Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JBFancourt

Please, Help With Episode II (Ramblings... Just Finished II)

Recommended Posts

Okay, I’m an “old school” Star Wars fan. I’m only mid 30s but all of my formative Star Wars years were spent watching originals and reading Zahn, Stackpole, etc... Classic “Empire Strikes back DA BEST MOVIE EVER” sorta guy.

Not surprisingly my favorite factions to play are the Core 3 (mainly Imps, ya know, cuz obvious reasons). 

I know nothing of the new EU, was mainly confused/disappointed with the new movies and have only watched prequels 1-2 times. Very little cartoon exposure and zilch on new written material.  Not meaning to spark any discussion here...

Actually, X-Wing and Mandalorian is basically my only remaining contact to a great fantasy setting... I thought I’d dust off the prequels with my chilly’s and they liked them. Goofy characters are kinda their thing right now.

SOOOOO

1) WHAT is out of balance with the force???

2) WHAT prophecy???

3) WAS the force brought in balance by Luke or Vader???

4) Who made the clone armies and all their ships??? (Do we see arc 170s on screen?)

5) Was Annie immaculately conceived? I’ve heard midi chlorines are just kinda ignored.

6) is balance preferable to good guys being in charge???

7) is there anything that connects prequels and 7-9? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1) The Dark Side resist and manipulates the Force for selfish means. This causes imbalance.

2) The Prophecy of the Chosen One, discussed in The Phantom Menace.

3) Vader, as he tossed Palps down the pit.

4) We see ARC-170s in Episode 3. They were made by Incom, and payed for the Republic. The original Grand Army of the Republic armaments were made by Rothana Heavy Engineering, and commissioned and payed for by Palps and Dooku.

5) Ehhhhhh. Maybe. Or maybe it was Palps, using space magic. Or maybe it was Plageuis, using space magic.

6) Balance means the good guys being in charge. It means no bad guys anymore.

7) Not really? Not really at all, no. Unless I'm forgetting something.

Also, welcome back! I hope you enjoy the rest of the prequels! Revenge of the Sith is a legitimately brilliant movie. And Rogue One and Solo are both worth the watch, if you haven't seen them yet. As is the Clone Wars TV show.

Edited by Kreen
A word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kreen said:

7) Not really? Not really at all, no. Unless I'm forgetting something.

Noooo. No. Nonono. This answer is not accurate.

The prequel and sequel portions of the Skywalker Saga have plenty of detractors, but it’s inaccurate to say that there isn’t connectivity throughout. Especially given some reveals in 9. One could say these are retcons, but now that it’s all said and done, 1-9 are the canon, and there are definite through-lines.

44 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

7) is there anything that connects prequels and 7-9? 

I would say the broadest thematic similarity between the two trilogies is the presence of tragedy. The classic trilogy is fundamentally one of plucky young heroes triumphing over evil; the setbacks they encounter are of a different nature than classically-understood tragedy. Whereas the prequels show the fall of a civilization (and its paragons) due to hubris, and the sequels show the tragic aftermath of our classic-trilogy heroes assuming that mere pluck and heroism are sufficient to secure a lasting peace.

29 minutes ago, Kreen said:

Revenge of the Sith is a legitimately brilliant movie. And Rogue One and Solo are both worth the watch, if you haven't seen them yet

I will vouch for this 100%. IMO, Revenge if the Sith is the prequel that stands best alongside the original trilogy; Rogue One is the fulfillment of a “mature” Star Wars movie that older fans seem to pine for; and Solo is an absolute diamond in the rough that was dragged down primarily by fan fatigue toward too many Star Wars movies releasing too quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CoffeeMinion said:

Noooo. No. Nonono. This answer is not accurate.

The prequel and sequel portions of the Skywalker Saga have plenty of detractors, but it’s inaccurate to say that there isn’t connectivity throughout. Especially given some reveals in 9. One could say these are retcons, but now that it’s all said and done, 1-9 are the canon, and there are definite through-lines.

I have to strongly disagree with this, there is very little that even holds the sequel trilogy together, there is no continuity other than they were made by Lucasfilm and star the same actors thru all three movies. Where as at the moment you are correct, they are canon, but  if the rumors are correct they will not be canon for too much longer. The sequels were a fragmented mess that suffered from many, many issues, but the biggest one was the fact that there was no clear storyline set from the beginning.  Just because Indiana Jones can make it up as he goes along does not mean you can make a sequel trilogy using that concept for one of the most beloved sagas in movie history and expect the outcome to be anything other than a cluster**** in the end. I’m not trying to be hard to get along with here, but when any single movie doesn’t make sense from beginning to end and you take one director who disregards all that was set up by the first director, then bring back the first director for the third installment who disregards all that was set up in the second movie how can you expect it to turn out any other way. All this said without even considering all the things that make no sense when compared to existing concepts from the earlier movies. The prequels May have been bad movies, but at least they tell a cohesive and coherent story. They suffer from poor dialogue writing and directing more than anything else but the story was solid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, CoffeeMinion said:

Noooo. No. Nonono. This answer is not accurate.

The prequel and sequel portions of the Skywalker Saga have plenty of detractors, but it’s inaccurate to say that there isn’t connectivity throughout. Especially given some reveals in 9. One could say these are retcons, but now that it’s all said and done, 1-9 are the canon, and there are definite through-lines.

I would say the broadest thematic similarity between the two trilogies is the presence of tragedy. The classic trilogy is fundamentally one of plucky young heroes triumphing over evil; the setbacks they encounter are of a different nature than classically-understood tragedy. Whereas the prequels show the fall of a civilization (and its paragons) due to hubris, and the sequels show the tragic aftermath of our classic-trilogy heroes assuming that mere pluck and heroism are sufficient to secure a lasting peace.

So, stylistically, and thematically, yes, I agree that they have much in common.

However, I was more focused on tangible plot points, which seemed to be where the other questions were aimed. While Episode 9 has some... possibilities? I would say that there are no clean and clear connections between the two trilogies. 7-9 seem closer to 4-6 in their events and arcs, though, yes, tonally, they are very similar to 1-3. Even with the reveals in 9, I wouldn't say that they have a solid connection to 1-3, especially because, at the beginning of the new canon, Disney was trying to forget that the prequel era existed.

That said, I'm not trying to detract from them - they have their own value, and can be fun romps (I'd give each of them at least one go through, though spaced out an appropriate amount to not suffer fatigue).

Edited by Kreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cherry picking my favorite answers. 
 

If you’re interested in the actual prophecy, the newish book “master and apprentice” selves into it some. Which is cool.

 

there are some connections of the whole series. The prequel is summed as the “fall of Anakin” the original trilogy is the “redemption of Anakin” and the last trilogy is (loosely) “the legacy of Anakin”. Though the Disney trilogy is a mess. Granted the prequels were a mess until shows like the clone wars filled in a lot of holes. I have hopes for that in the future. Watch the clones wars tv show. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shenannigan said:

Granted the prequels were a mess until shows like the clone wars filled in a lot of holes. I have hopes for that in the future. Watch the clones wars tv show. 

I still need to dive into the TV shows at some point (other than Mando, which I already know is excellent). I made the mistake of dismissing most of them as “just cartoons” and ended up missing out on a chunk of Star Wars lore that I’m only catching glimpses of in hindsight. Though in fairness, it’s a lot easier to block out some evenings to watch a couple of movies than it is to power through multiple, multiple-season, shows. (Binge watching aside, which Clone Wars... hasn’t quite lent itself to in my experience thus far.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

On the issue of “balance” what is it, when did it occur???

How was there a lack of balance? Who/ when restored it?

Was it Rey and Kylo???

The whole “balance” thing remains one of the more nebulous questions, IMO. It’s also one of the unifying pieces of the prequel and sequel trilogies. I have some thoughts, but they’re not necessarily widely-held or popular.

The surface question is, did Anakin bring balance to the Force as Qui-Gon expected him to? And the surface answer used to be “yes,” by dint of wiping out both the Jedi and Palpatine. I never found that very satisfying, though; a pile of corpses seems like crappy balance—and what of Luke and Leia, who certainly ain’t dead? (Not to mention the reams of other Force-users running around as per the TV shows, video games, etc.) Then of course the notion of balance predicated on everyone being dead goes right out the window anyway given the revelations in 9, so that can’t be it either.

The next big question is, did balance get achieved? I think so, in the end; but first you have to ask the question: what does balance mean? And to get there: what does imbalance mean?

Let’s assume that the Force was indeed imbalanced during all the movies. What this looked like in practice was an ineffective and detached Jedi Order, and a Sith Lord whose ambition and wherewithal were ravenously all-encompassing. That’s not good on either front. Palpatine is super-clearly the bad guy who’ll stop at nothing (and then some) to realize his power-lust, but Anakin’s dialogue in Episode 2 about the impersonality of Jedi love and compassion points at the rickety foundations underpinning the Jedi Order, too. Their traditions have taken them down a path that barely serves themselves, much less the galaxy. We see this reflected in the (presumed) burning of the sacred texts in The Last Jedi, where Yoda more-or-less discounts their value given where they led the Order in the end.

So that covers imbalance. Balance, I think, probably begins to look like the rapaciousness of Palpatine, and the unfeelingness of the Jedi, both being quashed. Both represent strangleholds on what the Force is, or could be, in its interactions with people and the galaxy. Note that body count isn’t part of that picture per se—nobody needs to die to make this happen, but they do need to change, as Luke and Kylo (and to some extent Rey) do in the end. The body count still ends up happening, and is indeed much higher given the sheer number of Sith cultists on Exegol. But the body count isn’t the point—the point is the Force’s liberation from both negative philosophies about it.

So yeah: tl;dr, I think it ended up being balanced in the end, and probably most directly by Rey—though with essential contributions by Luke, Leia, Han, and Kylo. (There’s also a thematic symmetry of everyone being wrong about “The Chosen One” and having that person ultimately spring from the opposite end of the good-bad spectrum, but that takes me out further than I feel is necessary to get my point across.)

 


 

 

...so, uhh, as it turns out, I’m kind of a Star Wars nerd. 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, CoffeeMinion said:

We see this reflected in the (presumed) burning of the sacred texts in The Last Jedi, where Yoda more-or-less discounts their value given where they led the Order in the end.

Those texts are seen in the Falcon at the end of that movie. Rey snatched them before leaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smikies02 said:

Those texts are seen in the Falcon at the end of that movie. Rey snatched them before leaving.

And that is why I said presumed. 😛 Rey continues using them for her purposes, and Yoda probably knows they aren’t really in there—but Luke doesn’t know. To him, it’s the end of the line for the old Jedi tradition. And it’s after that point that he’s finally ready to lay it all on the line again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Kreen said:

...Revenge of the Sith is a legitimately brilliant movie...

I’m sorry. I just... what? “Legitimately brilliant movies” don’t contain absolutely nonsensical, non-sequitur dialogues at their climaxes. Seriously, most of the dialogue is... weak, to say the least, but if you actually watch Obi-Wan and Anakin arguing on Mustafar, the things they say to each other barely make any sense. It’s like they’re having an argument, but aren’t even listening to each other’s lines. And then there’s this gem of a logical contradiction, spoken aloud by one of the wisest Jedi ever to live (who presumably had taken some Jedi Academy courses on logic and rhetoric; he was, after all, The Negotiator, according to the stupid Clone Wars cartoon)...

“Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.”
-Obi-Wan Kenobi

First of all, this statement is, on the face of it, completely false. LOTS of people, good and bad, who are not Sith, speak in absolutes. Second, this statement is ITSELF an absolute. Ergo, Obi-Wan is (by his own logic) a Sith. Either that, or he’s an idiot.

The main question is: How the **** did this stupidity make it past editing? The answer? George Lucas did not make a “legitimately brilliant movie.” And nobody on his set felt empowered to tell him he was writing anything less.

RotS is, at best, kind of ok. It’s probably better than the absolute embarrassment that was Episode II. It’s arguably a little more exciting than Episode I (which probably would have been pretty good, if Jar Jar Binks had been scrubbed from the film).

As for the whole “Prophecy of Bringing Balance to the Force,” everyone assumes that just because the Great Jedi had a ******* Prophecy, it was correct. But they miss the central message of The Last Jedi (which Luke tried to impart to Rey): The Jedi Were Wrong. About lots of things. The “Chosen One,” and the “Balance...” these simply didn’t exist, at least not as the Jedi expected them to. For all we know, they were Sith lies, fed to the Jedi in the hopes that they would one day pin too much on one powerful Force-sensitive whom the Sith could then corrupt. Which they did, with Vader (and the destruction of the Jedi Order) as the result.

In the end, make what you will of the prequel films, but... garbage in, garbage out. They don’t make a lot of sense, and they never really will.

The sequels? All around, they’re pretty great. I think the people who dislike them are mostly having nostalgia problems (my first movie theatre experience, at age three, was The Empire Strikes Back, so I get it). But I like the sequels, because I demanded nothing of them, and put forth no insistence that they conform to my imagination, and I like that they defied whatever expectations I DID have.

There are two perfect Star Wars films: ESB, and Rogue One. Everything else ranges from “really, really good” to “total schlock.”

 

Edited by Cpt ObVus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I’m sorry. I just... what? “Legitimately brilliant movies” don’t contain absolutely nonsensical, non-sequitur dialogues at their climaxes. Seriously, most of the dialogue is... weak, to say the least, but if you actually watch Obi-Wan and Anakin arguing on Mustafar, the things they say to each other barely make any sense. It’s like they’re having an argument, but aren’t even listening to each other’s lines. And then there’s this gem of a logical contradiction, spoken aloud by one of the wisest Jedi ever to live (who presumably had taken some Jedi Academy courses on logic and rhetoric; he was, after all, The Negotiator, according to the stupid Clone Wars cartoon)...

“Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.”
-Obi-Wan Kenobi

First of all, this statement is, on the face of it, completely false. LOTS of people, good and bad, who are not Sith, speak in absolutes. Second, this statement is ITSELF an absolute. Ergo, Obi-Wan is (by his own logic) a Sith. Either that, or he’s an idiot.

The main question is: How the **** did this stupidity make it past editing? The answer? George Lucas did not make a “legitimately brilliant movie.” And nobody on his set felt empowered to tell him he was writing anything less.

RotS is, at best, kind of ok. It’s probably better than the absolute embarrassment that was Episode II. It’s arguably a little more exciting than Episode I (which probably would have been pretty good, if Jar Jar Binks had been scrubbed from the film).

As for the whole “Prophecy of Bringing Balance to the Force,” everyone assumes that just because the Great Jedi had a ******* Prophecy, it was correct. But they miss the central message of The Last Jedi (which Luke tried to impart to Rey): The Jedi Were Wrong. About lots of things. The “Chosen One,” and the “Balance...” these simply didn’t exist, at least not as the Jedi expected them to. For all we know, they were Sith lies, fed to the Jedi in the hopes that they would one day pin too much on one powerful Force-sensitive whom the Sith could then corrupt. Which they did, with Vader (and the destruction of the Jedi Order) as the result.

In the end, make what you will of the prequel films, but... garbage in, garbage out. They don’t make a lot of sense, and they never really will.

The sequels? All around, they’re pretty great. I think the people who dislike them are mostly having nostalgia problems (my first movie theatre experience, at age three, was The Empire Strikes Back, so I get it). But I like the sequels, because I demanded nothing of them, and put forth no insistence that they conform to my imagination, and I like that they defied whatever expectations I DID have.

There are two perfect Star Wars films: ESB, and Rogue One. Everything else ranges from “really, really good” to “total schlock.”

 

I agree with you on ROTS, I have no idea why recently people have started to claim this is a good film when it is clearly not. I could go on and on about the flaws in ROTS but to me the most egregious scene is when Anakin tells Windu that Palps is the Sith Lord and Mace exclaims "a Sith Lord?" in what might be the worst reading and delivery of a line in Samuel L Jackson's entire career. 

I can't agree about Rogue One though, I think that film is massively overrated. The acting is not great (apart from the robot), some of the scenes are laughable (Baze calling Jyn "little sister" is unintentionally hilarious) and the "Vader yeets rebels for fun scene" is the most out of place scene in all 11 films. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

.... God, why am I doing this, it definitely isn't going to end well...

AotC's plotting is absolute garbage and it's not suprising you have questions. There are questions about the film I still don't understand

11 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

1) WHAT is out of balance with the force???

This varies depending on who you ask.

Even within LFL. This concept was so poorly defined and fleshed out in the films that there is a serious case of 'depending on the writer' at work here and you'll get different interpretations even across currently canon books, films and shows. 

The apparent intention, and my interpretation of the answer, based around comments George made at the time (potentially later contradicted because who knows what goes on in his head) is that you have 'The Force' (represented by the Living and the Cosmic Force for.... some reason) and 'The Dark Side of the Force'.

The Dark Side is the imbalance. It's like a tumour upsetting the biochemical balance of a body. The Force is life - created by it and linking all of it, including the cycle of renewal involving death ('natural' death, anyway). The Dark Side is destructive and malevolent and harms life. So the presence of the Sith, in particular Palpatine and the growth of the Dark Side is the imbalance.

This is definitely the view the Jedi hold too. It's why sometimes they refer to the prophecy of the Chosen One being about bringing balance to the Force, and sometimes they outright state 'destroy the Sith' ("It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them" etc).

A lot of people who seem willing to ascribe to the prequels a level of depth I don't believe is in any way warranted think that the Jedi are supposed to be incredibly flawed and wrong about most of what they do. They don't see them as standard good guys in a fantasy film, and believe that the Jedi interpretation of this prophecy as 'destroying the Sith' is another sign of hubris and arrogance and that we're supposed to realise they're wrong, and really it foretold their own end as well. Like I said, I think that gives George's writing too much credit. I think he probably intended Obi-Wan at the very, very least to be 'right'. That said, Yoda does acknowledge that the prophecy may have been misread in RotS so who knows? I think it's another example of George being an ideas machine who needed an editor and as a result pumped a bunch of confusing, conflicting **** into his films. You might disagree. 

 

Now, there's another argument to it. One that is probably simpler to a lot of people. This idea of a 'Light Side' (a phrase never once said in a George Lucas produced SW movie) being the opposite side of the same coin as the Dark Side, and both of them being equal 'halves' of the Force as a whole. 

The argument here is that 'balance' refers to literal balance between these two halves, like balancing a see-saw. 

This has echoes of Taoism, which is often cited as inspiration for the Jedi beliefs and is therefore cited as evidence for this interpretation. Though, IMO, this only applies if one doesn't fully understand the stated intentions of Taoism being inner balance.

 

There is contextual evidence for this being the 'correct' interpretation, though. Most notably in things like the Mortis arc of the Clone Wars, which has anthropomorphic representations of the Dark Side and the 'Light Side' and heavily implies that balance between the two is 'right'. So did George go back on his original ideas for the Force? Is this more representative of Dave Filoni's ideas? Given he now basically has the keys to the franchise, this take probably isn't going to go away any time soon, and Mortis keeps getting referenced so.....?

 

That's a whole lot of waffle to essentially say "your guess is literally as good as anyone's, including the people now running the franchise".

 

11 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

2) WHAT prophecy???

 

Again, it's ill defined and poorly explained. 

It's mentioned in TPM. Qui-Gon says he believes Anakin was 'conceived by midichlorians', which is enough to prompt Mace Windu to ask if he's referring to the prophecy of the one who will bring balance to the Force.

That's basically all we're given. We're not told who prophesied it, or when. We're not told the exact wording of the prophecy. Just that it apparently mentions bringing balance to the Force, and conception via midichlorians (probably couched in more flowery language like "born of the Force" or something). Some of the Jedi also refer to destroying the Sith as part of the prophecy, but as I said above presumably that's interpretation and not literal. Again, who knows?

That's all that's said in the films, and that's enough for me to stop there.

But even if we were to look at expanded material, which shouldn't be necessary, there's not a lot there. Especially in canon. Legends did have the text of the Prophecy written down somwhere, but I think that was only as of the Legacy era so I don't know how much weight to put behind it. I think any time it was mentioned, it was always with caveats like 'this might just be the Jedi's interpretation of it' etc. 

The only other thing we know is that the Mortis beings were aware of it. For whatever that's worth.

 

11 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

3) WAS the force brought in balance by Luke or Vader???

 

That's the million dollar question.

George has, of course, back and forthed over this a couple of times. Is Star Wars the story of Anakin or Luke?

Dave Filoni is expertly coy on the subject too. The last season of Rebels implies Luke is actually the Chosen One, but is that just Obi-Wan being wrong again? Don't know. 

IMO, there's an easy escape clause here: it's Vader either way. Either he did the literal version when he brought about the fall of the Jedi and reduced the galaxy to two Sith and two Jedi, or he did the more philosophical version because he was the one who destroyed the Emperor and, in a sense, himself. And that itself can be interpreted in two ways: did he destroy himself by pickup up Palps, knowing that Palps would kill him in the process; or did he 'destroy the Sith' simply by rejecting his Vader identity and becoming Anakin again? That at least I think is one of the few cool things to come out of this mess. It leaves a lot of the end interpretation up to the viewer. 

The only argument for Luke is that he caused Vader's turn by refusing to kill him and trying everything to redeem him. I can respect that argument, and if you want to believe that then you do you. It's not enough for me though. Especially as the Chosen One prophecy supposedly states the Force birth aspect, and that only applies to Anakin. 

 

Of course, this all ends up being rendered completely irrelevant by TRoS revealing that Palpatine survived anyway. So neither Anakin/Vader or Luke successfully destroyed the Sith or brought balance to the Force no matter what your interpretation of what any of that means. Good job JJ. 

11 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

4) Who made the clone armies and all their ships??? (Do we see arc 170s on screen?)

I'll answer the easy part of this question first. 

Yes, ARC-170s were designed for RotS. They appear prominently in the opening scene of that film. They also appear in the background of some scenes later in RotS. Lastly, they appear in the later seasons of The Clone Wars. The implication is they were designed later in the war.

 

The clones were all grown on Kamino. That.... should have been obvious from AotC, so I'm not sure if I'm missing some nuance to your question. The issue of who ordered them and why is a lot more convoluted. 

The issue of the ships and equipment is not even close to addressed on screen, however. And even supplementary material doesn't do a great job of explaining it. The Acclamator troop transports seen in AotC were designed by Rothana Heavy Engineering, a subsidiary of Kuat Drive Yards who built the ISDs. But where they were built is never explained. Presumably it can't have been at Kuat, because Kuat is a Core World and there's no way a fleet for a galactic scale army could have been built there with no one noticing. So I guess some hidden shipyard somewhere? One has to ask the question of whether it was hidden as well as Kamino (wiped even from the Jedi Archives). Presumably given ships require vast amounts of physical resources, a lot more people must have been aware? 

 

11 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

5) Was Annie immaculately conceived? I’ve heard midi chlorines are just kinda ignored.

 

Yes. 

That's stated pretty concretely by Shmi Skywalker in TPM. "There was no father".

What that actually means is, like everything coming from the mess that is the Prequels, up for debate. Some people (myself included) are convinced it's as simple as Qui-Gon states, and the Force itself acted to create Anakin. Most likely to try and prevent the rise of the Dark Side. Some people think the Force only created Anakin as a sort of unintended reaction to Plageius and Palps trying to create life. Some people think Plageius and/or Palps actually did succeed in creating life, and that Anakin is a direct result of their actions. 

One of the recent comics reveals that Vader himself fears that last one might be true. 

Midichlorians got downplayed a fair bit in AotC, but they come back as being pretty important in RotS. Depending on how you interpret Palpatine's statements there, he either explains they were the means by which the Force created Anakin, the means by which a Sith of sufficient power could potentially create life, the means by which a Sith of sufficient power actually did create life, or it's all bull**** he's making up to entice Anakin. 

They're also super important in one arc of The Clone Wars, where it's explained they are the means by which Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Yoda are able to return after death. Which retroactively makes them important to RotS and the OT.

 

11 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

6) is balance preferable to good guys being in charge???

 

As above, depending on your interpretation those might be the same thing. 

IMO, balance is 'good guys being in charge'.

The arguments against are usually based on the Jedi being a very flawed organisation. IMO, that misses the point. The Jedi =/= 'the Light Side'. They just try and serve it as best as they can. 

The other arguments are more philosophical, and usually revolve around trying to actively reject or destroy personal darknesses being a futile and potentially even self destructive goal. Instead, one should try and embrace but not be consumed by darker elements. This is normally tied with the idea that the Dark Side isn't inherently bad, it's just how it's normally used that's bad. IMO, this doesn't jive with the OT or even the PT, but whatever. 

 

11 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

7) is there anything that connects prequels and 7-9? 

 

This kinda depends what specifically you mean.

In terms of story beats... not really, IMO. 

The prequels introduced Palpatine's Sith name - Darth Sidious - and that gets a mention in TLJ. General Hux suggests using a clone army in TFA. I think maybe there's some ship designs from the prequels showing up as part of the fleet in TRoS. 

Other than that, I can't think of any overt references in the sequels to specific things from the prequel films. There's a whole load of backstory connections, like background characters who have been stated in supplementary material to come from a planet introduced in the prequels, etc. Clone Wars era characters have shown up in Sequel era material, like Hondo Ohnaka from The Clone Wars being around in Galaxy's Edge. Nothing obvious in the films themselves, though. 

 

10 hours ago, Vykk Draygo said:

The prequels May have been bad movies, but at least they tell a cohesive and coherent story. They suffer from poor dialogue writing and directing more than anything else but the story was solid. 

They really, really, really don't. 

The plotting of the prequels is an absolute mess. 

 

They were supposed to be the backstory to the OT, to fill you in on all those little details hinted at in the OT. The Clone Wars, Obi-Wan training Anakin, their friendship, Anakin's fall, the rise of the Empire and Vader hunting down the Jedi. 

The fact that Lucas ****ed around for two films and then ended up having to cram almost all of the above into the last film should tell you everything about how 'cohesive' the Prequels are. 

Most of Anakin's training happens off screen. Most of Obi-Wan and Anakin's friendship is off screen - seriously, they barely share any scenes together. Most of the Clone Wars happens off screen. The Jedi are mostly wiped out in a quick montage, and very little of Anakin hunting anyone down is seen. Anakin's fall happens in the span of a few days.

 

Lucas knew that he wanted to show Anakin becoming Vader but clearly had no idea how to actually achieve that. So what we get is a yo-yo mess of a character that plays out like a character in a video game where you randomly flip between evil choices and good choices. It's why you get hamfisted scenes of him slaughtering Tuskens at the midpoint of one film and fretting over the lives of soldiers at the start of the next. It's like playing Paragon Shepard for all of Mass Effect, except randomly deciding to make all Renegade choices on Feros and have him gleefully slaughter the colonists. 

Lucas wanted to keep Vader as a threatening, powerful and morally corrupted villain but also make Anakin a tragic, sympathetic character. It doesn't work. He has to throw every other character under the bus to achieve it. The Jedi have to be these cold, incompetent ***holes so that when Anakin has problems with them we root for him. He made Obi-Wan into a similarly unfeeling idiot so that it's not Anakin's fault he fell.

 

The only thing close to cohesive or solid is Palpatine and his rise to power. The prequels absolutely nailed that plot and I will always give them props for that. Create sympathy then manipulate it to become popular and achieve power. Create a crisis then manipulate it to retain and enhance that power; extend the time frame so that people forget the time when it wasn't you with that power. Control the narrative to make submission and tyranny seem like a victory. It's perfect and it's right out of history. 

3 hours ago, Paulos - Breaker of Worlds said:

I can't agree about Rogue One though, I think that film is massively overrated. The acting is not great (apart from the robot), some of the scenes are laughable (Baze calling Jyn "little sister" is unintentionally hilarious) and the "Vader yeets rebels for fun scene" is the most out of place scene in all 11 films. IMO.

Yep, with you on this.

I love Rogue One to bits but it's a seriously flawed film and far from perfect. 

The middle act is a bit of a drag, and some of the dialogue/character beats are prequel level bad. You're spot on with the 'little sister' thing, that's exactly what I mean. It's so... unearned. Other lowlights are the entirety of Galen Erso's dialogue. Love me some Mads Mikkelson, but you can tell even he's struggling to get anything out of that horrible dialogue. Everything he says to Jyn is so... forced. And the weird emphasis on "it WAS me" to Krennic... (surely "it was ME" is a more natural read of that line?). 

Ditto for Saw Gerrera. Sorry Forrest, but you managed to be too hammy for a friggin Star Wars film.

The 'putting a team together' plot didn't work at all for me. They should have gone with the original pitch of the team already being a Rebel spec forces squad led by Jyn, would have saved so much bad exposition and cringe dialogue. 

Disagree on the Vader scene, I love it as much as all the other fanboys. It's exactly what I always pictured Vader like. I love that it demonstrates why Luke was so important. 

 

If we need a second 'perfect' Star Wars film, then for me it's gotta be ANH.

Really saddens me how little respect it gets these days. IMO it's one of the most perfectly paced films in existence. The thought that people think the second half of the first act/first half of the second is 'slow' is baffling. 

Edited by GuacCousteau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

I’m an “old school” Star Wars fan

I wanted to CC this because you’re starting to see some of the negativity towards more recent SW stuff pile up in here. I think it’s worth calling out the huge range of fan views of anything released post-Return of the Jedi, and acknowledging that a lot of the fandom are only fans of what came before. While there’s a part of me that stands agog at this impossibly bifurcated fandom, I also know there’s not much point in trying to persuade people who’ve dug in with their views. Their space wizards are better than mine and they always will be.

But as you come back to the newer movies, I’d ask you to do it with a view towards your own experience of growing up with the original trilogy, versus the experience of now two subsequent generations of growing up with more than that. Star Wars used to comprise a relatively small set of media, and its story was fairly tight and focused on one aspect of a grander conflict; now there’s lots of rabbit-holes you can go down exploring different character and conflicts. I would argue that Star Wars as a grander setting fundamentally didn’t turn out to be what the initial set of fans wanted it to be—but it did turn out to be a thing that can be studied as itself, and understood in terms of what it is, not just what it could’ve been. That is the Star Wars that generations now and in the future will meet when they discover it, despite its differences from what might’ve been.

I guess really all I’m saying is to give the new stuff half a chance. That, and super-hardcore OT diehards are a dime a dozen; it’s a large and comfortable crowd to run with, but I would argue that there’s a broader and more creatively satisfying outlook to take on the thing as a whole.

But I’m just one guy on the internet who likes lots of space wizards, not just a few. And I’m never gonna convince some people that some of the space wizards they’ve written-off are actually good, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

.... God, why am I doing this, it definitely isn't going to end well...

No, I actually think that ended just fine. I don’t agree with everything you said, particularly as it relates to Rogue One, but it’s clear, at least, that you understand something about film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

On the issue of “balance” what is it, when did it occur???

How was there a lack of balance? Who/ when restored it?

There were hundreds (thousands?) of Jedi.  There were a disproportionately small number of Sith.  Hence the force was "out of balance", with the scales tipped towards the light side.

The Jedi were aware of a "Prophecy of the Chosen One, the one who will bring balance to the Force."  But they misinterpreted it either through hubris or naivety.

Anakin was the Chosen One, and he did bring balance to the Force - when he fell to the Dark Side and helped fulfil Palpatine's designs via Order 66.  It's clearly shown after the battle between Obi Wan and Anakin just how badly the Jedi has misjudged the prophecy.

Vader & Palpatine were left juxtaposed by Obi Wan and Yoda (both surviving in hiding), then by Luke and Yoda.

Edited by FTS Gecko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Anakin was the Chosen One, and he did bring balance to the Force - when he fell to the Dark Side and helped fulfil Palpatine's designs via Order 66.  It's clearly shown after the battle between Obi Wan and Anakin just how badly the Jedi has misjudged the prophecy.

Vader & Palpatine were left juxtaposed by Obi Wan and Yoda (both surviving in hiding), then by Luke and Yoda.

This is the classical interpretation that I’ve always struggled with. And I get it; it makes sense on the surface that two light + two dark = balance. But then you get Order 66 survivors like Ahsoka, Kanan, and Maul—or if that doesn’t trip your trigger, think of Kyle and others from the old EU—who throw off that really clean symmetry by expanding the headcount. IMO it puts the Force into a tiny box to say there are literally only four dudes in the cosmos who can use it, and the sheer fact that Force-sensitivity is cool (and that Star Wars is popular genre fiction) will inevitably draw creators to make that number bigger.

(Not that I need to get into a dust-up here, or prove myself right—I just haven’t had many good opportunities to throw these thoughts into discussion since forming them.) 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

There were hundreds (thousands?) of Jedi.  There were a disproportionately small number of Sith.  Hence the force was "out of balance", with the scales tipped towards the light side.

The Jedi were aware of a "Prophecy of the Chosen One, the one who will bring balance to the Force."  But they misinterpreted it either through hubris or naivety.

As a result, Palapaine brought balance to the Force via Order 66.  Vader & Palpatine were juxtaposed by Obi Wan and Yoda, then Luke and Yoda.

It’s possible this is what is meant by “balance.” It’s what I assumed when I was younger, and was trying to make sense of the prequel films. But these days, I think it’s too prosaic, too on-the-nose. The literal reduction to two people who wield the Force on each “side” of it doesn’t really even imply balance, since Palpatine is clearly much stronger in the Force even than Yoda. As @GuacCousteau pointed out, the whole “Prophecy” thing is very poorly defined; I think everyone has been afraid to touch it, because nobody knows what the **** George was thinking... and it’s possible that even George wasn’t entirely sure, so I sort of feel like we’re free to interpret it for ourselves. 

Here’s what *I* personally choose to think.

Dooku was the Jedi Master of Qui-Gon Jinn. Sidious likely held sway over Dooku, either overtly or covertly, for some time before fully seducing him to the Dark Side. During that time, Sidious may have encouraged Dooku to instill a reverence for the prophecies of kooky old Jedi mystics in Qui-Gon, and a reverence for the “Prophecy of the Chosen One” in particular. Sidious then worked his Sith magic to create life (secrets he gained from Plagueis) within Shmi, using his own powers of foresight to predict that Qui-Gon would some day cross paths with Anakin. I like to believe that Sidious was pulling strings the whole time, even eventually hiring or manipulating Tusken Raiders to kidnap and torture Shmi to death, knowing that it would push Anakin closer to darkness, closer to the edge.

Meanwhile, all of that stuff about “Vergences in the Force” and “midichlorians” can be attributed to Qui-Gon being steeped in ancient Jedi lore, and perhaps a bit too credulous, a bit too ready to believe in fringe Jedi theory. That would explain why Ki-Adi-Mundi seems a bit taken aback when Qui-Gon says he’s detected “a Vergence in the Force.” “A Vergence, you say?” asks Mundi, with arched brows. Much as one modern zoologist might say to another, “a Sasquatch, you say?” Midichlorians, similarly, are only EVER really described to us by Jinn, himself. His student, Obi-Wan, also talks about them, but really only with Qui-Gon. It’s somehow understood that they have tested Yoda’s blood for them as well, but we don’t really have any reason other than the words of one of the most misguided Jedi in the saga to even believe that these midichlorians are important. It’s entirely possible that this is a pseudoscience akin to late nineteenth century phrenology (the practice of psychology and intelligence testing based upon measuring the human skull, which turned out to be horse ****). There may be some loose correlation between midichlorians in the blood and connection to the Force, but are midichlorians a symptom of strength in the Force, or the cause of it? How reliable is Qui-Gon’s science? Does he have samples of Yoda’s blood because there’s a vast database of Jedi blood that he has access to? Or did Yoda roll up his sleeve in order to satisfy his friend’s pseudoscientific curiosity (much as I might consent to having my palm read, or horoscopic chart done by a friend who was interested in the occult)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CoffeeMinion said:

This is the classical interpretation that I’ve always struggled with. And I get it; it makes sense on the surface that two light + two dark = balance. But then you get Order 66 survivors like Ahsoka, Kanan, and Maul—or if that doesn’t trip your trigger, think of Kyle and others from the old EU—who throw off that really clean symmetry by expanding the headcount. IMO it puts the Force into a tiny box to say there are literally only four dudes in the cosmos who can use it, and the sheer fact that Force-sensitivity is cool (and that Star Wars is popular genre fiction) will inevitably draw creators to make that number bigger.

🙂

It's not necessarily 2 vs 2.  Even ignoring the Clone Wars / Rebels (which came much later), there were still other factors there.  (Luke & Leia, though only children, still had force potential).

The base line was that even with the Sith's insidious presence through Palpatine, Dooku, Maul etc, the scales were still tipped heavily in the favour of the Jedi Order.  Anakin's turn and   Order 66 brought the light side and the dark side closer to an equilibrium than it had been in a long, long time.

Even when you start to factor in the Clone Wars / Rebels etc, the "balance" is still closer than it was at the story of Episode One.  Kanan, Ezra, Ahsoka are present, but so are Maul, the Nightsisters, Inquisitors etc.

20 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 7:34 PM, JBFancourt said:

7) is there anything that connects prequels and 7-9? 

Surprised nobody picked up a connection from Ep3 to Ep9. That whole Darth Plagueis speech is the very loose connection to concoct the finale.

Now, not going to rate whether it was a good idea, or even if it was executed as well as order 66, but there we go...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I'll take my hack at this.

On 7/11/2020 at 6:34 PM, JBFancourt said:

1) WHAT is out of balance with the force???

Up for debate, but my interpretation is that wielders of the dark side and light side were incredibly out of proportion: 10,000 Jedi to maybe less than 50 dark siders. Sidious, Maul, Dooku, Savage, and Asajj are all clear dark side practitioners, but the Night Sisters are less clear on whether their magic is truly the dark side of the force.

However after the purge in the Rebels series era, the light side is down to Yoda, Obi, Cal Kestis, Ahsoka, Kanan, and Ezra. The dark side was limited to Palpatine, Vader, the Inquisitors, Maul, and Asajj. So less than twenty each. Much more balanced. I didn't count Luke, Leia, or the Child as they had yet to embrace the force let alone a side by this point.

On 7/11/2020 at 6:34 PM, JBFancourt said:

2) WHAT prophecy???

The Chosen One prophecy is in a holocron in the Jedi temple on Coruscant, but what we know of the prophecy is ambiguous. We only get it second hand, and the only common denominator that everyone states is that the Chosen One will bring balance to the force. Some accounts say that the Chosen One will destroy the Sith, but that is believed to have been a commentary by a Jedi scholar mistaken as part of the prophesy. Both Qui-gon and Dooku studied the prophecy intently, but we only hear their thoughts on the prophecy, no the actual prophecy.

It should be known that prophecy can be wrong, and that is canon. Jedi Sifo Dyas had prophecy that the Republic would fight a civil war which the Republic would eventually win but the Jedi would be in power afterwards. So, prophecies can be wrong, or rather, invalidated if acted upon. So there is reason to believe that prophecy of the Chosen One has not been fulfilled and may never be fulfilled.

On 7/11/2020 at 6:34 PM, JBFancourt said:

3) WAS the force brought in balance by Luke or Vader???

By my interpretation, Vader, and to a certain extent Palpatine, did balance the force by narrowing the force users down, considerably.

On 7/11/2020 at 6:34 PM, JBFancourt said:

4) Who made the clone armies and all their ships??? (Do we see arc 170s on screen?)

So Sifo-Dyas, that Jedi I mentioned that had a vision that the Republic would fight a civil war, sought to create a Republic army to prepare for the war in his vision. He went to Kamino about the time of the conflict on Naboo and commissioned the clone army. When Obi shows up on Kamino, they mistake him for Sifo.

How their ships were funded and built, secretly or otherwise, to be ready for the Battle of Geonosis is unclear and to my knowledge unaddressed. But considering that someone was able to funnel funds to Kamino without anyone noticing for ten years, the Republic was probably corrupt enough to hide the funneling for the ships, too.

ARC-170s are in some shots in episode 3.

On 7/11/2020 at 6:34 PM, JBFancourt said:

5) Was Annie immaculately conceived? I’ve heard midi chlorines are just kinda ignored.

Yes, Ani was immaculately conceived. As much as I dislike that plot point, the Vader comics are now suggesting that Palpatine had Shmi Skywalker artificially impregnated, and I hate that idea so much more. Midiclorians were a poor attempt to science-ify the force for who knows what reason, and they are best ignored.

On 7/11/2020 at 6:34 PM, JBFancourt said:

6) is balance preferable to good guys being in charge???

Probably not. But TRUE balance would likely see someone like Qui-gon championing the force, whereas the Jedi were dogmatic and rigid to a fault. Qui-gon a sort of rogue Jedi in that he saw much of the flaws in the Jedi Order and how they were losing their way. He was what is typically called a "grey" Jedi. True balance would have force users who neither champion the chaos of the dark side nor champion the order of the light side.

On 7/11/2020 at 6:34 PM, JBFancourt said:

7) is there anything that connects prequels and 7-9? 

Pretty much just Palpatine, and something he mentions in episode 3. But nothing I would consider "required reading" as you get about much explanation about what he says in episode 3 and you do in episode 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2020 at 1:18 PM, GuacCousteau said:

.... God, why am I doing this, it definitely isn't going to end well...

It was nearly perfect, I'm thankful that you wrote it.

Nearly because the Vader scene is such a weird thing: rooting for the bad guy on a plot point where we already know he won't succeed is at best odd storytelling :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Nearly because the Vader scene is such a weird thing: rooting for the bad guy on a plot point where we already know he won't succeed is at best odd storytelling :P

I thought it odd that the scene was in there, but there was good that came of it: my friend's comment after watching that part was "I forgot that Vader was a bad guy." In the OT, we never really see him mercilessly kill folks, and even in the prequels, we never really "see" him be bad. All his evil acts are mostly off screen.

I understand that others may not like it, but to me, Rogue One is great. The only thing that I don't like about the film was the Bor Gullet and the 5 second brain damage that it does to Bodhi Rook. I just chalk that up to every Star Wars movie contractually needing a menacing alien creature at some point whether it is necessary to the plot or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...