[Phantom Hoover]

You can't ignore the prequels.

don't tell me what to do!

No, he declared that we don't know how the Jedi Order functions because the prequels suck and are invalid.

The over-monastic dumb jedi are a creation of the prequels.  Since I don't consider the prequels and their related works to be of high enough quality to count as Official Star Wars, we don't actually know how the Jedi Order functioned, since clearly the version we were shown was too dumb to ever function.

Which is just a way to shut down discussion because this way we don't really have enough info to discuss the topic unless we go into Legends (and even then, so much of the Legends EU was built on the prequels).

i agree that turambar's post has successfully shut down the discussion by derailing it into people telling him that the prequels are canon whether he likes it or not (because disney says so)

here's an interesting question: did rian johnson say the prequels were canon in the text of his film STAR WARS: The Last Jedi?

[Aesaar]

RotJ isn't canon because I don't like the ending.  Why doesn't TFA answer the question of how Vader died?  That's a pretty important plot detail to leave out.  Actually, scratch that, TFA isn't canon either because I think it's ****.

[Sushi]

Phasma's not dead, unless they're planning on having that actor only appear in flashbacks in the third movie she's contracted for.

If you're going to bring her back have her in a wheelchair or something. Maybe then we can have some character development.

I actually sort of like Phasma as a sort of recurring joke of a villain. I'm expecting she'll show up in 9, again, and Finn will defeat her, again, with some sort of exasperated "How many times do I have to beat you?" line. Let it be a bit of silly self-awareness and nothing more. Bonus points if she shows up and gets stomped before she can even get a word in edgewise this time.

[Phantom Hoover]

RotJ isn't canon because I don't like the ending.  Why doesn't TFA answer the question of how Vader died?  That's a pretty important plot detail to leave out.  Actually, scratch that, TFA isn't canon either because I think it's ****.

right, exactly: the text consisting of {ANH, TESB, TFA} suggests the inclusion of ROTJ because there's a hole in the narrative where the empire should fall; the text consisting of {ANH, TESB, ROTJ, TLJ} suggests the inclusion of TFA because there's a hole in the narrative where all these new characters were established

the text consisting of {TFA, TLJ} clearly suggests the inclusion of the original trilogy, they're nonsense otherwise; but does it similarly suggest the inclusion of the prequels? are there callbacks in the sequels that require the presence of the prequels for the narrative to make sense? this is, i think, an actually interesting question; because so far from my own recollection the answer is 'not really', that the sequels have almost pointedly avoided this

[Turambar]

The only thing sadder than Luke's career after ROTJ is Aesaar's refusal to let go of the worst of Star Wars.  Each of us is a more definitive source on what makes 'true' Star Wars than Lucas or Disney.  Lucas can't write, as we've found out, and Disney only cares about how to use Star Wars to reliably make money.

I'm not sure I listed my thoughts on TLJ in this thread, actually.

Dissatisfied with Luke's story arc - it's almost like he did nothing important other than setting up his academy and failing with his nephew. 
Dissatisfied with Snoke's story arc - what story arc?  how was he ****ing with luke's academy?
Needed more Admiral and less Mom from Admiral Mom
Didn't like jumping off to Casino Planet in the middle of the low-speed capital ship chase
Didn't like the low speed ship chase, 'they are faster and lighter' in space, but the faster lighter ships never get further away so clearly they are accelerating at the same rate.  Reeks of hiring writers who can't even do science fiction fantasy right.

But overall, it's better than 1,2 or 3. 

[Aesaar]

RotJ isn't canon because I don't like the ending.  Why doesn't TFA answer the question of how Vader died?  That's a pretty important plot detail to leave out.  Actually, scratch that, TFA isn't canon either because I think it's ****.

right, exactly: the text consisting of {ANH, TESB, TFA} suggests the inclusion of ROTJ because there's a hole in the narrative where the empire should fall; the text consisting of {ANH, TESB, ROTJ, TLJ} suggests the inclusion of TFA because there's a hole in the narrative where all these new characters were established

the text consisting of {TFA, TLJ} clearly suggests the inclusion of the original trilogy, they're nonsense otherwise; but does it similarly suggest the inclusion of the prequels? are there callbacks in the sequels that require the presence of the prequels for the narrative to make sense? this is, i think, an actually interesting question; because so far from my own recollection the answer is 'not really', that the sequels have almost pointedly avoided this

Luke talking to Rey about the failings of the Jedi in TLJ definitely implies the Jedi of the prequels.  You can say it doesn't specifically mention the events of the prequels, but you could say that just as easily about RotJ or even ESB.  Something like them happened, but not necessarily the events shown in those movies.

This is an acceptable position, but you can't do it selectively.  If you call the canon-ness of the prequels into question, you must do the same for the OT.

The only thing sadder than Luke's career after ROTJ is Aesaar's refusal to let go of the worst of Star Wars.  Each of us is a more definitive source on what makes 'true' Star Wars than Lucas or Disney.  Lucas can't write, as we've found out, and Disney only cares about how to use Star Wars to reliably make money.

So you're ok with me saying RotJ didn't happen, then?

[Turambar]

You can do whatever you want.  I thought Luke turning Vader away from the dark side while coming so close to the dark side himself was quality stuff for his character, so I'd include it.

[Aesaar]

Such a shame we don't know anything about how the Empire fell.

[Turambar]

If you'd like a detailed account, I recommend the Heir to the Empire trilogy by Timothy Zahn, and the X-Wing series by Michael Stackpole and Aaron Allston.

[Aesaar]

Actually I don't think the Empire collapsed because TFA sucked and didn't happen either, and TLJ doesn't say the Empire isn't still around.

[Turambar]

The Empire was, in fact, still around at the end of my "accepted star wars continuity" which ends at Vision of the Future, but excludes all of the hints at the Vong that are present in the Empire of the Hand stronghold.  I still have to see Episode 9 before I'll judge whether the books or the movies are the real continuation of the Star Wars story.

[Phantom Hoover]

Luke talking to Rey about the failings of the Jedi in TLJ definitely implies the Jedi of the prequels.  You can say it doesn't specifically mention the events of the prequels, but you could say that just as easily about RotJ or even ESB.  Something like them happened, but not necessarily the events shown in those movies.

This is an acceptable position, but you can't do it selectively.  If you call the canon-ness of the prequels into question, you must do the same for the OT.

Right! But I think, basically, that if you look at the text alone that the sequels rest heavily enough on the OT that you're not going to get far trying to interpret "sequels without OT", whereas "sequels without prequels" actually seems entirely coherent to me.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Such a shame we don't know anything about how the Empire fell.

Death star blew up. Emperor & Vader died

[Det. Bullock]

Such a shame we don't know anything about how the Empire fell.

Death star blew up. Emperor & Vader died

Also there are three books about the details.

[karajorma]

Actually, I've come around to liking Revenge of the Sith.  It's very, very flawed, but there's a great story in there, and it manages to be interesting.  I like it a lot more than TFA.  Also, the novelization is very, very good.  I most certainly do not agree the prequels failed to fit the Star Wars universe.

TFA suffers from trying to be too thematically close to ANH. The one thing I'll say for RotS is that at least it is trying to do something new. But better than TFA? No. It's a dreadful film. It only looks okay if you compare it to the other two sequels.

And lol, "your sources are suspect if it doesn't come from the OT".  I'm sorry, what?  It's all Star Wars.  You don't get to decide what is or isn't valid just because you happen to dislike some of it.  That's literally what headcanon is.

I'm not saying I get to decide what is and isn't canon. I'm saying that if there is any kind of conflict between the films, orig trig is correct. The other films were written later, after Star Wars had become the cultural icon it is now, and are supposed to be based on those first three films. So it is perfectly valid to say "I reject your right to retcon the original films."

For instance, Leia says she knew her mother. And yet for some inexplicable reason Padme dies well before Leia should be able to remember anything about her. So I'm perfectly entitled to say that anything you are claiming about Leia's mother based on the prequels is suspect. The prequels ****ed up in a rather major fashion when it came to that issue.

[Aesaar]

TFA suffers from trying to be too thematically close to ANH. The one thing I'll say for RotS is that at least it is trying to do something new. But better than TFA? No. It's a dreadful film. It only looks okay if you compare it to the other two sequels.

Your opinion is noted.  I like RotS more than TFA because I find RotS far more interesting.  I've seen TFA twice and I have absolutely no desire to see it again.

I'm not saying I get to decide what is and isn't canon. I'm saying that if there is any kind of conflict between the films, orig trig is correct. The other films were written later, after Star Wars had become the cultural icon it is now, and are supposed to be based on those first three films. So it is perfectly valid to say "I reject your right to retcon the original films."

For instance, Leia says she knew her mother. And yet for some inexplicable reason Padme dies well before Leia should be able to remember anything about her. So I'm perfectly entitled to say that anything you are claiming about Leia's mother based on the prequels is suspect. The prequels ****ed up in a rather major fashion when it came to that issue.

Maybe Leia isn't remembering Padme, she's remembering Bail Organa's wife.

See, the prequels don't outright retcon very much.  They do make you reconsider assumptions you made watching the OT, but that isn't the same thing.  This whole Jedi thing is the same way: the prequels retcon very little about them, but just watching the OT, you don't assume they were as flawed as the prequels shows them to be.  Very little of what the OT explicitly showed was contradicted by the prequels.  So I say again, the prequels **** with Turambar's headcanon, which is why he'd rather pretend they don't exist. 

[karajorma]

I've seen TFA twice and I have absolutely no desire to see it again.

I'll probably watch TFA again, but it's not a great film. As for the prequels, I never feel the need to watch any of them again.

Maybe Leia isn't remembering Padme, she's remembering Bail Organa's wife.

So now we're changing the whole "Do you remember your mother? Your real mother" speech to be pretty much pointless just to make the prequels work? No. I'm not ****ing doing that. The scene with Leia and Luke had meaning because Luke was asking about his own mother, who he knew took care of Leia. I'm not changing a great scene in a good film just to justify ****ty writing in a bad one. Especially when RotS makes no attempt to clarify the stupid discrepancy they've introduced. What's the point of this change? How does it improve either film in any way to make that speech a mistake?

[Aesaar]

So now we're changing the whole "Do you remember your mother? Your real mother" speech to be pretty much pointless just to make the prequels work? No. I'm not ****ing doing that. The scene with Leia and Luke had meaning because Luke was asking about his own mother, who he knew took care of Leia. I'm not changing a great scene in a good film just to justify ****ty writing in a bad one. Especially when RotS makes no attempt to clarify the stupid discrepancy they've introduced. What's the point of this change? How does it improve either film in any way to make that speech a mistake?

It doesn't.  I don't think it was a good change either, although I wouldn't go so far as to call RotJ a great film.  It's by far the weakest film of the OT.  I don't even agree it's that good a scene, because the whole "btw Leia is Luke's sister" thing is one of the dumbest things about the movie.  That and the teddybears.

The point I'm making is that the assumption that Leia's recollection there is correct and true is exactly that: an assumption.  It's a good assumption, but at no point is it shown or explicitly stated that it's fact.  Childhood memories aren't known to be especially reliable.

Does it make the story better?  No, but it is believable.  If we're ok with ignoring the prequels because they make the Star Wars worse, can I or can I not ignore the bits of RotJ I find idiotic, like Leia being Luke's sister and the army of teddybears?  Because I think those two make Star Wars much worse than "Leia doesn't actually remember Padme" and "it turns out the old Jedi were kinda dumb".

Actually I think that last one is one of the best things the prequels did.  Suddenly Star Wars wasn't as black and white as originally presented in the OT.

As an aside: I think the novelization of RotS is a better story than RotJ.  The RotS novelisation is genuinely good, and it's what convinced me that there was a good story in that movie, under all of Lucas's poor character writing.

[karajorma]

I said RotJ was a good film not a great one.

If some later Star Wars film says that Luke actually died but they just found some other force sensitive kid and pretended he was Luke would that be okay? Even if the film was utter rubbish? We don't actually see Luke grow up and we know that Obi-Wan is more than willing to lie. So that would be okay cause we're just assuming that the kid taken away at the end of RotS and the guy we see in ANH are the same guy, right? Hell, we're assuming that the Luke in Empire and Return is the same Luke despite knowing that the galaxy has pretty good cloning. We can have a later film challenge our assumptions by explaining how Leia killed Luke, blew him out of an airlock but then later felt remorse and had him cloned from his hand on Bespin (which now explains why Maz has his lightsaber).

You can do all that. And it would be ****.


Challenging assumptions is a great idea. Films should totally do it. One reason I love TLJ is it constantly did that. But deliberately introducing plot holes with bad writing isn't the same thing as challenging assumptions. If any Star Wars film did any of the above things, wouldn't you feel justified in saying "Yeah, that didn't happen"?

[Aesaar]

I said RotJ was a good film not a great one.

If some later Star Wars film says that Luke actually died but they just found some other force sensitive kid and pretended he was Luke would that be okay? Even if the film was utter rubbish? We don't actually see Luke grow up and we know that Obi-Wan is more than willing to lie. So that would be okay cause we're just assuming that the kid taken away at the end of RotS and the guy we see in ANH are the same guy, right? Hell, we're assuming that the Luke in Empire and Return is the same Luke despite knowing that the galaxy has pretty good cloning. We can have a later film challenge our assumptions by explaining how Leia killed Luke, blew him out of an airlock but then later felt remorse and had him cloned from his hand on Bespin (which now explains why Maz has his lightsaber).

You can do all that. And it would be ****.


Challenging assumptions is a great idea. Films should totally do it. One reason I love TLJ is it constantly did that. But deliberately introducing plot holes with bad writing isn't the same thing as challenging assumptions. If any Star Wars film did any of the above things, wouldn't you feel justified in saying "Yeah, that didn't happen"?

Yeah, it would be ****.  It would be **** just like making Leia Luke's sister and having an entire legion of the Emperor's best troops significantly hampered by an army of teddybears.  Both of those things are things I think were far, far dumber than making Leia's recollection of her mother inaccurate or showing us that the Jedi weren't all they were cracked up to be.

I can present my headcanon of how I think the end of the Empire should have happened, but that headcanon is almost completely irrelevant to a discussion of Star Wars as presented.  This, incidentally, is why I don't participate in many Star Wars discussions.  I hate the Battle of Endor so, so much.