Osprey
Registered User
- Feb 18, 2005
- 27,321
- 9,809
I think that there's some truth in the suggestion that the OT established locations, especially planets, better.
For example, we got a pretty good idea of what Tatooine is like from just the first film: not simply that it's desert-y and vast, but that it has farmers (Luke's uncle and aunt), cities (Mos Eisley), dangers outside of the cities (sand people) and a culture (the cantina scene). It felt like a real place. In contrast, Jakku is a sandy junkyard without much else established about it to make us more curious about it or want to return. It was interesting when Return of the Jedi returned to Tatooine for all of the Jabba scenes because we'd come to like the planet, but I have a feeling that audiences would probably groan if Episode IX returned to Jakku.
Another example is Hoth vs Crait, which are also pretty comparable because they're the sites of Rebel outposts that get attacked by the Empire. We don't really know much about either planet, but we're at least given a better sense of the vastness of Hoth with all of the aerial shots (especially following the A-Wings) and a better sense of the conditions and what it takes to survive there. Hoth had a bit of scale and character. Crait wasn't fleshed out as well. The only interesting thing that we know about it is that it has red soil beneath a layer of salt, and we learn that only because it becomes a very important plot point.
Another example is Cloud City vs the Canto Bight casino. Even though it's more sparse and Canto Bight has more character, Cloud City seems more established and easier to get a sense of. It feels like a complete location, rather than a glimpse of a tiny part of one.
I think that the characters and locations being more interesting in the OT is owed to the fact that George Lucas is a storyteller. To storytellers, those things have to be interesting on their own and apart from the story. In contrast, I think that Abrams is more of a showman who feels that details of characters and locations are not important if they don't directly serve the greater spectacle (so we don't know much about Jakku other than it's a junkyard because that explains the Falcon being there and we don't know much about Crait other than its hidden red soil because that detail contributes to the scene's biggest twist).
For example, we got a pretty good idea of what Tatooine is like from just the first film: not simply that it's desert-y and vast, but that it has farmers (Luke's uncle and aunt), cities (Mos Eisley), dangers outside of the cities (sand people) and a culture (the cantina scene). It felt like a real place. In contrast, Jakku is a sandy junkyard without much else established about it to make us more curious about it or want to return. It was interesting when Return of the Jedi returned to Tatooine for all of the Jabba scenes because we'd come to like the planet, but I have a feeling that audiences would probably groan if Episode IX returned to Jakku.
Another example is Hoth vs Crait, which are also pretty comparable because they're the sites of Rebel outposts that get attacked by the Empire. We don't really know much about either planet, but we're at least given a better sense of the vastness of Hoth with all of the aerial shots (especially following the A-Wings) and a better sense of the conditions and what it takes to survive there. Hoth had a bit of scale and character. Crait wasn't fleshed out as well. The only interesting thing that we know about it is that it has red soil beneath a layer of salt, and we learn that only because it becomes a very important plot point.
Another example is Cloud City vs the Canto Bight casino. Even though it's more sparse and Canto Bight has more character, Cloud City seems more established and easier to get a sense of. It feels like a complete location, rather than a glimpse of a tiny part of one.
I think that the characters and locations being more interesting in the OT is owed to the fact that George Lucas is a storyteller. To storytellers, those things have to be interesting on their own and apart from the story. In contrast, I think that Abrams is more of a showman who feels that details of characters and locations are not important if they don't directly serve the greater spectacle (so we don't know much about Jakku other than it's a junkyard because that explains the Falcon being there and we don't know much about Crait other than its hidden red soil because that detail contributes to the scene's biggest twist).
Last edited: