Star Wars terrorists, or Why Rogue One Is My Favorite (and Least Favorite) Installment

[Vort]

Why do most seem to love Rogue One best of all the Star Wars movies? "Because the writing is great!" "Because the characters are three-dimensional, and you care about them!" "Because it's not just more George Lucas tripe!" Well...yes. Maybe. But not really. The first reason is legit; the writing is pretty solid, especially compared with pretty much everything that came before. And the last reason is legit. But the part about well-fleshed-out characters is rather the opposite of good. Let me explain.

Terrorists commandeered airplanes and flew them into populated buildings, killing not only themselves but thousands of others, including innocent children. Were the terrorists hateful? Undoubtedly, of the darkest stripe. Did the terrorists know they were likely going to be killing children? Of course they did. What are the odds that no children would be on their hijacked jumbo jets or in the buildings or surroundings of their targets? Did the terrorists want to kill children? Probably not, at least not specifically. They simply counted dead children as collateral damage, regrettable but acceptable losses of innocents in their holy fight against the satanic evil of the United States. The ugly realities of war. You know, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and other stupid sayings.

Were the terrorists wrong? Obviously their murderous rampages were wrong in the deepest sense. But they were not wrong in all their observations. The United States has in fact been the world's preeminent purveyor of celluloid filth for the past (at least) thirty or forty years. The coarsening of our society can in large part be traced right back to Hollywood. If the US didn't invent the evils, it certainly was effective at proselytizing them. Now, this analysis blatantly ignores the unparalleled good that the US has done in the world; but holy fanatics aren't much worried about getting a balanced view of things.

Only the bravest, most introspective, and probably most foolish persons would look at the actions and probable motivations of the despicable terrorists and admit that they, too, might very well be those terrorists if they were in the same position. It's a sobering and even terrifying thought that such evil can dwell within almost anyone, even ourselves.

But what is Rogue One about? It's about terrorists. Not the female lead; she's more or less an innocent and a savior. Not the male lead; he's a cog in the machine looking for a way out, comparable at worst to the German enlisted men. But most of the other people involved were terrorists. They were resisting the evils of the Empire, and they were doing it by disrupting and killing. Innocents died as a result of their efforts, which they knew perfectly well. It haunted some of them. But they did it anyway. Because collateral damage, you know.

Would you do that? You would if you believed your cause were just. Innocents will always die in war. Does that mean we accept disenfranchisement and slavery, because the alternative is dead babies? No. We stand up for the right. We do what is needed to maintain our freedoms. If necessary, we go to war against those who would enslave us -- knowing full well that innocents will die.

So we're just like the terrorists?

No. We are not. But that's actually a different point, one worth discussing, but not the point of this particular rant.

Rogue One is about a rebel group that, to outside appearances, looks and acts and even thinks just like a terrorist group. It's a morally ambiguous effort led by people of varying motivations and degrees of dedication. This appeals to our current modern Zeitgeist of moral relativism, and helps make the movie much more gripping. Whatever personal admiration or desire we lose for the individual characters who struggle with their ideals versus their corruption of those ideals is more than made up for by our intrigue at their actions and choices.

BUT WAIT A MINUTE!

What is Star Wars, anyway? IT'S A MOVIE SERIAL! It is the open, unabashed continuation of the 1940s and 1950s era tripe like Flash Gordon. It's eye candy, where you put your mind in neutral and enjoy the explosions! Boy gets girl! Awesome!

Star Wars was predictable, and not in a bad way. The White Hats were bleached white. The Jedi were Good personified. Whatever lip service Lucas wrote into Obi-Wan's mouth about moral relativism, that was never what SW was about. Darth Vader was (literally) a Black Hat, big and bad and ominous. Pure evil, seeking to destroy whoever and whatever bothered him. Luke was Good. Leia was Good. Han was the lovable rogue who eventually came through as a Good Guy. Stark lines, bright primary colors, clear battle lines. Good will overcome evil in the end. Even when the despicable Darth Vader, murderer of hundreds of millions and enslaver of a hundred times that number, "redeemed" himself when he decided to save HIS OWN SON -- well, that was just proof that in the end, Good was more powerful than Evil. We weren't supposed to think too hard about the billions of people whose lives were destroyed or ruined by Darth Vader, because, you see, he saved his son in the end, so he was a Good Guy after all.

Redemption! What a great story line!

Well, of course it's bogus. No thinking person failed to realize that Vader's redemption as portrayed was possible only on a Hollywood sound stage and with CGI. But we suspended our disbelief and set aside our moral sense -- even our common sense -- to enjoy the ride. Okay, whatever.

But now here comes Rogue One. It doesn't merely portray moral conundra that we're supposed to ignore. No, it focuses on those moral conundra, revels in them, holds them up to bright light and glories in their imperfections.

What the heck? How is that a Star Wars movie?

If you're going to tell us a fantasy story writ large, an on-screen comic book, something for the kiddies to enjoy, that's fine. But to then turn it into a morally ambiguous and very adult-themed exploration of human societal interaction at its most ruthless and violent -- that's breaking the contract. That's ordering bubble-gum-flavored cotton candy and getting a fifth of vodka instead.

The biggest problem might be that, having taken steps down the Rogue One path, I''m not sure the franchise can come back. The innocent, wide-eyed, silly, cartoonish Star Wars of decades past will probably remain in the decades past. I agree that Rogue One was in many ways the most interesting and enjoyable Star Wars; but frankly, I do not want to follow (or have my children follow) a movie series with the dark core that Rogue One displayed. I think that movie may well have been the death knell of the Star Wars franchise we grew up with, and I don't think I'm likely to find the new version palatable in the long term.

[Guest]

Well, then you're going to be disappointed with the Last Jedi.  Moral relativism is the path. 

We were told in ANH that there was the good side and the dark side.  But in all the books and accompanying media since the 70s and 80s there was "the middle."  It is the quite a bit like moral relativism.

TLJ is bound to go down that path.  And episode 9 will undoubtedly end there.

I don't believe this to be a spoiler because I haven't seen the movie yet.

[anatess2]

Rogue One is awesome because of one thing.

It fixes a YUUUUUGE plot hole.  End of story.

 

Anyway, I disagree with the portrayal of good and bad in the OP.  There are no "this is the good guy" and "this is the bad guy" lines.  Well, ok, when you just take it one movie at a time then sure.  Episode I is broadstroke bad guy represented by Vader who is so so so beyond evil he blew up a planet, Luke and Leia are the broadstroke good guys.  Clear cut.  But that's not easily determined as you expand to the entire universe.  Jedi vs Sith may be called light side vs dark side but you can debate til the cows come home if the light side is really the good side and the dark side really the bad side.  The greatest Siths including Vader were Jedi.  And great Siths like Lord Praven (book) became Jedi.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by anatess2

[bytebear]

The 9/11 terrorists had no intention on a mission that betters humanity. They wanted to destroy by any and all means necessary those who oppose their ideology.  Their mission was to destroy, not to protect.

Rogue One and the "Rebels" are about destroying a weapon that will be used to kill millions of people.  They weren't going after civilian outposts just because they supported the Empire.

Simply put, military targets of an evil regime vs civilian targets done for no reason other than to cause fear.

[NeuroTypical]

Funny thing: You could take this thread and replace the words with "Alexander Hamilton The Broadway Musical", and lots of it would still make coherent sense.  

Didja know most of the founding fathers were the terrorists of the day?  They stole cannons and robbed supply trains.  They had sympathizers do acts of theft and sabotage from the inside.  They engaged in acts of combat that were considered barbaric at the time (basically shooting from cover and then running away). 

Of course, after the war was won, there wasn't a bunch of the victors imposing their will, there was the first real example of fledgling democracy (or representative republic, if you prefer).  It ended in the birth of the notion that power flowed from the people up, not from the government down.  You can't really say that about other terrorists (not sure what The Last Jedi adds to clarifying how we deposed the emperor and still ended up with a friggin' death planet two seconds later - but no spoilers!)

[Guest]

On 12/17/2017 at 11:37 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Of course, after the war was won, there wasn't a bunch of the victors imposing their will, there was the first real example of fledgling democracy (or representative republic, if you prefer).  It ended in the birth of the notion that power flowed from the people up, not from the government down.  You can't really say that about other terrorists (not sure what The Last Jedi adds to clarifying how we deposed the emperor and still ended up with a friggin' death planet two seconds later - but no spoilers!)

A terrorist is willing to kill for his freedom.  A patriot is willing to die to obtain freedom for others.

It is pretty clear that the rebels are in the latter camp from the way the series was set up for the first six episodes.  Both Rogue One and TFA seemed to carry the same theme.  But there were so many (such as Saw Gererra) that simply didn't seem to have such motivation.

Now, having seen TLJ, it is pretty clear that the rebels are in the latter camp.  (No Spoilers).  There is sacrifice after sacrifice in that movie.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

A terrorist is willing to kill for his freedom.  A patriot is willing to die to obtain freedom for others.

It is pretty clear that the rebels are in the latter camp from the way the series was set up for the first six episodes.  Both Rogue One and TFA seemed to carry the same theme.  But there were so many (such as Saw Gererra) that simply didn't seem to have such motivation.

Now, having seen TLJ, it is pretty clear that the rebels are in the latter camp.  (No Spoilers).  But there is sacrifice after sacrifice in that movie.

Kylo Ren is an awesome character.  I wish there was more to him outside of the movies.  I would love to dig deep into his character.  Okay okay... I need to stop moping the demise of the old universe and go pick up a book.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Kylo Ren is an awesome character.  I wish there was more to him outside of the movies.  I would love to dig deep into his character.  Okay okay... I need to stop moping the demise of the old universe and go pick up a book.

I think he's a useless character.  They made him a big brat with immense power.  No wisdom.  No strategic thinking.  No understanding of things. No abilities other than the fact he can bully people with the force.

[NightSG]

On 12/15/2017 at 12:49 AM, Vort said:

Why do most seem to love Rogue One best of all the Star Wars movies?

You're way overthinking this.

It's because Felicity Jones, for being such a pretty woman, has a sort of goofy looking smile.  Rogue One is two hours of her not smiling.

[Guest Godless]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I think he's a useless character.  They made him a big brat with immense power.  No wisdom.  No strategic thinking.  No understanding of things. No abilities other than the fact he can bully people with the force.

Agree 100%. He reminds me a lot of Anakin in Revenge of the Sith, very one-dimensional. 

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Godless said:

Agree 100%. He reminds me a lot of Anakin in Revenge of the Sith, very one-dimensional. 

Anakin is so far from one-dimensional, I can't even.  Even Darth Vader.  The first Vader book in the timeline after Revenge of the Sith is another awesome book.

[Guest Godless]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Anakin is so far from one-dimensional, I can't even.  Even Darth Vader.  The first Vader book in the timeline after Revenge of the Sith is another awesome book.

I'm sure Anakin is great in the books. I was referring specifically to how he was portrayed with the combo of Hayden Christensen's horrible acting and George Lucas' horrible character development and writing in Episode III (he was better in Episode II, but not by much). I think there's a lot of potential for greatness in the Anakin character on screen that was unfortunately wasted on the prequels. Perhaps he would have been better if Disney had done the prequels. 

I think Adam Driver is a decent actor, and I think the writing of the new trilogy overall is far better than anything George Lucas did. I just don't like Kylo Ren as a character. To me, he's the one major disappointment in the post-Lucas writing of Star Wars. 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'm sure Anakin is great in the books. I was referring specifically to how he was portrayed with the combo of Hayden Christensen's horrible acting and George Lucas' horrible character development and writing in Episode III (he was better in Episode II, but not by much). I think there's a lot of potential for greatness in the Anakin character on screen that was unfortunately wasted on the prequels. Perhaps he would have been better if Disney had done the prequels. 

I think Adam Driver is a decent actor, and I think the writing of the new trilogy overall is far better than anything George Lucas did. I just don't like Kylo Ren as a character. To me, he's the one major disappointment in the post-Lucas writing of Star Wars. 

Hayden is an awesome actor.  Natalie Portman is a terrible actress (why is Thor Ragnarok the best Thor movie in the series?  Because Portman is not in it).  Lucas is a terrible director and a bad dialogue writer.  Type mismatch can end a career and it did here.  Hayden in Life As A House (before Star Wars II) was awesome.  His chemistry with Kevin Kline was just spot on.

Kylo Ren is my favorite Disney Star Wars character even as I try to detach him from the Jacen Solo/Ben Skywalker old-universe characters so I have nothing else to base him on but the movies.

[Vort]

39 minutes ago, Godless said:

Hayden Christensen's horrible acting

He was a child, and frankly he did a great job of acting. The awfulness you perceive is the director's fault, not the actor's. A good director can make even a bad actor look great (e.g. The Gods Must Be Crazy), and a bad director can make even a good actor look awful (e.g. pretty much any of the first six Star Wars movies, where even Harrison Ford ended up looking pretty stupid at times). (EDIT: I mean any of the first six that Lucas directed, which would be, what, the first one and the prequels? Just embarrassingly bad directing.)

It has always bugged me when people rag on Hayden Christensen. He was a kid; give him a break. Place the blame where it belongs, which is not on the shoulders of a twelve-year-old. Hayden Christensen did a fine job for a bad director, who gave all the wrong direction and made all the wrong decisions, both on the sound stage and in post.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Vort

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

He was a child, and frankly he did a great job of acting.

I thought "Jumper" didn't get near enough credit.

[Guest Godless]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

He was a child, and frankly he did a great job of acting. The awfulness you perceive is the director's fault, not the actor's. A good director can make even a bad actor look great (e.g. The Gods Must Be Crazy), and a bad director can make even a good actor look awful (e.g. pretty much any of the first six Star Wars movies, where even Harrison Ford ended up looking pretty stupid at times). (EDIT: I mean any of the first six that Lucas directed, which would be, what, the first one and the prequels? Just embarrassingly bad directing.)

It has always bugged me when people rag on Hayden Christensen. He was a kid; give him a break. Place the blame where it belongs, which is not on the shoulders of a twelve-year-old. Hayden Christensen did a fine job for a bad director, who gave all the wrong direction and made all the wrong decisions, both on the sound stage and in post.

Hayden Christensen played the older Anakin in Episodes II and III. I have no beef with the kid in Phantom Menace.

A good actor can overcome bad directing. Maybe not completely, but at least to the point of being bearable. Hayden was cringe-worthy at best (so was Natalie Portman). Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson, while certainly not putting out Oscar-worthy performances, were able to make their characters palatable at least. 

And sorry @Carborendum, but I didn't like Jumper either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited December 19, 2017 by Godless

[Vort]

39 minutes ago, Godless said:

Hayden Christensen played the older Anakin in Episodes II and III. I have no beef with the kid in Phantom Menace.

A good actor can overcome bad directing. Maybe not completely, but at least to the point if being bearable. Hayden was cringe-worthy at best (so was Natalie Portman). Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson, while certainly not putting out Oscar-worthy performances, were able to make their characters palatable at least. 

And sorry @Carborendum, but I didn't like Jumper either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How embarrassing. Right you are. I was thinking of Jake Lloyd. Duh. I still stand by my "awful director" rant, but I have to agree with you that Hayden Christensen didn't impress. He and Natalie Portman had the sparkling screen chemistry of day-old lentil soup. Most of this can be laid at the feet of the screenwriters and director -- but e.g. Harrison Ford managed to make lemonade out of embarrassingly bad scenes. So I take it back, @Godless. You are right.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Godless said:

And sorry @Carborendum, but I didn't like Jumper either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There's no accounting for taste.

For the record.  I liked the movie.  Hayden did his job.  I can't say he did it well.  But it was a fairly bland character.  I feel like I never really got to see him actually act.  He simply went through the motions.  The same is true for "Awake".  Just went through the motions.

[beefche]

On 12/19/2017 at 12:44 PM, anatess2 said:

Kylo Ren is my favorite Disney Star Wars character even as I try to detach him from the Jacen Solo/Ben Skywalker old-universe characters so I have nothing else to base him on but the movies.

Wow, Anatess, really?? He is the ultimate emo teenager that needs to be seriously grounded. My husband and I saw TLJ today and discussed how we kept waiting for someone to take Kylo over the knee and give him a good spanking. He acts like a whining 12 year old. Not menacing at all.

We actually discussed that perhaps it is the writer's intention that he fails miserably to be menacing like Darth Vader. Vader is such an iconic bad guy. Even in this universe, he is the ultimate baddie. And Kylo just....fails. Maybe it's deliberate? His obvious temper tantrums are more comedic than they are scary.

From the very beginning, I've said that I honestly hope that he isn't "redeemed" as Vader was. Not only do I not like him, but I would like to see Hollywood actually defeat evil....not just explain it as being "misunderstood" or "conflicted" and just in need of a friend.