Star Wars Rewatch

[pukunui]

I listened to the audiobook version of this quite recently (after watching this video) and yes, it definitely does a good job of enhancing the story, especially the inevitability of the tragedy and Anakin's relationship with Obi-wan.

In contrast, RA Salvatore’s novelisation of AotC is even worse than the movie – for one thing, it includes a deleted scene from the movie that is redundant with another scene that did get included. It makes no sense to include both scenes. (It’s been a long time since I read it so I don’t remember the scenes in question.)

 

[Pale Violet Light]

The prequels are terrible movies but are a coherent whole and more-or-less make sense lore wise. Im happy with them existing as long as I never have to watch them again. The sequels are better movies (RoS if only because it’s fully so-bad-it’s-good) but don’t stick together as a whole and do some real dumb things with the lore. In both cases I think the movies need to stand on their own - the Prequels being “fixed” by Clone Wars is a massive cop-out, and any similar move with the sequels would be the same.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

the Prequels being “fixed” by Clone Wars is a massive cop-out, and any similar move with the sequels would be the same.

Whilst I definitely agree that it is a massive cop-out, it was a highly effective cop-out in terms of revising opinion, and as such, I think they should probably look at doing the same with the sequels. I note the upcoming Starfighter movie is set post-sequels (5 years after TRoS according to the official website), which is probably the way to do it - just set stuff after them.

 

[Belen]

Whilst I definitely agree that it is a massive cop-out, it was a highly effective cop-out in terms of revising opinion, and as such, I think they should probably look at doing the same with the sequels. I note the upcoming Starfighter movie is set post-sequels (5 years after TRoS according to the official website), which is probably the way to do it - just set stuff after them.

They should set it a 100+ years later and ignore the sequels.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They should set it a 100+ years later and ignore the sequels.

I mean, that's fine as a personal opinion, but I'm talking from a "success of the setting/brand/IP" perspective, rather than a "lol [insert thing] sux haha" kind of one.

It doesn't make sense to make a massive time-jump when there's absolutely nothing about the sequels and their ending which would require that. If they'd ended with the galaxy either being made perfect and safe for at least decades with President-for-life Rey, or civilization across much of the galaxy being basically destroyed or something, that'd make sense/be needed. As is, very little was locked down by TRoS (one of the few positive aspects of the movie). The returned Palpatine and his hard-to-explain fleet were destroyed, and the First Order scattered or destroyed (like the Empire before them). Almost everything else is up in the air.

Developing a new aesthetic, new ships, and a new history and so on for 100 years on is going to be a lot more time-consuming and expensive than just going 5 years, where modern X-Wings could still plausibly be in service and so on. Going 100 years also means you're taking a big risk, because if you deviate too far design-wise the audience could be put off by that. And whatever you might think, there are probably a lot of younger people out there who actually like some/all of the sequel characters, so there's potential for re-using them.

 

[Belen]

I mean, that's fine as a personal opinion, but I'm talking from a "success of the setting/brand/IP" perspective, rather than a "lol [insert thing] sux haha" kind of one.

They need to get away from any timeline surrounding any of the movies.

The sequel characters are not that compelling and they run the risk of keeping the current divide and angst if they make films close to the time period.

They need room to be creative and tell new stories without the baggage.

They should have done it in the first place.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They need to get away from any timeline surrounding any of the movies.

The sequel characters are not that compelling and they run the risk of keeping the current divide and angst if they make films close to the time period.

They need room to be creative and tell new stories without the baggage.

They should have done it in the first place.

5 years and being about different stuff is plenty of that.

 

[MarkB]

I mean, that's fine as a personal opinion, but I'm talking from a "success of the setting/brand/IP" perspective, rather than a "lol [insert thing] sux haha" kind of one.

It doesn't make sense to make a massive time-jump when there's absolutely nothing about the sequels and their ending which would require that. If they'd ended with the galaxy either being made perfect and safe for at least decades with President-for-life Rey, or civilization across much of the galaxy being basically destroyed or something, that'd make sense/be needed. As is, very little was locked down by TRoS (one of the few positive aspects of the movie). The returned Palpatine and his hard-to-explain fleet were destroyed, and the First Order scattered or destroyed (like the Empire before them). Almost everything else is up in the air.

That's not really a good thing, though. Having nothing concrete to build upon means there's not a lot to tie into, so why not add a significant time skip which can be backfilled with some actual world building?

Developing a new aesthetic, new ships, and a new history and so on for 100 years on is going to be a lot more time-consuming and expensive than just going 5 years, where modern X-Wings could still plausibly be in service and so on. Going 100 years also means you're taking a big risk, because if you deviate too far design-wise the audience could be put off by that. And whatever you might think, there are probably a lot of younger people out there who actually like some/all of the sequel characters, so there's potential for re-using them.

In-universe, Star Wars' aesthetic hasn't changed in over 5,000 years. No need for it to do so in another hundred.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Having nothing concrete to build upon means there's not a lot to tie into, so why not add a significant time skip which can be backfilled with some actual world building?

Because you don't need a "significant time skip" for worldbuilding? Just look at 1939 to 1945, for god's sake. Or 1963 to 1969.

In-universe, Star Wars' aesthetic hasn't changed in over 5,000 years. No need for it to do so in another hundred.

It has though - the High Republic aesthetic is different to the 100 years later prequels, for example. And the problem is, directors often want to do this sort of thing, even if it doesn't make sense.

 

[MarkB]

Because you don't need a "significant time skip" for worldbuilding?

Yeah, but in this instance it's a feature - gain some distance from the trash fire.

It has though - the High Republic aesthetic is different to the 100 years later prequels, for example. And the problem is, directors often want to do this sort of thing, even if it doesn't make sense.

Slightly chonkier lightsabers, maybe. Not much else. And it was you suggesting the need for a change of aesthetic, so why does it now not make sense?