The Star Wars Thread

[Big Daddy Dave Skywalker Moisture Farmer Find all posts View Profile Close Big Daddy Dave Skywalker]

I look at it that Anakin/Vader brought balance to the force as the prophesy foretold, but that didn't by any means mean that the force was free and clear of any problems until the end of time. It's not reasonable to not people wouldn't face any other struggles or challenges down the road. Every generation has their own.

[Darth_Primus Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Darth_Primus]

^ That's why I don't feel The Force Awakens retcons Return of the Jedi or that TFA is an unoriginal Star Wars story.

"The Prophecy" could be a means of control, ala The Matrix.

Neither is what I like to think of "The Prophecy" and "bring balance to the Force" means.

[Space Cop The Dandy Find all posts View Profile Close Space Cop]

. . . "The Prophecy" is ambiguous, and thus it is never clearly defined to the meaning "balance to the Force." There are many theories, and there's one that I particularly like and it does NOT mean the extinction of the Sith. Moreover, "the Prophecy" or "balance to the Force" is NOT a underlying theme of The Force Awakens...

I definitely agree there's ambiguity. That's implied by the disagreement within the Jedi Council. I've even heard people take a ying-yang approach and say Anakin brought balance by restoring the Sith, but I don't think that works.

I should add as a side note that although I do take this interpretation of the prophecy, that's not my primary reason. I just think the whole feeling and narrative thrust of the original trilogy was that the empire and Sith were defeated forever and whatever the Disney-Wars apologists want to call them, Kylo is Sith (he specifically models life on a Sith Lord) and the First Order is the empire.

Now, before VII existed, I knew people (particularly EU fans) who did not take the happy-ever-after view of RotJ and that's okay. But at least for 30 years it was a legitimate possibility.

. . . I did not see this in TFA. Besides, many believe that "The Prophecy" was fulfilled in Return of the Jedi, when Anakin, the Chosen One, killed the Emperor and thus bringing balance to the Force. So, if you believe "The Prophecy" was fulfilled, then TFA really didn't retcon it...

I think it was fulfilled when Vader killed the emperor and ended the Sith reign. My problem is that whatever they want to call him in name, Kylo is clearly a Sith so the balance then didn't even last a generation. That seems like a crumby prophecy considering there was a thousand years where there was no Sith presence already.

"The Prophecy" could be a means of control, ala The Matrix.

Neither is what I like to think of "The Prophecy" and "bring balance to the Force" means.

What is your theory? I'm legitimately curious. I have heard a couple.

Because if it's about control, that seems to face the same problem. I guess I would say that I take it to mean that the Force is like a natural resource. The Jedi encourage and promote it. The Sith are like big-time polluters that exploit and defile it. Balance then is achieved when the pollution is gone. I know that's not everyone's view, but it fits for me.

I look at it that Anakin/Vader brought balance to the force as the prophesy foretold, but that didn't by any means mean that the force was free and clear of any problems until the end of time. It's not reasonable to not people wouldn't face any other struggles or challenges down the road. Every generation has their own.

That's true, but Star Wars is not a grim and gritty reflection of the suckiness of life, it's fairy tale. Lucas is not Scorcese or Frank Miller. What's wrong with letting it have "and they lived happily ever after?"

Even if you feel it had to have sequels, it's not like the only choices are utopia or the return of the empire and the Sith. You could have had Jedi master Luke along with his happily married sister and brother-in-law lead a new generation against dangerous space pirates or something. TFA doesn't do that. It essentially undoes all the victories of the rebels. This is the equivalent of doing Snow White II and finding out that Snow White and the prince have divorced and their son has taken over the witch's castle and powers, amassed a new army, and killed the prince. You can maybe make a good movie out of that and invent a new hero, but it's a friggin' bummer and it ruins the joy of the original.

Above all, what they did to Han and Leia is a kick in the balls to the fans. Now, every time I watch RotJ and Leia and Han kiss at the end, I have to think "but the official version is that this relationship is doomed. Leave now, Han, you'd both be better off." For that, I can never forgive Abrams and Disney.

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

I don't think TFA so much retcons RotJ, as it negates any positive outcomes that movie seemed to have, making the heroes struggle seem somewhat pointless in retrospect, as their galaxy got a pretty darn short breather before things went down the toilet again. It basically says, no, Luke didn't successfully rebuild the Jedi, no the Empire didn't get defeated in any meaningful sense, no Han and Leia didn't even get to live happily ever after. We were left at the end of Jedi with the implication that these things were coming, and we found out that they did not, any "happy ending" was very brief, and WE didn't even get to see it for the short time it lasted, but were dumped into a galaxy where things seemed as bad as ever if not worse.

I enjoyed TFA, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it quite a lot, but even so, I still think it craps on the outcome of the original trilogy. "Happily ever after" may be unrealistic, but after all that struggle, I would have appreciated "happily for more than a few short years, then a downward spiral". For the sake of the legacy of those original characters, I might rather have had the time period later, beyond the lifetime of those characters, so it felt like a new set of challenges, rather than an extension of the same troubles those folks already thought they dealt with.

[Space Cop The Dandy Find all posts View Profile Close Space Cop]

^Okay, that's better said. I echo everything Ed posted (as I was still typing my rant), except liking TFA obviously, and cheerfully withdraw "retcon."

Both of my parents feel this way (and my mother was there opening day for the first Star Wars), I'm just surprised I don't hear more fans that do. I've heard a lot of criticism about TFA, but it usually revolves around ANE similarities or certain characters. None of that matters to me. My main reason that I absolutely despise it and don't give a crap about the next one is this legacy issue. If it were an alternate universe like Abrams' Star Trek, I wouldn't care, but since it's canon, it has forever tainted the story for me.

[Darth_Primus Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Darth_Primus]

I definitely agree there's ambiguity. That's implied by the disagreement within the Jedi Council. I've even heard people take a ying-yang approach and say Anakin brought balance by restoring the Sith, but I don't think that works.

I think it was fulfilled when Vader killed the emperor and ended the Sith reign. My problem is that whatever they want to call him in name, Kylo is clearly a Sith so the balance then didn't even last a generation. That seems like a crumby prophecy considering there was a thousand years where there was no Sith presence already.

What is your theory? I'm legitimately curious. I have heard a couple.

It's not my theory, but one of a fellow Star Wars fan came up with when this whole "Prophecy" and "balance to the Force" thing was introduced in The Phantom Menace. And the theory applies the philosophy of the Ying and Yang and other Eastern Philosophies that the Force will always have a Light and Dark side and all living things have a life energy.

Therefore, the theory is an unbalance between light and dark; an emergence of a gray area. In The Phantom Menace we literally see the Jedi sitting their ivory tower with their indifference or relunctancy to act on pressing matters and they demonstrate contradictions and hypocrisy in their "virtue" and "wisdom." The Jedi don't act on the invasion of Naboo and the vote not to train Anakin because they fear his future. The Jedi Order was stagnant, and not serving the Force but rather themselves and so that's where this gray matter enters and unbalances the Force. So, the Force feeling this unbalance, creates the virgin birth of Anakin, who will with the Emperor destroy the stagnant Jedi Order/gray matter and then destroy the Sith and restore a balance between the Light and Dark side. Keep in mind, there has been and always will be a Light and Dark side to the Force. Additionally, the Dark side (like all good villains) don't necessarily see themselves as evil.

As side note, the prologue of the novelization of Star Wars adds fuel to the theory of gray matter/stagnation of the Jedi Order protecting a rotting Senate:

Once, under the wise rule of the Senate and the protection of the Jedi Knights, the Republic throve and grew. But as often happens when wealth and power pass beyond the admirable and attain the awesome, there appear those evil ones who have greed to match.

So it was with the Republic at its height. Like the greatest of trees, able to withstand any external attack, the Republic rotted from within though the danger was not visible from outside.

Aided and abetted by restless, power-hungry individuals within the government, and the massive organs of commerce, the ambitious Senator Palpatine caused himself to be elected President of the Republic. He promised to reunite the disaffected among the people and to restore the remembered glory of the Republic.

(Sounds like Trump's election campaign)


I feel this "gray matter" of the Force theory fits really well, as it's very Oedipus Rex like and doesn't dismiss Anakin as the Chosen One but rather enhances it.

I don't think TFA so much retcons RotJ, as it negates any positive outcomes that movie seemed to have, making the heroes struggle seem somewhat pointless in retrospect, as their galaxy got a pretty darn short breather before things went down the toilet again. It basically says, no, Luke didn't successfully rebuild the Jedi, no the Empire didn't get defeated in any meaningful sense, no Han and Leia didn't even get to live happily ever after. We were left at the end of Jedi with the implication that these things were coming, and we found out that they did not, any "happy ending" was very brief, and WE didn't even get to see it for the short time it lasted, but were dumped into a galaxy where things seemed as bad as ever if not worse.

I enjoyed TFA, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it quite a lot, but even so, I still think it craps on the outcome of the original trilogy. "Happily ever after" may be unrealistic, but after all that struggle, I would have appreciated "happily for more than a few short years, then a downward spiral". For the sake of the legacy of those original characters, I might rather have had the time period later, beyond the lifetime of those characters, so it felt like a new set of challenges, rather than an extension of the same troubles those folks already thought they dealt with.

I have never felt Return of the Jedi was a "happily ever after" film because I bought into the 1970s reports that Star Wars was a 9 episode saga. That the entire Empire was not vanquished with the death of the Emperor and prescribing to the premise there will also be a Light and Dark side to the force. Balance does not necessarily mean peace.

I don't think The Force Awakens destroys the positive outcome of Return of the Jedi anymore than the EU did with it's Heir to the Empire and New Jedi Order series where the son of Han and Leia, Jacen Solo becomes Darth Caedus.

The Force Awakens borrows alot of elements from the original trilogy and Expanded Universe and has separate itself from those stories.

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

Well, I never read New Jedi Order. I had long since given up on the EU by then.

Heir to the Empire, while it had remnants of the Empire, didn't strike the same negative chord with me somehow, possibly because it was set closer to the time of RotJ, and so a bit of mopping up, interrupted by a single talented Imperial, seemed less a betrayal of the happy ending than a strong, continuing Empire (by another name) decades later, still led by what appears to be a powerful Sith Lord. And Han and Leia seemed pretty happy, and Luke was still looking to rebuild the Jedi, he just hadn't had time yet.

And I think anything EU is bound to mean less than an actual filmed continuation, in any case.

[Agent Purple The Illustrated Man Find all posts View Profile Close Agent Purple]

Well, it's clear that you haven't seen The Force Awakens,

Which I explicitly said.

Luke is not a sad imitation of Kenobi

The Jedi are hunted down and destroyed and he's forced into hiding for a period of time. This may have solid execution, but it is still extremely close to what happened with Kenobi in Sith and Hope.

your opinion of the film, to quote Yoda, is "only what you take with you.” Which by all accounts is full of prejudice and bias.

It can easily be said that your own opinion is full of prejudice and bias, albeit in favor of Disney's work. Prejudice and bias are not automatically defined as being inherently negative and derogatory, and again, not having seen Awakens, any significant argument I might make regarding the film would lack critical details to better form a more refined analysis.

Which, you know, is why I have a prejudicial/biased view of The Force Awakens: because I haven't seen it yet, and therefore lack knowledge and experience of it. When I see it, I'll take it into account. Until then, oh well.

[Darth_Primus Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Darth_Primus]

Which I explicitly said.



The Jedi are hunted down and destroyed and he's forced into hiding for a period of time. This may have solid execution, but it is still extremely close to what happened with Kenobi in Sith and Hope.



It can easily be said that your own opinion is full of prejudice and bias, albeit in favor of Disney's work. Prejudice and bias are not automatically defined as being inherently negative and derogatory, and again, not having seen Awakens, any significant argument I might make regarding the film would lack critical details to better form a more refined analysis.

Which, you know, is why I have a prejudicial/biased view of The Force Awakens: because I haven't seen it yet, and therefore lack knowledge and experience of it. When I see it, I'll take it into account. Until then, oh well.

Yup, we agree that you have a prejudicial and biased view of The Force Awakens.

However, we do not agree that my opinions of The Force Awakens are easily qualified as being full of prejudice and bias. On the contrary, as I am open minded about the film as I noted the major plot points TFA has with A New Hope and other Star Wars films. None of that has made spew venom about the film or being closed off to it. I've always been open minded about Star Wars materials/stories, from Expanded Universe books, prequels, video games, animated series, anthology films, fan films and fiction, etc. I was never prejudicial to any of it as you are to The Force Awakens.

For the record, while many (who actually saw the film) feel Luke Skywalker exiled himself after the fall of his Jedi Order at the hand of the Knights of Ren, the actual reason may be different as Han Solo tells Rey and Finn, “People that knew [Luke] best, think he went looking for the first Jedi Temple." That strongly suggests that Luke is not in hiding but rather on a quest. Hiding and going on a quest are two different things. It has yet to be revealed the actual reason why Luke vanished.

The Force Awakens has expanded the Star Wars universe (pun intended) and raises numerous questions about this expanded universe, the biggest one are Rey's lineage; the true identity backstory of Supreme Leader Snoke; and the relationship between Luke and Rey.

Many Star Wars are highly anticipating The Last Jedi to see if these questions are answered, which are different from the questions and reasons for the anticipation of Empire Strikes Back. And that's how The Force Awakens differs itself from A New Hope, it creates new story lines and continues the world building of the Star Wars universe.

[Big Daddy Dave Skywalker Moisture Farmer Find all posts View Profile Close Big Daddy Dave Skywalker]

Many Star Wars are highly anticipating The Last Jedi to see if these questions are answered, which are different from the questions and reasons for the anticipation of Empire Strikes Back. And that's how The Force Awakens differs itself from A New Hope, it creates new story lines and continues the world building of the Star Wars universe.

This right here. Yeah, TFA admittedly rehashes much of the basic plot from ANH, but it leaves us is a place where it appears (to me anyway) that the story is going to be something new. I don't see TLJ being a rehash of TESB for example. The characters will be split up like Empire, but that's basic storytelling in a 3 part act. They did that with The Two Towers too. And Rey will be doing her training, but I believe we will be seeing her training coincide with Kylo Ren's under Snoke. Shades of Rocky IV right there!

[Space Cop The Dandy Find all posts View Profile Close Space Cop]

Yup, we agree that you have a prejudicial and biased view of The Force Awakens.

However, we do not agree that my opinions of The Force Awakens are easily qualified as being full of prejudice and bias. . .

Well since this involves a matter of taste, it's hard to argue levels of prejudice, but a bias doesn't have to be negative. I can have a bias toward law and accepting cops' stories of accused criminals. That's not necessarily wrong.

I'd say from your own words you have a bias toward an expanded SW universe and against viewing it as a closed story or that RotJ has a happy-ever-after ending. Both of these would make you more inclined to accept its continuation. Granted, it could still leave you the option of liking or disliking a certain entry, but the closest thing to a neutral would probably be someone who had never seen Star Wars before and even they're going to have biases (say toward or against sci-fi or toward or against British actors).

For my part, I freely admit I was prejudiced against TFA, which is why I avoided watching it for like a year. The only way I would have liked and enjoyed it would have been if they went with the idea I mentioned below where the Republic is successful and a happily married Han and Leia and Jedi master Luke fight some non-Empire, non-Sith threat. Alternatively, I may have been open to a far-down the line story with a new Sith and Empire as long as it hadn't jeopardized the peaceful lives of those heroes and the Republic they formed at the time (like a TNG thing).

But I was definitely as biased against a movie that would mess with Luke, Han, and Leia as I would be would my dark and gritty Snow White II mentioned below (I would not go into that movie with any hopes).

[Darth_Primus Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Darth_Primus]

I'm not sure what I said to make someone think I have a bias towards the expanded Star Wars universe. Additionally, I don't think I said I was closed off to Return of Jedi to have a "happily ever after ending," thus I didn't argue with Mr. Ed's views on it. I'm open to that interpretation of Return of the Jedi. I mean, the "Special Edition" of Return of the Jedi certainly gave more of a "happily ever after ending" feel with scenes of celebration across the galaxy with the news of the Emperor's death. I just felt there was more story to come, but I did accept at a time, there would be no more movies following the events of Return of the Jedi.

In The Force Awakens, the new Republic is successful. The First Order is actually the organization that is rebelling against the Republic.

In the aftermath of the Battle of Jakku, the Empire formally surrendered to the New Republic by signing the Galactic Concordance, a peace treaty that marked the end of the Galactic Civil War in 5 ABY. In spite of its collapse the Empire's legacy survived in the Unknown Regions of the galaxy where former members of the Imperial Military plotted their return to power. Their cause would grow in support through some Imperial sympathizers who briefly inhabited a wing of Republic politics before abandoning the nascent democracy to join the Imperial-based movement in the Unknown Regions. Inspired by the fascist ideals of the Empire, this movement ultimately resulted in the formation of the First Order.

In the decades that followed the Empire's defeat, the First Order gradually built its strength through the secret mobilization of new fleets and armies in violation of the Galactic Concordance and Republic law. Despite further acts of defiance to the treaty, the Galactic Senate did not regard the First Order as a serious threat to the Republic.

However, the Senate's inaction motivated the Rebel veteran Princess Leia Organa to found the Resistance. Although the First Order became entangled in a conflict with Organa's group, the Republic remained its primary target.

I don't have a problem with people not wanting to see The Force Awakens. However, I do find it problematic when people criticize the film without actually having seen it.

I feel the reasons why TFA has similar plot points to A New Hope was to win back fans that were lost with the prequels. And for the most part, I believe it achieved that goal.

[Space Cop The Dandy Find all posts View Profile Close Space Cop]

I agree that a big goal was to move away from the feel of the prequels and recapture the old vibe and I'd say by the majority of reactions I heard they got that they achieved that.

[Darth_Primus Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Darth_Primus]

[Agent Purple The Illustrated Man Find all posts View Profile Close Agent Purple]

Both hilarious and disturbing.