Why I Changed My Mind About the 'Star Wars' Sequel Trilogy
Sequel Trilogy wallpaper by Thekingblader995 on Deviantart
When the ‘Star Wars’ sequel trilogy first came out, I enjoyed watching the films in the cinema.
I enjoyed being back in that beloved universe and I enjoyed the visuals.
While I didn’t review all 3 films, I did give my thoughts on the final one, ‘The Rise of Skywalker’.
One thing I will say about myself – when I’m watching a film for the first time, especially one I’ve been looking forward to, more often than not, I enjoy it at the time I’m watching it… Unless it’s so bad that no amount of optimistic enjoyment can gloss over the awfulness.
Re-reading my review, all I can say is, I definitely had the rose-tinted glasses on.
But at least I wasn’t so blind to the cons, which I did list.
So, 2.5 years later, what’s changed my mind about the sequel trilogy?
For starters, Gordon and Liam were not big fans of it and I’m always open to listening to the views of the ‘other side’.
And their reasons for not liking it made sense, though at the time I still held more to why I liked it.
I’ll explain why I changed my mind in a moment, but what really cemented my changed view was rewatching ‘Revenge of the Sith’ a couple of weeks ago, which we’d wanted to do before starting the new ‘Obi-Wan Kenobi’ series.
Watching just that one film of the prequel trilogy really brought home to me how much the sequel trilogy fell short.
And just so you know, I won’t be touching on the original trilogy which, despite its imperfections, is the benchmark against which the other 2 trilogies are compared.
So, what does the sequel trilogy lack, sometimes to the point of non-existence?
A good plot/story; promising characters; heart-stopping lightsaber duels; stunning space battles…
The politics, which don’t take away from the overall story but add necessary layers to it.
And, most importantly, friendships and relationships, around which is wrapped so much emotion.
‘Star Wars’ the Prequel trilogy
The core narrative of the prequel trilogy is the fall of Anakin Skywalker.
Running alongside that is the rise of the Emperor.
In ‘The Phantom Menace’, the fear and uncertainty Anakin feels, especially after leaving his mother, turns to anger in ‘Attack of the Clones’, resulting in the slaughter of the Tusken raiders.
And by ‘Revenge of the Sith’, fear for Padmé and his frustration with the Jedi Council inadvertently drive him closer to Senator Palpatine, who takes full advantage of Anakin’s vulnerability, resulting in the young Jedi’s fall to the dark side.
Interestingly, in ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, Yoda warns Luke of that progression – fear leads to anger, which leads to hate, culminating in great suffering.
That single narrative links the films in the trilogy, which then leads into the original trilogy.
The sequel trilogy, however, has no coherent thread linking the films and its left flailing about, wondering what the point of it is.
Of its large cast of characters, the prequel trilogy had only 4 familiar names/faces from the original – Obi-Wan, Yoda, Darth Vader, and the Emperor… although the Emperor’s identity wasn’t made immediately obvious to begin with.
All the others, heroes and villains, were completely new.
While many didn’t have much in the way of character development, I’d say, for the most part, they were given enough for the purposes of the films.
By the time of ‘Revenge of the Sith’, the focus was firmly on Anakin’s relationships with Obi-Wan, and with Palpatine, both coloured by his unconditional need to protect Padmé.
The way those relationships had developed was believable and added to the emotional weight of that film.
With the sequel trilogy, I will say I am happy to rewatch ‘The Force Awakens’; for me, that’s the most enjoyable of the 3.
We’re introduced to characters we know nothing about but who show promise.
'I was raised to do one thing' Finn by DarthFar on Deviantart
With Finn, I was excited at the notion of a stormtrooper who rebelled against direct orders, who ran away and wanted to continue running away until his conscience got the better of him.
As the first non-Force sensitive character we see wielding a lightsaber, we wondered if he was Force-sensitive, something he himself was unaware of.
Would he become a Jedi?
Instead of advancing these ideas, Finn was gradually pushed to nothing more than a side character by the 3rd film, with pointless allusions being made to Force-sensitivity.
Rey was fine as she was in ‘The Force Awakens’ – a ‘nobody’, an ordinary young woman stepping up to do the right thing who discovers she’s Force-sensitive.
There was no need for her existence to be justified by tying her to an already established character.
‘The Force Awakens’ by CKGoksoy on Deviantart
Kylo Ren was being perfectly set up as the villain of the piece.
That he was the son of Leia and Han Solo made it extra interesting.
Did we need the added reason that it was Luke’s doubts and actions that helped drive him to the dark side?
No.
In the prequel trilogy, it was just accepted that Palpatine had been the apprentice of a Sith Lord; that Dooku had turned from being a Jedi to a Sith.
Why did Kylo Ren turning to the dark side need to be justified?
While I can see why Luke’s guilt over Kylo would weigh him down as much as it did, was it necessary to turn him into a grumpy old git?
The arc about his self-exile, and Rey turning up to be trained by him sort of mirrored Luke seeking Yoda in ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, except in ‘The Last Jedi’, it was sorely lacking.
As for the ‘big bad’ – they should have stuck with Supreme Leader Snoke, an already established villain.
His unexpected death made even less sense when Palpatine was then shoe-horned in as the ultimate villain.
Its as if the writers/directors wanted something… anything to hook this trio of films to the original.
As I’ve mentioned the original, I just want to focus on the 2nd films of each trilogy for a moment…
In ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, Luke finds out Darth Vader is his father, and he loses a hand.
In ‘Attack of the Clones’, Anakin slaughters Tuskens; he later loses an arm to Count Dooku.
What did the 2nd film in the sequel trilogy, ‘The Last Jedi’, give us?
Instead of any striking character moment, there was just aimlessness.
What could have been an interesting subplot regarding Poe’s mutinous behaviour and ignoring the chain of command fizzled into nothingness.
Finn and Rose’s mission to Canto Bight was unnecessarily long, bogged down with a pointless act of rebellion against the elite.
My point is these were good ideas and, properly developed, could have lifted the sequel trilogy.
Other good ideas, to name a couple, were Luke’s disillusionment with the Jedi code, and Rey realising she has a dark side.
Unfortunately, they stayed as mere ideas with minimal development, if any.
Actually, one other concept the film makers could have explored was Anakin’s Force ghost communicating with Kylo, his grandson.
I could go on… Han Solo’s demise; the lacklustre lightsaber duels; the dearth of space battles; the underwhelming music score…
One big difference, I think, between the prequels and the sequels is that the prequels didn’t play the nostalgia card.
With its eye firmly on the end goal of linking it to the original trilogy, it still managed to give us new worlds and new characters.
Unfortunately for the sequel trilogy, those in charge of and working on the films seemed to be more concerned with pushing agendas and making a quick buck; consequently, little if any focus was given to coherent story planning.
The narrative didn’t need to be airtight, but it certainly needed to be more cohesive than it was.
Despite that, the new shows that have been made, such as ‘The Mandalorian’, are helping keep the spirit of Star Wars alive, and I’m looking forward to seeing what other new projects come about.