- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 54,554
- Reaction score
- 18,371
Yeah I definitely agree. Also, I hadn't considered deeply the era of which they were made contributing to the different messaging, that's an excellent observation.
Agreed about the sequels too, TLJ I thought was going somewhere and at least tried to do something but upholds exactly what you're saying and goes back on anything remotely interesting it had going for it. Not to mention that even by the film's internal logic Poe was correct re: his disagreements with Leia and Holdo. It's also betrayal of Leia's character, she was literally a Rebel leader in the originals, I would think she'd appreciate someone going against the grain for the greater good, especially when it clearly made sense to do so.
I think you could argue Lucas was not blind to this other view of history either, whilst we see the Empire is led by "evil" men I think you also get the sense of "the banality of evil" from it as well. Most of the imperials below the very top tend not to be shown as especially evil, just careerists keeping their head down. Thats very different to The First Order who are turned into cartoon space nazis.
The Holdo plot to me is such a betrayal of Starwars, a franchise that previous(even if not that effectively in the prequels) was all about personal morality. If Poe was shown to be a bloodthirsty sexist who learns to better himself that wouldnt be a betrayal but the problem is he's not shown to be that. Leia makes a speech against his attacking the Imp ship at the start but really it rings totally false in a universe were she's taken down 3 superweapons and were Holdo rams the Imperials killing tens of thousands. Everything Poe does seems to be moral but the film basically pulls the carpet from under him, it tells him that he should follow authority, especially if its empowered by tokenism.
Last edited: