Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Would Duel of the Fates have been better?  I don't know.  It would've faced difficulties since it would've needed changes after the death of Carrie Fisher.  But I think what would've helped it was the idea that it would've made the sequel trilogy feel like a cohesive story, which is the major downfall of what happened after Rise of Skywalker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzujpplt-0M

I watched this video, and I think it does a good job of understanding some of the narrative issues of TROS.  When Snoke died and Rian Johnson set up Kylo Ren as the major villain, it caused a lot of issues that Abrams decided to force his narrative through.  He wanted to redeem Kylo so he needed a villain - he chose Palpatine over creating a new villain.  But at the end of the day, it feels the same way.  I also saw another video that talked about how Daisy Ridley seemed to imply that there was enough evidence in The Force Awakens to deduce Rey's parents.  The YouTuber said that it implied, if anyone, that Luke was her father.  But since they needed to force Palpatine in, Abrams changed her parentage to be Palpatine...another twist that seemingly comes out of nowhere.

Duel of the Fates fixes some of this by simply staying the course that Rian Johnson set.  Kylo Ren is the bad guy.  Luke is spending his time trying to redeem his nephew.  The Resistance is defeated but still fighting.  It feels like it's more naturally a sequel, and it even plays with certain aspects of Abrams story with Rey ending up being a student of both sides of the Force.  It respects both Force Awakens and Last Jedi, while I don't think Rise of Skywalker did much but tolerate what parts of TLJ it had to.

At the end of the day, I think it would've *felt* like a better sequel.  Whether it would've been a better sequel is up for debate.  I imagine it could've been improved on rewrites since Trevorrow was canned well before he had the chance to do so.  And maybe Disney would've pushed for changes after TLJ actually came out.

But the more I think about it, it's simply bizarre how much freedom Rian Johnson got.  Bizarre and impressive.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Oh dear God. Now I have to watch the video. I was hoping you would summarize it and spare me the trouble. Alright fine.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I can summarize, but I'll only do it from memory:

- Kylo spends the movie trying to find a way to destroy all the Jedi and Sith forever.  He hangs out in Vader's castle, and Luke spends the movie trying to get him to turn back.  But Ben Solo is gone - Kylo is all that's left.

- The First Order has a stranglehold on the galaxy.  No communication can happen between planets.  Hux controls Coruscant.

- Finn and Rose have a lot more to do.  Finn, Rose, and Poe hijack a star destroyer, and Finn ends up leading a rebellion of former stormtroopers (both giving him something to do and finishing his arc).  He's not force sensitive, but he does lead a group of sensitives to Rey at the end (including Broom Boy).

- Rey is still trying to redeem Kylo and they (along with some other force ghost cameos) are forced to kill him.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I think I'll have to watch the video and offer my own thoughts, but even before that -- I do think it's very easy for an unmade film to be the epitome of excellence because the imagined product will never exist; it'll never conflict with actual reality.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

The script for DUEL OF THE FATES by Colin Trevorrow has been released. Many questions are answered, many quandaries are settled, but I confess that the only one that interests me is what Slider_Quinn21 thinks. :-)

http://freepdfhosting.com/19e18635e0.pdf

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I haven't read the full script but I read portions.

At the end of the day, I think Trevorrow's script would need a ton of polishing (especially after dealing with Carrie Fisher's death), but I think it does a much better job of 1) following up on The Last Jedi and 2) completing the sequel trilogy.

I think JJ Abrams script was too concerned about hitting emotional notes that he set up with The Force Awakens and felt ownership to resolve the entire 9-movie saga.  I do think that Ben needed to be redeemed in some way, especially after Han (and in some ways, Luke) died in order to try and save him.  If he simply becomes an irredeemable villain then both their deaths are in vain.

That being said, TLJ left two options.  Either Kylo is your villain or you bring in someone else.  And, honestly, I think the movies work a lot better if Kylo is your villain.  I don't think Trevorrow handles it correctly either.  He sets up a situation with Luke and Kylo where Kylo can be saved, and he doesn't go that route either.  I think you could write a scenario where Kylo has gone full bad guy, where Kylo still dies for his crimes, and he's still redeemed in the end.  I think it's more fluid and a better connection between the movies.

As far as uniting the movies, I don't really see the reason to do that.  Yes, I think there are people who legitimately think that the series ends with 9 Skywalker movies, but I don't believe that for a second.  There will be an Episode X.  And beyond.  Of course there will.  So tying Episode IX to Episodes I-VI I think is sentimental for the sake of being sentimental.  Bringing in Palpatine doesn't make sense...so much so that they didn't even try to explain it.

Rey showing up on Tattooine doesn't make any sense.  she has no connection there.  She never knew Beru and Owen.  Her only connection to that place was Luke, and he hated it there.  She has no connection to Anakin (and I'm sure there's reason to believe she doesn't even know who Anakin is).  Luke is the only one named Skywalker she ever met, and I can't say their relationship was that strong.

She knew way more Solos.  She liked more Organas.  Solo makes much more sense for her to name herself after, but she chooses Skywalker because it's the Skywalker saga.  She goes to Tattooine because people know that place and it's significant to Star Wars.  It isn't significant to Rey.

Duel of the Fates isn't great, but it attempts to be the third part in the sequel trilogy.  And since it's an early draft, I think a final draft of that script could've succeeded at that goal.  Rise of Skywalker tries to be so many different things and fails a lot because it can't focus.  So I'd give RoS a C- and DotF an incomplete.  Maybe it would've ended up worse.  Maybe not.  But its bar was lower, meaning success was more likely.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

The Clone Wars

I just started watching the Clone Wars because I know that Clone Wars and Rebels is going to play into season 2 of the Mandalorian.  I've never seen it before, but I've heard good things.  So far, I like it, but I keep coming up with a question.

The Jedi are generals in the war.  They lead troops, and they're referred to as "generals" - we saw this in the movies as well.

....are the Jedi qualified for this?  I'm only on episode 3, but Anakin is drawing up battle plans.  Are advanced battle strategies part of Jedi training?  In addition to the standard things we see younglings do, are they also in classrooms learning about troop movements and flanking procedures?  Did we miss Luke learning about this stuff during his training on Dagobah?

Mace Windu specifically says "we're keepers of the peace, not soldiers" and you'd think that the clone troopers would be much more qualified.  I know there's a leadership structure for the clones, and I would think the clones with the most experience would be leading the war with the Jedi serving more in a "special forces" capacity.  Even if the Republic didn't have other military leaders to lead the clone troopers, I don't think the Jedi should've been put in charge.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I don’t get it either. And I’ve only ever seen the Clone Wars movie and the first two prequels.

In the original trilogy, the Jedi are regarded as myth that may or may not have ever been real. But the prequels declare that they were a branch of government, installed in political institutions and present in the public eye. In the original trilogy, the Jedi would have at their height been an urban legend at most.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Well that's the funny thing.  Han Solo talks about how he's been all around the galaxy and hasn't seen anything that would lead him to believe that the Force is real.  But the Jedi were *everywhere* 30 years earlier.  Even if he never saw a Jedi, there would be *tons* of living beings that would've been alive at the height of their power.

I wonder if the prequels should've gone in a different direction.  Maybe the Jedi officially ended in the Old Republic and the Sith/Jedi were fighting a secret war.  Obi-Wan worked in secret, and he finds Anakin.  The two of them fight for a couple decades, until Anakin is seduced by their rival faction.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

The prequels are bizarre in how overt and obvious the Jedi are in a galactic war despite Han in the 1977 film dismissing them as "ancient nonsense and hokey religions." And in making the Jedi so prominent, Lucas makes the Jedi look incompetent with REVENGE OF THE SITH and THE LAST JEDI calls him out on this.

Luke Skywalker wrote:

Now that they're extinct, the Jedi are romanticized, deified. But if you strip away the myth and look at their deeds, the legacy of the Jedi is failure. Hypocrisy, hubris. At the height of their powers, they allowed Darth Sidious to rise, create the Empire, and wipe them out.

STAR WARS declares the Jedi to be warrior monks working in obscurity and mystery, but the prequels present them as an ineffective galactic city hall.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I'm to season five of Clone Wars.  I always thought of it as a kids show, but it deals with a lot of fairly adult topics.  The show isn't sexual or overly violent (and with clones and droids, the show kinda gets away with the violence that's there) but they deal with just about everything else you'd expect in an adult TV show.  I think it's done a pretty good job of fixing the mistakes of the prequels - they make Anakin and Obi-Wan seem like true friends, and they flesh out much of the time between episodes II and III.

I'll have some more commentary when I finish, but one thing I'm struggling with is the hopelessness of it all.  Every victory for the "Republic" is a victory for the Empire (and to a lesser but still true extent, the First Order).  When a planet is won or converted to be under Republic rule, I understand that they'll soon be under the boot of the Empire.  Big wins for the clones are big wins for future stormtroopers.

When you start looking at it that way, it's less fun. 

Other than that, I'm really enjoying it.  And I'm excited to see the sister series in Rebels when I'm done.

(All this is in preparation for Season 2 of the Mandalorian)

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Clone Wars was a great show, Dave Filoni is a master mind.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

This article is likely a wild conspiracy of some sort, but an interesting idea (which like anything, I can relate to Sliders).  Be warned that the article has a passing reference to Rebels season four which may or may not be spoilers.

https://cosmicbook.news/disney-resettin … -last-jedi

194 (edited by Grizzlor 2020-06-29 22:09:17)

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

That article was pure comedy!  They're not going to "erase" the likely final performances of Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Frank Oz, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, etc.  There's another reason that this seems far fetched.  What they're suggesting is the Star Trek treatment, also ironically involving J.J. Abrams.  His movies were intentionally separated from the previous mythos, and now what has come after on CBS All Access to great fanfare.  In the case of Trek, roles have been recast by younger actors again, but they are operating within the old Trek canon.  Patrick Stewart's return is also within that canon, but features a return of many older actors.  However, the format of the Trek resurgence, led by Alex Kurtzman, has worked.  It's on streaming TV, featuring shorter arcs that have become the new standard for genre drama.  While there's many other creatives involved, Alex is sort of the main guy.  It's gotten to the point where nobody really cares to see another Abrams "Kelvin" Trek movie. 

Back to Star Wars, Dave Filoni has become "that guy" now, and team with Favreau, they are probably the future of Star Wars.  Kathleen Kennedy has become a complete disaster for Disney.  So while the article I feel is mostly fiction, it's been rumored that Favreau may well take her place.  Anyway, why is it fiction?  Well, there's no need.  Think about it.  You've told a story involving new characters and old.  The story is finished.  Disney are not going to recast those roles and start again.  Disney are not going to move forward I don't believe with new films involving them.  So why would you need to retcon or reset anything?  You can move forward with new characters and stories, that are not Skywalker/Palpatine centric.  Because like I said, you cannot rewrite that story, because it would be a fan revolt, and again, several of the actors simply won't do it.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

This is one of those absurd theories that presumes studios and creatives obsess over continuity as much as the fans do. That's simply not the case; outside of X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST resurrecting dead characters, FOX/Disney/Lucasfilm is not going to fixate on 'repairing' their previous films. As Grizzlor says, Lucasfilm is not going to dismiss the sendoffs for Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill. There is no profit to dismissing FORCE AWAKENS, LAST JEDI and RISE OF SKYWALKER's place in history with Han, Leia and Luke when Harrison Ford is unlikely to do more than a cameo and Carrie Fisher is slightly unavailable for the foreseeable future. For better or worse, the sequel trilogy they made is the one we have. They're not going to replace it. They'll make new projects that may or may not be in theatres.

STAR WARS under Kathleen Kennedy has had its hits and misses, but aside from SOLO, her cinematic releases have made a profit. RISE OF SKYWALKER was the lowest return on investment, but it was still a return. I'm not sure "disaster" describes her term; I'd call it mixed to above average, about the same as most executives who survive in the business. She's not Kevin Feige with Marvel, but she's not Zack Snyder either.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

The Clone Wars was fantastic.  On to Rebels!

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Rebels was good.  Not as great as Clone Wars but still good.

*************

One thing I was thinking about.  Rise of Skywalker went out of its way to undo a ton from The Last Jedi.  From erasing/backseatting certain characters to dropping plotlines, TROS seemed designed to appease the people who didn't like Episode VIII.

But what was one of the biggest criticisms of TLJ?  Its use of Luke.  And while Luke was definitely post-death retconned to be a little more "what people think Luke should be" than in Episode VIII, they actually missed out on something else:

Luke doesn't have his badass moment.  Luke is certainly heroic in the Last Jedi.  But a lot of people were hoping for a lot more.  Some Expanded-Universe-level badassery that would give a glimpse into the Jedi that Luke used to be.  And JJ doesn't go there.  I know it would've been a bit nuts to have Luke resurrected or something, but there are flashbacks to younger Master Luke in TROS anyway.  And specific flashbacks that are relevant to Kylo.

And now I'm completely stunned that they didn't have Luke and Ben Solo on some sort of Master/Padawan-type mission where something goes wrong and Luke has to use his mastery of the force to get out of it.  It seems like the kind of thing that a) would've appeased fans and b) the kind of fan service JJ would've wanted.

Crazy to think it didn't happen.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Mandalorian season 2 was very well done.  I think Dave Filoni may need to be the Kevin Feige of Star Wars.  I think he has the right appreciation for the universe and the stories that need to be told.

It was a little too fan servicey but it was still a lot of fun.  I also appreciate that they aren't bound to any sort of episode length so it's usually solid story from start to finish.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Tremendous S2 from Filoni/Favreau!  My only lament, they STILL can't do CGI faces!!!!!

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I haven't been following any STAR WARS stuff since RISE, but if Slider_Quinn21 and Grizzlor are happy, I am also happy. :-)

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Mandalorian is a really nice show because it's fun and breezy.  I think it's essentially everything that I wanted from the sequel trilogy but didn't get.  Even as the Mandalorian's story gets more complicated and more tangled in the bigger Star Wars universe, it doesn't have the same level of burden that you get with the movies.  It all feels like A New Hope, and I think that's very fun.

Minor spoilers but I assume everyone knows about the Mandalorian season 2 finale by now:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

There are people who are upset about the Luke appearance.  I don't get it.  It made me so happy.  It's funny - I've consumed a lot of Star Wars content and I guess I like it more than I thought, but I've never considered myself a big fan.  But I absolutely love Luke Skywalker.  One night before The Last Jedi, I couldn't sleep because I was worried Luke would be evil.  And to see him finally get a huge fun heroic moment of dominance was so satisfying.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I've barely seen any who are upset that Hamill "appeared," though some like me have been critical of the CGI.  I felt the appearance had the appropriate grandeur and suspense, though it's unfortunate it was done on a streaming series and not a film. 

One thing I'm kind of confused about is this over-emotional sentiment, which got a Lucasfilm exec in trouble for poking fun at a fan crying after watching.  I'm a massive Star Wars fan, and Luke was Star Wars for me.  I was not that upset with his arc in the sequel films like many others.  That said, I truly do not understand how a brief appearance in this finale "fixes that?"  Many friends were like, there you see, you see!!!  This is the Luke we all wanted.  This is who he was supposed to be after ROTJ.  I'm like, well, okay, yes, that's how he was written in a multitude of Expanded Universe material 20-30 years ago. 

I will say that Filoni/Favreau did it the RIGHT way.  They kept it quiet, and it did not feel like fan service.  That is really I think the biggest threat to what the franchise will do going forward.  Like I think this idea of bringing back all the Spider-Man actors for the next movie is completely absurd.  What kind of disaster will that be?  Oh wait, it's Marvel, the script is irrelevant.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I agree.  I think season two had a decent amount of fan service, but I think it made sense for the plot.  Boba Fett is absolutely fan service, but he's wearing Mandalorian armor so it makes sense that Mando would run into him.  Same with Bo-Katan.  And Bo-Katan would reasonably lead him to Ahsoka.  And Ahsoka leading him to a Jedi relic that sent out a signal across the universe would certainly come to the attention of Luke.

I think it all made reasonable sense, even all happening in one season.  I do worry about watering down the quality of the shows with *so many* spinoffs.  It makes me think of the dropoff from Family Guy spinoffs or the decrease in the quality of the Arrowverse.  But I assume they'll all be 8 episode seasons so instead of 100+ episodes a year, we're only talking 20-40 a year maybe?  Possibly less if they stagger the episodes.  I think Filoni can manage that fairly easily and there should be enough writers to make it work.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Netflix shows are infamous for overstretching insufficient material to fill in time because more episodes means more revenue. Did you feel this happened on Disney+?

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

If you can't write enough for 8-10 Netflix episodes you shouldn't have a show.  I think Lucasfilm on D+ will be fine.  You're going to have shows which are part of this mini-Mando universe, and shows which are not (like Obi-Wan).  I don't think there's too many spins-off, and frankly you need to have several new seasons a year to justify having the service.  Each series will be 10 or less, likely 8 or less, with some rumor Boba-Fett may only be 4.  Even with the use of that new set technology they have, which allows for quicker, less costly work (few location shots), each show is costly.  Building sets, costumes, etc, can be reused, but I think the streaming model has always been about shorter, quicker arcs.

Here again, I wouldn't be against a post-ROTJ Skywalker mini-series, but I don't think the technology is good enough, nor that Hamill would do it, but who knows?  I know they've tried to get him for a Luke animated series several years ago. 

PS: I encourage all to watch the Disney Gallery for Mando S1, it's extraordinary.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I've been reading a ton of Star Wars comics recently.  I think they're a lot of fun, and I've enjoyed essentially every one that I've read.

The problem is that I struggle with these stories as anything other than non-canon (ireactions shudders....this is one of those conversations).  But it's just hard to imagine that, in between hiding out from the Empire, all these characters had these extraordinary side missions and met all these extraordinary characters.  There's all those scenes with Anakin and Obi-Wan in the prequels where they reference these fun adventures that we never got to see.  But in the original trilogy, I don't get the sense that they've had countless adventures.  It feels like what we saw is what we got.

But the idea that Leia had this secret mission to rescue Alderaanians and Luke was tracking down Jedi artifacts just doesn't feel genuine to me. I do like the Darth Vader stuff because it does feel like his story is incomplete.  And stories like Doctor Aphra make sense, although she also crosses over with Luke and Leia a lot.

It also made me think about how little I care about the sequel trilogy gap.  I've been thinking about what I'd do differently, but the gap between Episode III and Episode IV seems important because so many things changed.  The Empire took over, the Jedi are now gone, and the galaxy feels different.  Between Episode VI and Episode VII....the universe feels the same.  So anything that happened doesn't really matter, in my head.  I'm sure there are fun stories they could tell, but none of it really mattered.  And it makes it feel like the original trilogy didn't matter.  And Luke in Episode VIII makes so much sense.

Have y'all read much of the post-Disney Marvel comics?  I'm going to read all the First Run ones that I can, and I'll probably wait to read the Second Run ones.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I have really only read the Mark Waid Princess Leia comic book series and the DARK EMPIRE comics. In terms of canon, STAR WARS originally took the view that all novels, comics, video games and trading cards were canon, but right from the start, there were serious contradictions. The novels HEIR TO THE EMPIRE, DARK FORCE RISING and THE LAST COMMAND had the New Republic/Rebels successfully establishing a new government after RETURN OF THE JEDI; the DARK EMPIRE comics showed the Rebels' new government collapsing almost right away after RETURN OF THE JEDI. Yet, both were declared canon despite the DARK EMPIRE author confessing he hadn't known anything about the novels.

Some awkward continuity patches were implemented with the initial novels repositioned to just before DARK EMPIRE and the latter novels re-rebuilding the government right after DARK EMPIRE, and constant patching was needed and then THE FORCE AWAKENS threw out all this content anyway in favour of a new Expanded Universe that is supposedly canon but likely has just as many problems.

The main issue is attempting to fit so much material directly into the post-RETURN OF THE JEDI time period -- and this is also common when trying to fit novels, comics, video games, audio dramas and other tie-ins between live action installments of a film or TV series. Unless there is a massive change between installments, tie in stories can't really do *anything* that doesn't put the pieces back where they found them. And, of course, there's the space constraint that tie-ins can either address or ignore.

In the STAR TREK novel, AVENGER, by William Shatner, a character remarks that for all of Captain Kirk's supposed adventures to fit into the original five year mission, it would have had to be a 100 year mission, a hilarious reference to all the novels and comics.

The key would be, I think, to seize on how Luke, Leia and Han are very different in EMPIRE than they were in STAR WARS, and how Luke is very different in RETURN OF THE JEDI than he was in EMPIRE. STAR WARS' Luke didn't have too much depth and seemed certain to always win; EMPIRE's Luke is a far more insecure and fallible character who's clearly had a lot of setbacks and failures; RETURN's Luke is so much more mature than he was in EMPIRE. STAR WARS feels a bit like a children's movie version of space opera whereas EMPIRE is Serious Drama with some jokes.

I think that in comic book publishing, the wish is to keep publishing Luke, Han and Leia's adventures infinitely and indefinitely without worrying about actors aging or dying to keep their characters perpetually at their prime and at the same ages where they originally debuted. Comics themselves are prone to time expansion where there is no sensible way for Spider-Man and Iron Man's adventures to have all taken place without Peter Parker and Tony Stark having been superheroes for 40 - 50 years while only aging 5 - 10 at most. And STAR WARS comics would be no different.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I'm reading the Grand Admiral Thrawn original trilogy in comic book form.  I've heard my whole life how great these books are and how great the character is.  Now that I've seen/read all the Disney Canon Thrawn stuff, I decided to read the original.

I'm 1/3 done.  It's boring and slow and doing nothing for me.  Is it the conversion to comic book form?  Does it get better?  Or is this very overrated?

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I'm reading the Grand Admiral Thrawn original trilogy in comic book form.  I've heard my whole life how great these books are and how great the character is.  Now that I've seen/read all the Disney Canon Thrawn stuff, I decided to read the original.

I'm 1/3 done.  It's boring and slow and doing nothing for me.  Is it the conversion to comic book form?  Does it get better?

Of course not.

Although it's strange to me that you're only now reading the Timothy Zahn Thrawn stories when you have previously made mention of the Luuke clone that features in the conclusion of the Thrawn trilogy.

I think I was 10 when I read the Thrawn STAR WARS trilogy. And despite being a speed-reader, it took me like a month to read all three. It was dense. It was thick. It was slow. It was Serious Military Science Fiction Literature. This was not George Lucas' STAR WARS, a lighthearted, slambang action thrill ride that sought to capture the high adventure of FLASH GORDON with the thoughtful mysticism of a Japanese samurai movie.

Instead, TIMOTHY ZAHN'S STAR WARS was -- I'm guessing -- an attempt to write STAR WARS like a war novel akin to Norman Mailer's THE NAKED AND THE DEAD (a 1948 WWII set novel). Combined with the military science fiction stylings (but not the values) of Robert Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS and its counterpoint, THE FOREVER WAR by Joe Haiderman. And with the mythic self-importance of LORD OF THE RINGS novels (which are grimdark misery after the first 50 pages of the first one).

There was a market at the time for thick, dense, hyperdetailed, Serious Military Science Fiction Literature in the early 90s. The Thrawn trilogy, coming out from 1991 to 1993, was an Adult Hardcover Novel for the people who enjoyed STAR WARS movies as children who were now Grown Adults who would appreciate STAR WARS as an Adult Product.

I've never dared admit this to anybody, but while I respected and appreciated the craft and skill of the trilogy and the concluding duology by Timothy Zahn -- it was quite boring. And when I got to the end of it, I felt like I had read an Important Science Fiction Novel, but it wasn't fun. It was like eating unflavoured protein powder by spoon.

In contrast, the first STAR WARS movie had been a pretty great bacon cheeseburger from an indie burger restaurant, the second one had been an unexpected gourmet prime rib, and the third had been a satisfactory fast food Big Mac.

There were points of interest like Mara Jade and Luke's relationship and the twisted lessons of C'Baoth, but Zahn's prose is so serious, so muted, so avoidant of strong emotion and drama that it isn't that inspiring.

Zahn's favourite character is clearly the cold, academic, aloof, mysterious Grand Admiral Thrawn and Zahn's great at writing distant, unknowable characters and less great at writing more earnest, heart-on-their-sleeve characters like Luke and Han and Leia.

I have a lot of respect for how Zahn repackaged STAR WARS as Serious Literature with the publishers maintaining that brand identity for very long periods between 2001 - 2014. Of course, there were plenty of STAR WARS novels that were just weak media tie-in merchandise, but there were plenty that were good and fun and exciting and comedic and closer to the movies, and there were also a bunch that followed the Zahn model of Seriousness. Seriousness was in vogue in 1991. There was a big market at the time for Zahn's books..

Probably doesn't read well today.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

ireactions wrote:

Although it's strange to me that you're only now reading the Timothy Zahn Thrawn stories when you have previously made mention of the Luuke clone that features in the conclusion of the Thrawn trilogy.

That's just something I picked up from the pop culture ether, I guess.

Glad to know I'm not crazy, though.  I'm reading TMNT comics and Superior Spider-Man at the same time, and I kinda groan when I have to switch over to Thrawn.  Which sucks because I was interested in the Disney era character and assumed the original would be better.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Well, 'better' is subjective. I am not a fan of Zahn's STAR WARS, but I do respect it.

From 1954 to 1955, J.R.R. Tolkien made a massive splash with LORD OF THE RINGS, a massive book that was so big that the publishers had to split it across three volumes just so they could afford to print and bind it. He seemed to create an entire publishing industry for multi-volume fantasy novels.

LORD OF THE RINGS was still selling in huge numbers in the 90s and Zahn's writing, I would guess, was an effort to bring STAR WARS into this highly lucrative publishing market. His Serious writing and Serious tone and Serious military science fiction trilogy were perfect for producing STAR WARS novels on shelves adjacent to LORD OF THE RINGS, DUNE, Asimov's FOUNDATION and Stephen King's DARK TOWER in bookstores while presenting STAR WARS in terms of military science fiction like THE FOREVER WAR and STARSHIP TROOPERS and straightforward military fiction like Tom Clancy's THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER and PATRIOT GAMES.

This looked like the only future for STAR WARS at the time. RETURN OF THE JEDI had come and gone from the theatre eight years previous. In 1991, STAR WARS' ongoing saga was not going to be in film or TV or, it seemed, anywhere but novels. STAR TREK novels, while having a strong audience, were generally regarded as something that only spoke to STAR TREK diehards.

In contrast, Zahn's writing had the benefit of being accessible to a casual audience who'd only needed to watch three movies that had been a globally enjoyed cinematic experience. And from what I can tell, TIMOTHY ZHAN'S STAR WARS resounded with an audience who wanted Serious Military Science Fiction Literature and appreciated STAR WARS shifting into this genre and format. The readership at the time were fine with TIMOTHY ZAHN'S STAR WARS having little of the 1977 movie's high adventure or humour and being more like a novelization of a Stanley Kubrick-directed STAR WARS movie. It seemed to inspire an entire publishing line of STAR WARS novels that were sequels or prequels to Zahn's writing as well as video games and comic books that all used Zahn's trilogy as a starting point.

Timothy Zahn's writing may not have aged well. I'm not a fan. You're not a fan. Subjectively, Zahn's vision of STAR WARS leaves me really cold. But objectively, the massive sales and long-term sequelizing indicates that Zahn's writing style was the right choice for that specific book market at that specific moment in the STAR WARS franchise. Zahn's writing got the world at large to take STAR WARS novels Seriously as Serious Literature when media tie-ins are usually regarded as little more than branded fanfic.

I guess we had to be there to like it if we were ever going to like it.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Not a comics guy, but I read most of the Zahn novels as well as the super old 1980's expanded universe stuff, enjoying all of them.  It's been over TWO DECADES since I've read most of them so they are but a fleeting memory and back then I mainly just wanted content since Lucas himself had ditched the OT time period when he started the prequels.

However, never really cared beyond that.  Yes I loved seeing Thrawn in the video games, and then on Rebels.  Would like to see him in live action.  Then again, I would have preferred Luke's romance with Mara Jade to have been developed on screen, too.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I have to honestly say: what romance? :-P

By that, I mean Mara Jade spent most of the Thrawn trilogy trying to kill Luke or being at a cautious distance while grudgingly working with him. She briefly showed up to rescue Luke during a Jedi Temple situation. She had a platonic partnership in some adventures with Luke while Luke was dating someone else. Three years after Zahn's final installment of the Thrawn trilogy, Zahn wrote a two part sequel and the first installment, "Spectre of the Past," features Mara Jade and Luke in separate plotlines. They only meet and work together in second volume "Vision of the Future" where Zahn abruptly starts describing Luke as having romantic feelings for Mara (a plot that has gone almost totally unaddressed before this) and then Luke proposes marriage at the end.

People seem to really like it, but I genuinely don't get it. There are a lot of books with Luke and Mara as a married couple and Zahn wrote none of them.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Didn't Mara and Juke eventually marry and have children?  idk what series that happened in, but I vaguely remember that.  LOL as I said, it's been a long, long, long time.  Heck I read the Shadows of the Empire stuff too when the video game came out!

PS: I find Boba Fett show incredibly dull.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I mean there was no period where Luke and Mara were dating or even hanging out that much. They had the three books in the first Thrawn trilogy by Timothy Zahn where they were at odds, uneasily working together and then apart. Other writers took over the STAR WARS series and there were maybe three to four books where they were peripherally in the same room while some crisis was unfolding.

Then, when Lucasfilm shifted the novel license from Bantam Books to Del Ray, author Timothy Zahn returned to write the Hand of Thrawn duology as a finale to the Bantam era. Luke and Mara spent the first book apart and the second book on a quest during which they decide they're in love and that they are getting married. The entire period of getting to know each other, dating, seeing if they can stand to spend the night together, working out if they would be good together long term -- all that was skipped. They met and worked together, then didn't see each other for ages, then over the course of a couple days, decided they were getting married. And then, the Del Ray era novels (NEW JEDI ORDER and onward) had them as a happily married couple.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Spoilers for the Book of Boba Fett

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I though the first few episodes of Boba Fett were really boring.  The flashbacks weren't interesting, and I didn't think the main story was all that interesting.  Then the story shifted to the Mandalorian and Grogu and Luke and Ahsoka and I was fully on board.  I even found Cobb Vanth to be much more interesting than Boba.

I've never found Boba Fett to be cool or interesting, but I was hoping this show would turn me around.  It hasn't.  I wish they'd just done some sort of show like this instead of just a Boba Fett show - a Cobb Vanth episode, a Mandalorian episode, a Luke and Grogu episode, an Ahsoka episode.  And if they wanted to do a Boba episode, fine.  But the show is significantly better without Boba, and he's supposed to be the main character.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

The show is boring, with various interludes of fan service are nice and all, but overall it's boring.  This past episode was beyond strange, featuring more CGI deep faking, and turning the Mando character into a total weirdo.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

So, what's wrong with the deepfake version of Luke Skywalker in BOBA FETT?

Lucasfilm hired a fan deepfaker to bring his skillset to recreating a late-80s Mark Hamill. The image of Luke Skywalker looks to me like it's drawn on 4K scans of RETURN OF THE JEDI, new film scans of publicity and costuming photographs for that film, and the face mapped into a digital profile of every facial expression and lip movement needed for each scene and line of dialogue. Actor Graham Hamilton played Luke on set; the deepfake of Luke's face was then grafted onto Hamilton's face.

In addition, all the dialogue is drawn from recordings of Hamill in the 80s doing voiceover and audiobook readings, fed into an AI network that can then rearrange them into any scripted sentence and smooth over the intonations and volume so that it sounds coherent.

And yet, it doesn't feel like a real person. This version of Luke is photorealistic in contrast to the somewhat immobile and blurry version in MANDALORIAN. Luke can interact with all characters and isn't limited to standing still. But something is off: Luke feels stilted and inhuman in all his scenes, muted and hollow even though the face and eyes look right.

Part of the problem is the voice. Yes, it sounds like Mark Hamill in the 80s, but the tone of the voice is completely devoid of human variability. In matching all the intonations and volumes from different sources and applying consistency, the computer generated lines are very flat. Luke sounds calm and completely neutral; neutral when expressing doubt, neutral when delivering kind or difficult lessons, neutral when told something unsettling. It's Mark Hamill's voicemail rearranged and while the technical achievement is astonishing, it still has the effect of a repurposed rearrangement of Hamill's old voicemails albeit well-disguised.

The face, despite being a technical marvel, is also a serious issue. Luke's face lacks any extremity of emotion: he's mildly sad, mildly satisfied, mildly calm, mild across the board, mild to the point where Luke's face seems less like a human being in motion and more like a still photograph that has been magnificently animated through computer generated modelling and motion but is ultimately a still photograph that's only offering a false illusion of movement. On some subconscious if not conscious level, you can feel that it's an animated photograph instead of a true moving image of a face.

As a result, Mark Hamill's likeness may be present in the deepfake, but Hamill's acting ability is absent. It's fine for a few lines and some action sequences. But when Ahsoka tells Luke that he reminds her of Anakin, there is no emotional reaction from Luke, just a facial movement to acknowledge that she spoke. Mark Hamill could have played this scene with many approaches: he could be proud that he is thought of in the same way as the war hero of the Clone Wars, Anakin Skywalker. He could be disturbed that he reminds Ahsoka of the man who became Darth Vader. He could react with pride but then transition into concern.

The deepfake Luke Skywalker has none of Hamill's emotive consideration; it has no capacity to pitch the moment in either direction. The facial animation model is designed to mimic and maintain the likeness of Luke Skywalker; it isn't capable of expressive emotions when the facial template is ultimately to replicate a still photo of Luke. For this scene, all the deepfake Luke can do is make eye contact to indicate that he heard Ahsoka say words; the deepfake can't produce an actual emotional reaction that contorts the face and maintains the photographic likeness.

The lack of an actor's presence is particularly glaring in the scene where Luke tells Grogu to choose either the life of a Jedi or his friendship with the Mandalorian, saying that Jedi eschew all attachments and Grogu's lifespan, training and path will span so long that the Mandalorian will be dead of old age by the time Grogu can return to his friend. Hamill would have seen many options for this scene.

Hamill could have been sharp and demanding, ordering Grogu to make a terrible choice to show how uncompromising Luke has become. Or Hamill could have described the path of the Jedi in derisive, bitter terms, indicating that Luke doesn't actually approve of the Jedi way and doesn't think it's right for Grogu and is not keen on training Jedi if this is what he has to ask them to do. Or Hamill could have spoken with quiet warning about the Jedi path while emphasizing the Mandalorian with gentleness and warmth, meaning Luke knows Grogu misses his friend and isn't happy with Luke; Luke would be kindly offering Grogu a way out. Hamill would have made choices in how to play this scene.

The deepfake Luke Skywalker makes no choices in how to perform this conflict. The deepfake delivers the choice to Grogu in a mild, neutral, bland tone that doesn't inform Luke Skywalker's characterization in any way. Aside from sounding like Mark Hamill in the 1980s, there is no sense of a human being conveying Luke's emotions and motives. There is just a computer generated animation of an actor's likeness and a computer recreated approximation of that actor's voice. There is no performance.

Acting is about human beings making choices; the deepfake Luke Skywalker is an algorithmic approximation that can only offer mimicry; it can't make decisions and it cannot perform as a character. A short cameo with a line or two is fine, but when put into lengthy scenes, it becomes clear that the deepfake character isn't an actor. It's a body double and a vocal impressionist best limited to a few shots.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I loved seeing young Mark Hamill so I'm willing to forgive some of the woodiness.  Maybe Luke is finding his inner Vulcan and trying to act bland.  I don't know.  I know Kathleen Kennedy has talked about fan backlash at recasting Harrison Ford in Solo, and she's said they aren't going to do that anymore.  So any hope of recasting Sebastian Stan as Luke (or someone else) is off the table for a while.  Luke will be played by Mark Hamill now and as long as that decision is still in place.

I assume we'll eventually get a deepfaked Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher in one of these Disney+ shows.  We'll have James Earl Jones deepfake Darth Vader long after he's left this Earth.  Star Wars insists on telling stories from the same 60 year period, whether or not actors keep getting older and dying.

The technology will get better.  Luke in Boba Fett looks better than Luke in Mandalorian.  Leia in Episode IX looks better than Leia in Rogue One.  Eventually, we'll get a great Mark Hamill performance long after Mark Hamill is dead.

To me, I don't think too hard about it.  I was able to visualize Hayden Christiansen and Ewan McGregor when I watched the Clone Wars.  So I can try and visualize Luke acting like a human when I see him as a CGI character.

*************

I watched A New Hope for the first time in a long time this weekend.  It really holds up.

But since I'm also watching Obi-Wan, I was struck by how he acted.  Other than using the Jedi Mind Trick, Obi-Wan almost never uses the force.  Heck, almost no one uses the Force in the way we think about it now.  It's funny how much the Force evolved from what it is in Episode IV.

And I still think the lightsaber fight between Vader and Obi-Wan is just so awkward.  Alec Guinness looks so scared and defenseless.  I don't know if it needs to look like the refilmed version that a fan did not too long ago, but it would be nice for the fight to not look like two old men hacking at each other.  I know that most of the lightsaber fights in the Original Trilogy look like that, but Episode IV is especially bad.

That being said, it's a really great movie with great performances.

220 (edited by ireactions 2022-06-20 11:44:06)

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

It's interesting: Mark Hamill was on set in BOBA FETT. He performed all of Luke's scenes with the actors. Then body double Graham Hamilton performed the scenes. Hamill's performance wasn't used in the final product, but the creators wanted Hamill to be present so that all the other actors could react to Mark Hamill specifically. However, whatever acting choices Hamill made were not retained in the deepfake due to the obvious technical limitations. Mimicry itself is not a full-fledged performance because to truly perform, an actor has to create something new rather than imitate what previously existed.

**

I like the fan film reshoot of the Obi-Wan/Vader fight of 1977. It's great as a short film. Maybe a special short on Disney+.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V24PLzqRLg

However, I don't think it should be edited into the 1977 movie. In terms of remastering, I think it's fine to remove the smeared jelly under the landspeeders, remove matte lines around spaceships and monsters, get the lightsabers looking consistent, add windows to Cloud City, etc.. However, adding new CG effects to a 1977, 1980 and 1983 movie series made with model kits and sparklers only produces a mismatched look. In the 1977 special edition, the CG X-Wings don't match the model shots. It's distracting whereas sticking with the 1977 effects allows the film to establish a baseline for its effects achieve consistency.

STAR WARS is a 1977 movie that looks like it's made in 1977. Even the story is dated; as a 1977 film, it has no concept of long distance, wireless data transmission. The secret WMD plans are delivered by a barrel instead of emailed. There's no getting around the fact that it's a historical artifact and will remain so no matter how much CGI is pasted on top.

**

Leia's face in RISE OF SKYWALKER is not CG, but her hair and body and clothes are computer generated to disguise that they are shots from a previous movie. The deepfake technology and the Respeecher application (used for BOBA FETT's Luke dialogue) were not ready for the big screen yet when RISE OF SKYWALKER was filmed, but if they had been, I think JJ Abrams and friends would definitely have used it -- but strategically and sparingly.

They could have used high-res photos of Carrie Fisher's publicity stills and all her additional dialogue recording sessions from FORCE AWAKENS and LAST JEDI to form a databank of her voice and vocabulary to have Fisher's face available at any angle for a CG model and with her recreated voice able to speak any line. But I don't think they would have made Leia a bigger character because, as with Luke in BOBA FETT, the more you feature it, the less real it feels.

Instead, I think they would have just filled in some of the gaps in RISE OF SKYWALKER's recreated coverage of Carrie Fisher. RISE has a lot of scenes where we go from a repurposed facial shot of Carrie Fisher to the back of her body double's head and her scene partner facing the camera. A deepfake Leia could have been used so that we could get brief side views of Carrie Fisher in conversation with others so that the limitations of Fisher's actual footage wouldn't be as glaring.

Abrams directs with understatement in his drama scenes, so he would have used it minimally: a shot of Leia covering her mouth in horror when hearing that Palpatine is back (so you don't need expression).

The Respeecher technology could have also filled in some of Fisher's dialogue, not to give her lengthy monologues or highly emotive moments -- the technology isn't good enough for that -- but for small additions of a few lines here. A few sentences of guidance to Rey in her training ("Don't give up!" "Focus!").

In the film, Leia says "Nothing's impossible" and "Never underestimate a droid" and both feel a bit detached from the scene; Respeecher might have made minor additions like "Nothing's impossible, Rey, not for you" and "If you've seen what I have, you'd never underestimate a droid."

Leia's death scene is done with Carrie Fisher's body double in silhouette and no dialogue (because they didn't have any). And while I wouldn't recommend trying to deepfake and Respeecher shots of Fisher performing Leia reaching out to her wayward son, deepfake could have offered a brief shot of Leia's calm face before she dips her head back into shadow. And given her three short lines. "I have to reach Ben. I know what it will take from me. But it's what I have to do."

Also, issues with Fisher's footage caused Rose Tico to be cut almost entirely from RISE. The original script kept Rose at the base with Leia and gave them scenes written around Fisher's unused dialogue from FORCE AWAKENS and LAST JEDI. But Abrams found that the footage of Fisher didn't match the tone of the script, couldn't find a way to amend the script, and the scenes were sadly cut before filming. I imagine that had deepfake and Respeecher been available, the Rose and Leia scenes would have stayed.

I would be okay with Abrams someday filling this stuff in someday.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I saw that Hamill was there in costume, so strange.

Obi-Wan is a huge disappointment.  I've seen fan films written better, with better production design.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I'm sorry the OBI WAN series isn't working for Grizzlor. I have not seen it yet, but from various reviews, it looks to be inoffensive to most.

**

I think my issue with the deepfake Mark Hamill body and the Respeecher Mark Hamill voice is based on Robert Floyd's interview with me about imitating Jerry O'Connell.

During a phone call with Mr. Floyd (Mallory in Season 5), I asked him about the intricacies of imitating Jerry O'Connell. He talked about how he watched a lot of SLIDERS episodes to get Jerry's voice in his head. Floyd was a gifted mimic and he could quickly perform a note-perfect recreation of Jerry's voice: the timbre and tone, the weight and pronunciations, and then he moved to studying Jerry's posture and body language. Floyd said in a different interview that he was really taken with the "inner strength" that Jerry brought to the character of Quinn Mallory, and in my interview, Floyd said that he wanted to tap into the fact that Jerry made Quinn so intelligent and scientific and how Quinn "built the show."

I noted that Floyd, when performing the original Quinn in Dr. Geiger's lab and in the later scenes with Rembrandt, did *not* imitate Jerry's voice, but he performed the Quinn Mallory demeanor: the intensity in his gaze, the sense of absorbing and intensely calculating the information around him. Floyd explained that he was perfectly capable of imitating Jerry further. "I'm pretty good at it. I could have done it for an episode. I could have done it for a season."

However, he didn't feel it was good enough to merely act with Jerry's voice and body language. Instead, what he wanted to do was strongly emphasize the identity crisis of Floyd!Quinn and Jerry!Quinn. "I would try to find little things that either Quinn or Mallory could grasp onto, even if it was through the other's voice or the other person's intelligence... Otherwise, you're just playing schtick."

Webster's Dictionary defines "schtick" as "a usually comic or repetitious performance or routine," and I believe Floyd is indicating that only copying Jerry would be empty repetition; it was important to *create* something new as well, making the Jerry-impression merely one facet of an original performance.

To me, the deepfake Mark Hamill body and the Respeecher Mark Hamill voice is just playing schtick.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Grizzlor wrote:

Obi-Wan is a huge disappointment.  I've seen fan films written better, with better production design.

Oh man, I disagree.  I just finished, and I enjoyed it from beginning to end.  I have a little trouble putting the pieces together with this show and A New Hope (mostly related to how SPOILER acts in A New Hope, having just seen it).

But I found myself very drawn to the characters.  I think Reva is a great character, and I thought the actress did a great job.  And I'm interested in seeing more.

**********

What's interesting about Star Wars vs Star Trek is my view on retreading the past.  I was very critical of Trek recently for doing more prequel stuff.  I want Trek to be moving forward, but I'm okay with stuff like Obi-Wan.

I think it's because Trek feels real, and I think the technology matters. I can buy that Kirk's Enterprise looks like a 1960s film set, and I can buy that they can travel the stars with tricorders that look less advanced than my phone.  And then that a hundred years pass, and they have original recipe iPads.  But then another hundred years has to pass for me to buy the "present"

I don't want adjustments.  The past is the past.

With Star Wars, it feels timeless.  The technology is stagnated so it all just feels vaguely futuristic.  And the action typically takes place in rural areas or small towns with little technology.  And Star Wars isn't real - so if someone is recast or changed, who cares?  They're fairy tales being told by a different person.

I think it's interesting.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Also Star Trek is set in Earth's future so you would expect them to have at least current Earth level tech.

Star Wars is set in the distant past of a far away place so the tech can look like anything.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

The thing I find fascinating/frustrating about STAR WARS is the same thing I find fascinating/frustrating about THE X-FILES: it seems to take place in a fictional universe that is both driven by science fiction technology AND magical fantasy. STAR WARS has spaceships, laser swords, laser blasters, artificial intelligence; it also has spells, mysticism, magic, prophecy, mental energy to matter transmutation, matter to ethereal energy transformation -- and I don't particularly understand how these are reconciled.

I also don't understand how the sci-fi aliens of THE X-FILES coexist with the poltergeists and werewolves and goat monsters and vampires. At times, STAR WARS seems to take place in two separate universes, just like THE X-FILES. The term "comic booky" has often been used derisively. I find that to say something is "comic booky" is to say that it takes place in an internally inconsistent universe where the rules of operation are less than coherent and at times downright contradictory, designed for a compelling image rather than a passably plausible reality.

STAR WARS can be extremely comic booky; the idea that someone would create droids with personalities that resist performing their duties is nonsensical. But the image of C3PO cowering in the face of danger was too funny for George Lucas to resist.

STAR WARS attempted to reconcile both halves of its universe by declaring that the Force exists in microscopic particles called midichlorians. This went over poorly.

In contrast, STAR TREK exists in a flatly scientific universe, and all acts of 'magic' are explained in scientific or technological terms. Psychic ability is a sensitivity to temporal particles; psionic ability is manipulation of gravity; matter transmutation is altering universal constants; telepathy is a sensitivity to neurological energy.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Question for Slider_Quinn21:

Do you feel the OBI WAN series suffers from Obi Wan having confronted Darth Maul in another TV show already, depriving the OBI WAN show of an important story?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeG215-yu-k

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

ireactions wrote:

Question for Slider_Quinn21:

Do you feel the OBI WAN series suffers from Obi Wan having confronted Darth Maul in another TV show already, depriving the OBI WAN show of an important story?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeG215-yu-k

I don't think so.  Ever since we  had our conversation a million years ago about alternate media, I've actually jumped in a bit to this stuff.  I'm reading Star Wars comics, which are canon and fill in blanks.  And while I think there's definitely a hierarchy of canon, I don't love retreading area that was covered in the comics or the TV shows, even if it's for a movie / Disney+ show.  I was a little sad when they redid Kanan's backstory in the Bad Batch and invalidated some of the Kanan comics (even though I haven't read them).

I think the Obi-Wan/Maul fight is perfect.  If there's a season 2 of Obi-Wan, and they wanted to recreate some of that in live action, I think it would be cool.  But I'd want to recreate it exactly.  And I'd probably only want it used in flashbacks (or maybe flashforwards, I guess), not to be the primary arc.  I think it would work great for Obi-Wan, and I wouldn't be angry if they did it.
Again, there's a hierarchy and Obi-Wan trumps Rebels. But it's been done.  I'd let Rebels have it.

228 (edited by ireactions 2022-06-22 17:14:05)

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I'm glad REBELS retains its stature for you.

The thing that really strikes me about that scene: despite all the horrible things Darth Maul has done, despite Maul having killed at least two of Obi-Wan's friends (that I know of), Obi-Wan strikes Maul down but then takes pity on him, giving him comfort, considering him as much a victim of the Sith as anyone Maul ever killed, closing his eyes and letting him pass with a peace and dignity that Maul couldn't find in life and certainly never offered anyone else.

It was all about the characterization and not about being Cool. Which brings me (back) to another subject:

Confession: I've never been able to finish watching REVENGE OF THE SITH. I kind of liked THE PHANTOM MENACE, but ATTACK OF THE CLONES was so dull and clumsy and like watching a student film, probably because Liam Neeson brought a certain prestige and importance to PHANTOM MENACE but wasn't there to do the same for ATTACK OF THE CLONES. I watched the first 10 minutes of REVENGE when it came out on DVD and... it was like watching a video game cutscene on YouTube without ever actually playing the game. I couldn't get into it. I ended up giving the DVD away to the little boy next door; I read the novelization by Matthew Stover instead (and that was a great book).

I went on YouTube to watch the final Anakin/Obi-Wan fight and... this is what I could describe as "comic booky" where the scene doesn't make any visual sense and has been designed entirely around cool visual moments. How are Anakin and Obi-Wan controlling the 'surfboards' that are floating above the lava when there are no pedals, no joysticks and no real human interface? How are they maneuvering these surfboards to and from each other to exchange lightsaber blows?

Why are they slashing and hacking at each other instead of, say, escaping the fiery lava all around them first, lava that is splashing madly but nonsensically not burning them or their conveyances? It's possible there's some protective field, but that protective field isn't blocking the lightsabers. Why does Obi-Wan try to kill Anakin but then nonsensically walk away with Anakin down but not dead, allowing Anakin to be transformed into Darth Vader?

These are questions similar to what you would find yourself asking when reading any 90s-era comic book where Batman drives a car with impractical fins that would scrape against any tunnel or wears a mask with horns so long that they would hit the top of any doorframe of any indoor environ and wears a cape that is so long it probably gets stuck on furniture and people around him probably step on it and cause him to trip and fall. REVENGE OF THE SITH in the 20 whole minutes I've seen is very comic booky, it's all about the imagery even if the story completely fails to justify the imagery.

The TV Tropes entry for this is Rule of Cool:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool

In contrast, Obi-Wan vs. Maul is ultimately not about any of that nonsense. It is about how Obi-Wan has in some ways fallen. The once resplendent Jedi Knight of the Republic has become a hermit in the desert, watching over a farm boy. From a knight of an ancient and noble order to a barely tolerated babysitter. But a true Jedi does what is needed and Obi-Wan has to protect Luke from Maul.

And in the confrontation with Maul, Obi-Wan doesn't do any Force grabs or flips or whatnot; he instead mimics Qui-Gon Jinn's stance in PHANTOM MENACE, luring Maul into the same double-bladed attack that killed Qui-Gon -- but Obi-Wan is ready for this move, having already seen how it works. Obi-Wan smartly slashes the double blade in half and Maul across the heart. Maul's silly flourishes are his undoing and Obi-Wan, having protected Luke, now grants Maul comfort in his final moments rather than ranting about Maul's failings the way Obi-Wan ranted at Anakin in REVENGE.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

This is a pretty funny YouTube parody fan edit of Vader's scenes in the 1977 movie. All of Vader's dialogue is re-recorded with a James Earl Jones impressionist voicing new dialogue making specific continuity references to ROGUE ONE, THE PHANTOM MENACE, ATTACK OF THE CLONES and REVENGE OF THE SITH in absurd efforts to reconcile all the discrepancies between the prequels and original trilogy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oQtGCtnF2Y

**

It's not a crime to dislike OBI-WAN. However, I watched the first episode on my HDTV (55 inches, probably average size these days) and to say fan films have better "production values" is simply untrue. I don't know what Grizzlor is referring to by that term, but OBI-WAN's filming, special effects, costuming, props, set designs and choreography even in the first episode alone are an extremely high quality.

OBI-WAN uses the StageCraft virtual location technology; the show looks like it was lensed in Tunisia, North Africa like the original 1977 film. OBI-WAN has extremely intricate and detailed costume designs with Tatooine's citizens all clad in distinct desert garb unlike the 1977 film having everyone wear the same robes. OBI-WAN has a chase scene staged in the uneven terrain of a forest with a child actor.

OBI-WAN's production values aren't attempting to mimic the densely computer generated look of the prequels, a look present in a lot of STAR WARS fan films from DUAL to that remake of the Obi-Wan/Vader fight. Instead, at least with the first episode, it has set its sights on the minimalism of the 1977 movie, using range, space, silence and stillness to convey the desert environment of Tatooine. Minimalism is not a crime, although it's also not a crime to dislike it.

The minimalism of the first episode is particularly effective in showing how everything that defined Obi-Wan Kenobi has faded away. He is no longer a man in law enforcement; he works as an assembly line butcher and has to steal food to survive. He is no longer a defender of the innocent; he cowers when asked for help and stands silent when people are threatened or starved by the powerful. He is so devoid of will and assertiveness that when a thief robs him, he buys back his own property. Obi-Wan has become a man of minimal effort in a minimalistic story.

No fan film has ever been able to do desert filming as well as the 1977 movie because sand is notoriously hard to shoot in and no fan film has been able to simulate a desert with the background and foreground elements matching. Desert is for professional productions.

Totally fine to dislike OBI-WAN.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

OBI-WAN: Episode 2 -- the writing has some serious plotting issues. Obi-Wan, in his search to retrieve a kidnapped ____, tracks her to a planet. Planets are REALLY big places, but Obi-Wan manages to track her to a city. It's still a BIG city. And Obi-Wan still locates ____ by... randomly talking to some randoms outside the airport and kicking down a few random doors, and randomly, ____ is behind one of them. OBI-WAN doesn't even get to use the Force as a catch-all explanation because his Force powers are pretty curtailed as, like Luke in THE LAST JEDI, Obi-Wan has clearly severed his Force connection to hide himself.

However, while the plotting isn't great, the emotional arc is strong. Obi-Wan encounters a fake Jedi with no power and the story notes that this phony conman Jedi has actually saved more people in a day than Obi-Wan has in 10 years. Obi-Wan is so shattered by the trauma of REVENGE OF THE SITH (a movie I myself couldn't finish) that he can no longer hack it as a hero; at one point, ____ calls him out as a 'fake' Jedi and it's hard to argue.

But then Obi-Wan has to get it together to save a little girl and discovers that he may still have what it takes -- only for this moment of self-realization to give way to horror when he discovers something he hasn't realized for 10 years: his only real achievement in the Clone Wars, killing the Sith apprentice Anakin Skywalker, was actually no achievement at all; Anakin's alive and Obi-Wan's failure to take him out and inability to see the fight through may be why the Empire has flourished while Obi-Wan has been working in a butcher shop. The character arc soars even though the plot is clumsy.

Obi-Wan keeps getting called out as "old" by a little girl which is interesting because Ewan McGregor is 51 and looks like a young man in his late 30s/early 40s with a beard and makeup-deepened lines. But in the context of the story, a man who looks like an adult will seem 'old' to a child

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

OBI-WAN, Episode 3: Obi-Wan was so powerful in THE PHANTOM MENACE and ATTACK OF THE CLONES. Toppling tens of battle droids with a lightsaber. Agile and invincible.

But Ben Kenobi in OBI-WAN is so diminished, so weakened. He struggles to fight off five stormtroopers; when he succeeds but reinforcements arrive and shout for him to surrender, Ben actually gives up, not even trying to block blaster fire with the lightsaber that he doesn't even ignite. This reduced version of the character is, to me, much more interesting.

And when Darth Vader shows up, Ben mentally collapses into panic and fear. Ben decides to give himself up and draw Vader away to give ____ a chance to escape; he doesn't believe he can fight back. Ben struggled to telekinetically lift a child. Ben surrendered to average stormtroopers. Ben stands no chance against Darth Vader.

The prequel Obi-Wan was so powerful that I never really believed anything bad could happen to him whereas I have serious doubts that Ben can actually survive long enough to the 1977 movie.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

OBI-WAN, Episodes 4 - 6: This works for me. I'm glad it worked for Slider_Quinn21. I am very, very sorry that it didn't work for Grizzlor; I never want anyone to not enjoy a product.

OBI-WAN is an odd little continuity insert of a series. The obvious authorial intent of A NEW HOPE is that Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader have not met since Vader was Obi-Wan's Jedi apprentice. "When I left you, I was but the learner; now I am the master." The obvious authorial intent of REVENGE OF THE SITH is that the battle in the lava (because that's a sensible place to have a swordfight) was Obi-Wan and Anakin's last confrontation before they met again on the Death Star. OBI-WAN is plainly a studio decision to hammer a new Obi-Wan/Vader story in between REVENGE and A NEW HOPE to sell some Disney+ subscriptions.

However, authorial intent doesn't count for much in this franchise. Obi-Wan in A NEW HOPE replies that his old student is "only a master of evil, Darth," and Alec Guinness is clearly addressing Vader as though "Darth" is a first name. Obi-Wan tells Luke that Vader "betrayed and murdered your father," and George Lucas' originally commissioned script for EMPIRE had the character of Anakin Skywalker appearing to Luke in visions alongside Obi-Wan. None of this matches RETURN OF THE JEDI confirming Vader's true identity or PHANTOM MENACE making "Darth" an honorific for Sith Lords.

The OBI-WAN series seizes on these continuity discrepancies as soft spots in the canon to carve out some space for itself, offering some rationale for why Obi-Wan's supposed lie to Luke wasn't Obi-Wan's lie at all, explaining why Obi-Wan would address Anakin as "Darth," and the series offers these explanations with deft writing, a strong emphasis on character conflict and progression over plot or visual spectacle, and a taut sense of understatement, never overselling a moment when the series can instead let the audience realize the implications as the scene unfolds -- and justifying an inserted story into the continuity of Obi-Wan and Darth Vader.

And now to spoilers...
















OBI-WAN does a great job of creating an arc for Obi-Wan and Darth Vader. Obi-Wan is shattered and broken after the Clone Wars and hiding behind the name Ben; then he finds out that Anakin not only survived the lava Obi-Wan left him in but has become a mass murdering force of doom, making Ben of Tatooine even more of a disaster as he lives in the shadow of Ben Kenobi's failures.

Ben cowers in the face of Vader, flees from him, can't escape him, and is so weak that Vader's lightsaber swings seem to bat Ben around like a rag doll while Ben staggers backwards from every blow and crawls away in fright. This is not the cool, measured, powerful Obi-Wan Kenobi that Ewan McGregor played in the prequels or the calm, assured Ben Kenobi of A NEW HOPE; Ben of Tatooine is weak. His supposed mission of 'protecting' young Luke Skywalker is shown to be a sham; Ben of Tatooine can't even protect himself.

Never has any Jedi Knight seemed so vulnerable, so fragile; even a defeated Luke in EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was defiant to the last. But Ben of Tatooine is a traumatized war veteran who has lost his capacity for conflict or violence. All he's good for is acting as a decoy so that refugees can escape. He faces down Darth Vader and Vader casually buries Ben of Tatooine alive; this time, Vader has the high ground. Vader is all that will remain of the legacy of Obi-Wan Kenobi.

But then, beneath a thousand tons of rock and soil, saved by the smallest of Force bubbles, Ben sees Leia Organa of Alderaan; Ben sees Luke Skywalker of Tatooine, sees their spirit and potential, sees their light and good repelling the darkness that Vader has cast him into -- and suddenly, Ben Kenobi bursts from beneath the ground, restored, renewed, having accepted that the despair and dark he feels is what makes the light side of Force what it is. Reconciled and renewed, he defeats Darth Vader, he apologizes for having failed to save Anakin, only for Vader to reply that Vader himself killed Anakin, absolving Ben of his guilt at last. "Goodbye, Darth," says Obi-Wan, once again sparing Vader -- possibly a mistake, but ultimately a decision on Ben's part to resume his role as a source of light in the galaxy.

This story is extremely small and intimate. When Ben of Tatooine realizes that his legacy will not merely be Darth Vader, it's a quiet, gentle moment and the transition from Ben of Tatooine to Ben Kenobi is subtle and low key. When Vader declares that Vader killed Anakin, not Obi-Wan, it's a low-volume, low-drama moment voiced by a wheezing, decrepit old man in a broken Vader suit, the voice of Hayden Christiansen's Anakin fading in and out of Vader's James Earl Jones voice.

The minimalism is also present in certain production aspects, in stark contrast to THE MANDALORIAN and BOBA FETT. When OBI-WAN has a flashback to the ATTACK OF THE CLONES era where Obi-Wan and Anakin were training, the show declines to use any deaging effects on Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christiansen. On one level, it's visually jarring because the recap sequences use shots of REVENGE OF THE SITH, but the flashback has a 40 year old Hayden Christiansen playing his 19 year old self, using only his hairstyle and costume to indicate this is the young Anakin. This is one area where slimming Anakin's face and removing the lines would have been worthwhile, but the creators elect to instead have the acting sell it for the audience.

Curiously, OBI-WAN does insist on de-aging the voice of James Earl Jones. Vader throughout OBI-WAN KENOBI sounds like the mean average of Vader in A NEW HOPE and EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. Jones does not sound like this in 2022; his vocal performance in the 2016 ROGUE ONE made Vader sound raspy, wheezy, tired, agitated, struggling to complete his lines before running out of breath.

Vader's voice in OBI WAN KENOBI has been assembled by the Respeecher company which mined Mark Hamill's audiobook recordings to create Luke's lines in BOBA FETT. However, there is no sense of Vader's voice being recompiled from previous clips; it's clearly a performance.

Likely, Respeecher had new 2022 recordings of James Earl Jones performing all the lines, then created a 70s and 80s library of Jones' voice from all his audiobook readings, radio performances and more -- and created a vocal template that Jones' 2022 recordings were remixed to match. It's strange that Disney would hire an effects company for Darth Vader's voice but not Anakin Skywalker's face.

OBI-WAN is good. It's low key. There's some talk of a second season. I'm not sure the story has any room left between the first season and A NEW HOPE, however.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Anyone else think Moses Ingram was perfectly cast as Reva in Obi Wan?

Outstandingly well done. And I love hearing James Earl Jones as Darth Vader again.

Just catching up on the last couple of episodes and episode 5 was excellent. Can't wait to watch the finale later tonight.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I really liked Moses Ingram's performance as Reva. Disturbing and terrifying only for Vader to turn the tables on her. I also liked how OBI-WAN KENOBI emphasizes how Reva is the one character whose fate is actually open. Ben of Tatooine can't actually die in a prequel to the 1977 movie. Leia can't die. Luke can't die. Darth Vader can be maimed and mauled and marred and mutilated, but not in any way that prevents him from appearing in A NEW HOPE. Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru will probably survive this story to die in a future story. Reva is the only one with an open future.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

ireactions wrote:

I really liked Moses Ingram's performance as Reva. Disturbing and terrifying only for Vader to turn the tables on her. I also liked how OBI-WAN KENOBI emphasizes how Reva is the one character whose fate is actually open. Ben of Tatooine can't actually die in a prequel to the 1977 movie. Leia can't die. Luke can't die. Darth Vader can be maimed and mauled and marred and mutilated, but not in any way that prevents him from appearing in A NEW HOPE. Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru will probably survive this story to die in a future story. Reva is the only one with an open future.

Indeed. Don't Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru die in the 1977 movie when storm troopers raid the farm looking for the droids? They can't die in the prequels either.

Very very interesting how they wrote that scene overall with Obi-Wan saying that. And Reva's back story just grew more and more interesting as the story evolved.

Obi-Wan still cares deeply about Anakin, even though they are enemies now. The other interesting part of the story overall was watching Obi-Wan come to terms with it. I don't think he ever really does, to be honest. We don't actually see Obi-Wan come to terms with that until the 1977 movie...unless he does this earlier in canon material that I'm not aware of.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

I was just making a joke saying Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru "probably" can't die. (Unless Obi-Wan were to replace them with clones while Luke sleeps. Or maybe Luke knows they are clones and that's why he wasn't that upset in STAR WARS when he returned to his family farm to find the estate burned to the ground and two charred skeletons that used to be his aunt and uncle.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

ireactions wrote:

I was just making a joke saying Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru "probably" can't die. (Unless Obi-Wan were to replace them with clones while Luke sleeps. Or maybe Luke knows they are clones and that's why he wasn't that upset in STAR WARS when he returned to his family farm to find the estate burned to the ground and two charred skeletons that used to be his aunt and uncle.

LOL. smile

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

SPOILERS

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

The biggest continuity error I see is with Leia.  I wish that Leia didn't actually meet her hero.  I wish that, perhaps, they'd written in something about Obi-Wan being too fragile to meet Anakin's daughter....and maybe Kumail Nanjiani's character is used as a proxy.  Because just having seen A New Hope, there's no indication from Leia that she's ever met Obi-Wan.  And it's not even in a "Spock isn't allowed to talk about Michael Burnham so he doesn't" kind of way.  She doesn't mention him in a message that is specifically from her to him.  Mentioning his rescue of her wouldn't put either of them in any more danger - they're both already in the maximum amount of danger.

And when he dies, she's stoic.  Again, maybe this Leia just refusing to break her vow that she seems to make, but he's already dead. She seems to promise not to mention him just to keep him safe.  There's no reason for that.  And it would've probably helped Luke for Leia to mention that she knows him too - that he saved her life once.  That he was a great warrior.  She doesn't do any of that, and she's supposed to be very tied in with the Force and how to deal with people.

The dialogue between Obi-Wan and Vader is fine.  It doesn't need fixing, but I think you can interpret that Vader sees any fight between him and Obi-Wan where Vader loses as being Vader still learning.  "Yeah you beat me, but I was still the Learner.  Now I'm the Master" - I could see Vader losing to Obi-Wan on the Death Star, Obi-Wan escaping, and Vader saying the same thing to him when they meet again on Dagobah.  "Okay, last time I really was still a Learner, but I swear this time I'm the Master"

Is it a continuity error that Qui-Gon shows up as a Force Ghost?  Didn't Clone Wars imply that Qui-Gon couldn't materialize except as a voice?  Essentially that he'd only gotten part of the training done, and that Obi-Wan is the first one who could materialize.  I don't know if I buy that - there must be some sort of ability to materialize even if you didn't complete the training while alive - otherwise, I don't know why Anakin showed up at all.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

In terms of Leia in OBI-WAN, I don't believe there is a plothole or a continuity error, just a slight oddity in one scene of A NEW HOPE.

OBI-WAN KENOBI plays fair with the dialogue in A NEW HOPE. A NEW HOPE indicates that Ben only adopted his Tatooine alias after the Clone Wars. "'Obi-Wan... Kenobi. Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time."

Aboard the Death Star, Luke tells Leia, "I'm Luke Skywalker and I'm here to rescue you. I'm here with Ben Kenobi" and Leia reacts, "Ben Kenobi!" and immediately trusts Luke. This means that Leia must have met Ben during his civilian life to know him by that name.

This means OBI-WAN had space to show how Leia and Ben had met, although OBI-WAN now had to explain why Leia's holo message to Ben was, in light of OBI-WAN, a little odd:

Leia Organa's Holo Message in A NEW HOPE:
General Kenobi. Years ago, you served my father in the Clone Wars. Now he begs you to help him in his struggle against the Empire. I regret that I am unable to present my father's request to you in person, but my ship has fallen under attack and I'm afraid my mission to Alderaan has failed.

I've placed information vital to the survival of the Rebellion into the memory systems of this R2 unit. My father will know how to retrieve it. You must see this droid safely delivered to him on Alderaan. This is our most desperate hour.

Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.

OBI-WAN KENOBI indicates that Ben's mission to rescue a young Leia was off the books. In contrast, Leia's message to Ben in A NEW HOPE was a formal request to recall a former soldier to the former Republic now Rebel Alliance. Therefore, she addressed him by rank ("General"). She referred to his last run of official active duty (his Clone War posting for Bail Organa).

She didn't refer to his off-the-books mission to rescue her because, if discovered, it would be apparent that Alderaan had been collaborating against the Jedi overtly after the Clone Wars when Alderaan was, at the time, attempting to maintain a fragile accord with the Empire ("Alderaan is peaceful, we have no weapons").

But doesn't Bail Organa, adoptive father of Leia, represent Alderaan? That doesn't appear to be the case in the non-LEGENDS, canon literature: the royal lineage was through Leia's adoptive mother, Breha Organa, which would allow some plausible deniability to declare that Bail had gone rogue, acted against his duty as a Senator in the Imperial Senate, and violated Alderaan's non-aggression pact with the Empire while leaving Alderaan untouched by his betrayal.

(In the end, it didn't matter; in A NEW HOPE, Tarkin says that Darth Sidious / Emperor Palpatine has dissolved the Imperial Senate and now Imperial soldiers have full authority to blow up Alderaan on a whim.)

The formal nature of Leia's message also made it clear: this wasn't seeking out Ben of Tatooine to do some discrete favour to maintain some secret arrangement with Dad; this was summoning General Obi-Wan Kenobi to resume active duty.

As for Leia's muted reaction to Ben's death in A NEW HOPE... life seems cheap and death seems constant in the STAR WARS universe. Leia earlier had a pretty muted reaction to her entire planet being destroyed. Luke has a pretty muted reaction to finding his farm burned and his uncle and aunt murdered; he actually gets sadder about Ben.

There's the possibility that Leia had a less than flattering remembrance of Ben. Ben staggered, blundered and stumbled in a rescue mission to save Leia's life, only had small bursts of actual Force ability that she witnessed, sent Leia away to survive while Ben parted ways to go on a suicide mission that he somehow survived, likely through a combination of luck, luck, luck and luck and possibly some brief burst of Force power.

She was grateful to him, but she probably didn't think that highly of him. My sense: Ben is the absolute last person that Leia would ever recruit for any dangerous mission; that if she turnned to old General Kenobi, she was down to her last potential agent.

In the context of Ben's not-great performance in OBI-WAN, Leia exclaiming "Ben Kenobi" implied that she was amazed that Ben actually made it to the Death Star when 10 years ago, he could barely make it to the spaceport.

Leia, seeing how upset Luke is, would not have wanted to tell her rescuer that her recollection of Ben was Ben being traumatized, helpless, terrified, defeated, unable to reliably access his Force-abilities, self-sacrificingly suicidal. She may have been wondering if Obi-Wan had finally achieved that death wish he had when they first met.

She may have been wondering if the frantic, frightened middle-aged man she met during OBI-WAN KENOBI had somehow gotten it together to become a great mentor adored by his pupil. She may have felt it best not to say anything until she ascertained who this Luke-person was and who this Ben-person had become and chosen to let Luke remember Ben Kenobi at his most self-assured and capable.

**

I have to note that Lucas had a peculiar attitude to tone in his movie. He wanted STAR WARS to be a lighthearted adventure story. Naturally, he set STAR WARS in a fascist dystopia.

Lucas wanted Luke and Leia to be fun, relatable characters. Naturally, he killed Luke's de-facto parents by incineration and blew up Leia's home planet while she stood by helplessly.

I think that's part of why ROGUE ONE had a relatively good response. It showed what life would actually be like under the Empire and in a rebellion. STAR WARS is the Saturday morning cartoon adventure version of that life.

**

I'm not sufficiently familiar with CLONE WARS to comment on Qui-Gon's continuity in that show.

**

I have to say, the reviews for OBI-WAN range from average to poor. The fanbase seems happy to have more Ewan McGregor, but the Serious Reviewers note that OBI-WAN is boxed in narratively: nothing that significant can happen to Obi-Wan, Darth Vader, Leia, Luke, Owen or Beru. A lot of viewers felt OBI-WAN could not rise above these restrictions.

And I think that's fair. But for me, I found a lot in seeing Obi-Wan reduced to the defeated Ben, horrified to discover that the supposedly-dead Anakin was now Darth Vader. The first scene where Ben encounters Vader and frantically runs was really gripping, as was Ben's eventual reunion with the Force.

One major criticism: reviewers seized on how Ben defeats Vader but doesn't kill him and walks away. This has been cited as OBI-WAN being restricted in what it can do with the characters even when it makes no logical sense for Ben to spare Vader. Later, Vader abandons the search for Ben; this was also cited as a forced character choice.

To me... Vader was defeated and I don't see Ben executing or assassinating anyone, ever; Jedi only kill in the heat of combat. Strategically, Darth Sidious had no love for Vader and would happily replace Vader with the next apprentice, so Ben was better off letting Vader stay where he was until Ben (or Luke) would be in a position to defeat both Vader and Sidious. As for Vader giving up on Ben, I would say that it showed how ultimately, Vader is a slave of Darth Sidious.

But it is an absolutely fair criticism to cite both as narrative problems.

Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More

Okay, I can buy your explanation for Leia's actions.  I'm sold.