay. It not only it succeeds in waving three stories exploring different aspects of the same theme, but also succeeds in setting up a clear internal conflict for each of its important character and pushes them through compelling arcs. It's also a good example of installing wants and needs into characters, and it's an amazing example of the main rule every screenwriter should keep in mind: give your characters hell, never give them what they want and force them through insight and change. It is written with characters in mind, always seeking to give them the hardest truths and the hardest lessons, never giving them what they want. It's great example of using side characters to explore themes too, as in every subplot you have the main character accompanied by sidecharacters that embody different aspects of the struggle they are confronting. You can analyse the shit out of its screenplay and learn a fuckton. As blockbuster scripts go it's one of the best in recent memory. And that TROS shit the bed continuity wise with retconning Rey's lineage is not the problem of TFA and TLJ. TLJ doesn't contradict TFA's continuity at all.
