Useful Searches

Notification emails are working properly again.  Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam".  This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam. 

That was one of Lucas' original theme interests philosophically. 
Actually, THE main theme Lucas has said that he wrote Star Wars around to explore was to examine the question: are we able to break free from our inherited cycles, or are we doomed to repeat them - to be trapped in the same events over and over with only slight differences in the nuance, but the core direction coming out the same? 

This is one reason he designed the chiasmus ("poetic") narrative structure. 

What so many call "rehashing" is fully intentional and vital to the core ontological exploration of the Star Wars saga, for how do you explore that theme mythically without refraining the same events and tones? 

IX will answer the question. 
Are we stuck, or can we break free? 

Cheers,
Jayson

Click to expand...

I have totally respect for opinion on this and how you arrived at that line of thinking but I just feel you are intellectualising something that isn't there.  Any cyclical nature of the story in the ST I feel is a result of marketing and a desire from Disney to make the movies an easy sell. 

I have totally respect for opinion on this and how you arrived at that line of thinking but I just feel you are intellectualising something that isn't there.  Any cyclical nature of the story in the ST I feel is a result of marketing and a desire from Disney to make the movies an easy sell. 

Click to expand...

Oh it's there, and quite on purpose. 

If someone doesn't care, that's fine by me, but yeah it's absolutely there in spades as it has been in every Star Wars from the beginning. 

I'd have sympathy for this claim if ROTJ wasn't almost a 1:1 copy, invert, paste of ANH. 

And the second half of ESB is quite literally the first half of the film flipped, almost shot for shot in some parts. 

So I'm not going to really care about copy/paste mud slinging.  So what? 
All three Back to the Future films are essentially copy/paste-a-thons.  And they're good films. 
It doesn't matter if it is or isn't copy/paste. 
It matters if it recontextualizes the meaning and moves it forward. 

If it doesn't work for you.  Cool. 
If it does.  Right on. 

The ST has moved it forward in a meaningful recontextualization so it's good for me. 

That's how it's always been, and that's what it will do at least through 9. 

I'd have sympathy for this claim if ROTJ wasn't almost a 1:1 copy, invert, paste of ANH. 

And the second half of ESB is quite literally the first half of the film flipped, almost shot for shot in some parts. 

So I'm not going to really care about copy/paste mud slinging.  So what? 
All three Back to the Future films are essentially copy/paste-a-thons.  And they're good films. 
It doesn't matter if it is or isn't copy/paste. 
It matters if it recontextualizes the meaning and moves it forward. 

If it doesn't work for you.  Cool. 
If it does.  Right on. 

The ST has moved it forward in a meaningful recontextualization so it's good for me. 

That's how it's always been, and that's what it will do at least through 9. 

I'd have sympathy for this claim if ROTJ wasn't almost a 1:1 copy, invert, paste of ANH. 

And the second half of ESB is quite literally the first half of the film flipped, almost shot for shot in some parts. 

So I'm not going to really care about copy/paste mud slinging.  So what? 
All three Back to the Future films are essentially copy/paste-a-thons.  And they're good films. 
It doesn't matter if it is or isn't copy/paste. 
It matters if it recontextualizes the meaning and moves it forward. 

If it doesn't work for you.  Cool. 
If it does.  Right on. 

The ST has moved it forward in a meaningful recontextualization so it's good for me. 

That's how it's always been, and that's what it will do at least through 9. 

Cheers,
Jayson

Click to expand...

The primary difference is that unlike the ST, both Empire and Jedi did enough different things on their own to distinguish themselves from ANH.  Seriously, actually compare ROTJ and ANH for a moment:

Did ANH start out with a large sub-plot about rescuing a captured ally?  No.  Were they rescuing that ally from the clutches of an Empire-like faction?  No.  Was Luke a wide-eyed learner eager to pursue a life outside of his boring one?  No.  Did the protagonists and the antagonists spend ROTJ racing after the same McGuffin like in ANH?  No.  Was the family drama anywhere near as prominent in ANH like it is in ROTJ?  No.  And that’s to say nothing of the mountain of aesthetic disparity between the two, like the wealth of new aliens and new ships introduced.  You can easily spot vague plot patterns if you squint, but ROTJ and ANH, even in premise, aren’t the same film at all.  ROTJ does enough to distinguish itself from ANH so that it will never be a copy-and-paste job.  You’ll have a hard time convincing anyone that ROTJ rips off ANH anywhere near to the level of that TFA does.  How do I know that?  Well, how many reviews at the time of ROTJ’s release were pointing out how aggressively similar it was to ANH....what’s that, none?  And how many reviewers and critics for TFA back in 2015 have brought up the blatant, uncanny recycling of elements from ANH?  Oh...what’s that, ALL of them? 

So either the entire world is wrong and they just didn’t see ROTJ for the woefully uncreative copy-paste job that it truly is...or, it’s possible ROTJ didn’t ape ANH and did enough original things to set itself apart as its own film.  I think the latter is infinitely more likely. 

As for the comparison to the Back To The Future films, I think the false equivalency almost screams for itself.  Star Wars films are telling a completely different kind of story, in a wildly different format.  Back To The Future is about time-traveling, literally watching the same characters, events, gags, and interactions play out in different situations...we literally see characters do the same thing, utter the same lines, fall into the same traps, or get into the same shenanigans in either the 50’s, the future, or in the Old West.  We see the same actors play young, old, or ancestral versions of the same characters.  It might as well be one long “what-if” scenario involving all of the same characters and scenes.  This is literally what the plot, tone, and humor of Back To The Future is built around, the fabric of its storytelling is BUILT upon this premise.  The characters almost yuck it up to the audience itself to a meta-level about seeing the same characters or events play out in a different setting, literally shoving the dramatic irony of repeating things as something funny or charming.  It wasn’t done out of creative bankruptcy or a lack of planning, it’s the chief narrative component of the films.  Do you honestly think ANH was essentially re-shot as TFA, with new actors and special effects, because of the same creative reasons as Back To The Future?  Of course not.  Kathleen Kennedy, J.J. Abrams and the rest of Lucasfilm have bragged exhaustively about how this new trilogy is “going to new places in the mythos” and “stands as its own incredible story”....they’re not selling their product as a repeating Back To The Future gag-gimmick whatsoever.  They spend all their interviews talking up the expansive new ground covered by the films, and even turned around the fact that they had no plan past TFA as some kind of reason to be excited, because the plot could literally “go anywhere.”  Whether you will admit it or not, these films aren’t trying to be tongue-in cheek, referential homages like Back To The Future.  They’re trying to tell their own story...they aren’t succeeding, but they’re certainly trying.  And what’s more, what is with this idea that: “Oh, this storytelling method worked for Back To The Future, and that was good, so implementing it to Star Wars will also make THAT good!”  Not all storytelling styles translate well to all formats.  This is like if I tried to say that since the James Bond films, which primarily function as standalone films, find success by essentially recycling the same tropes and situations...so clearly, implementing that same storytelling method to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy would be fine.  No world-building, no character development, no expansive ever-changing plot to what came before...just “recycle the same scenarios for the characters and have no plot progression or unique elements at all.  It worked for Bond, it’ll work for LOTR.”  Now, you might claim that I’m being too extreme with my example, that no one is clamoring for something as incompatible as epic fantasy odyssey adopting the standalone Bond method.  But understand that when you wave away the lack of creativity in the ST as just fine since “Back To The Future does something similar and still works”, you are essentially doing the same thing.  The Star Wars Saga, by nature, doesn’t lend itself to being the subject of the Back To The Future, Bond, or even MCU methods of storytelling: it’s an action serial.  The films are literally big budget episodes of a serialized TV show like Flash Gordon.  And serialized TV series of that kind aren’t standalone stories or ones that fall victim to exhaustively recycled plot threads or elements...they have continuity, evolving storylines, drama in the uncertainty of what happens next.  This is the entire reason there’s a Text Crawl in the beginning of both Flash Gordon and Star Wars: to keep audiences informed on the positions of the characters, the progress in the story, or the shift in the setting.  You think that if Star Wars was meant to be some recycle-fest like Bond or a goofy retread-shenanigans of Back To The Future, any of that constant reference to story and events would be necessary?  If the story isn’t going anywhere new, and is just recycling past elements in a desperate attempt to hide the lack of creativity on the writers’ parts, then it’s already failed to live up to the storytelling format this series has been embedded in since the beginning. 

Because when you’re watching a serial or TV episodes that aren’t covering any new ground, and you can already guess how the story’s going to play out because of how much it’s mimicking previous episodes, you’ve lost the tension, you’ve lost the drama, you’ve lost the creativity, and most importantly, you’ve abandoned the genre trappings that were the most crucial basis for Star Wars even existing in the first place. 

And this is driven home even harder by Lucas openly decrying TFA’s derivative nature by labeling it a “retro-movie”, because that’s precisely what it is. 

It doesn’t feel like a new episode.  It feels like a re-run.  And if you like that, fine—but I honestly view the lack of creativity and unique elements as the antithesis to everything Star Wars is.  And I refuse to lower my standards enough to give it a free pass, because if Disney and LFL think they can get away with regurgitating entire plot threads from previous movies, they’re just going to keep doing it. 

Enabling mediocrity is precisely how it continues.  And I’ll have no part in supporting it. 

The ST isn’t rhyming with lines from the OT—it’s copy and pasting everything.  The setting is the exact same.  The conflict is the exact same.  The aesthetic is the exact same.  The scenarios are the exact same.  Even the characters are servicing similar roles to the likes of Luke, Vader and Palpatine, placed in almost the exact same scenarios to communicate the same themes.  The new films don’t do nearly enough to distinguish themselves from the OT, so when it recreates scenes or tension from the OT, it isn’t rhyming...it’s replicating it exactly.  It’s no longer rhyming when you’re literally lifting an entire stanza with the same wording, rhythm and symmetry as before, any more than it’s ‘citing’ to copy-paste an entire article from Wikipedia to your school essay. 

Click to expand...

Whoa. 

Your entire post is extremely negative... not to mention most of it is incredibly wrong! 

I must admit, I am totally shocked by what you wrote, simply due to how incorrect it actually is!  It really seems like your anger and hatred is clouding your judgement... leading to false, narrow-minded conclusions on this matter.  It's like you only see what you want to see, and are blind to everything else. 

For having used it so much, you apparently do not know the meaning of the phrase 'exact same'.  I have my own issues with the sequel trilogy, especially with TFA, but them being the exact same as any of the previous Star Wars films is definitely not one of them!  Know why?  Because they are NOT exactly the same.  To be exactly the same, they would have to be identical in every way... just like a clone.  Which is certainly not the case.  Neither of the ST movies are clones, or exactly the same as any other movie. 

If anything, the ST films are remixes, not clones or exact copies. 

Also, you used the term 'Copy & Paste' incorrectly as well.  It makes me seriously wonder if you've ever actually copied and pasted anything before! 

I mean, this basically comes down to taste. 
You didn't like the films.  I'm not going to argue you into liking them, so I don't really see much point here. 

But just as a quick run-down, and then I'll pretty much drop it because I know full well that you're really not actually going to change your mind on this because you emotionally dislike ST and that's fine by me man...anyway...here we go. 

Did ANH start out with a large sub-plot about rescuing a captured ally?  No. 

Click to expand...

Yes.  One took longer, but both literally set out to free a captive ally. 
And they were both inverted. 
In the first one, they fly off of Tatooine to make the rescue, in the ROTJ they go to Tatooine to make the rescue. 
In ANH Ben is beckoned with a holographic message asking for his help. 
In ROTJ, Jabba is compelled by a holographic message of Luke requesting Han's release. 
In both cases, the droids are gifted and used as the message carriers. 

Were they rescuing that ally from the clutches of an Empire-like faction?  No. 

Click to expand...

Yes.  In the ANH, all of the villainy was refined and filled with class, while in ROTJ, it was flipped but the same net effect at those moments was taking place. 
The villains were mutilated and disgusting instead of refined and classy as in ANH. 

As I said, copied, INVERTED, and then pasted. 

So, to keep on this tangent a bit. 
Leia in the first one has freedom of her own body, and dignity, but is caged in a prison. 
In ROTJ, she is not housed in a cage, but she is chained about her body and her dignity is stripped. 

As such, the villain that is holding the allies captive is no longer going to be the Empire, but instead will be a disgusting and disfigured example of social debatury. 

You see this in the ST as well; this inversion. 
The Empire was about being separate from nature in the original trilogy.  They went as far as to create an artificial planet that was purely synthetic and governed by their rules; not that of nature. 

In the Prequels (because the prequels are about the Jedi's mistakes), the Jedi have praised nature so much and wanted to preserve it so much that they have smothered it and removed themselves from it by accident - quite literally existing in a glass tower far removed from nature on a planet that has been absolutely overtaken by city life; ironic then that this is the planet that holds all life and nature to be the most sacred. 

In the ST, the First Order flips both together.  Here the FO twists nature to make it bad.  They harness nature, bend it to their will and make it produce a vial output. 
They don't build a synthetic planet, nor cover a planet in attempts to preserve anything.  They bore straight down into it so to twist the very heart of the planet into being a violent weapon by passing a star's, (sun), energy, which is the very life giving force of any planet, through the heart of the planet, concentrating it, and firing it off into space. 

I imagine that you probably don't care about any of this, and that's fine.  But it is there and it is damn impressive to me. 
If it's not to you; cool.  Again, I have absolutely no interest in convincing someone that a film is good or bad. 
That's taste.  You do you, bud. 

But let's keep going through your list here. 

Was Luke a wide-eyed learner eager to pursue a life outside of his boring one?  No. 

Click to expand...

No, and how would that fit the copy/INVERT/paste. 

It's not inversion if Luke is still a eager, ignorant, and helpless whiny kid. 
So of course, right out of the gate he comes out doing what he was absolutely incapable of in ANH. 
Which is exactly fitting. 

In ST, Rey isn't incapable.  They reversed it. 
The ST runs on basically, Copy/REVERSE/paste (except 9...9 doesn't have anything remaining because 8 wrapped up all of the chiasmus tethers). 

So anyway, Rey comes out wide-eyed, in the sense of ignorant, but she's not naive like Luke was, nor is she helpless. 
Luke couldn't fight very well and it took a while for him to get up to speed.  Rey was self-reliant right off. 

That's a full reverse of character role, as it should be for this Saga. 

Did the protagonists and the antagonists spend ROTJ racing after the same McGuffin like in ANH?  No. 

Click to expand...

No clue what you mean, but I'm sure it means something to you. 

Was the family drama anywhere near as prominent in ANH like it is in ROTJ?  No. 

Click to expand...

That's an arc, and of course that grows over the series. 
And the ST does that quite well, equally. 

Well, let me put it more correctly.  It does just as well for me. 
Obviously you think otherwise, and that's cool man.  You do you. 

You can easily spot vague plot patterns if you squint, but ROTJ and ANH, even in premise, aren’t the same film at all. 

Click to expand...

Really? 
Because you're talking about a film the critics noted back in the day for being effectively a copy of ANH. 

“John Williams’ music consists almost entirely of themes and variations on themes he composed for the two earlier movies.  This, unfortunately, will be a complaint that many people will make against ‘Return of the Jedi’.  They will feel that they have seen and heard it all before.” -  Scott Cain at The Atlanta Constitution

“His “The Empire Strikes Back” of three years later was the expected sequel, of comparable technical efficiency but no longer seeming so original; and it is with some alarm that I read now that Return of the Jedi, which completes the trilogy, by no means brings the series to an end.  For in the new film the former flair and invention are lacking, making the prospect of the two more trilogies planned on the same lines very daunting." -  Pat Gibbs at The Telegraph​

There were several such criticisms at the time.  All admitted it was a success, and that it would make buckets of money, but several claimed it was just a washed out ANH with more special effects thrown around.  Some even praised it FOR copying itself, thinking that it was a way to play it safe. 

“Lucas’ apparent reluctance to take any big chances with the scenario in “Jedi,” which shies away from the darker, tangled implications of the unanswered questions in “Empire,” is easy to comprehend.  He’s so protective of the public attachment to his dream world that he resists taking many fresh risks or unfamiliar paths." -  Gary Arnold at The Washington Post​

ROTJ does enough to distinguish itself from ANH so that it will never be a copy-and-paste job.  You’ll have a hard time convincing anyone that ROTJ rips off ANH anywhere near to the level of that TFA does. 

Click to expand...

I don't have to convince anyone.  I'm not on a campaign. 
If you don't see it this way, right on. 

As I've shown above, there are more than myself who see this (heck there's an entire website dedicated to this called starwarsringtheory.com). 

Anywhoo...you're too excitable to talk to I think for me. 
You seem to go way too emotional and aggressive. 
I'm very much not in that ball park. 

If you don't like it, cool. 
I offer my views, those who like them do what they want with them, and those who don't, ignore them and move on with their own vision of Star Wars. 

It's a really fun Star Wars, I will note, if you actually dig into the chiasmus stuff and allow for copy/pasting as a proper form that Lucas built and employed, but meh...if you don't see it that way and see the ST as some vial follow-up, cool. 

‘Star Wars’ was the result of George Lucas’s contemporary reimagining of ‘Flash Gordon’. ‘ The Force Awakens’ was the result of JJ’s contemporary reimagining of . . . ‘ Star Wars’.  It’s the same story, just viewed through a modern lens.  It functions as a sequel, but it’s effectively a remake.  What it’s saying about society and culture – morality and ethics – is the same message conveyed in basically the same way.  But it’s a worthwhile message to reiterate and bring to a new generation’s attention.  In that way, it’s still very relevant and necessary. 

I personally feel it’s sizably disingenuous to claim the ST is the product of copy/paste alone, but it’s also equally so to claim that emulating the OT wasn’t a clear motivational factor to its inception.  I absolutely believe it was a studio directive to have these new Star Wars movies invoke that era – down to its underline plot.  No one will ever convince me otherwise that the script for TFA didn’t simply start out as ANH and then work forward from there.  I don’t believe for a second that’s the result of creative bankruptcy though, but a business led decision based on product marketability – commoditization versus genuine artistry. 

I think, independent of the larger picture, TFA and TLJ are well made entertaining movies.  I’m personally disappointed with the lack of originality from a greater plot perspective, but taken on their own, decent enjoyable fair.  I agree with @Darth_Nobunaga in that the ‘rhyming’ defense is more closely a justification for recycled elements rather than any sort of deliberate attempt at poetic verse.  Yes, history CAN repeat itself.  Yes, Star Wars DOES “rhyme” on occasion.  But to lean into that as the central crux of a (debatably needed) narrative continuation, was the safest and least inspired strategy that could have been taken with this series – a series famous for taking risks and defying convention. 

I agree with [USER=11658]@Darth_Nobunaga[/USER] in that the ‘rhyming’ defense is more closely a justification for recycled elements rather than any sort of deliberate attempt at poetic verse.  Yes said:
↑

I agree with @Darth_Nobunaga in that the ‘rhyming’ defense is more closely a justification for recycled elements rather than any sort of deliberate attempt at poetic verse.  Yes, history CAN repeat itself.  Yes, Star Wars DOES “rhyme” on occasion.  But to lean into that as the central crux of a (debatably needed) narrative continuation, was the safest and least inspired strategy that could have been taken with this series – a series famous for taking risks and defying convention. 

Click to expand...

I was going to type out longer and more surgical replies to all of the other posts as I do on other threads, but @eeprom pretty much nailed the problem with these new films, and why I find them abhorrent.  I'm someone who really enjoyed Star Wars: Clone Wars and Star Wars: Resistance, shows that told their own unique stories and featured infinitely more unique elements despite being trapped within the confines of an established era----a disadvantage that the ST didn't have when it was being made.  The derivative nature of the ST era is so stifling, with so little in the way of original elements that it's almost unwatchable.  I feel like I'm watching some big-budget version of those straight-to-DVD knock-off films like Transmorphers or Metal Man or Atlantic rim---a cheap cash-in with no story of its own to tell, or mythology of its own to expand upon. 

It just sucks that the mainline films are now the least creative or ambitious part of the Star Wars brand now. 

I've never enjoyed any of that. 
I enjoy the films and I enjoy them as a mythology and I really love their employment of the ancient narrative modes and models (I especially enjoy this aspect due to having a background in studying textual anthropology and exegesis). 

After 9, I pretty much expect to turn off because I'm guessing more of this non-myth-saga stuff will start pumping out. 

Y
I've never enjoyed any of that. 
I enjoy the films and I enjoy them as a mythology and I really love their employment of the ancient narrative modes and models (I especially enjoy this aspect due to having a background in studying textual anthropology and exegesis). 

Click to expand...

It's funny you mention that, because my dad also watches the films exclusively the same as you do, and for the exact same reasons (even got a PhD in theology and myth because of how much he loves the themes of both in Star Wars), and he absolutely hates the new films.  For the same reasons of creatively-bankrupt nostalgia-farming that I dislike them. 

I don't think taking issue with the lack of creativity has anything to do with anyone's intake of film or supplementary material. 

It's funny you mention that, because my dad also watches the films exclusively the same as you do, and for the exact same reasons (even got a PhD in theology and myth because of how much he loves the themes of both in Star Wars), and he absolutely hates the new films.  For the same reasons of creatively-bankrupt nostalgia-farming that I dislike them. 

I don't think taking issue with the lack of creativity has anything to do with anyone's intake of film or supplementary material. 

Click to expand...

No, that wasn't my point. 

I personally love them because I see a wash of beautiful mythological narrative form, and while it is never going to be the same as what Lucas would have done, I find watching the new folks taking their swing at it marvelous and I will have so much to pick through for quite a long time. 

I personally don't feel a lack of creativity. 
I know others do, and I'm fine with that. 
For me, it's packed full and I'm having a blast with a series that introduced me to both film and anthropological languages. 

I don't pretend to hold any absolute gauge of good or bad films. 
I like what's been done, and I look forward to 9. 

I fully expect to lose interest after that, but, who knows...maybe I will be surprised. 

What I more meant was that I have never personally liked the other material much, and a big attraction for me of the main saga as it is, for me, is because of how I see the films. 

Each person wears their own perspective, so it is different for everyone. 

I'm quite sure more Star Wars will come about at some point that you will enjoy. 
I'm sorry the ST doesn't work for you; I always hope for everyone to enjoy as much of Star Wars as is possible, or to be at least content with what they like and don't. 

I think it's really cool that your Dad was inspired as such by Star Wars.  I always love reading or hearing of those stories. 

Just soaking in this thread....haven't read it for awhile and bad on me because there is some really great stuff in here!  Great discussion, thanks to all....not sure I can add anything of substance to this.  Also great to see people passionately discussing something, disagreeing, and keeping it focused and civil...

When George Lucas set out to create a ‘Star Wars 2’, he was so disgruntled about working within the stifling studio system at that point that he tried to finance the picture himself with a personal bank loan.  He used his own newly acquired wealth from the successes of Star Wars and American Graffiti as collateral to do it.  If ESB had tanked at the box office, then he would have been ruined.  He’d be back to borrowing cash from daddy and working director-for-hire gigs, living in debt for the rest of his life.  But that incredible risk was worth it for him in order to fund his ambitions of a creator’s utopia: Skywalker Ranch. 

No one in cinematic history had more of an excuse to play it safe at that time - with so much to gain and so much to lose.  No one would have been more justified in succumbing to the lure of sequel-itis - the same, but bigger and louder.  Lucas could have easily followed the ‘if it ain’t broke, why fix it’ mentality of rehashing a working formula and giving the audience what was familiar in order to hedge his massive bet.  But that’s not what he did.  He intentionally set out to make his sequel as new and exciting as the original was - to continue his story in an unexpected direction instead of what was predictable. 

That’s the core of my disappointment with this new era of Star Wars.  In its infancy, when the stakes were ‘success or death’, a fledgling Lucasfilm ran AWAY from the habitual.  After its Disney acquisition though, when the stakes were ‘success or moderate success’, this fortified Lucasfilm ran TOWARD it.  To be clear: I don’t dislike the movies themselves.  I’d never refer to them as “abhorrent”.  I’m just underwhelmed with where they are with respect to what I believe they could have been.  They just haven’t lived up to their potential in my eyes. 

But, honestly, so what?  My philosophy is that I already have an embarrassment of riches with the OT.  Three fantastic movies that I genuinely love and cherish and have brought me incalculable amounts of joy.  Anything I get beyond that is pure bonus for me.  I don’t think any of it has been ‘great’ so far, but I’ve already had great.  Maybe that’ll change in the future with new material being produced with new voices for as long as the brand continues to be profitable.  Maybe it won’t.  Either way, I’m content