One of the more persistent, and amusing, defenses of the Disney sequels in general, and of The Last Jedi in particular, is this idea that those sequels are the ONLY reasonable followup to the Original Trilogy. The shocking events of The Last Jedi, and the shape of the sequels in general, being defended as being the only way to follow the Original Trilogy that would make sense, that Lukeâs behavior in the sequels makes complete sense after the Original Trilogy, or that somehow The First Order is the ONLY way a villain could be made for future Star Wars films and that the Empire just wouldnât make sense to modern audiences. This idea that doing it any other way wouldnât make sense, or wouldnât be appropriate for modern audiences, or wouldnât be true to the characters.
Yet, somehow, you never heard these complaints before the big reboot of 2014. Where were the editorial columns, the book reviews, the social media posts, the blogs predating the big Disney reboot saying that the shape of the Star Wars Expanded Universe (now re-branded as âLegendsâ) was inherently wrong, saying that the Imperial Remnant (or the later reformed Empire under the Fel Dynasty) was out-of-touch and not appropriate for the current generation? Where were the people saying Luke shouldnât have given up and not rebuilt the Jedi Order and should have instead given up and gone into seclusion?
When the Jedi Academy trilogy came out in 1994, where Luke tried to rebuild the Jedi Order, only to have one of his students seduced to the Dark Side and nearly destroy him, the academy, and his nascent reborn Jedi Order, where were the complaints that he should have failed and gone into seclusion instead of succeeding and restoring the Jedi?
Where were the people saying Leia shouldnât have become a political leader and eventually trained as a Jedi, instead she should have become a General and given up on her Jedi heritage and given up on political ambitions? Where were the people saying that Han and Leia shouldnât have stayed together and Han leaving Leia would have made more sense than them being a happy couple? Where were the people saying that Darth Caedus or Darth Krayt were not good villains and they needed a different style of villain instead.
Despite the Star Wars Expanded Universe continuing a post-Endor storyline for over 20 years before the reboot, there were virtually no voices in the media or fan community saying that it was an outright wrong direction for the events after Return of the Jedi. People might have complained about a specific plot arc, or about a specific novel, but the idea that the entire broad direction from the beginning was inherently wrong simply wasnât there.
The people saying that somehow the Disney sequels and their characters are the only appropriate post-RotJ continuation are doing so simply to justify, to rationalize the sequels and their characters. If they thought that was the logical direction, that it was the only sensible way to go, they had over 20 years to say itâŚyet they said nothing and when Disney makes that their new official timeline in their reboot, suddenly people are saying that was the way it always had to be.
There are many many ways it could have gone.
I personally donât see how you can look at the Exanded universe timeline and the Disney Timeline and suggest the Disney one makes more sense though.
The slow collapse of the Empire always made more logical sense than an instant implosion and rebel victory. The Empire had to have thousands of Star destroyers, millions upon millions of troops to maintain galactic wide rule. They all logically could not and would not be at Endor and all be destroyed.
That doesnât reduce the impact of ROTJ. The Emperor and Vader were defeated and they were what held the Empire together.
The EU said they had tens of thousands of Star Destroyers, and the Imperial military numbered over one trillion strong according to the Essential Guide to Warfare.
The EU did say that the Empire lost many of their best commanders and talented young officers at Endor, because several ships there, like the Executor, were seen as prime assignments for talented young officers, but yes, the Empire was originally depicted as having a vast military and vast bureaucracy that slowly collapsed into infighting and rival factions after Endor, and took 15 years to be pushed to a final surrender, and that was a surrender where the New Republic agreed to let them remain as a rump state on the galactic rim, not an unconditional surrender and dissolution.
EU sources said one of the biggest things that caused the collapse of the Empire after Endor was that there was no heir apparent. There was nobody legally in a position to become the Emperor.
The Galactic Senate had appointed Palpatine originally, but theyâd been âsuspendedâ (de facto abolished) since shortly before the Battle of Yavin, and if the Emperor had suspended them, then only an Emperor could remove that suspension so they couldnât meet to appoint a successor (and the various military leaders that had risen to prominence in that time wouldnât want to convene the Senate to appoint a leader over them).
No Imperial law spelled out succession plans, because Palpatine never planned to die, he planned to use his mastery of Sith sorcery and cloning to live forever.
Palpatine had no known surviving family that could have claimed the throne by blood. He DID have one distant surviving grand-niece who was found, and there were briefly peace negotiations with the New Republic to crown her as a titular Empress, re-establish the Empire as a Constitutional Monarchy, making the New Republic Senate the new Imperial Senate, and the New Republicâs advisory council the new Imperial advisers, but an assassin (quite possibly sent by Palpatine recuperating on Byss) assassinated the young heir, ended that peace plan.
areudirty
titsay
yousharknotpass
turnnoffyourmind
