NOTE: I'll warn you ahead of time this post was a LOT longer than I intended it to be. I guess I had the energy tonight, unlike last time.
So be warned, GIANT WALL OF TEXT INCOMING.
DeadPoolX wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:26 pm
And that's fine if they can present their argument in a sensible way. Unfortunately, very few of them can. When someone argues from a standpoint of anger, their argument — even if it's a good one — is tossed aside because they outwardly appear irrational.
Which is a shame. I think even a good portion of that vicious vocal minority of detractors probably are just really upset because the progression of these characters doesn't make logical sense to them (this is how I feel), but lash out because they don't know how to explain themselves properly. I've learned that when I can't explain myself I just take a breath and sleep on it or don't bother explaining at all. Not everyone (especially younger people) can resist that knee-jerk reaction to say
something, though. I tend to be more compassionate because I can understand where some of them are coming from.
The ones that are straight up evil and spout venom just to hurt as much as possible can go fly a kite, though.
I speak from experience. Although I still have a temper (and likely always will), when I was younger I was far more prone to getting angry over... well, pretty much anything that displeased me in the slightest.
I think everyone's been there at one point in their life or another. Some "evolve" out of it sooner than others.
From the comments made by the vocal minority, I get the sense that they're in their mid-to-late 20s at most and probably grew up watching the prequels. This probably accounts for the sudden glut of "positive comments about Episodes 1, 2, and 3" where before it was almost a joke or meme about how awful they were.
Indeed. The prequel love is staggeringly high these days.
I've also noticed that, by and large, older fans (as in those who grew up with the original trilogy and are, in fact, chronologically older) really didn't have much of an issue with TLJ. Sure, there were aspects some or even many disliked (including myself), but it wasn't enough to ruin our enjoyment or spur us on to create diatribes on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
That is not universal. I know plenty of older fans who can't stand ANY of the new Disney Star Wars movies OR the prequels. It's not a predictable thing. I enjoyed TFA but I knew that it was a bit on the weaker side of a start for the new episodes. I just expected them to get better....they did not. At this point I'm not sure if I'll go see Ep9 or not. At this moment, I'm just wholly uninterested in almost anything Star Wars just because of TLJ. It totally killed my resurgence of excitement I felt when TFA and Rogue One came out. I was starting to buy the Blurays, the soundtracks, I even was into buying lightsaber replicas and custom ones (I even built my own from scratch!). All of that just died very quickly.
I'd argue against the idea that the majority of fans disliked TLJ (or at least disliked it enough for it to negatively affect their overall enjoyment from the movie).
When I say "majority" I don't mean that a majority of people who watched TLJ didn't like it. In fact, I'd say TLJ is split directly down the middle quite evenly between people who loved it and people who thought it was a disaster. What I meant was the majority of the people on the half who have negative feelings about TLJ are fairly reasonable, but they're also a silent majority. Also, people who aren't even fans jump on that bandwagon to crap all over things for completely different reasons. Where all the animosity comes from is the feeling of unfairness they feel when the other side wrongly generalizes all the negative fans as being as toxic as the minority and the vocal portion of the people who aren't even Star Wars fans. We hate those people too.
My biggest problem with TLJ (and I have many smaller ones) is the total annihilation of Luke's character. I'm getting rather tired and annoyed with this tendency in modern storytelling to write heroes with incredibly large flaws that they don't overcome (and before I go further, yes I understand that Star Wars was basically the story of Darth Vader, the actual hero, who completed a giant redemption arc. But Luke
wasn't that character and his own "redemption arc" in TLJ was not satisfying in the least in any way shape or form). Yeah, it was neat the first few times for something different but now that's all there is. People say "well, it's unrealistic for someone to be ultimately perfect because nobody can relate to it" and to that I say....this is Star Wars. What about it is realistic? But I understand the meaning. The undercurrent archetypes in a story (even in a fantasy or sci-fi setting) can still be "true" as humanity has tendencies that people can relate to even subconsciously through a fictional story. The best stories tap into this emotional undercurrent living inside everyone and causes people to relate to it. This is first and foremost why Star Wars was successful in the first place, even besides the amazing effects and groundbreaking cinematography. It was a classic hero's journey story. As old as time. Ironically, this is exactly why I haven't been too drawn towards the stories of Rey, Poe, or Finn (though Finn is the most interesting, I'd say). I just don't buy their stories. Especially Rey, who basically has no obstacles to overcome and can already do everything right from the get-go. What's different about her from the beginning of TFA to the end of TLJ so far? Very little. She knows what the Force is now and knows how to use it (somehow). Even though she always knew it was there and always used it somehow. Someone just said "yeah, that's the Force" and she's like "oh" and proceeds to excel at basically everything without any training (and no, none of what she got in TLJ was training, just a bunch of jaded and cynical "lessons" about how much the Jedi suck).
Anyway, back to Luke. Why can't we have heroes again that ARE ultimately good? What's wrong with having heroes we can aspire to be. There's still a legitimate need and hunger in everyone to better themselves to perfection. And following an example of goodness is not something that's unrealistic or wrong. Luke is a super hero who had his origin story told. Luke already overcame all his obstacles and passed all those tests of evil temptations in the original trilogy. And then was commissioned by Yoda to "pass on what you have learned." Everything pointed to a future that he was going to be the one to bring a rebirth to the Jedi. He was a true Jedi. He didn't require any more training. He had everything he needed......and then he threw it all away by some crazy freak mistake and rash action to want to seriously consider and almost go through with killing his own nephew? THAT'S realistic?? Ok, let's just say it is realistic. Fine. I don't care. Luke would never do that. He was the perfect image of a Jedi. And this is where Mark is spot on. He was a character that needed to remain true to good and the "light side". Again, I don't see anything wrong with having a "super hero" (they're super for a reason) that can maintain their moral and ethical standing. No way in a million years would he have even thought about lifting a finger to attack Ben. No freaking way. I don't buy it.
That moment right there, and the subsequent demolition of Luke's character into a cowardly old fool hiding away from all his problems like a baby, is why people can't accept almost anything in the movie. There are other problems unrelated to that that seem just as unrealistic and shoddy writing to me, but Luke is the biggest one. And it hurts the most because Luke has always been my favourite character and my personal hero in that regard of maintaining his beliefs in what's good no matter what happens. No, you can't know everything, but there's a roadmap that's existed throughout all of time for everyone to follow to be a good person. Sure, it's possible for people to make mistakes and it happens all the time and it crumbles empires and dynasties and causes monumental chaos and destruction. But that shouldn't have been the kind of story Star Wars ever should have told. I just fundamentally disagree with the entire mindset and approach. "It's not realistic" you can say. Sure it is. It's not impossible to not make mistakes. And Luke should have remained the character that everyone aspired to be. Because of this I think it's incredibly lazy writing on Rian's part to transform Luke into this twisted false shadow of himself. Mark even said "maybe it's not Luke at all and it's his evil twin brother Jake Skywalker". I'd love to believe that.
Star Wars was a certain kind of story, and now it's a wholly different kind of story simply because of this one change. And I can't accept it. I won't. But I also just cannot. My mind won't let me accept it as a logical outcome. I can't attach myself to it. I already tried. I wanted to love the movie and admire it for being something different for once. I don't have anything wrong with it being different, but the direction it chose was simply the wrong one. And this is why I and many other people say "not my Star Wars."
I'm being kind of melodramatic about a movies series, I realize that. But I also believe stories are important to a society and popular culture is popular for a reason. It does have an immense effect. But BECAUSE this is "only a movie" I have the capacity to simply walk away from it. If this is how they're going to portray Star Wars, I don't have to have anything to do with it. They don't need my money or my attention. Have at it. But Star Wars has been ruined for me and a great many others and I hope I've related somehow how that makes sense in a sensible way and not a venomous outrage way. The stories are just entirely uninteresting to me now. And it's irreparable because Rian ensured nothing could retcon or remove everything he did. There's no recovery from this. TLJ has fractured the Star Wars fandom (far worse than the prequels ever could have) and it will probably never recover unless they someday write off the sequel trilogy out of existence in canon as if it never happened. It's actually impressive how Disney, Kathleen, and Rian have so effectively...so EFFECTIVELY...took a money-making franchise and totally ran it into the ground. Yes yes, like I said before it's only have the fandom, but half of an enormous fandom like Star Wars is bigger than most fandoms. Star Wars is/was one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) franchises of all time.
Ok ok ok ok I've gotta stop rambling now. This is very personal for me, though. Very sore spot. Good thing I'm primarily a Trekkie.
Although, modern Trek isn't doing so well anymore either really.....
Just give us back meta-heroes that aren't afraid to be written as true heroes and can be something we can aspire to again. I don't want to see a redemption arc anymore. Or worse yet, a falling arc. At least for a while. They're getting freaking old. It's not even cool anymore. It's just lazy and a cash-in because everyone's doing it.
Tawmis wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:48 pm
I also think - after Return of the Jedi, there was a BUNCH - and I mean A BUNCH of books that came out that were considered "cannon" - until Disney took over and said, "Those books take place in an alternate Universe" (affectionately?) now called the "EU" (Extended Universe).
No, they've never been canon. George Lucas would sometimes absorb some of the elements from the EU (it was always called the Expanded Universe since before the Disney buyout) and bring it into canon. Like Coruscant being the Imperial City and the original capitol of the Republic. That was an EU name and location and he took it. Along with a few other things. But he always picked and chose. Everything otherwise was just meant to be enjoyed as an interesting "what if" because George Lucas wasn't explaining it himself. Same thing as all the Star Trek novels out there. None of them are "canon".
Maybe because I used to read comics the idea of multiple universes doesn't bother me, nor does the erasing of one continuity in favor of another. Comics have been doing this for years and I just grew accustomed to it.
I was ok with it as well when I heard it. So many people just wanted Disney to make the Thrawn trilogy as episodes 7, 8, and 9. Not only was that unrealistic (because that trilogy took place 10 years after ROTJ I believe and this was like 30 years), but I can understand the desire to tell a fresh new story that nobody knows anything about. Nobody wants a mere adaptation. Some people think they do, but they don't. So I understood this.
However....
Even so, Disney hasn't said that new books and comics can't be made. The Expanded Universe (which is now called "Legends") can still have new additions, it just won't be considered canonical or at least, part of the film-based timeline. I think this was a better compromise than outright destroying the Expanded Universe because it allows fans to continue with that particular timeline.
...this is untrue. "Legends" (formerly known as the "Expanded Universe", but no longer) has been retired permanently. There will be no more stories written in that "timeline". All forms of fiction be it video games, novels, TV shows, or comic books will ALL be under the umbrella of canon now and as such will be vetted, curated, and guided by the Star Wars Story Group to ensure that everything is cohesive, doesn't contradict, and makes sense with itself. Sometimes I wish they
would allow new Legends stories to be written. I don't see why that would be a problem. But it's not ever happening. Perhaps they feel it would be too confusing? Either way Legends is dead, pure and simple.
Well, almost. We still have The Old Republic MMO which isn't canon and isn't being shut down anytime soon. But that's it.
They had some good moments when they tried to stick to the book, whether that book be "The Hobbit" or "The Silmarillion". But when they deviate from those two books, they fail, and fail dramatically. 
It makes sense, because the dwarfs - and Bilbo - want to keep their escape a secret.