So I have a theory-- it's a pretty decent one, though it is based on my tastes and opinions, so your mileage may vary. Up front, I love the OT, I despise the PT, I have mixed feelings on the ST, and I am a big fan of Rogue One, I find the CW and Rebels to be decent fun, and pretty much despise the former (and new) EU and every fan film I've ever seen. In trying to figure out what makes a good SW film vs a bad one, I think I have hit on something interesting.
In looking at which versions of SW I hate, my primary complaint is that they don't "feel" like Star Wars to me. Despite having the same characters, the same setting, and all the trappings and visual cues, the feels are not there. The PT felt nothing like Star Wars to me to the point that I have trouble even reconciling it as part of continuity.
Obviously, the quality of the filmmaking and script are key-- bad writing can tank ANY movie when it comes down to it. But making fun of the terrible writing in the PT is low hanging fruit at this point. If I'm just talking about the FEEL, where does that come from and how does one invoke it?
Everything that misses the mark, in my opinion, makes the same mistake. The PT and EU especially make the same big mistake-- they invoke the wrong thing to make them seem like Star wars. What does that mean? It means they take the setting, the look, the trappings, and all the visual cues, (often with established SW characters), and say "There-- now it's Star Wars and we can tell whatever story we like."
I'm going to posit the idea that, none of these things are what make Star Wars, Star Wars. Sure, it helps for visual continuity and flavor, but the core of what Star Wars is, to me, is it's structured narrative. What Lucas did that was genius back in the day when he had to work his ass off for a living, was to take the narrative cues of mythology and fantasy, and wrap it inside a serialized sci-fi wrapper. His models for story were based on other movies that worked with these elements-- one part samurai films, one part Flash Gordon, etc etc.
I love this site-- it's old, but the woman who wrote did her thesis on mapping out the influences that made Star Wars:
http://www.moongadget.com/origins/index.html
Here's my theory-- if you want to make a good Star Wars film, you have to look to these sources and work off of them. You go to the core DNA of the franchise and work with that. If you use the OT as your starting point, you run the odds of failing. Examples--
The PT: uses the visual language of the OT and pre-established plot points but frames its story around not myth, but the idea that the OTs backstory had to be filled out. It was built off the OT's back. Sure, some of the same influences are there, ideas that didn't work in the OT were recycled, but it's core conceit was not based on the same DNA. Add in poor filmmaking, and it fails.
The EU: In my opinion is already at a disadvantage. Star Wars is a filmic narrative. Star Wars is a mythic narrative. Those conceits go together. Applying filmic narrative to the structure of a novel doesn't work. It inherently is a different beast. While the plots for the myriad of books could be inspired by a wide variety of things, at the end of the day, it's still just building on what the films built and trying to sustain it.
The CW and Rebels: more of the same. Building off the OT, and in TCW's case, the PT. Working around established plot points and again-- just keeping the same territory alive. The only thing that saves these cartoons for me is their heart, and Filoni's desire to try and make sure we feel that. While I like them for pulling this off, I don't truly LOVE them, and likely won't rewatch them in the future.
The ST: Here's where it gets complicated. I'll defend TFA and TLJ, but at the same time, I totally get and respect why people would have trouble. It seems obvious to say that TFA is built of the OT, it's probably the most literal example of that. Despite this, I like TFA because after the PT feeling so off to me I need the hard reset to feeling like thew OT again. The more time passes, the less love I have for it, but at the time it was what I (and the franchise) needed.
TLJ is a complication for me. In terms of Luke and Rey's story, I'd argue it's the only Movie that truly looked back to Joseph Campbell to take the myth to the next level. The fact it wasn't precious about the OT and went back to some of the core roots made for what I think is the best sequel story that could be told... that said, my problems with the film structurally, and the fact that everything outside of Luke/Rey/Kylo is PT level filler, make not my favorite Star Wars movie.
@TheWook will fight me, but I'd say Rian's SWIQ is actually top notch-- it's his writing and directing that fell short.
Rogue One: for me, easily the best of the new crop of SW films. Yes, it obviously builds off the OT by connecting directly to it and having all it's visuals based in the OT era-- but unlike the PT, they didn't stop there. The story itself went back to the roots-- you have Campbell's sins of the father revisiting the child, you have a mentee that has to look past their mentor's flaws, you have a story that is based on a classic Samurai film-- when you add that to the fan-pandering fun stuff, you have a big win.
The TLDR version-- you can make a great copy off an original source-- but if you make a copy of a copy, you lose quality and focus.
In looking at which versions of SW I hate, my primary complaint is that they don't "feel" like Star Wars to me. Despite having the same characters, the same setting, and all the trappings and visual cues, the feels are not there. The PT felt nothing like Star Wars to me to the point that I have trouble even reconciling it as part of continuity.
Obviously, the quality of the filmmaking and script are key-- bad writing can tank ANY movie when it comes down to it. But making fun of the terrible writing in the PT is low hanging fruit at this point. If I'm just talking about the FEEL, where does that come from and how does one invoke it?
Everything that misses the mark, in my opinion, makes the same mistake. The PT and EU especially make the same big mistake-- they invoke the wrong thing to make them seem like Star wars. What does that mean? It means they take the setting, the look, the trappings, and all the visual cues, (often with established SW characters), and say "There-- now it's Star Wars and we can tell whatever story we like."
I'm going to posit the idea that, none of these things are what make Star Wars, Star Wars. Sure, it helps for visual continuity and flavor, but the core of what Star Wars is, to me, is it's structured narrative. What Lucas did that was genius back in the day when he had to work his ass off for a living, was to take the narrative cues of mythology and fantasy, and wrap it inside a serialized sci-fi wrapper. His models for story were based on other movies that worked with these elements-- one part samurai films, one part Flash Gordon, etc etc.
I love this site-- it's old, but the woman who wrote did her thesis on mapping out the influences that made Star Wars:
http://www.moongadget.com/origins/index.html
Here's my theory-- if you want to make a good Star Wars film, you have to look to these sources and work off of them. You go to the core DNA of the franchise and work with that. If you use the OT as your starting point, you run the odds of failing. Examples--
The PT: uses the visual language of the OT and pre-established plot points but frames its story around not myth, but the idea that the OTs backstory had to be filled out. It was built off the OT's back. Sure, some of the same influences are there, ideas that didn't work in the OT were recycled, but it's core conceit was not based on the same DNA. Add in poor filmmaking, and it fails.
The EU: In my opinion is already at a disadvantage. Star Wars is a filmic narrative. Star Wars is a mythic narrative. Those conceits go together. Applying filmic narrative to the structure of a novel doesn't work. It inherently is a different beast. While the plots for the myriad of books could be inspired by a wide variety of things, at the end of the day, it's still just building on what the films built and trying to sustain it.
The CW and Rebels: more of the same. Building off the OT, and in TCW's case, the PT. Working around established plot points and again-- just keeping the same territory alive. The only thing that saves these cartoons for me is their heart, and Filoni's desire to try and make sure we feel that. While I like them for pulling this off, I don't truly LOVE them, and likely won't rewatch them in the future.
The ST: Here's where it gets complicated. I'll defend TFA and TLJ, but at the same time, I totally get and respect why people would have trouble. It seems obvious to say that TFA is built of the OT, it's probably the most literal example of that. Despite this, I like TFA because after the PT feeling so off to me I need the hard reset to feeling like thew OT again. The more time passes, the less love I have for it, but at the time it was what I (and the franchise) needed.
TLJ is a complication for me. In terms of Luke and Rey's story, I'd argue it's the only Movie that truly looked back to Joseph Campbell to take the myth to the next level. The fact it wasn't precious about the OT and went back to some of the core roots made for what I think is the best sequel story that could be told... that said, my problems with the film structurally, and the fact that everything outside of Luke/Rey/Kylo is PT level filler, make not my favorite Star Wars movie.
@TheWook will fight me, but I'd say Rian's SWIQ is actually top notch-- it's his writing and directing that fell short.
Rogue One: for me, easily the best of the new crop of SW films. Yes, it obviously builds off the OT by connecting directly to it and having all it's visuals based in the OT era-- but unlike the PT, they didn't stop there. The story itself went back to the roots-- you have Campbell's sins of the father revisiting the child, you have a mentee that has to look past their mentor's flaws, you have a story that is based on a classic Samurai film-- when you add that to the fan-pandering fun stuff, you have a big win.
The TLDR version-- you can make a great copy off an original source-- but if you make a copy of a copy, you lose quality and focus.
Last edited by a moderator: