MeatHookGekko
Super Freak
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,132
- Reaction score
- 1,402
The problem isn't with the fact that a character came back via cloning or otherwise (cloning is an established part of Star Wars lore). The problem is the fact that it was PALPATINE that came back, and thus undermines Anakin's character arc and the entire point of the original 6 movies.
Even if they did try to explain it in a movie tie in novel, and even if that explanation is sound, it should never have been Palpatine to come back in the first place.
According to rumor, David Fincher wanted Lando to be the projectible "villain" in any SW sequels. ( Core concept was Lando becoming the largest formal high level arms dealer in the galaxy and selling weapons to the New Republic and also secretly to the remnants of the Empire, to foster a "perpetual war") IMHO, makes complete sense from a narrative standpoint. The Holy Trilogy gives you inklings into the flawed nature of Lando, Han and Leia, and clearly Fincher wanted to complete their character arcs.
Kershner and Lucas had completely opposite views of how to use the Lando character and to lay groundwork for the rest of his role in the trilogy, and Fincher clearly sided with Kershner.
A credit to Fincher is he doesn't try to reinvent the wheel. The Lando character is really self serving and completely dangerous. However this is one case where I won't completely blame Kathleen Kennedy. The use of the Lando character runs into the same road blocks that Cassar and Howard Gordon ran into with President David Palmer in Fox's 24. You are literally forced into a corner. You can't make him flawed or wrong, but if only for being too trusting to those close to him that betrayed him. Which doesn't fit the Lando character at all. When the Operation Fast And Furious scandal hit the public, there was no way Jeffrey Katzenberg was going to allow that kind of plotline to fly without completely sabotaging the film.
Lando Calrissian is, by total effect, a pure token character in the most practical sense of down to the bone functional storytelling. He's that way because the mandate was that he had to be completely non offensive in every possible category. Michael K Williams as Omar Little from The Wire shows that you can have a complex and flawed three dimensional character who is a villain. You don't tell a compelling story without taking some risks. Narratives that resonate are the ones that ask you to consider some much larger questions. Which is why Lucas infused so much Joseph Campbell and Kurosawa to start. But then it morphed less as real art and into just another "product". Another energy drink.
Fincher is a filmmaker. He makes films. He doesn't make product. He's not churning out granola bars and almond milk off an assembly line.
On this point, Tarantino, despite all his other exhausting tics and manic behavior, has always been right - You have to be completely honest about your characters. Be true to who they are and why they've become that way. And eventually they'll tell you where you need to go.