Re: Star Wars: Episode VII (2015) Discussion Thread
Good point about Raiders, but to be fair, it goes into substantial detail about Marion and her dad in the middle of the film. It's pretty much all explained from their last meeting offscreen to their current relationship as a whole.
Empire? How do I know that Luke used to be this naive, farmboy on a desolate desert planet or that he received his father's lightsaber? How do I appreciate that aspect of the character? Sure, I'd find out in Empire that his dad used to be this Jedi guy, thing, but it'd be less impacting (not to mention the big reveal at the end with Vader, who was previously just this villain with little to no interaction with Luke). How do I know that Han used to be this scoundrel that killed bounty hunters without a seconds thought (before revisions) and saved the day during the destruction of the Death Star? Leia and Han's prior relationship is never explained Empire? Where do I get the budding love/hate relationship they had going on without that dynamic in the first film? Without proper context, it seems like Leia is dead set on going after Han's D from the beginning.
"That's two you owe me now, junior" literally has no context without Star Wars. That goes double for Return of the Jedi.
I think the villains, the Empire specifically, could amuse a movie goer without a previous film, but not Luke, Ben, Han and Leia. I mean sure, there's someone out there that could just drop in, see Empire as their first Star Wars experience and be cool with it, but would that experience have the same meaning and be as good without the first film? I highly doubt it. Would it really work for them without sufficient background? Tough to say. It's impossible for me to believe that the Force, Ben Kenobi and Jedi in general wouldn't suffer. The Vader reveal wouldn't even matter, I think.
So Raiders is sort of apples and oranges. It wasn't conceived as this saga with three parts. I mean, doesn't Temple of Doom come before Raiders anyway as far as plot and timelines go? Aren't they pretty much separate entities? Raiders has a great ending, but what really happens at the end other than the ARK being put into storage? Certainly no character development for Indy other than disappointment. Of course a brief history isn't necessary for someone like Jones, it was more about the relic or the adventure he was on (the Ark, Temple of Doom, Last Crusade). Star Wars is a different beast, especially when you have a character arc/hero's journey like Luke Skywalker's who goes from naive farmboy looking for adventurer to Jedi Knight in the span of three films.
I'm sure people will argue this, but I think Indiana Jones lends itself to a more random serial/episodic type of story than Star Wars does. Star Wars has a clear beginning, middle and an end. I know it was conceived to be this serial type thing where the audience is dropping in on "Episode 4", but does the actual films really feel this way? That whole notion is sort of contradictory, especially when Lucas relates them to serials in one interview, but then compares it to a three act play in another. When audiences were watching Star Wars before all the revisions, did it really feel like they were dropped into a running story line with several episodes that had already occurred? No. Did Empire really feel like an "Episode 5", of course not. There was a clear beginning, middle and end. I know why Lucas did what he did out of his inspiration from serials like Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, but I never got the point of the roman numerals. Overall, it just feels like a weird addition.
I agree if you are introducing somebody to something new, it is ideal to start from the beginning. But while I love it, ANH is not a good enough film to hook somebody like her in, ESB on the other hand may just be.... once that foot is in the door is when you go can back to the beginning and show the rest.
