New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-05-11 05:27am

Since the ROS thread is branching off into a discussion about what the sequels ought to be, we might as well have a different thread. I think one of the biggest mistake of the sequel trilogy is to rehash the Rebel vs Empire dynamic. It robs any potential for growth because you had to make the OT heroes a failure in some respect, and it severely limits opportunities for the passing of the torch moment for the younger generation.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-05-11 05:52am

ray245 wrote:
2020-05-11 05:27am
Since the ROS thread is branching off into a discussion about what the sequels ought to be, we might as well have a different thread. I think one of the biggest mistake of the sequel trilogy is to rehash the Rebel vs Empire dynamic. It robs any potential for growth because you had to make the OT heroes a failure in some respect, and it severely limits opportunities for the passing of the torch moment for the younger generation.
I don't think the accomplishments of the OT heroes are invalidated because history didn't end, any more than the allied victory in WWII is invalidated because there are still far Right dictatorships (now, Palpatine literally being alive and in the flesh does invalidate Anakin's sacrifice to an extent). But I do think the rehash was uninspired, cowardly and boring storytelling. It was the laziest, most unimaginative thing they could have done, and it signals to everyone that the franchise is creatively dead and that from now on it will only look backward, trying to milk past glory.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-05-11 06:22am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-05-11 05:52am
ray245 wrote:
2020-05-11 05:27am
Since the ROS thread is branching off into a discussion about what the sequels ought to be, we might as well have a different thread. I think one of the biggest mistake of the sequel trilogy is to rehash the Rebel vs Empire dynamic. It robs any potential for growth because you had to make the OT heroes a failure in some respect, and it severely limits opportunities for the passing of the torch moment for the younger generation.
I don't think the accomplishments of the OT heroes are invalidated because history didn't end, any more than the allied victory in WWII is invalidated because there are still far Right dictatorships (now, Palpatine literally being alive and in the flesh does invalidate Anakin's sacrifice to an extent). But I do think the rehash was uninspired, cowardly and boring storytelling. It was the laziest, most unimaginative thing they could have done, and it signals to everyone that the franchise is creatively dead and that from now on it will only look backward, trying to milk past glory.
It's not about history not ending. It's about history changing. The winners of WW2 had to deal with the cold war, a radically different "war" from an all-out mobilisation of society. It's about how people respond to changing circumstances.

The hero who can win battles and resolve their problems by beating up the bad guys will have a different set of challenge trying to maintain a peaceful galaxy. A story about the Jedi Order trying to find a way back to their original role as peace-keepers and not soldiers is more interesting than a story about how they have to do the same thing all over again.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Gunhead
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2004-11-15 08:08am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by Gunhead » 2020-05-11 08:39am

Aside from having a villain in Star Wars which can be defeated by tactically placed banana peels, the other big mistake was letting the OT heroes live beyond the first movie. They should have been killed off in a manner that gives the new heroes some meaningful connection to them but also saying "Hey now it's your turn to stand tall and defeat the bad guys".
I've said this before and I say it again, stop dragging the corpse of the OT around like some weird fuck who can't bury his or her grandma. It's actually really laughable how really REALLY hard they tried to be super deep and meaningful and thus failing to realize the obvious that people will find meaning in your story without you beating them over the head with it.
Which brings me to one final failure and it's more of an acknowledgement that it would have been far better to have a single director do all three films, even if that director had been Rian "Subverting expectations" Johnson. I think Romulan Republic said as much in the other thread. I personally doubt it would have made all that much of a difference but it would have at least increased the chances of the sequels being more coherent piece of uncreativity, shitty characters and general boredom instead of the ungodly mess we have now.

-Gunhead
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
-Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel

"And if you don't wanna feel like a putz
Collect the clues and connect the dots
You'll see the pattern that is bursting your bubble, and it's Bad" -The Hives

Karmic Knight
Jedi Master
Posts: 1005
Joined: 2007-04-03 05:42pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by Karmic Knight » 2020-05-11 08:54am

It was almost prophetic how the legends canon EU was taken apart critically for its overuse of the repeated narratives aping the original trilogy with no finesse, only for the sequel trilogy to fall to those same pitfalls because they couldn't help themselves but make the focus of the films center around super weapons, fascism in power, and the characters written in the seventies and eighties.
This is an empty country and I am it's king, and I should not be allowed to touch anything.

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29522
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-05-11 09:32am

ray245 wrote:
2020-05-11 05:27am
Since the ROS thread is branching off into a discussion about what the sequels ought to be, we might as well have a different thread. I think one of the biggest mistake of the sequel trilogy is to rehash the Rebel vs Empire dynamic. It robs any potential for growth because you had to make the OT heroes a failure in some respect, and it severely limits opportunities for the passing of the torch moment for the younger generation.
Karmic Knight wrote:
2020-05-11 08:54am
It was almost prophetic how the legends canon EU was taken apart critically for its overuse of the repeated narratives aping the original trilogy with no finesse, only for the sequel trilogy to fall to those same pitfalls because they couldn't help themselves but make the focus of the films center around super weapons, fascism in power, and the characters written in the seventies and eighties.
I saw a great comment about this on facebook regarding Temura Morrison joining MANDALORIAN Season 2:

"Oh great. Yet more rehashing of old characters and old scenarios. :(

I miss when it felt like Star Wars was this limitless world with boundless potential.

Now Star Wars is the franchise equivalent of the old man who in high school scored four touchdowns in one game and won’t stop telling the same story over and over. "


That's actually quite prophetic. Al Bundy is a prescient warning for all future generations.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-05-11 09:46am

Karmic Knight wrote:
2020-05-11 08:54am
It was almost prophetic how the legends canon EU was taken apart critically for its overuse of the repeated narratives aping the original trilogy with no finesse, only for the sequel trilogy to fall to those same pitfalls because they couldn't help themselves but make the focus of the films center around super weapons, fascism in power, and the characters written in the seventies and eighties.
I remember MIke saying something about the old EU being so shitty, that an actual sequel by Lucas will show just how bad the EU stories really are. I was looking forward to the sequels because it offers a hope that it can be something fans didn't expect and unique ( rumours of Lucas' draft sounds very interesting and odd)
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-05-11 11:14am

Karmic Knight wrote:
2020-05-11 08:54am
It was almost prophetic how the legends canon EU was taken apart critically for its overuse of the repeated narratives aping the original trilogy with no finesse, only for the sequel trilogy to fall to those same pitfalls because they couldn't help themselves but make the focus of the films center around super weapons, fascism in power, and the characters written in the seventies and eighties.
Yup. This is how a franchise dies- when it stops trying to innovate, and instead starts endlessly staring up its own asshole/trying to reference past shit made by people with actual spines and actual talent.

This seems to usually coincide with the people who grew up with the original and have three decades of nostalgia blinders, headcanon, and axes to grind getting old enough to start running the show.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29522
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-05-11 01:08pm

ray245 wrote:
2020-05-11 09:46am
I remember MIke saying something about the old EU being so shitty, that an actual sequel by Lucas will show just how bad the EU stories really are.
I think it's because most authors/writers who were contracted by LucasFilm to work in the EU (both old and new) weren't actually that great.

Case in point -- how many villains of the EU (old/new) were memorable?

Only Timothy Zahn managed to create a truly memorable villain in Thrawn, and only because he was smart enough to realize that "Evil Space Wizard" (Palpatine) and "Evil Dark Knight" (Vader) were already taken in Star Wars' mythos; so he had to use a different "Evil Archetype" and went with "Doctor Moriarty".

I'm not sure what Tarkin's archetype was. Maybe "Dr Strangelove?"

EDIT: If I had been a contracted EU author following in Tim Zahn's footsteps (basically assume Kevin J Anderson is fridged and I replace him), I'd be thinking.

"Well, the story of a hypercompetent imperial officer/Doctor Morarity has already been done by Zahn with Thrawn. What's left for me?"

*thinks*

*looks at WEG sourcebooks*

*thinks*

"Hey, what happened to all the Imperial Security Bureau / Ubiqtorate personnel after Endor and as the Empire slowly crumbled?"

I think this is how Stackpole created Ysanne Isard.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29522
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-05-11 01:22pm

Or hell....

During the rush to reassert administration over the galaxy in the year or so after Endor; the New Republic had to resort to "frocking" many Imperials to keep things working.

So, there's no vast conspiracy to overthrow the Republic from within and restore the empire.

No, just a story of Revenge.

Specifically, an old man whose only son died on the Executor at Endor.

He's not the kind of villain you can keep using for 5 books; but he's good enough to be memorable and stand out as a bad guy with a concrete, key motivation, one that might actually be rather ambiguously gray than the typical EU cartoon supervilliany.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29522
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-05-11 02:08pm

I'd love to write a SW background history where palpatine simply delegates everything to Sate Pestage and spends most of his time (other than public appearances) doing dark sithly stuff.

Basically, post ROTS, he can now do it in "public" -- well, public compared to what he was doing before -- he still has to keep it secret, but he doesn't have to triple wrap everything in layers of obfuscation to throw off the jedi.

That's one good thing about Rise of Skywalker, it did do some dark side stuff -- but they fucked it as usual
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-05-11 02:08pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-05-11 11:14am
Yup. This is how a franchise dies- when it stops trying to innovate, and instead starts endlessly staring up its own asshole/trying to reference past shit made by people with actual spines and actual talent.

This seems to usually coincide with the people who grew up with the original and have three decades of nostalgia blinders, headcanon, and axes to grind getting old enough to start running the show.
It should be a huge warning sign to Kennedy when Abrams first propose to rehash ANH. I can't say I have too much sympathy for the decision makers, when it seems really clear they were actively trying to cash in on nostalgia above all else.

They had the chance to learn from the mistakes of the old EU. Kennedy as the head of Lucasfilm ought to have a look at the old EU and realise JJ Abrams is trying to rehash all the worse tropes of the old EU.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 15541
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by Gandalf » 2020-05-11 05:56pm

I think that as it was shown in TLJ, the galaxy being ripped up by angry young neo-Imperials, and the only answer being a new Rebellion was an awesome way to go, if only because it was wonderfully reflective of modern society. It's a pity they couldn't commit to it fully.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-05-11 08:12pm

Gandalf wrote:
2020-05-11 05:56pm
I think that as it was shown in TLJ, the galaxy being ripped up by angry young neo-Imperials, and the only answer being a new Rebellion was an awesome way to go, if only because it was wonderfully reflective of modern society. It's a pity they couldn't commit to it fully.
That's all well and good, but to really parallel the modern world, it wouldn't be a huge fleet of space Nazis somewhere Out There, especially not backed by literal resurrected Palpatine. It would have been Neo-Imperial sentiment taking over the Republic from within, corrupting the government and the fleet, forcing Leia out, turning Jedi, with Luke's struggle being whether to stay neutral and keep the Jedi a-political, and eventually realizing that he can't. Which would have risked being a Prequel rehash, but at least not an OT rehash.

Or you do a mix of both- have a new Dark Side warlord in the Outer Rim (analagous to Putin), who is encouraging Neo-Imperial sentiment within the New Republic (analagous to Trump). :)

But honestly, I think the whole mess was salvageable up to Rise of Skywalker. There are certainly flaws in both the previous films, but they're tolerable, at least to me. For Rise of Skywalker, you'd have to change four big things to keep it from being a shit show.

1. Palpatine is back only as a ghost or holocron, not in the flesh.

2. No ReyLo.

3. Much more Rose.

4. Rey is not a Palpatine. Ideally, the main focus of the story is about Rey, as "nobody" forging her own identity as she trains a new generation of Jedi.

If I were to do a more thorough edit of the existing trilogy, rather than trying to go back to my pre-Sequel Trilogy ideas, I'd do the following:

Episode VII:

-We get some Senate scenes to further develop the galactic political scene and make the planet getting blown up by Starkiller Base carry more weight.

-Its Coruscant that gets blown up.

-We drop the weird infodump Force vision when Rey picks up Anakin's saber- that felt so contrived. Just have Maz or Han tell her.

-We get a flashback scene showing Han, Luke, and Leia on-screen together.

-The stormtrooper Finn duels is Phasma. Gives her more of a role, makes her more Finn's personal nemesis.

-The search for Luke plot gets a real resolution, and not "And Then R2 Woke Up For No Reason". I think someone in an earlier thread, I don't recall who, raised the possibility of the final part of the map being on Starkiller Base, to tie it into the finale. That works.

Episode VIII:

-Trim the ending down a bit, streamline the pacing.

-Drop a line about how Holdo and Leia think there's a spy on board, to explain why they maintain radio silence and keep things need to know.

Episode IX:

-As above.

-Also, cut the bit about your Latino character's backstory being that they were a drug trafficker.

-Also, give some resolution to Finn/Rey, Rose/Finn, and we should probably throw so Poe/Finn in there too for the sake of diversity.

-Anything that was done just to undo something from TLJ or pander to fanbros gets cut with extreme prejudice. Rey gets a new saber, entirely of her own design.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29522
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-05-11 09:28pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-05-11 08:12pm
That's all well and good, but to really parallel the modern world, it wouldn't be a huge fleet of space Nazis somewhere Out There, especially not backed by literal resurrected Palpatine. It would have been Neo-Imperial sentiment taking over the Republic from within, corrupting the government and the fleet, forcing Leia out, turning Jedi, with Luke's struggle being whether to stay neutral and keep the Jedi a-political, and eventually realizing that he can't. Which would have risked being a Prequel rehash, but at least not an OT rehash.
A friend pointed this out to me:

Just how many New Republicans are really Imperials AND Old Republicans; and they don't see a discontinuity.

Under Chancellor Valorum, they paid taxes to Coruscant
Under Emperor Palpatine, they paid taxes to Coruscant
Under Chancellor Mon Mothma, they pay taxes to Coruscant
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-05-11 09:37pm

The ones who'd likely see the most change (hopefully) would be the alien populations that the Empire enslaved (as well as human political dissidents who fell afoul of the Empire).

Of course, this leads to resentment from many humans- Why are the aliens benefiting? How are things getting better for us? And a clever Neo-Imperialist (maybe the leaders of a planet like Kuat who got nice and rich making weapons for the Empire using alien slave labour) can channel that into resentment and anger against the New Republic, and against the aliens who are portrayed as running the NR are keeping good honest human workers down. Make the Galaxy Great Again!
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29522
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-05-11 09:57pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-05-11 09:37pm
The ones who'd likely see the most change (hopefully) would be the alien populations that the Empire enslaved (as well as human political dissidents who fell afoul of the Empire).
My friend was already ahead of you:

Let's say you're from Kasshyk.

In the late Republic era, your home was a battleground.
In Imperial times, your home was a concentration camp.
In the New Republic Era, your home...is again a battleground.

For places where the empire isn't literally Nazi about, things don't really change:

Tatooine. A lawless place where scum prosper and honest people scrape by. Which period am I talking about?


See how depressing we can get?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

chimericoncogene
Padawan Learner
Posts: 272
Joined: 2018-04-25 09:12am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by chimericoncogene » 2020-05-12 12:16am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-05-11 08:12pm
That's all well and good, but to really parallel the modern world, it wouldn't be a huge fleet of space Nazis somewhere Out There, especially not backed by literal resurrected Palpatine. It would have been Neo-Imperial sentiment taking over the Republic from within, corrupting the government and the fleet, forcing Leia out, turning Jedi, with Luke's struggle being whether to stay neutral and keep the Jedi a-political, and eventually realizing that he can't. Which would have risked being a Prequel rehash, but at least not an OT rehash.
Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of a Prequel rehash as well; but the spin would be substantially different.
In the Prequels, the protagonists are trying to keep a state together.
In the OT, the protagonists are trying to bring a state down.
The ST should have focused on the protagonists trying to build a state up, and the difficulties of such a mammoth endeavor. That would have allowed a markedly more intriguing story than "bring down the Empire Reborn".
While I would have some timeline concerns, I think that a few decades of anarchy would be believable, especially if the New Republic was unwilling to frock Imperial governors and was unwilling to be generous with amnesties.
MKSheppard wrote:
2020-05-11 09:28pm

A friend pointed this out to me:

Just how many New Republicans are really Imperials AND Old Republicans; and they don't see a discontinuity.

Under Chancellor Valorum, they paid taxes to Coruscant
Under Emperor Palpatine, they paid taxes to Coruscant
Under Chancellor Mon Mothma, they pay taxes to Coruscant
I agree completely with this point of view. With a taste of autonomy under an anarchic transition period, why should the newly-minted robber barons of say, Empress Teta or Kuat continue to pay taxes to Coruscant? Why should the Galaxy even be united under one government? How much control should the Coruscant be allowed to exert? What does a New Republic based in the Outer Rim have to offer large, established states?
Also, the new factions (Hutts, Chiss, Killiks, Yuzhen Vong, Kuat, Dark Empire whatever I don't care) would offer plenty of juicy spaceship and action figure designs for the merchandising! MERCHANDISING!
There are very good answers to these questions (sapient rights, galactic trade, wars, etc.), but people need to be reminded of them. The ST could have explored the benefits of galactic government, or the limitations thereof.

And what of the role of the Jedi in such a situation? Do the Jedi necessarily need to back the New Republic? Even the extremists like Saw's successors? They are peacekeepers. They're supposed to help all people, and do good - regardless of creed, color, or flag. The Prequels established what happened when the Jedi got too wedded to the Old Republic - surely Luke Skywalker will learn lessons from this? And what will his good-intentioned but less-experienced pupils think, when the Jedi decide not to pick sides or don't back the NR (Spooky dark side stuff... the path to the dark side lies in intolerance and only Sith deal in absolutes...)? How will this affect Luke's relationship with Leia or Han?

Lessons from history should be learned by everyone. Leia will try to moderate centralization (that's how the Empire and Seps came about), there will be crypto-Imperialists waving NR banners, there will be opportunistic Robber Barons, warlords, etc, and maybe the undue influence of a misguided Jedi or evil Sith Lord cackling in the background.

Prequel mimic option:
1. Introduction to setting. Big space battle. Simple objective. Begin fall to dark side by pupil. Uneasy victory. Superweapon captured intact at Maw. (TPM-ish, I know... and I don't particularly like superweapons, but a World Devastator or Sith-tek seems fun and can involve the Jedi)
2. Emperor Palpatine emerges at Byss with a fleet of World Devastators, rallies Imperials to his side. Imperial Remnant splits. NR extremists try to push for superweapon use against Palpatine and allies. Someone learns about parentage (nostalgia points, completely optional). Jedi try to mediate with IR/Chiss/Allies to break up Palps alliance.
3. Resolution: More big space battles. Climactic encounter by good Jedi. Emperor Palps is a fake clone, with flash imprinted partial memories. Evil Jedi/Evil Corporation/etc, etc. is responsible for trying to pull a Palps and play both sides against the middle. Thanks to a knowledge of the past, Luke and Leia skirt around the trap. Good guys win. Fireworks.

Less constrained option:
1. Setting introduction. Escalating conflict and further galactic destabilization by [event/technology/shifting alliance/outside enemy/new faction]. Temptation by dark side/Jedi distancing from NR
2. Open conflict. Conflict within Jedi. More dark side.
3. Resolution. Conflict within Jedi resolved. Jedi Order's role firmly established. Dark side vanquished. New stable Galactic government (centralized/decentralized, depending on story).

chimericoncogene
Padawan Learner
Posts: 272
Joined: 2018-04-25 09:12am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by chimericoncogene » 2020-05-12 12:50am

ray245 wrote:
2020-05-11 02:08pm

It should be a huge warning sign to Kennedy when Abrams first propose to rehash ANH. I can't say I have too much sympathy for the decision makers, when it seems really clear they were actively trying to cash in on nostalgia above all else.

They had the chance to learn from the mistakes of the old EU. Kennedy as the head of Lucasfilm ought to have a look at the old EU and realise JJ Abrams is trying to rehash all the worse tropes of the old EU.
Yeah, TFA was a huge warning light. I suspected that the NT would have issues after seeing that, considering the unoriginal setting and excessive rehashing.

A straight clone of the old EU would at least have let us see Eclipses and Galaxy Guns and World Devastators and the Maw on screen. A smart screenwriter might even have thrown in Thrawn or the ISB.

As usual, they didn't want to copy something considered "bad", ignored everything good about those inferior products, copied excessively from products considered "good", and failed to exercise their imaginations.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-05-12 05:04am

chimericoncogene wrote:
2020-05-12 12:50am
Yeah, TFA was a huge warning light. I suspected that the NT would have issues after seeing that, considering the unoriginal setting and excessive rehashing.

A straight clone of the old EU would at least have let us see Eclipses and Galaxy Guns and World Devastators and the Maw on screen. A smart screenwriter might even have thrown in Thrawn or the ISB.

As usual, they didn't want to copy something considered "bad", ignored everything good about those inferior products, copied excessively from products considered "good", and failed to exercise their imaginations.
Too bad a lot of fans were going stupid on "rar Prequels bad! You need to return to the OT to fix Star Wars!". It's those kind of mentality that resulted in what we got. It's a view perpetuated by an entire generation of fans, and people in the media who are no better than your average fanboy.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2262
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by Adam Reynolds » 2020-05-12 05:16am

I really think the conflict should have been about a schism within the Jedi Order in which neither group falls to the Dark Side. Instead, the conflict is about whether the Jedi can remain apolitical or whether they should remain beholden to the Republic. You could even still have a lightsaber duel or two, albeit one that requires an actual specific reason for them to fight other than simply Jedi vs Sith. It would also be interesting to see a fight like this in which both sides are clearly holding back because they don't want to kill each other.

While there is some value in her character as a nobody, I wish that Rey had simply been Han and Leia's daughter. Having their only kid as the villain(or merely antagonist in my version) really doesn't work to continue that legacy in a positive light. Instead, I think her character arc should have been about realizing the fact that she is a Skywalker doesn't automatically make her a good Jedi. She has to earn it. This would work nicely if she was closer to her father than mother, and so did not take her role as Jedi as seriously as she should have because she'd rather hang out with her dad and fix the Falcon or shoot blasters than meditate or engage in lightsaber practice. Despite being a Jedi, she could also have a blaster pistol similar to Han's that she generally preferred to her lightsaber. If Harrison Ford must die, because he doesn't want to come back(which was likely the case), dying to protect his daughter is a decent outcome as it could then serve as a critical part of her character arc.

The nobody turned hero role can go to Finn as the newly found potential Jedi, with Rose as a non Jedi scholar who has studied them extensively and who devoted her life to supporting the New Jedi Order by recovering as much as they could about the past. Together the two can have a nice side adventure in which she teaches him despite not really having the Force herself, allowing him to come back for the finale as a proper Jedi and be awesome in some capacity. It does have Trinity syndrome, but this would at least be an interesting variation on it. They could also foreshadow what happens if this schism continues by exploring the history of the Old Republic on their sidequest, revealing what happened with a past fallen Jedi like Revan. This could even feature the Mandalorians, in which Finn must prove his identity as a Jedi by defeating them in combat, as they believe that only a Jedi could defeat them reliably. If nothing else it has to be better than Canto Bright was.

Ben Solo(though the name doesn't really make sense, Leia and Han barely knew Obi-Wan, that should have been the name of Luke's son) could lead one faction as an antagonist who is not exactly a villain, as someone who took his role as a Jedi perhaps too seriously, and so was thrust into a leadership position from a fairly young age. This was made worse by his sister's reluctance to take her role of Jedi seriously, which meant that he felt all of the responsibility was his to bear. As a result, he winds up becoming influential enough that when he questions the direction of the current order against his uncle, he has supporters among his generation of Jedi leading to a schism. I'm thinking he is leaning towards an apolitical Jedi Order, feeling that they need to be as independent as possible. Also, keep Adam Driver for the role, he was fantastic even if the character wasn't.

The resolution would obviously be about finding a way to incorporate both sets of ideas in a way that works, bringing balance to the Force at last by restoring a Jedi Order that lacked the corruption of the that of the Old Republic while attempting to remain involved in the galaxy.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-05-12 05:54am

Adam Reynolds wrote:
2020-05-12 05:16am
I really think the conflict should have been about a schism within the Jedi Order in which neither group falls to the Dark Side. Instead, the conflict is about whether the Jedi can remain apolitical or whether they should remain beholden to the Republic. You could even still have a lightsaber duel or two, albeit one that requires an actual specific reason for them to fight other than simply Jedi vs Sith. It would also be interesting to see a fight like this in which both sides are clearly holding back because they don't want to kill each other.

While there is some value in her character as a nobody, I wish that Rey had simply been Han and Leia's daughter. Having their only kid as the villain(or merely antagonist in my version) really doesn't work to continue that legacy in a positive light. Instead, I think her character arc should have been about realizing the fact that she is a Skywalker doesn't automatically make her a good Jedi. She has to earn it. This would work nicely if she was closer to her father than mother, and so did not take her role as Jedi as seriously as she should have because she'd rather hang out with her dad and fix the Falcon or shoot blasters than meditate or engage in lightsaber practice. Despite being a Jedi, she could also have a blaster pistol similar to Han's that she generally preferred to her lightsaber. If Harrison Ford must die, because he doesn't want to come back(which was likely the case), dying to protect his daughter is a decent outcome as it could then serve as a critical part of her character arc.

The nobody turned hero role can go to Finn as the newly found potential Jedi, with Rose as a non Jedi scholar who has studied them extensively and who devoted her life to supporting the New Jedi Order by recovering as much as they could about the past. Together the two can have a nice side adventure in which she teaches him despite not really having the Force herself, allowing him to come back for the finale as a proper Jedi and be awesome in some capacity. It does have Trinity syndrome, but this would at least be an interesting variation on it. They could also foreshadow what happens if this schism continues by exploring the history of the Old Republic on their sidequest, revealing what happened with a past fallen Jedi like Revan. This could even feature the Mandalorians, in which Finn must prove his identity as a Jedi by defeating them in combat, as they believe that only a Jedi could defeat them reliably. If nothing else it has to be better than Canto Bright was.

Ben Solo(though the name doesn't really make sense, Leia and Han barely knew Obi-Wan, that should have been the name of Luke's son) could lead one faction as an antagonist who is not exactly a villain, as someone who took his role as a Jedi perhaps too seriously, and so was thrust into a leadership position from a fairly young age. This was made worse by his sister's reluctance to take her role of Jedi seriously, which meant that he felt all of the responsibility was his to bear. As a result, he winds up becoming influential enough that when he questions the direction of the current order against his uncle, he has supporters among his generation of Jedi leading to a schism. I'm thinking he is leaning towards an apolitical Jedi Order, feeling that they need to be as independent as possible. Also, keep Adam Driver for the role, he was fantastic even if the character wasn't.

The resolution would obviously be about finding a way to incorporate both sets of ideas in a way that works, bringing balance to the Force at last by restoring a Jedi Order that lacked the corruption of the that of the Old Republic while attempting to remain involved in the galaxy.
That will result in a bunch of fanboys screaming about too much politics in Star Wars.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2262
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by Adam Reynolds » 2020-05-12 06:12am

Is it still politics if it is almost entirely Jedi politics? The focus should be on using this as a source of character conflict and adventure hooks regardless of the backdrop.

Also, the new movies also had politics, it was just internal politics within the Resistance. It was also an idiot plot.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-05-12 07:22am

Adam Reynolds wrote:
2020-05-12 06:12am
Is it still politics if it is almost entirely Jedi politics? The focus should be on using this as a source of character conflict and adventure hooks regardless of the backdrop.

Also, the new movies also had politics, it was just internal politics within the Resistance. It was also an idiot plot.
Tell that to the fans like those on RLM and etc.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29522
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-05-12 08:42am

Adam Reynolds wrote:
2020-05-12 05:16am
I really think the conflict should have been about a schism within the Jedi Order in which neither group falls to the Dark Side. Instead, the conflict is about whether the Jedi can remain apolitical or whether they should remain beholden to the Republic. You could even still have a lightsaber duel or two, albeit one that requires an actual specific reason for them to fight other than simply Jedi vs Sith. It would also be interesting to see a fight like this in which both sides are clearly holding back because they don't want to kill each other.
As I said in the other thread on ROS:

Phantom Menace to Return of the Jedi was the epic culmination of the Jedi vs Sith / Light v Dark religious war.

Consulting the new canon:

5,000 BBY Sith v Jedi War ending with Coruscant falling and the Sith building a shrine on the planet.
4,000 BBY: Jedi temple constructed atop the ruins of the sith shrine.
1,019 BBY Jedi-Sith War ends with Sith thrown off Coruscant, Rule of Two Established

etc etc.

The Light side V Dark side thing is PLAYED THE FUCK OUT. Let it die.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

Post Reply