LogFAQs > #902618235

Zeus posted...

had they continued with E7, 8, and 9 instead of going prequel, history would have been pretty different today... (cont)

The one sticking point where I would definitely have preferred immediate sequels is in the idea that a weakened Empire would continue fighting the Rebellion even in the wake of the Death Star/Emperor going boom, with factionalization and an imperial civil war making the overall conflict more complex. Are the Rebels willing to ally in the short term with an imperial remnant faction, or would they refuse? Would some imperial leaders be willing to "defect" to a rising New Republic if offered positions of power within its framework? Would the Rebellion realize too late that, in removing the Emperor and his somewhat heavy handed, "mystic" style of leadership, they've opened the door for a more popular, dynamic, strategic Imperial to take the throne and lead far more effective opposition?

(Since Asimov has come up recently, I think the Foundation novels would be fantastic to mine for ideas for this sort of thing. Especially since they already stole the entire concept of Coruscant from them.)

Conversely, I would have preferred the new movies we got have the New Republic in them and not the phenomenally stupid First Order/Resistance scenario. By thirty fucking years later, the New Republic should be mostly in place, and the Imperial Remnant should be operating more like isolated enclaves of power or outright guerilla terrorists, with the balance of power completely flipped. But they wanted to mimic the power balance of the original trilogy so closely, so they just did exactly the same thing with different names, and gave absolutely no explanation for how things worked out that way.

(Part of why people "losing hope" in Last Jedi makes perfect sense - if a bunch of assholes have been fighting the same war for 30+ years and gaining absolutely no ground, and without even replacing any of their significant leadership, I'd probably stop supporting them as well.)



Zeus posted...

It wasn't the lightsaber battles that made them bad, those battles were usually the only redeeming feature

They really weren't. Nearly every lightsaber battle was an overly choreographed dance that looked more like martial arts exhibition than it did actual fighting, and it was made worse by the fact that, most of the time, there was almost no emotional weight to the fights.

Yes, you might pause and go "oh, that looks neat" the first time you see it, but it doesn't really add anything to the story.

Ultimately, the prequels would have been much better off with fewer fights (and fewer Jedi), so that the ones we do get feel far more impactful.



Zeus posted...

Say what you will, but I loved Mace. I don't know what motives they might have had in mind, but he worked... although SamueL shines in most things.

He doesn't shine in Star Wars, though. He's a bland cardboard cutout who could have been played by literally anyone.

He was cast in an attempt to draw the "urban" audience, and then he was written poorly because George Lucas is an old white man. Then he gets written out like a punk.

I'd argue that Mace may be the worst character Jackson has ever played, and I say that having seen The Spirit.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family