I agree with much of what you have said and you have said it really well.

The constant remakes in mainstream cinema are lazy and tiresome in many cases.

But consider this:

Was ANH great because it was an original story?

Orphan boy meets mentor wizard who reveals boy has magical powers. Boys old life is destroyed and the two employ the help of a rogue and his mate to rescue a princess from a fortress controlled by an evil wizard who is reigning unspeakable horrors on innocent people. Boy rescues princess whilst old mentor dies facing evil wizard. Boy returns with an army to destroy fortress and vanquish evil wizard who survives to return in a sequel.

Is this a great story? Maybe, once upon a time.

Was it an original story? Nope, that story is millenia old (just ask Joseph Campbell).

Was the film a reboot? Maybe, of Kurasawa's Hidden Fortress.

Did it change cinema? Yes.

Why? Because of the way it was told, the visual aesthetic and the special effects.

So we have to be careful when we say story is everything because you could well argue that the film that sparked one of the greatest franchises ever did so because of its execution and not what it was saying.

Great essay! You bring up several important and good points and you do a good job at giving reason for your conclusions!

I definitely agree that the writing is a key aspect of a good story. I'm also inclined to agree that the pushing of content Disney, for example, has shown in the last couple of years doesn't seem to have necessarily done the quality of the respective stories a favor. And you're making a very good point when raising the question of whether or not we want to be consumers or viewers.

But I personally often find it difficult to define quality. As @Shambala108 says, what would you consider high-quality? What are the criteria? Is it tied to appealing to you personally or is there something else?

Take TLJ as example. A great deal of the SW-fandom considered it an objectively horrible entry in SW-media, as a movie with bad pacing, bad characterization, bad at tying in with the previous storyline, etc. Whereas a different group, consisting of other SW-fans and casusal viewers/critics, considered it a great movie with great storytelling.

In the end, I think it isn't all that easy to define what kind of writing or story belongs to the type worthy of being shown. Even projects that are generally not considered to be examples of good writing etc., like TBOBF or Kenobi, has its fair share of fans and I think it would be insincere to claim that all of those fans are generally just consumers. It's definitely possible, if not highly likely, that there are many people who are satisfied with consuming something and not critically examining it all that much. But, again, from my personal experience and exchange with other people, like here on the Wook, I find it perfectly plausible to like projects like Kenobi while giving objective reasons for liking it or giving plausible reasons for considering something as good writing while this something is generally viewed in a more negative light. What makes the arguments of those fans who enjoyed these projects less valid than those of fans who didn't like the same projects?

In other words: I think it's a bit simplified to say that enjoying and taking in something that isn't necessarily considered good writing in general is equivalent to simply consuming something. I personally think there are many cases with weaker projects that you actually can enjoy due to objective criteria.

That said, I don't disagree that there are differences between a project like Andor and a project like Kenobi. I also don't think that it's impossible to judge something as having fulfilled the criteria in certain aspects in any way or that you shouldn't criticize something if you believe said thing to have lacked certain qualities. And I'm also not saying you don't have a point; on the contrary, I think you're right overall that it would be a good idea to examine content more critically and that diverse projects being produced in a short amount of time isn't necessarily beneficial to the quality of the projects.

What I have mixed feelings on is the practical differentiation between "good content" and "bad content" or, more importantly, the ratio between "good aspects" and "bad aspects" that decide whether the project is overall "good" or "bad"; and what makes one a "consumer" or a "viewer".

Still, I think you made very good points and you brought your arguments forward in a coherent way!

Well done!

^ I agree with you there Saga, and @Shambala108

Who is to decide what does and doesn't get made?

The implication in the OP is that Disney pushing content means a drop in quality.

But Lucas took 15 years to make TPM and AOTC and I consider them both to be very poor films. I think the story is okay (only okay, nothing world changing, nothing hugely original) but the execution is terrible. That said, I still watch them and would not want to see them removed from the franchise.

Many would argue that the content from Disney had 'ruined' SW but, for me, much of the content other than the OT is far better than the PT and portions of TCW. I am one of those who thinks TLJ is superb.

Then we have Legends EU, bloated, inconsistent, often very poorly written (based on the generally agreed metrics of quality fiction), repetitive and deeply derivative. But some people revere it and, despite quality being all over the place, I consumed it with relish.

And it is the same for much in life. My favourite football team, for much of their history have been objectively bad at football. But I continue to watch their feeble attempts at the beautiful game and I would be devastated if they ceased to exist.

Just because something is viewed by some as bad should not lead to a narrative that it is not important or should not exist.

We could also consider the post about favourite trilogies. SW is my favourite franchise but with the exception of Andor, ESB, RO and maybe ANH (from the way it changed cinema, not the very basic, derivative storyline), nothing else in SW sits probably even in my top 100 films or TV series.

Still love it though.

^what you wrote made me think, actually if films like TROS that I didn't like at all were removed, I would be really angry, and yes, Disney didn't ruin Star Wars, not at all, but they gave us a lot of great content like Andor and Rogue One

Star Wars fans don’t want “better content” or “meaningful stories”. They simply want their own expectations and wants meticulously displayed onscreen.

We are all guilty of this to at least some degree.

However, what happens, as already articulated, is that content that doesn’t meet what individuals personally want is reshaped into various pejoratives of “bad writing”, “lazy”, or “unoriginal”, and now broadcast freely over the internet in well-crafted and edited videos and shorts to make people angry.

The fact is, that of the three sequel movies, TLJ is the best film when filtered through standard “critical criteria”. It also happens to be my least favorite of the three (I do still enjoy many parts of it), I can make demands for “better writing”, but the truth is, it is good writing, I just didn’t like some of it (whenever I see “Rey nobody” or Canto Bight I hear fart noises in my head LoL).

I believe the long term problem is not the writing, but the drawn out/interconnected style of storytelling among the current SW media. Many shows (not all) start to feel like bread crumbs, or a trailer, to something bigger down the road instead of being something big on its own. I think Kenobi actually did well at making it its own and ending big, people just didn’t like it (including myself with some parts). Doesn’t mean it was “bad writing”, just not what you wanted.

@Infantry31st

Thanks! I don’t think I’ve ever been called the goat before, and it brought a smile to my face lol.

I does seem like there are fewer original stories and more spin-offs/remakes/sequels, which is honestly pretty sad. That being said, there ARE new, original stories, I just think they are a little harder to find. I’ve heard this a lot: “Nothing is original. Everything comes from something.” And while it could be argued that every new idea comes from something before, I (mostly) disagree. I think that something can be influenced or inspired by something and still be different or original. And there are certainly some creatives who truly care about their work. But I think that for the most part, the focus for the big companies is money. I know it sounds like a silly dream, but I hope to one day work towards changing how these things are. I’m currently studying animation/character design/storytelling, and my classes have given me a lot to think about lately.

And as much as I’d love to say that my opening sentence has some thought out connection, it doesn’t. I’ve actually never seen Tenet, but you mentioning it makes me want to watch it now.

@Shambala108

Your right. Quality is often defined as “what I want” rather than what is actually a good story. It’s unfortunate. However, I’d like to believe that some people do see quality as what it is: “the degree of excellence of something”

Of course, there is a subjective aspect to art, (and that’s good!) but that doesn’t mean people should say a show/movie has terrible writing just because they don’t like it.

@WriterBuddha

Thank you!

@Padawan Jedi 66

Yes, exactly! I love the examples you used. Avatar looks amazing, but like you said, the plot is very simple. I’ve never seen Star Trek but I have heard the about it being filmed in a garage, and I think that’s so cool. Although I haven’t seen it, I know it was obviously a huge success. Not because of fancy sets and special effects, but because of the story.

In a video in class a while ago I heard something interesting. I don’t remember which video nor who said it, and I don’t remember exactly how he said it, but It was something like “special effects cannot save the movie.” He was talking about storytelling and how you have to start making a movie by having a story, then you can add all the extra stuff. But if you don’t have a good story, not even the best, most fancy effects can salvage the poor plot.

Also, sorry for the delayed response ,everyone. I’ve been busy and haven’t had time to sit down to and respond. I don’t have much free time today but tomorrow I’ll try to respond to the rest:)

Prophets of Doom are more respected. Always

I think it’s down to the way we think, we’re more used to the bad parts of the day standing out much more than the decent or downright meh parts. It’s the same with the way we consume stories - the ugly side calls to us more than the positives.

I attribute a large part of this fatigue you touch upon so well to the fact that most of us don’t have as much time on our hands as we did just a couple years ago, when the SW mania really began anew. Most of the fans whose gateway to the franchise was the sequels or The Mandalorian would now be significantly older than when they began, and if they’re in a country where non-cinema SW products are really hard to come by, the problem gets even worse.

As a person from one of these countries, I find this constant discourse about this fatigue - well, fatiguing. I get it, the constant sense of remaking older ideas is tiring, but isn’t there some joy in seeing how its executed? I tend to feel, in my darker moods, that this feeling is more a consequence of more - shall I say - western audiences and the sheer deluge of content they have at their disposal. It’s easy to be fatigued by something when there’s a lot of it available, and it’s not a phenomenon I’ve been witness to.

I’d also like to ask you a question - how far can anything be considered a “new” story? I’ve got about a dozen would-be essays slowly being revised and deleted comparing the mythology I grew around and the world of Star Wars. It’s led me down this interesting rabbit hole, ending in the realisation that SW isn’t a “new” concept. What makes it such a wonderful and enduring concept is its very humanisingly personal execution of some very simple themes. It’s down to the individual really, and how they interpret the themes of SW that shape the franchise.

And at the end of the day, most of us to go to the cinema go in knowing that what we see isn’t entirely original anyway, especially in a place where the same movie is remade in about five different languages in the span of the year. The joy - and the devil - is in the details.

Regardless of my personal take, this was an immensely enjoyable read - the kind that feels like it needs to be hallowed in some way.

All the very best

^ According to Jospeh Campbell's Hero with a thousand faces, there are no new stories. Just variations on a theme.

The hero's journey, the antagonist, the side character tropes, bildungsroman, the Chosen One, the setback, the culture shock, the revelation, the victory.

All recycled but with different coloured hats.

I come from a time before streaming, when telly was on at a discrete time, if you missed it you missed it. When I was ten, my local cinema had one screen. I know what it is like to be starved of SW screen content.

So right now, I'm loving it. I'll keep chirping as long as Lucasfilm keep regurgitating.

^Same here, If you had to wait three years to get Han Solo out of carbonite, it gives you a certain amount of appreciation for any SW content.

@Ctmeh

I definitely see your point that ANH changed cinema not because of its story, but because of its visuals, special effects, and execution, and I do agree with that. However, I don’t think that movie would have stood the test of time, or that Star Wars would be where it is now, if not for the story, which may not have been one of the best stories, but was a good one. And yeah, there are many stories that are similar to ANH, but I don’t believe that necessarily means that it’s unoriginal. It does follow The Hero’s Journey story structure, as do countless others, but that’s just a story structure, not a set story that is remade over and over, so it makes sense that many movies have many if the same elements. At least, that’s my view on it, but I do understand your side of this, and I respect all the different opinions, this is just how I see it.

So yes, I don’t mean to say that story is everything, but I do think it is more important that anything else. And maybe A New Hope isn’t the most genius or unique, but it is a good story with good characters that began the timeless adventure of Star Wars.

@SagaSeeker

Thanks you! You comment has given me a lot to think about (hence I’m writing this now instead of sleeping.)

I’ll admit, you’re right that it’s a bit of a simplification to say that just taking in content that isn’t necessarily amazing is equivalent to consuming it in a bad way. I think it’s totally fine to enjoy something that is not absolutely amazing. There are many projects that are fun to watch and can be enjoyed without thinking too much about the quality. I was not trying to say that this is bad, or that consumers are bad. I just think that the label of “consumer”is a bad name for the people who watch these movies, specifically the big franchises. I hate that all these projects are considered products instead of art, and that the people behind these franchises seem to care more about profit than creating cinema.

What makes one a consumer or a viewer is not what one does, but one’s reasons for and thoughts about what one does. For example, a consumer may say “I just watched the latest Star Wars project, and I loved it because it was Star Wars and I can’t wait for more.” While a viewer might say “I just watched the latest Star Wars project, and I loved the concept, but the pacing was off, and the character weren’t very conveying or developed. That one episode was directed beautifully, though, and the ending was satisfying in many ways.” This is another simplification, but basically I think a consumer is someone who just watches and doesn’t think too much about it, and a viewer is someone who can still watch something and enjoy it, but also analyzes it a little and tries to understand why they like/dislike it.

Does that make any sense? Sorry, I am very sleep deprived right now.

@SagaSeeker & @Ctmeh

I agree that quality is hard to define. In my opinion, there is both a subjective and an objective aspect to quality. Of course everyone has different opinions, preferences, and likes/dislikes, which makes up the subjective side. I think there is also, however, an objective side, though I’m not sure how to describe it because I think that everyone’s subjective opinions makes it hard to see the objectivity.

I think that quality is the balance between the subjective and the objective, but I don’t know how to balance them. And that’s all I’ll say on that topic because I’m like the least qualified person to talk about it.

Sorry again for the super late response.