Why I don't like Disneys Star Wars films.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Wyzilla**

Totalwar1402 wrote:
Its pretty straightforward.

Putting aside the Expanded Universe, which George Lucas repeatedly said wasn't canon, the ending of Star Wars Return of the Jedi is extremely clear cut. The only two sith in the galaxy are dead. The Empire, we can see has been overthrown as our heroes celebrate and we even see the crowds of cheering people on the streets of Coruscant. However, Disney is making it very clear that not only is this not the case, but, in 30 years the rebel alliance has completely failed to achieve any kind of gains. It has not retaken Coruscant, it has not formed the New Republic and apparently is actually staring defeat in the face from whats been gleaned so far.

Firstly, its a clear and shameless retcon of the ending of a great trilogy to milk it and make more films. It also shatters my suspension of disbelief since a war lasting thirty years is just dumb

Secondly, even the expanded universe makes it clear that after five years that the rebels have most of the galaxy and formed the New Republic on Coruscant. They WON the Galactic Civil War and the remaining Imperial Remnants though they repeatedly constitute a mortal threat to the nascent New Republic the power balance definitely shifts. Remember, the rebels ultimate goal is to restore the Republic and Jedi Order; they would not want to remain perpetually as rebels because they see the Empire as illegitimate. And it after just 20 years, the Imperial Remnant is basically contained to a small part of the now Republic held galaxy.

Finally, it indicates that Disney is absolutely obsessed with making these films as much like the original trilogy as possible. Same cast, same setting, everything. They do not want to try anything new and this is a bad thing for any film franchise to do. If even a mild thing like, progressing the plot after the defeat of the Emperor is so unthinkable to them because then we wouldn't have BIG scary empire versus rebels. Even though games and stories like Knights and The Old Republic have shown that you can tell an excellent Star Wars tale without being totally hidebound to the setup of the original film. In TOR both factions are well matched in power for example as they 're locked in a mortal struggle of light versus darkness.

Unless you have a child's understanding of how oppressive reigemes' work, simply killing the president doesn't cause an Empire, certainly not one that spans most of the galaxy, to collapse. The Emperor is dead, Darth Vader is dead, and the Death Star II is destroyed. All that means is somebody else steps in and takes Palpatine's place and resumes the war against the Rebel Alliance. And of course the Rebel Alliance is not going to make major gains. It's a galactic Civil War. This is going to be a bloody, gruesome conflict cutting across the entire galaxy, and even in ROTJ the Rebellion is absolutely dwarfed by the size of the Empire and its logistical train.

So it's not Disney's fault that they don't live in a delusional world where killing the big bad wins the day. It's yours for having such thoughts in the first place. The GCW was never and never did end overnight. Just as it was in the EU, it's going to be a long, drawn out engagement as the Rebels take small bites out of the Galactic Empire.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

It's true that when Caesar defeated Pompey, the Roman civil war did not end. Caesar still had to campaign in Egypt, North Africa, and Spain, before he won the day.

And I agree with the point that Palpatine's and Vader's death does not signify the collapse of the empire. Some systems will fight on, some will join the rebels, and others will revert back to their pre-Republic days of being independent.

The vacuum will be filled.

But on the other hand, totalitarian regimes tend to die quickly when their time is up. East Germany disappeared quickly, the Soviet Union not far behind.

Also, success breeds success. More systems, logically, would join the rebels as they're the side making the gains, and would thus, shorten the war.

**Grey Templar**

Shorten the war, yes. But short is relative. When you are involving a galaxy with millions of planets that could still lead to a war lasting hundreds or thousands of years.

**Manchu**

About how long did the Clone Wars last?

Sweeping galaxy-wide change in SW can be pretty quick.

**Wyzilla**

Manchu wrote:
About how long did the Clone Wars last?

Sweeping galaxy-wide change in SW can be pretty quick.

Except the Clone Wars was a gag war orchestrated by Palpatine while he fed both sides information. The Clone Wars wasn't even so much of a war as it was a puppet show.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Grey Templar wrote:
Shorten the war, yes. But short is relative. When you are involving a galaxy with millions of planets that could still lead to a war lasting hundreds or thousands of years.

Rebels don't need to capture all of the galaxy. They could simply declare the Republic in the systems they hold, and encourage other systems to join them or capture more.

For example, Britain controlled big chunks of the USA during the revolution, but that never stopped John Adams and Benjamin Franklin declaring independence.

**Manchu**

Even so it was the means by which Palpatine radically changed the galactic government.

**Wyzilla**

Manchu wrote:
Even so it was the means by which Palpatine radically changed the galactic government.

Which is pretty easy when you can leak information to both factions of where their leaders are. Like Palpatine informing Anakin that some nonexistent Clone spies discovered Grievous on Utapau. We can't be sure if any campaigns were natural occurrences or Palpatine stringing both the Republic and CIS along.

**Manchu**

The question is, about how long does it take to complete change the way the galaxy is governed. The canonical answer is, from about the end of Episode I to the beginning of Episode IV. What is that, forty some years?

And keep in mind, the Empire is the exception not the rule. The Republic stood for a long, long time. The Empire could easily be an anomaly in terms of how the galactic politics "naturally" function.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Manchu wrote:
The question is, about how long does it take to complete change the way the galaxy is governed. The canonical answer is, from about the end of Episode I to the beginning of Episode IV. What is that, forty some years?

And keep in mind, the Empire is the exception not the rule. The Republic stood for a long, long time. The Empire could easily be an anomaly in terms of how the galactic politics "naturally" function.

Change can happen quickly, though.

Another historical example. Look at the stalemate of World War one, then compare it to how quickly it ended when the British started mass deploying tanks.

In Star Wars, you have the Death Star, which was a war winning weapon until the rebels blew it up. Maybe the rebels have a similar weapon?

**Manchu**

The Death Star did not really change much about how quickly the Republic transformed into the Empire, however, except that it provided the basis for the Tarkin Doctrine and the final vestige of the Republic (the Imperial Senate finally being swept away).

**Iron_Captain**

Manchu wrote:
It has a lot to with expectations. Pop culture in the US at the time was just entering the darker, character-arc-driven phase we take for granted today, which was totally suitable for the story of how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. Instead, we got a little kid seemingly made from cardboard and an amphibioid Bugs Bunny.

And how is that worse than the Ewoks?

**Manchu**

Don't get me wrong, the Ewoks were just terrible.

Jar Jar is worse because the expectations for Episode I were even higher than the expectations for RotJ. Oh and RotJ is overall a much better film than Phantom Menace, even considering the Ewoks. Jar Jar became kind of the mascot for everything that was wrong with Episode I, which is pretty much everything.

**Co'tor Shas**

Personally, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, I enjoyed the prequels. Although I was quite young when I watched them (I was like 10-12 or so) so that might have something to do with it. I'll have to watch them all, see how they stand up after 10 years.

**Crazy_Carnifex**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, I enjoyed the prequels. Although I was quite young when I watched them (I was like 10-12 or so) so that might have something to do with it. I'll have to watch them all, see how they stand up after 10 years.

My advice? Hold onto the good memories, and don't watch them.

**stanman**

Because of his speech patterns and continual slap stick routines Jar Jar comes off as a minstrel show type character. He appeals to little kids as they don't make the connection but he pissed off a lot of adults that found him ranging from annoying, to outright insulting as some people feel he's virtually wearing blackface.

**Paradigm**

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, I enjoyed the prequels. Although I was quite young when I watched them (I was like 10-12 or so) so that might have something to do with it. I'll have to watch them all, see how they stand up after 10 years.

My advice? Hold onto the good memories, and don't watch them.

I'm in a similar camp to Co'tor here; I grew up with the prequels and while they were new and I was younger, they were anazing. The release of a new Star Wars film was the highlight of the year, watching the movies was an event rather than just a film, and I spent uncountable hours playing/reading/watching anything Star Wars I could get my hands on. I owe those films, or at least, the films my younger self thought he was watching, so much of my childhood that it's hard to dismiss them so entirely. If it weren't for the effect those films has on me, I wouldn't be this excited for VII, I probably would never have got into Star Trek, Dr Who, Firefly or 40k, and I certainly wouldn't be the person I am today without Star Wars, prequels and all.

And that, I think, is why I have such high hopes for The Force Awakens. Everything we've seen so far looks like it will be the Star Wars I always thought I was watching, with the brilliance and fun of the OT combined with the undoubtedly fantastic visuals of the prequels. I genuinely won't be surprised if, come December, I have a new favourite Star Wars film...

**Wyzilla**

Manchu wrote:
Don't get me wrong, the Ewoks were just terrible.

Jar Jar is worse because the expectations for Episode I were even higher than the expectations for RotJ. Oh and RotJ is overall a much better film than Phantom Menace, even considering the Ewoks. Jar Jar became kind of the mascot for everything that was wrong with Episode I, which is pretty much everything.

Episode I's horrible-ness is largely overblown compared to Episode II. Or at least compared to the dialogue, specifically the romance dialogue. I hate romantic movies, yet even I know those lines were absolute gak. Every time I watch Episode II, I always end up asking the unfortunate person watching it with me (dog, human, insect, etc) who the hell talks like that?

**Vaktathi**

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, I enjoyed the prequels. Although I was quite young when I watched them (I was like 10-12 or so) so that might have something to do with it. I'll have to watch them all, see how they stand up after 10 years.

My advice? Hold onto the good memories, and don't watch them.

I made the mistake of rewatching all the star wars films last year, and they were not as great as I'd remembered them being. I can forgive the original trilogy much however, and it still stands far better than the prequels, which managed to be even worse than I remembered.

It doesn't help that the CG has not aged well...at all.

**Jimsolo**

I plan on enjoying the new movies. I'll keep in mind that they are, and always were, childrens' movies. I will suspend my disbelief enough to cover minor plot holes, especially given that I am already accepting magic and ludicrous science as fact.

I am excited about the rise of new Sith, especially since the eternal and continued resurrection of the Sith is inevitable, given what we know of the Force.

I will not let the lens of nostalgia compel me to elevate the old films to an undeserved pedestal, and will not compare the new films to them.

It seems like there's a lot of enjoyment to be had with the new trilogy, and I for one am super-excited.

**Crazy_Carnifex**

Vaktathi wrote:
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, I enjoyed the prequels. Although I was quite young when I watched them (I was like 10-12 or so) so that might have something to do with it. I'll have to watch them all, see how they stand up after 10 years.

My advice? Hold onto the good memories, and don't watch them.
I made the mistake of rewatching all the star wars films last year, and they were not as great as I'd remembered them being. I can forgive the original trilogy much however, and it still stands far better than the prequels, which managed to be even worse than I remembered.

It doesn't help that the CG has not aged well...at all.

Yeah, same. I find that the big difference between the two is just how re-watchable they are. The originals are fun, light-hearted action movies, without any flaws big enough to overwhelm that (although I will admit that the pretty visuals are probably the only "strong" point). In contrast, the prequels have some obvious flaws, and the visuals have aged poorly.

**Vermis**

Personally, I think we'll see the Empire was immediately handed to Palpatine's chubby, moon-faced, cheese-scarfing son, who was kept a secret from the galaxy and only revealed on his father's death. Emperor Palpat-un.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

And I agree with the point that Palpatine's and Vader's death does not signify the collapse of the empire. Some systems will fight on, some will join the rebels, and others will revert back to their pre-Republic days of being independent.

The vacuum will be filled.

But on the other hand, totalitarian regimes tend to die quickly when their time is up. East Germany disappeared quickly, the Soviet Union not far behind.

Also, success breeds success. More systems, logically, would join the rebels as they're the side making the gains, and would thus, shorten the war.

One could also use Iraq and ISIS/ISIL as an example. you have a "totalitarian" power in place, some "rebels" (who, in this case happen to be more powerful than the Emperor) knocks him out leaving a power vacuum which will be filled... Now, the "rebels" are looking at a faction that is far worse than the one they just deposed.

**Manchu**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Now, the "rebels" are looking at a faction that is far worse than the one they just deposed.

That is a really good idea. The Empire was terrible but also fairly ineffective and predictable. The First Order, however, are ultra-violent and basically insane. That could really work.

**Grey Templar**

Manchu wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Now, the "rebels" are looking at a faction that is far worse than the one they just deposed.
That is a really good idea. The Empire was terrible but also fairly ineffective and predictable. The First Order, however, are ultra-violent and basically insane. That could really work.

Indeed.

Sure, the Emperor was bad but at least he kept some decent order. His fanatical underlings who took over don't have his restraint or vision.

**Manchu**

Flame Troopers would fit into that concept.

**Grey Templar**

Wasn't there one of the classes in Battlefront which had flamethrowers? Or was it only Boba Fett?

**Wyzilla**

Grey Templar wrote:
Wasn't there one of the classes in Battlefront which had flamethrowers? Or was it only Boba Fett?

You're thinking of the Force Unleashed and Clone Wars.

**Grey Templar**

Wyzilla wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Wasn't there one of the classes in Battlefront which had flamethrowers? Or was it only Boba Fett?

You're thinking of the Force Unleashed and Clone Wars.

No, definitely Battlefront.

**Wyzilla**

Grey Templar wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Wasn't there one of the classes in Battlefront which had flamethrowers? Or was it only Boba Fett?

You're thinking of the Force Unleashed and Clone Wars.

No, definitely Battlefront.

There weren't any in Battlefront. Bothan Spies had a reskinned flamer, but it was a "disintegrator" and vaporized people.