Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, the fan service stuff is where I think it's just JJ's (and a lot of fans') myopic view of what Star Wars is. They can't conceive of it outside its own confines, so they're content to endlessly reiterate it in one mode or another.
TLJ, in my view, set the franchise up to completely break the established mold and do so in a potentially incredible way. The state of the galaxy at the end of TLJ was such that the notion of the (new) Rebellion building up in 2 years to a point where they could take on the First Order seemed absurd. Kylo Ren was weakened in his leadership and set up for a face-turn/redemption arc as well as being challenged from within. Rey was set up as a possible rejection of the Dark/Light Good/Bad dichotomy within the Force, or at least a new version of what the Jedi would look like.
And to accomplish all of that, you were gonna need much more time. You could've broken the trilogy model, which I actually think harms the films more than it helps. You could tell the larger story over a much longer span of films and thereby make the culmination of it that much more meaningful.
But no, because "this is how we've always done it," that means we can't deviate at all. Star Wars HAS to have dudes in white armor flying wedge-shaped ships as the bad guys. There HAS to be some kind of Sith element involved. The bad guy HAS to be the Emperor. The hero's journey has to be followed to the point where we are really just telling the same damn story again and again and again. The films HAVE to have the original actors in them. And it HAS to be done in 3 films.
It doesn't, though. None of this has to remain true, and you can still have it be a Star Wars film. But, you have to be able to see beyond the confines of the series as it existed between '77 and '83, and then between '77 and '05. There's so much more that could be done with it, but not if (a) the fans are left in charge of it, or (b) people like JJ are given control of it (since he's basically just another fan).
I mean, seriously, JJ's Star Wars films read to me like big budget fan fic. And that's not a compliment. I expect better from someone with millions of dollars at their disposal.
cboath
Master Member
I agree, but only to a point.
I don't think the problem with TLJ was that it went in new directions. The problem was it simply dumping existing plot lines (i.e. Snoke and there are a list of other), and the trashing of Luke Skywalker.
And, you know? I think the dropping of plot points wouldn't have been a problem if Luke was treated better. You can't do that to arguably the most loved character in SW and think everyone will be accepting. People bemoan suits coming in and giving notes and forcing things trying to make as much money as they can - how THAT got through boggles my mind, but that isn't the issue in this thread/post.
IX won back more people than it lost. Now, that probably wasn't a big total i'm sure, but it came out in the right side of the tally I'd wager. Doubling down on TLJ wasn't like to get the same result. Could it have come out better? Sure it could. Would that have gotten as many tickets sold? Not necessarily. Could it have made more people give up? It could have.
Ultimately, the biggest thing that went wrong was the lack of a cohesive plan. A cohesive plan doens't mean director's can't do their own thing. They can do that, but you have to put the three of them together to work out the whole narrative ahead of time. You don't kill of the big bad in part 2 without knowing who the big bad for 3 is. Not to mention, in doing so, the big bad in pt 3 has to have a connection to parts 1 and 2 of your series. (one and two being TFA and TLJ to be clear).
I agree the trilogy format is limiting. I like what's being done with streaming and doing these that way in 'seasons'. Regardless, though, you have to know where you're going to end up. In the ST, i don't think anyone knew, and that's a recipe for disaster. Just like the middle of lost got messed up. They knew where they wanted to end up, but had to keep filling in until the network would give them a time frame. You can't make up a trilogy as you go without a known destination. If you want to break the trilogy mold, which is probably a good idea, you have to get the actors signed for the duration, so you kinda need to know the duration ahead of time. Be awkward to sign Daisy Ridley (for example) to a four picture deal while having a 6 film idea lined out. So, it would seem, that in that respect streaming might work better.
In the end, you have to have a plan. When you don't, or when you abandon it, it becomes obvious.
I don't think the problem with TLJ was that it went in new directions. The problem was it simply dumping existing plot lines (i.e. Snoke and there are a list of other), and the trashing of Luke Skywalker.
And, you know? I think the dropping of plot points wouldn't have been a problem if Luke was treated better. You can't do that to arguably the most loved character in SW and think everyone will be accepting. People bemoan suits coming in and giving notes and forcing things trying to make as much money as they can - how THAT got through boggles my mind, but that isn't the issue in this thread/post.
IX won back more people than it lost. Now, that probably wasn't a big total i'm sure, but it came out in the right side of the tally I'd wager. Doubling down on TLJ wasn't like to get the same result. Could it have come out better? Sure it could. Would that have gotten as many tickets sold? Not necessarily. Could it have made more people give up? It could have.
Ultimately, the biggest thing that went wrong was the lack of a cohesive plan. A cohesive plan doens't mean director's can't do their own thing. They can do that, but you have to put the three of them together to work out the whole narrative ahead of time. You don't kill of the big bad in part 2 without knowing who the big bad for 3 is. Not to mention, in doing so, the big bad in pt 3 has to have a connection to parts 1 and 2 of your series. (one and two being TFA and TLJ to be clear).
I agree the trilogy format is limiting. I like what's being done with streaming and doing these that way in 'seasons'. Regardless, though, you have to know where you're going to end up. In the ST, i don't think anyone knew, and that's a recipe for disaster. Just like the middle of lost got messed up. They knew where they wanted to end up, but had to keep filling in until the network would give them a time frame. You can't make up a trilogy as you go without a known destination. If you want to break the trilogy mold, which is probably a good idea, you have to get the actors signed for the duration, so you kinda need to know the duration ahead of time. Be awkward to sign Daisy Ridley (for example) to a four picture deal while having a 6 film idea lined out. So, it would seem, that in that respect streaming might work better.
In the end, you have to have a plan. When you don't, or when you abandon it, it becomes obvious.
I took a sculpture class my senior year of high school and it was one of the best classes I ever took. Instead of being given free reign to make whatever I wanted, for each assignment I was given a specific set of parameters that I was allowed to work within. As long as I didn't violate those rules I could create anything I wanted. Ironically instead of limiting my creativity it forced me to innovate in ways I never would have had I been given total control. The same principle applies to Star Wars.
Could Star Wars work in a non trilogy format? Sure. Does it need to? Not necessarily. Think about all the content of the last 6 saga films after the OT. How much of those scripts went nowhere and were mostly filler to pad the run time? If you work within the confines of a trilogy format with approximately 2.5 hours per film that gives you roughly 7.5 hours to tell your story. That's a LOT of time. A really talented director uses the economy of run time to show us only what is essential the same way a writer uses an economy of words to write their book. There are times when you can drag it out too long. I'm not suggesting that you need to cut erratically from scene to scene without thought the way JJ tends to but I am saying it's better to know what it is you want to say rather than doing whatever you think looks or sounds cool. Then again I look at film as an art form and I don't think a lot of modern directors see it that way. They just want to see cool things up on screen.
I don't think it's important to spend more time telling a story when it's more important to just tell a better story.
Could Star Wars work in a non trilogy format? Sure. Does it need to? Not necessarily. Think about all the content of the last 6 saga films after the OT. How much of those scripts went nowhere and were mostly filler to pad the run time? If you work within the confines of a trilogy format with approximately 2.5 hours per film that gives you roughly 7.5 hours to tell your story. That's a LOT of time. A really talented director uses the economy of run time to show us only what is essential the same way a writer uses an economy of words to write their book. There are times when you can drag it out too long. I'm not suggesting that you need to cut erratically from scene to scene without thought the way JJ tends to but I am saying it's better to know what it is you want to say rather than doing whatever you think looks or sounds cool. Then again I look at film as an art form and I don't think a lot of modern directors see it that way. They just want to see cool things up on screen.
I don't think it's important to spend more time telling a story when it's more important to just tell a better story.
Last edited:
HMSwolfe
Master Member
I mean, the trilogy format is tried and true. It’s a three-act structure. Look at Lord of the Rings, or the OT. They just work. Compare that to the Fantastic Beasts movies so far. Supposedly, there will be five movies. The second Fantastic Beasts suffers a lot from this by not being a second act. It has this weird, nebulous place in the overall structure. I’m not saying you can’t have a series that doesn’t follow the trilogy format, but that kind of thing works better in books, in my opinion. Films tend to work best in threes.
It seems to be a problem with modern studios so much so that audiences are conditioned to expect it. Look at the Hobbit films. Notice I said films, plural. Why the hell did they need to make a 9 hour version of a movie that could have easily taken 2.5 hours tops? You know how they did that? They added all the ancillary material as well as studio heads suggestions to make one sloppy convoluted mess of a classic story that had very little to do with Bilbo Baggins. That's how they did it.
Did Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows have to be two films? Did the last Hunger Games book have to be split into two films? No on both counts.
Sometimes it's just better to get to the point. We all know people in real life people who ramble on and on about nothing but to keep from being rude we listen, by contrast we have the option to walk out of a theater if a movie sucks. I'm not saying a movie has to be filled with constant action or no scenes with character development, but what I am suggesting is that directors need to know how to balance those things to find a harmony that works best to serve the story.
Did Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows have to be two films? Did the last Hunger Games book have to be split into two films? No on both counts.
Sometimes it's just better to get to the point. We all know people in real life people who ramble on and on about nothing but to keep from being rude we listen, by contrast we have the option to walk out of a theater if a movie sucks. I'm not saying a movie has to be filled with constant action or no scenes with character development, but what I am suggesting is that directors need to know how to balance those things to find a harmony that works best to serve the story.
Last edited:
cboath
Master Member
The last 4 potter movies could also have been 2 flicks each. The books were better in every case and each still left out a lot.
Just because it CAN be done shorter, doesn't mean it's better, or should be done that way.
The problem i see with the trilogy format for SW going forward is the expectation that the good guys win in the first and lose in the second to win in the third. I said expectation, not that it had to be that way. George got out in front of that right in the beginning of the PT saying that wouldn't be the case in the end as it had to end with the rise of the emperor and creation of the empire. So you knew 6 years ahead of time it ended on a down note (really, you knew many years prior, but still).
I get the problem with a longer series is that you have to get the actors to buy in for a longer period of time, which is where TV works better. You know ahead of time if they're not going to be around, or if you have to give them the option to get out, etc You can get an actor signed on through 3 movies over a 4-5 year span, whereas getting them 4-5 years for a streaming service gets you 4-5 seasons.
The LOTR worked as a trilogy because it was written as one before there were movie trilogies. It also wasn't really three stories strung together. It was just one book hacked into the three pieces. Movies need to be able to stand on their own more. People can watch ESB without seeing ANH and enjoy it and not be completely lost. I'd read the books and seen FOTR and was still confused in a lot of TTT.....can't imagine anyone without any other knowledge getting through it really.
The concept of Star Wars wasn't a trilogy until what? 1981? 82? At one point is was 9 including ANH, another 6 from ANH and it finally ended at 3. Looking at the ST, had it ended like episode III and LFL had no plans for a second sequel trilogy, peopled be pretty pissed because it'd end up in the air. No one would want the actual end to be Kylo cementing his place as supreme leader and ruling the galaxy. Hence, the expectation in an announced trilogy that will end on a happy note if nothing further is on the books. That expectation does go away if they'd slated Episode X for '21, but they were clear it was one and they'd look at that later.
Just because it CAN be done shorter, doesn't mean it's better, or should be done that way.
The problem i see with the trilogy format for SW going forward is the expectation that the good guys win in the first and lose in the second to win in the third. I said expectation, not that it had to be that way. George got out in front of that right in the beginning of the PT saying that wouldn't be the case in the end as it had to end with the rise of the emperor and creation of the empire. So you knew 6 years ahead of time it ended on a down note (really, you knew many years prior, but still).
I get the problem with a longer series is that you have to get the actors to buy in for a longer period of time, which is where TV works better. You know ahead of time if they're not going to be around, or if you have to give them the option to get out, etc You can get an actor signed on through 3 movies over a 4-5 year span, whereas getting them 4-5 years for a streaming service gets you 4-5 seasons.
The LOTR worked as a trilogy because it was written as one before there were movie trilogies. It also wasn't really three stories strung together. It was just one book hacked into the three pieces. Movies need to be able to stand on their own more. People can watch ESB without seeing ANH and enjoy it and not be completely lost. I'd read the books and seen FOTR and was still confused in a lot of TTT.....can't imagine anyone without any other knowledge getting through it really.
The concept of Star Wars wasn't a trilogy until what? 1981? 82? At one point is was 9 including ANH, another 6 from ANH and it finally ended at 3. Looking at the ST, had it ended like episode III and LFL had no plans for a second sequel trilogy, peopled be pretty pissed because it'd end up in the air. No one would want the actual end to be Kylo cementing his place as supreme leader and ruling the galaxy. Hence, the expectation in an announced trilogy that will end on a happy note if nothing further is on the books. That expectation does go away if they'd slated Episode X for '21, but they were clear it was one and they'd look at that later.
My point was that often writers and directors lose focus of a story by getting distracted with subplots and meandering ideas that really have no bearing on the outcome. Long-form stories like the kind you see on television work just as well as a two hour movie. There is a place for both.
When it comes to book adaptations turned into films there will always be a conflict between what is necessary to film and what can get excised. They're two different mediums and one will always be better than the other because reading a book is a personal experience where the reader is projecting their own subconscious ideas into the story whereas watching a movie is a collective one that is concrete so they have to be judged by different criteria. That doesn't mean that they both can't be well done. I loved the Lord of the Rings books as well as the movies and there are lots of differences.
Going forward with Star Wars movies it would make sense to try and break away from the trilogy format but I was discussing the existing 9 saga films and how much of what is presented in the last 6 installments was filler that had little to no bearing on the plot.
As I said before there is a place for shorter form story telling and more long form story telling. As long as the story is strong and told well I could care less about which type it is.
When it comes to book adaptations turned into films there will always be a conflict between what is necessary to film and what can get excised. They're two different mediums and one will always be better than the other because reading a book is a personal experience where the reader is projecting their own subconscious ideas into the story whereas watching a movie is a collective one that is concrete so they have to be judged by different criteria. That doesn't mean that they both can't be well done. I loved the Lord of the Rings books as well as the movies and there are lots of differences.
Going forward with Star Wars movies it would make sense to try and break away from the trilogy format but I was discussing the existing 9 saga films and how much of what is presented in the last 6 installments was filler that had little to no bearing on the plot.
As I said before there is a place for shorter form story telling and more long form story telling. As long as the story is strong and told well I could care less about which type it is.
HeartBlade
Sr Member
I think trilogy sounds great but great movie series don’t have to be trilogies, nor do trilogies always work well. More often than not, there is usually one “bad” movie in a trilogy with LotR being one of the rare exceptions.
I do agree with everyone here that Disney Star Wars needed to take some risks and the characters they established in the beginning (Kylo Ren, Rey, and Finn) were more than enougH to make a very compelling story.
Although it sounds really pretentious, I do feel Disney didn’t understand Star Wars. Taking risks requires you to know the core principles, knowing what you must keep and what you can change. RJ may have been the one who was able to move the story in an “interesting” direction because he actually read the lore and tried to understand Star Wars (I don’t think he succeeded but maybe better than Abrams and definitely more than there is no other material Kennedy).
But I really can’t believe the suits allowed Snoke to die in TLJ, Luke to die, and Rey to be revealed as a nobody. Did no one watch the movie and say “interesting Rian but we need a hook for episode IX. Maybe keep Snoke so our audience knows that the next movie is about?”
the suits definitely called for Rey to make the“I’m all the Jedi” statement and force back the force lightning to ape Ironman in endgame.
I do agree with everyone here that Disney Star Wars needed to take some risks and the characters they established in the beginning (Kylo Ren, Rey, and Finn) were more than enougH to make a very compelling story.
Although it sounds really pretentious, I do feel Disney didn’t understand Star Wars. Taking risks requires you to know the core principles, knowing what you must keep and what you can change. RJ may have been the one who was able to move the story in an “interesting” direction because he actually read the lore and tried to understand Star Wars (I don’t think he succeeded but maybe better than Abrams and definitely more than there is no other material Kennedy).
But I really can’t believe the suits allowed Snoke to die in TLJ, Luke to die, and Rey to be revealed as a nobody. Did no one watch the movie and say “interesting Rian but we need a hook for episode IX. Maybe keep Snoke so our audience knows that the next movie is about?”
the suits definitely called for Rey to make the“I’m all the Jedi” statement and force back the force lightning to ape Ironman in endgame.
Can be, can be not. I like the trilogy model -- if it's thought out well. As said earlier, LotR wasn't intended as a trilogy. It was only published thus due to a postwar paper shortage. When they were looking at doing the films, they first conceived of it as two, before recognizing there was too much material for two. In making it a trilogy, they moved events in TTT and ROTK around so that events that are happening simultaneously... were happening simultaneously. Tolkein was a great worldbuilder, but he could have used some lessons turning his material into a better narrative. He'd follow one group of characters for a long way, and then jump back and follow another group of characters. Etc. Where Peter, Fran, and Phillipa dropped the ball was in recognizing it should have been four films. Cutting out the Scouring of the Shire and the aftermath left out a huge chunk of what was supposed to still be a story about Hobbits. It would have also solved the dragged-out ending of ROTK -- end that film with the crowning of Aragorn.
Trilogies work because it's a clear beginning, middle, and end of a given story arc. The problem Star Wars has faced since 1981 or so was the number of trilogies. Each doesn't necessarily need to be the beginning, middle, and end of the arc of one or another central character. Too little screen-time for the stuff that needs to be shown is one of the primary issues with the ST (never mind OT and PT).
I don't think it sounds pretentious at all. I don't think the current heads of Lucasfilm really get Star Wars either. Even George changes his mind on what Star Wars means so it's not surprising that the current leadership has a warped sense of what it means to the fans. I think they're under the impression that if you slap that logo on just about anything that we'll gobble it up without question. That's not how fandom works. That's not a knock against marketing the brand either, I just feel it has to be supported by quality storytelling if you're going to get fans to buy the merchandise.
To this day I am often tempted to buy the Vintage Collection action figures because those original movies mean so much to me. It just goes to show how powerful branding can be if you are emotionally invested in the story that built the brand.
Hopefully one day the series can return to it's former glory or at the very least create worthy stories. From the things I've heard The Mandalorian is delivering quality stories for a lot of fans.
HMSwolfe
Master Member
That’s explicitly why I reference LOTR as a good trilogy of movies. They “existed” in book form before, but they essentially had to be rewritten and had to have the pacing and flow of events completely change. That means that someone knew what they were doing on the creative team. They didn’t just get handed a perfect outline for the three films.
HMSwolfe
Master Member
Nah, they’ll ruin that too. They’ve already announced how they’ll bring in a bunch of the “popular” cartoon characters into the next two seasons, so they’ve completely lost me.
I found the later seasons of Clone Wars along with Rebels, some of the best Star Wars stories written. Coming out of that, I very much look forward to seeing some of those characters crossover into live action on The Mandalorian.
Sean
I said lots of fans for a reason. I agree with you that it's not a good idea to bring in known characters to that series. I thought a huge part of the appeal was to delve into new territory with new characters and finally break away from the same tired ideas.
I was more referring to the Mandalorian being a vehicle to reign some fans back in. I know lots of people who hated the ST but love Mando. I'm not one of them. I hated the ST and haven't watched the show so I'm not speaking from my own experience but merely observing that there are lots of fans who are back on board because of the show.
I was more referring to the Mandalorian being a vehicle to reign some fans back in. I know lots of people who hated the ST but love Mando. I'm not one of them. I hated the ST and haven't watched the show so I'm not speaking from my own experience but merely observing that there are lots of fans who are back on board because of the show.
HMSwolfe
Master Member
A: I couldn’t care less if they were written as well as Citizen Kane, which they aren’t. I don’t think Filoni’s vision of Star Wars comes anywhere near even ROTJ, let alone ANH or ESB. The cartoony, childish dialogue, terrible animation, shot composition, prop and art design, casting, music, and heavy-handed/overly simplistic themes don’t impress me. The worst episodes of Mandalorian felt like those shows to me. Overly colorful aliens, cringeworthy extras, childish writing.
B: It could be Luke Skywalker making an appearance on the show and it would still be stupid. Just allow the show to be about the characters that it purports to be about, instead of another excuse to say “you ‘member this person?”
I never thought I would get Star Wars fatigue, since I enjoyed (well enough) the first two films of the ST, as well as Solo, and R1 to a certain extent. But since TROS, and the obsession surrounding the Filoni shows, I’ve really just wanted it to end. I just want people to treat this movies as just movies, and I don’t think most people even really get Star Wars anymore. Because it’s certainly an incredibly far cry from what it was between ‘77 and ‘83.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
So, there's two perspectives here: (1) the studio's perspective, and (2) the fans' perspective (which actually splits into more perspectives within the fan community itself). I think from the studio's perspective, my sense of things holds. Things have to be done a given way because that's how they have to be done. It's safe. It's proven. We know it works. Some of the fans think that way, but not all of them.
The problem is that people tend to learn the wrong lessons from history. They focus on surface-level issues rather than the real glue that holds things together. They get hung up on the trappings of the world rather than the core storytelling.
I mean, a ton of forum threads have passed by here over the years about people dreaming up ideas for sequels, and what I've observed is that they're....well, pretty much exactly how I think studio execs think. It's usually some variation on "The old guys fight alongside the new guys and pass the torch." But there's never any deeper analysis of how that's going to land story-wise, how that makes heroes of the new guys, how believable it is that the old guys can still kick ass and be believable as heroes, etc., etc.
Now, could it work? Yeah, maybe, but I think effectively pulling that off and telling a compelling story within such a framework is waaaaaay harder than most people think.
In truth, I don't actually think that most fans think this way. Or to the extent they do, it's more just because they have a tough time imagining something different when what they know is what's come before. It's the job of people like the filmmakers to come up with new ways to do it. But, the suits tend to think like the fans, and pressure the creators to actually just "Give the fans what they want," and, well...here we are.
I agree with this view. The "make it up as we go along" approach, especially when creative control was originally going to be split between three different creators. And I think JJ was the wrong guy to lead things off with and the wrong guy to put in overall charge. He's just not a great storyteller, really. Probably a very friendly, wonderful person, but not that great a storyteller.
When I walked out of TFA, I said to my wife "Well, that was decent, and a nice return to form after the PT, but honestly if it's just gonna be more of this, that's not going to be anywhere near as compelling. I want the series to go in new directions." I should've known better with JJ at the helm.
However, I think the issue of "Don't kill the big bad in the middle of the story" is not entirely accurate. I don't think it was ever really clear that Snoke was "the big bad." I think he was initially positioned as such, but only because he's basically a stand-in for the Emperor that JJ artificially surrounded with "mystery" (by which I mean he left a bunch of questions open in a transparent attempt to juice audience interest the way he always does). But other than positioning and audience expectations, there's nothing about Snoke that suggests he's the big bad. The First Order is the big bad, Kylo Ren is clearly bad, and his little ginger Nazi pal is likewise bad. Is there a single big-bad? Not really. Unless it's Kylo Ren, but even then we were right from the jump setting up a potential for a face-turn or redemption arc. Snoke is only the "big bad" because he's referred to as "supreme leader" and because some characters pay him deference. But in terms of actually being bad? He doesn't really do anything.
When I refer to something like "The big bad," I think you have to consider what appears on the screen and what they do while on screen. It's the difference between walking into a room wearing a black hat and saying "I'm the evil badguy!" and walking into a room and murdering a defenseless prisoner. One is what I think of as positional role establishment, and the other is demonstrative role establishment. Snoke's role is established merely by position. "I'm the supreme leader. I boss this other bad guy around. I tell him to come back for more training." Consider that vs. "Fire the death ray and obliterate that star system." Or even better, murdering your own father on screen. Which one makes it clear who the evil guy is?
This is why I say JJ is not a very good storyteller. So much of his storytelling relies on meta-narrative audience work, filling in the blanks. Snoke is the "big bad" because we've stuck him in the chair where you expect the big bad to sit. He's the guy who walks into the room wearing a black hat as the music plays a minor key in a low register. But that's it. That's all he does. It's the difference between when Vader walks onto the Tantive IV and strides through the corridors vs. when he lifts a dude off his feet and chokes him to death because he wouldn't answer a question. Positional vs. demonstrative.
Anyway, we could break down TLJ more and I could explain why I don't think it's such a departure given what JJ set up as a lead-in, but that's not really my point here.
I agree with this. I think it can be done, but I think it's incredibly difficult, and way moreso than most people imagine. Including most directors.
You can tell a compelling story in around 7.5 hrs, but I think doing it as a trilogy, where your "chapters" are spread out by several years is actually a hell of a lot harder than, for example, doing a TV miniseries of the same run. That's because the audience's expectations are they won't be subjected to cliffhangers that go unresolved for 2-3 years. They want a complete story each time, and that makes it a lot more difficult to pull off effectively.
I think the Fantastic Beasts' franchise is more a victim of Hollywood's franchise addiction than anything else. I don't think it has to be a structure of three. I just think it has to be a cohesive narrative that builds on itself. There was no sense of how many films Marvel's movies would take before you wound up at Endgame, but because they built the narrative leading to Infinity War/Endgame over multiple films (sometimes more related, sometimes less related) it ultimately landed well. I think a huge part of that, though, is allowing the characters time to grow and letting the audience see that growth. Would Cap being able to wield Mjolnir have been as meaningful if we hadn't seen what happened to him in Age of Ultron, The Winter Soldier, and Civil War? Would Tony's sacrifice have been as meaningful or as impactful if we hadn't watched him grow from a self-absorbed ******* to a selfless hero? That took time to spool out, and while it could conceivably have been done in the span of only a couple films, I think it hit harder because we saw it happen over a long course of films.
I also don't think there's anything magical about a trilogy as a storytelling device, at least not any moreso than, say, a five-part story. I think you set yourself up for a much more difficult task when you compress the amount of time you have to tell your story, though, and given the nature of films, that means you're talking about an average of 7-8hrs total, done as three standalone entries that will be separated by no less than 1 year (usually). That's....not an easy task.
Right, see, I think Star Wars is a trilogy precisely because George was completely drained from making the films and from his personal life. I actually don't think that the OT really "works" when you start to look at it closely. The third film feels like an embiggening of the first film in many ways (oh look, another Death Star). The characters' development feels incredibly abrupt, given their positions at the end of ESB. Leia is shoehorned in as Luke's sister which makes....certain scenes.......icky. Their's some odd dialogue with Yoda that ends up being made more clunky because of how it suggests Luke has to wrap up his training (or not? Or something....).
In many ways, I think that ROS is pretty reminiscent of ROTJ. Rather than deal with a much more complex narrative that will reasonably take several more films to get through....they just wrap it up and throw a party at the end. Hooray! The good guys win! And they lived happily ever after (until, you know, they didn't anymore...). ROS and ROTJ both feel like hasty conclusions that could've been played out over much more time to a much more satisfying ending than what we got. They aren't bad but they waste enormous potential.
I don't know that I'd say the suits wanted an "I.....am Iron Man >snap<" moment, but I do think they wanted some pithy conclusion that ties it all up with a bow. And I think, as I've said elsewhere, that JJ is much more into engineering "moments" than he is in telling a compelling narrative. He's really good at it, too. Like, I felt plenty of ROS, but so much of it relied upon meta-textual audience manipulation that I can't help but think it's nonsense. It's like jump scares in horror films. Yeah, you feel startled, scared, but it's all just a simulation of fear rather than the real deal. Same story with the feels I got with ROS. It's not about what's before us, but rather about our interpolating a bunch of stuff to make what's before us meaningful when nothing there substantiates why it should be.
Oops! Hit "post" too soon.
But yeah, trilogies in the sense of providing an arc, can be perfectly fine...but you have to manage your time well, and you have to show what really matters to the story as a whole. And that's always been Star Wars' Achilles heel: there was no "story as a whole." There was rough outlines and a general sense of things and then a whole lot of making it up as you go. We just fell for the myth that Lucas planned the whole thing.
Certainly understand and appreciate your perspective, but I would respectfully disagree. From what I've seen, Filoni subscribes to Lucas's vision for what Star Wars is supposed to be, and is carrying that vision forward with the stories he's written for Clone Wars, Rebels, and now Mando.
Will anything be as good as ANH or ESB? Probably not...at least not for me. But I have found the animated shows stay more true to the original Star Wars themes than the sequel trilogy, and I enjoy them for what they are.
You're not a Filoni fan, and that's OK. Sounds like Disney is getting ready to expand the Star Wars universe with more shows and the next series of movies, so hopefully you can find something there you enjoy.
Sean
HMSwolfe
Master Member
I don’t mean to come across as aggressive or hurtful, so I hope that is clear. But I also don’t think George Lucas really even understands why the OT is good, so I also don’t give Filoni points for being pals with George.
Joek3rr
Master Member
I would like to point out that TROS finished filming in February. Endgame released in April. So unless it was a reshoot, which as far as we have been told nothing of Rey and Palpatine was reshot. I don't see how they could have copied Endgame. (Funny thing, "I am Iron Man" was a reshoot)
Similar threads
