How the heck did they manage to make a whole GALAXY feel so small? - Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) Discussion

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 4 years ago

This too is my biggest criticism of Star Wars. An itty bitty story painted in one corner of a vast and otherwise empty canvas.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Empty compared to what though? A story can only focus on one topic at a time or else it becomes incoherent. The story is what keeps us interested and a human mind can only focus on one thing at a time. By your standard all stories are 'itty bitty'.

I think what bothers you is the contrast. For example the Godfather series focuses on 1 family and barely leaves Italians themes and settings. in this the 'smaller' setting would not bother you because it takes place within that story. Star Wars takes place in a large expansive galaxy but for the story only focuses on one part and 'ignores' the rest. It has to in order to tell a story but inevitably it leaves one to wonder what is going on around them.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

My opinion; it did not start to feel small until the Luke/Leia being brother and sister came about. With Vader and Luke it made sense, the whole reason Luke's journey began was because of Obi-Wan's relationship with his father. It just so happened his father was the villain all along.

Of course there is another more direct and simpler reason; the entire universe came from one person's mind (George Lucas). and then others tried to recreate that universe and added very little.

reply

[–] TandyMan (10317) 4 years ago

I agree. Lot of folks bitch about the Ewoks in ROTJ but I think the reveal of Luke and Leia being twins was far more devastating to the saga. Closed a lot of doors. The potential tie in for Leia's fam and her surviving people was limitless. As soon as she was a Skywalker, that world got very small. Now it wraps up a one and done trilogy very neatly, I understand why they did it. Who knew what a big thing Star Wars would become. But it established a precedent for tying everything and everybody together. They do that to everything now. It may well have started with Star Wars, who knows. But it definitely ruined Star Wars itself.

reply

[–] Guitar King (4330) 4 years ago

Who knew what a big thing SW would BECOME? Star Wars 1977 was the biggest hit movie of it's time and everybody knew it. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, kid.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

In the 70's and 80's there was not much of a precedent for Franchise films. Trilogies even were not common let alone longer series. The Godfather was not even a trilogy until the 90's. I like that you call him "kid" when you comment you just made reflects a mind that developed in the 90's or 2000's when everything is a franchise.

Think about it; Terminator did not get a sequel until 92. Alien only had 2 films until the 90's, in fact I can barely think of a more than sequel example prior to the 1990's. Trilogies and beyond were just not common until about 25 years ago.

reply

[–] Guitar King (4330) 4 years ago

You don't now what the hell you're talking about either, kid.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Name one complete trilogy that came out prior to the 90's besides Star Wars. I can't think of one and I looked it up and couldn't even find one.

Do you think calling people "kid" makes you somehow superior? It is a pathetic attempt to ad hominem your way out of shit arguments and it is not even a good one. Age has little baring on intelligence, knowledge, or even one's ability to pay attention. Time only offers experience, experience can be correct or incorrect.

Considering the way you fail to acknowledge film history I question if you were in fact there to witness it. I think you are using the "kid" as an insult to try to pretend you are older and wiser (another fallacy called argumentum ad antiquitatem or Appeal to Age) than you are.

reply

[–] Keelai (31751) 4 years ago

Trilogies aren't very ambitious. Studios preferred to make sequels and do as many as possible prior to the 90s. Why stop at three? After Star Wars' success, Lucas was talking about nine movies and that concept was heavily based on movie serials like Flash Gordon which continued each week to attract young children into returning for the continuing story. Notice how Star Wars opens in the middle of the action as if it were continuing a story. The opening of Indiana Jones was heavily influenced by movie serials, too.

Planet of the Apes (1968) and four sequels.
Superman (1978) and three sequels with Reeve.
Alien (1979) and two sequels
Tarzan with Weissmuller
Buck Roger serial 12 parts

I disagree that there weren't franchise movies. I would consider these franchise movies instead of sequels: Blondie, Topper, Abbott & Costello, Shirley Temple movies, Tarzan, Dick Tracey, East Side Kids, Little Rascals (shorts), Laurel and Hardy.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Good point, I had forgotten about Planet of the Apes,

Superman III came out the same year as ROTJ but it was not framed as a trilogy film; superman I and II tie into together, superman III does not. Alien was not a trilogy until the 90's.

Buck Rogers was not a film series it was serial that was latter adapted into a film. And again it was not a common thing.

I know nothing about Tarzan film series so I won't comment.

The point I was making is that before the 90's there was far fewer movie franchises; all the examples you bring up are either not films or were individual films that did not tie into together. I would not call Abbot and Costello a franchise in the same way Jurassic Park is a franchise. And even with all the examples you present, it is not that many, from the dawn of film to roughly the early 1990 there is maybe 1 good example of a film franchise and that is Planet of the Apes.

reply

[–] Keelai (31751) 4 years ago

Trilogy is a relatively new concept which is why you won't really find them before 1990. You might as well ask for movies in color during the 1920s.

Lord of the Rings 3-volume books written in the 50s was a trilogy. Everything else is a sequel. Planet of the Apes was one movie based on a book. success = sequels. Star Wars wasn't really a trilogy. It was one movie which became very successful and Lucas decided to do two more.

Re: franchises. That's a relatively new concept too. Thank George Lucas. Before him, merchandise was sold related to movies and TV shows like Planet of the Apes, Star Trek and Lost in Space, but Lucas took it to a whole new level which others copied. He said it wasn't the movies which made money, it was the merchandising.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yes, I think Leia/Luke reveal is the worse part about the OT, it was like a cut off point that just made everything a little to neat.

And you are right, it did set a precedent for everything being tied in together too much; the prequels became guilty of it and the ST was even worse for it. I think Rian trying to make Rey a nobody, tied into no one; was actually a bit of a relief because at least it was an attempt to make the films beyond just a few people. Problem with that was TFA gave her too much power too quickly and the story focused on her without explanation, so she had to be related to someone important to justify that.

reply

[–] Keelai (31751) 4 years ago

Obi-wan, Mace, Quigon, and Yoda were nobodies. Normally the hero gets the girl. Making Leia the hero's sister allowed her to be with his best friend. Win win for all.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I think what Tandyman and I are talking about is the precedent for the main characters to be related which in turn makes the universe feel smaller. Obi-wan and Yoda are characters from the first 2 films; actually including them more and more adds to the feeling of a small universe. Now you have a situation in which people expect Rey to be related to Luke or Obi-wan or something (turned out to be Palpatine), people were expecting Finn to be related to Mace Windu or Lando, etc. This 'expectation' comes from the precedent that was set by both having Luke be related to Vader and then in the next film have Luke also related to Leia. And this is what causes the universe to feel smaller.

Also making Leia the hero's sister was not really a 'win win', it was more like a far too clean way to tie off an uncomfortable possible conflict between Han and Luke. Think about how much more interesting any sequels could have been if an aspect of them was caused by a 'love triangle' between the 3 characters. Like Luke trying to be a jedi master but always having a bit of jealousy towards Han for him getting the girl at the end, this leading to flaws of his character being exploited.

reply

[–] Keelai (31751) 4 years ago

Lucas said the trilogies were a family saga aka: space opera. It was always about the Skywalker family with the original about the son, the prequels about the father, and before Disney ruined it, the sequels about the grandchild.

There were very short love triangle scenes in Episodes 4 & 5. Personally, I like the three main characters becoming close and looking out for each other instead of fighting over a girl.

Obiwan knew Vader, Luke and Leia and he was also the one who brought them all together. Nobody else is related. I'm completely ignoring the last two movie wrecks.

I thought your complaint had more to do with Disney rehashing the same characters from the OT or reusing the same planet designs instead of something new like Lucas brought up.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

The point is, making the entire universe feel like it revolved around the Skywalkers does make the universe feel smaller. And the idea of it being about a family saga is not really a problem if they introduced a new female character at some point to be the sister, or had Luke actually have to go search for her. Making it the only girl that everyone already knew does create a 'small universe' affect.

Yes a little bit, but it is awkward now because Lucas claims he always planned on them being related. I also like the idea of the 3 of them growing close and being beyond conflicts of romance; but getting out of that by just making 2 of the 3 related was a lazy way to tie it off, IMO.

The ST makes all of this small universe feeling 100 times worse. I was simply acknowledging certain weaknesses of ROTJ that set a precedent that was exploited to horrible affect in the ST. ROTJ is bad for this but the ST is a whole other level of stupid.

reply

[–] Keelai (31751) 4 years ago

I like Luke and Leia as twins because it gives them permission to love each other without it ever becoming a threat to Leia's relationship with Han. One happy love triangle!

Maybe you believe it's too coincidental. I'll chalk it up to Obiwan's intro or The Force willed it.

I refuse to acknowledge the ST as canon. I wouldn't blame ROTJ for the horrible ST. Just Abrams, Johnson, Kennedy and Iger.

The PT felt like the universe expanded to me because there were new characters, planets including with large populated cities, Senate with thousands of reps., hundreds of Jedi instead of two or three, more complex and SFX with a busier environment, etc. I guess a rural setting sparsely populated feels smaller. The ST should have went in a whole new direction too.

The Thrawn trilogy books introduces a new female character who becomes Luke's wife.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4359) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BurningSun (717) 4 years ago

The prequels did a good job expanding the galaxy and making it seem more diverse and incredible. The Disney trilogy scales it back down and makes it seem as if it takes place in just a small solar system.

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (20307) 4 years ago

Good question

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I talk about this very issue here, which has been my biggest complaint about the franchise:
https://filmsdeconstructed.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/disneys-star-wars-is-great-but-there-is-a-nagging-issue/

For the TLDR crowd, it boils down to two issues:

1. Blocking of shots
2. No attempt to place the drama unfolding within the context of a larger universe

In terms of #1, this new set of movies have the blocking of a cheap soap opera. There aren't even any establishing shots! This very issue is why I gave up and didn't see Rise of Skywalker. For all the flaws of the entire SW franchise, the one saving grace was the feeling of being swept into a whole other world filled with billions of people and thousands of different species and worlds. Without that feeling of vastness, what is the point?

In terms of #2, the drama is strictly He-Man/Thundercats/She-Ra level of conflict. It's strictly bad guys vs the good guys, period. There's no sense whatsoever that whatever conflict there is to be had is going to impact the universe at large.

reply