|
The presupposition here is that the Star Wars Expanded Universe is pretty disappointing and is a poor continuation of the spirit of the original movies. The question of whether or not this is the case if of course worthy of an entire thread all on its own. This thread assumes the statement to be true.
The EU material I find tends to strike the wrong tone. It's either ridiculously G-rated fluff or ponderously self-important with unsympathetic characters one-upping themselves in supposed badassery.
The tone struck by the original trilogy walked along that really difficult edge of being good for all ages, like a Pixar movie. Whenever someone says "family entertainment," that usually means you have to be in pre-school to be entertained and the rest of the family suffers along with it. Pixar does layers and nuance. Little kids like the bright colors, shapes and motion, can enjoy it on a physical levle without even comprehending the words. Older kids can enjoy the simple physical comedy, maybe get the jokes. But the adults can catch the deeper themes, the nuances. For anyone who saw a given film for the first time as a little kid, each subsequent viewing can reveal new layers that escaped perception before.
The original trilogy was a lot like that. I think a lot of the depth was unintentional on Lucas' part. Because the original movies were more of a collaborative process, he had to accept more input and it worked on layers that were unintentional. Hemingway on symbolism: "Then there is the other secret. There isn't any symbolysm [sic]. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The shark are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is shit. What goes beyond is what you see beyond when you know." You can't really tell an author he's wrong about his own work! But at the same time, the reader is free to project his own significance onto what he reads in a work, the same as he can find significance in real events he sees every day. Life isn't scripted but one can still find meaning in events and circumstances.
Star Wars and Indiana Jones are quite similar in a lot of ways and understandably so given when the originals were made and who were involved. At their hearts they were homages to the favorite childhood entertainments of the directors. Their primary purpose was to be solid, fun entertainment and not let self-importance get in the way of telling a good story. I think part of the reason why the new trilogy was such a failure was because Lucas took himself too seriously as an Artist. Star Wars was now this mythic tale of Skywalker's fall and redemption and a work of Homeric scope and import. This self-importance sucked all the fun and emotion out of the material and thus left it far weaker in impact than the original material which was just supposed to be good, popcorn-chewing entertainment.
Having said all that, here's a few specific thoughts. In terms the prequel films, not really a fan of the idea. Prequels leave you too locked in to a predetermined future. I like the idea of post-ROTJ continuations.
I don't like the idea of Palpy clones. I intensely dislike any kind of future plot development that undercuts something that's already happened with great emotional significance. If Fredo gets shot out on the lake, he better not come back in Godfather Part III with a scar on his head and be the villain trying to take down the Corleone family. A villain dies, I don't want to hear any crap about secret clones or twin brothers or any of that crap. He better not die and have four different dudes coming back claiming to be him. Palpatine is dead.
I like the idea of the New Republic struggling to establish legitimacy. Palpy wasn't planning on dying any time soon, probably not ever, and he also didn't believe in having strong subordinates. The Empire would be in complete chaos after his death. Some warlords would try to carve out little empires of their own, some planets would try to throw in with the new legitimate government. It would be messy. Messy is good for drama. I would imagine there to be a honeymoon period as everyone catches a breather from the war and people are looking to see what this new government decides to do. I think it would take some time for the military commanders and planetary governors to get a sense that the new government is not going to be doing the iron fist thing and realize they could break away without getting their planet blown up.
But all of that would be background stuff, the same way that the details turning the old republic into the empire were background details in the originals. Put that stuff too far in the forefront and you get stupid trade disputes and needless pod races.
I think the forefront story would be Luke trying to reestablish the Jedi but gawd, the EU stuff that tried doing this was just awful. I like the idea of Luke resigning his commission, returning to civilian life and making this his purpose. It's all the political tension that would bring the Jedi back to the forefront. The Jedi were considered a symbol of the Old Republic. Palpatine wiping them out became symbolic for wiping out all the other democratic institutions. Therefore the New Republic wants, needs Jedis to become a symbol of legitimacy.
And this here is how the pre-trilogy stuff could be covered. In reestablishing the order, Luke learns of the mistakes made that led to the fall in the first place. Who was Palpatine? Where did he receive his training? How could the Jedi have missed him? How was his father, a good man, seduced by the Dark Side when it is so obviously Bad Stuff(tm)? And as he sees the stupidity and corruption in the New Republic, the cowardice and scheming of politicians and their cronies, he can come to understand how his father could see the Dark Side as an answer, forcing reason upon those too stupid to see it for themselves.
As for the Sith thing, I never really liked the EU explanations. I like the idea of the Sith being dark Jedi from the past, long since extinct. Dabblers in the Force would have happened upon some Sith sacred texts and tried to discover their secrets. They would take the name Sith the same way rulers would appropriate Caesar's name as Tsar or Kaiser. I could see Palpy seeing an opponent with access to the Force as his greatest weakness thus killing off his fellow Siths during his rise to power, taking out the Jedi next and only keeping Vader because, in his weakened state with all those prosthetics, he could never truly be a threat.
Therefore any Dark Side users encountered subsequently should be dabblers, even though they may prove powerful. It would be nice for Luke's first recruit to the new order to be a self-styled Darth Badass. He's taught himself a few Force tricks and can beat up on the locals. Luke ends up fighting him, letting him think he's making some effective attacks and then beats him into the dirt without even breathing hard. He calls Luke a master and begs to become his apprentice.
I think that many key figures of the original trilogy would be tied up in higher offices with important work which would mean that the bulk of the adventuring would happen with new characters in the junior ranks but the old guard can still do some fancy footwork. When the New Republic is ready to go broke, Lando negotiates a line of credit with the Hutts using the kind of strong-arm tactics and blackmail that earns their respect. The breaking out of peace is killing business for the smugglers even as there's not enough legitimate shipping to carry the Republic's commerce. Han uses his old smuggler contacts to broker deals and bring them back to the side of the angels.
Stuff like the Vong seem totally out of place for Star Wars. All the stuff with dying Skywalkers, going Sith, it's just too grimdark for Star Wars. Yes, planets get blown up from time to time but it's not meant to be relentlessly depressing.
|
