this is the weakest aspect of the ST probably, but there is an explanation in both TFA and TLJ

in TFA:

The Republic thinks Leia's crazy and the First Order are a fringe group, like White Nationalists, that are dangerous but not too pressing. TFA is the equivalent to if that group bombed the White House and took over the U.S. to seize power. just look at their iconography and listen to their dialogue.

there's a deleted scene that makes this clearer:



in TLJ:

the FO are staging a coup d'état in real time (days) and The Resistance (and Luke) are the last thing in their way so they're hunting them down.

Rose also explains how they financed their military, they enslaved loads of remote systems and used the money to fuel a war economy. Canto Bight shows this galaxy-wide dynamic in microcosm with slaves below and evil/rich above.

PS, the idea the empire was completely annihilated in ROTJ was never really right, because thus the EU, and the idea that the imperial remnant gained power in this way is easily inferred imo

could everything have been clearer? YES. but it's not correct to say the info isn't there.


-Vader

My problem is not that there is suddenly a new threat with no immediate explanation for its origins. I like the fact that we jump in time, and the stuff that have happened in between, are not revealed all at once.

Rather the fact that it's precisely the same kind of threat as before. Abrams' insistence to holding on to such level of sameness takes away so much from his otherwise excellent piece of storytelling and visually magical feast of high Star Wars calibre. I dare say Awakens would have been a better film than Star Wars, if there never was a Star Wars.£

i have a response to that i think you'll find compelling, but first, what would you have done?

EDIT: this is genuinely an open invitation to everybody too, im curious what allstar/cil/armand/whoever would have thought was better


-Vader

Start with the good guys having the obvious upper hand... Show us the strength of the worlds. Reveal a threat so sudden, so powerful, ancient and violent that it's basically Europe nowadays, a terrorist cell upon terrorist cell, building up its power from ground up, until finally... overcoming the good in the finale of Episode VIII. It would've been somewhat expected with the Jedi Temple still going strong at first, but none of that was actually seen on the big screen before, the entirety of TFA, sans finale, is exactly the statut quo everybody associates with Star Wars and it was a Disney mandate through and through. 'Give us more of the familiar/if it's not broke don't fix it'. That's why I admire Rian's vision way more than J.J.'s (who is always capable, always reliable, at least), he wasn't affraid to break the castle, pick up the pieces and hand them back, basically saying: here's another chance at something positively new, you whimps.🕷

Yeah, it's always going to be somewhat of a canker that VII is the worst direct sequel to what came before in terms of addressing a status quo when really that was semi-vital. Thematically VIII has made it work for me, but it's still there.

Something along m4's lines, but I wouldn't necessarily have the whole film be about that, probably the first act. I think it's a slight adjustment and maybe something more satisfying sits within what was shot. Withholding the Resistance at large until halfway through the film is a critical error in terms of the saga at large.

The threats have to be organic and authentic. Again, the ingredients are there in the finished film for something extremely relevant (well, prescient in 2015) where you could have had the First Order presenting itself as a benign "other side" to Leia's Republic-core, and being tolerated by the Senate. And then they erupt over the course of the film, it can even be by turning SKB on Hosnian as we see. But that would respect the ROTJ status quo more.

I don't know what I would have done differently but resetting things to like they were in at the beginning of A New Hope is the sequel trilogy's ultimate flaw.

Since the fundamental point of the films is to see the story of the original trilogy continued and that's why the entire audience even watched the movies. Imagine reading a book and than suddenly between chapters everything the characters have accomplished has been undone without explanation and the book just goes on. No matter how well written the rest of the book may be, on some level the audience has lost engagement with the story.

The movies themselves could have made the choice to distance themselves as much as feasibly possible from the original trilogy and this choice may have worked better. But since the sequel trilogy is so fundamentally tied to the audiences experiences with the originals, undoing most of the originals plot without explanation is a fundamental contradiction to how the movies chose to engage with their audience.

Now that I've typed this out what I actually would have done is pick up with the status quo mostly as it was at the end of Return Of The Jedi. And then the inciting incident be the first threat to the status quo. Star Wars can be more than just Empire vs. Rebellion. For all of their flaws at least the prequels already proved that.

Agreed with both of you guys. It has to be organic.That's why Luke being who he is in VIII is such a shock to many, because it follows the events of the fallen Jedi Academy, it makes sense in that way. But only if you decide to follow such specific cause-effect narrative line. If not, well, only bitterness awaits. Why isn't he a goodie-2-shoes headmaster of the Academy? Look no further than TFA, even before it, when Disney decided how it should be done, instead of letting Kasdan/J.J. do their absolute bonkers NEW. Episode IX has a chance of doing so much good for this sequel trilogy, retroactively, but it's a slippery slope.🕷

I for sure would have avoided doing exactly another old disfigured manipulative sith lord trying to take over the entire galaxy, by recruiting the help of yet another confused young jedi wannabe with high potential and ambition, as well as building a weapon planet thing that can destroy other planets.

It's understandable if Abrams wanted to introduce a somewhat similar threat, but not exactly the same fucking thing.£

Master Virgo wrote: ↑

January 13th, 2019, 5:29 am

I for sure would have avoided doing exactly another old disfigured manipulative sith lord trying to take over the entire galaxy, by recruiting the help of yet another confused young jedi wannabe with high potential and ambition, as well as building a weapon planet thing that can destroy other planets.

It's understandable if Abrams wanted to introduce a somewhat similar threat, but not exactly the same fucking thing.£

Lmao yeah... every time I remember they even had a Death Star III... I stop thinking about what should’ve been and start maniacally laughing/crying from the inside. That entire nostalgia briefing in TFA was such a sloppy business...

The big problem was the circumstances in which, Awakens came about. Post prequels era, where frustrated OT purists were not going to be satisfied with anything that didn't identically resemble their childhood experience. And Abrams himself coming off a bittersweet experience that was Into Darkness, with loud backlash from angry fans, who probably just wanted an overextended episode like movie, similar to the big pile of inconsequential nothingness, that was Beyond.

And all of that made him so conservative, that he pretty much went for the semi remake approach with Awakens. I still love the film dearly, but god damn it, it could have been so much more, if they had toned down on all the resemblances and characters, who have barely any business being in the film, other than replacing an old character from OT or being a female version of this and that.£