Elan´s happy ending

[Darth Paul]

Fair enough, but he does get to consider what he cares about, and it's not that hard to see why a writer would want to write something that also satisfies themselves.

The point being, in a different story "all the main characters die, but they succeed in their mission and are satisfied with that" is something that can be done well, but Rich Burlew is not the kind of person who considers such things satisfying (at least not for the kind of tone he wants his story to have).

To run with the already-given Star Wars example, let's compare the original film (now known as Episode IV) and Rogue One to illustrate this principle.

Star Wars took time to build characters that we cared about, with understandable motivations and goals. Rogue One was a group of underdeveloped characters racing from one set-piece battle to another until their inevitable (we know it's inevitable because we haven't seen them in any other Star Wars films) deaths. Rogue One was by far the less satisfying film, even though it was technically far superior. But at least they found the Maguffin, in their case, the Death Star plans.

[Wizard_Lizard]

To run with the already-given Star Wars example, let's compare the original film (now known as Episode IV) and Rogue One to illustrate this principle.

Star Wars took time to build characters that we cared about, with understandable motivations and goals. Rogue One was a group of underdeveloped characters racing from one set-piece battle to another until their inevitable (we know it's inevitable because we haven't seen them in any other Star Wars films) deaths. Rogue One was by far the less satisfying film, even though it was technically far superior. But at least they found the Maguffin, in their case, the Death Star plans.

There is only so much you can dowith a prequel spin off.

[Squire Doodad]

"for you, at least" as a way to exclude the villains seems completely redundant. Of course, there won't be a happy ending for everyone in the universe, that's just absurd, unless you consider "the world is saved" to be a "happy ending" for the entirety of living beings. But, again, some creatures want it destroyed.

If it meant a happy ending to the entire order, then adding "for you, at least" seems utterly pointless.

It think that last bit of "for you, at least", is both very important, and intentionally vague.

"For you, at least" feels like it was meant to exclude Elan's brother and unbeknownst to him at the time, also Elan's father. Because typically Elan would want to include his family in his happy ending, but aside from his mother and whatever tertiary aunts and uncles there are, some of Elan's family just...can't.
If it refers to the Order, that is probably about Belkar's implied demise.

To run with the already-given Star Wars example, let's compare the original film (now known as Episode IV) and Rogue One to illustrate this principle.

Star Wars took time to build characters that we cared about, with understandable motivations and goals. Rogue One was a group of underdeveloped characters racing from one set-piece battle to another until their inevitable (we know it's inevitable because we haven't seen them in any other Star Wars films) deaths. Rogue One was by far the less satisfying film, even though it was technically far superior. But at least they found the Maguffin, in their case, the Death Star plans.

You know, something struck me as a bit odd in that idea. Sure, we never hear from these people again, nor do we ever see they exist. However, their existence was ambiguous; we didn't know if they lived or died. It could easily have been that they fled from an active warzone at the end of the movie, and barely make it out while the planet and many of the ships get blown up and decimated. But the team makes it out. Then they decide they are sick of the rebellion (and half of them weren't in it in the first place), send the rebellion the final message and plans and whatnot, then go camp out on Dagobah or something for the rest of their days.

It might not have been as satisfying, but the idea that the director had that they "had" to die at the end seemed like a bit much.

[Goblin_Priest]

To run with the already-given Star Wars example, let's compare the original film (now known as Episode IV) and Rogue One to illustrate this principle.

Star Wars took time to build characters that we cared about, with understandable motivations and goals. Rogue One was a group of underdeveloped characters racing from one set-piece battle to another until their inevitable (we know it's inevitable because we haven't seen them in any other Star Wars films) deaths. Rogue One was by far the less satisfying film, even though it was technically far superior. But at least they found the Maguffin, in their case, the Death Star plans.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat!?

Rogue One is among my favorite Star Wars movies. Character death can be a good thing, it makes for a more heroic sacrifice, and is refreshing over the default "and all the good guys lived happily ever after" ending.

If you want underdeveloped characters dying left and right, look at The Last Jedi.

Now THAT was a pile of garbage.

As for "inevitable death because we don't see them again in other movies", I guess you hate all prequels, because by default you assume every new character is going to die, and that somehow makes it less interesting?

[Mightymosy]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat!?

Rogue One is among my favorite Star Wars movies. Character death can be a good thing, it makes for a more heroic sacrifice, and is refreshing over the default "and all the good guys lived happily ever after" ending.

If you want underdeveloped characters dying left and right, look at The Last Jedi.

Now THAT was a pile of garbage.

As for "inevitable death because we don't see them again in other movies", I guess you hate all prequels, because by default you assume every new character is going to die, and that somehow makes it less interesting?

Agree on R1 and TLJ.

R1 probably IS my 2nd favourite, after RotJ =)

[Rrmcklin]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat!?

Rogue One is among my favorite Star Wars movies. Character death can be a good thing, it makes for a more heroic sacrifice, and is refreshing over the default "and all the good guys lived happily ever after" ending.

If you want underdeveloped characters dying left and right, look at The Last Jedi.

Now THAT was a pile of garbage.

As for "inevitable death because we don't see them again in other movies", I guess you hate all prequels, because by default you assume every new character is going to die, and that somehow makes it less interesting?

"Can be a good thing" and "Is a good thing" are not the same thing. I'm actually much more critical of "a character died, so that automatically makes things better" attitude that, to my eye, is much more prevalent now. I can't speak for either movie because I haven't seen them (or Star Wars in general) but Darth Paul's point was perfectly reasonable.

As for your last point, you can totally see something is coming, but the execution can be done so well it still hits you emotionally. Evidently, Rogue One was not the case for them.

[Mightymosy]

"Can be a good thing" and "Is a good thing" are not the same thing. I'm actually much more critical of "a character died, so that automatically makes things better" attitude that, to my eye, is much more prevalent now. I can't speak for either movie because I haven't seen them (or Star Wars in general) but Darth Paul's point was perfectly reasonable.

As for your last point, you can totally no something is coming, but the execution can be done so well it still hits you emotionally. Evidently, Rogue One was not the case for them.

Right! Everyone and their dog keeps telling me how Game of Thrones is awesome because so many charactery die, and I'm always like "Whoa?"......as if that's a good thing.......

I mean I get people got bored of "plot armor" eventually (looking at you, James Bond), so it WAS refreshing watching a show now and then that did mess with main character protection.

But nowadays it seems like some people consider high character death rate as a quality indicator of good storytelling.......

Eh, to each their own. I am rooting for the good guys, I don't want people dying.

[Fyraltari]

A Song of Ice and Fire does not have a high death rate. It just has a lot of characters (so a lot of deaths) and killed characters the readers assumed had plot armor* but the actual death/character ratio is about average.


*And even that has been toned down later on.

[Mightymosy]

A Song of Ice and Fire does not have a high death rate. It just has a lot of characters (so a lot of deaths) and killed characters the readers assumed had plot armor* but the actual death/character ratio is about average.


*And even that has been toned down later on.

Good to know.
Anyway, my gf ended up trying it out after being bothered enough by her friends (silly her) and found it excruciatingly (spelling?) violent and regretted watching it.

I had to try hard to refrain from saying "told you so"....oh, maybe I did, don't remember. =)

[Goblin_Priest]

"Can be a good thing" and "Is a good thing" are not the same thing. I'm actually much more critical of "a character died, so that automatically makes things better" attitude that, to my eye, is much more prevalent now. I can't speak for either movie because I haven't seen them (or Star Wars in general) but Darth Paul's point was perfectly reasonable.

As for your last point, you can totally see something is coming, but the execution can be done so well it still hits you emotionally. Evidently, Rogue One was not the case for them.

To me, Rogue One delivered a fresh story despite being based upon a more or less known plot, as opposed to The Force Awakens that presented something completely "new" that turned out to be stale leftovers that were hiding in the corner of the fridge since you bought that fridge 10 years ago.

Right! Everyone and their dog keeps telling me how Game of Thrones is awesome because so many charactery die, and I'm always like "Whoa?"......as if that's a good thing.......

I mean I get people got bored of "plot armor" eventually (looking at you, James Bond), so it WAS refreshing watching a show now and then that did mess with main character protection.

But nowadays it seems like some people consider high character death rate as a quality indicator of good storytelling.......

Eh, to each their own. I am rooting for the good guys, I don't want people dying.

I don't care to root for the good guys. I want to be entertained. If the story's based on violent adventure, then I can always suspend disbelief, but it does add much verisimilitude if the characters aren't all blatantly protected by plot armor. And that doesn't necessarily mean death.

In Rogue One, the crew knew they were pretty much signing up for a suicide mission. But the stakes were so high, that they accepted to die for the cause. To have them all survive would have considerably cheapened the story.

When plot armor becomes blatant, I feel cheated. It's easy to use plot armor, it takes no skill, it's cowardly. It's like if I play D&D with friends and I know the GM is fudging all the die, why bother, the GM's just gonna change everything to his whim. Stories are the same. When plot armor becomes blatant, it no longer feels organic, legitimate, believable. Why get emotionally attached to a character or his story, when it becomes clear that the author will just summon cheap tricks to make him prevail in the end?

You don't need to be a good author to kill a character. But to kill characters and keep people interested regardless? That does require some skill. It also somewhat signals the viewer that he's going to refrain from cheap tricks for plot armor. I haven't watched GoT though.

[Squire Doodad]

I just feel like at least one or two of the R1 crew should have gotten out. My issue is that they all died, as if they had to die. Not because terrible things happened. But because it was their fate to die in that battle. Wouldn't one or two of them defying their fate in the battle and escape make for a better story, even if they are never seen again? Couldn't one ship go down, rescue non-combatants or something, and pick what's left of the near-dead crew on the way? It might not make much sense in a planet-wide fight, but its better than exaggerating their demise.

[Goblin_Priest]

I just feel like at least one or two of the R1 crew should have gotten out. My issue is that they all died, as if they had to die. Not because terrible things happened. But because it was their fate to die in that battle. Wouldn't one or two of them defying their fate in the battle and escape make for a better story, even if they are never seen again? Couldn't one ship go down, rescue non-combatants or something, and pick what's left of the near-dead crew on the way? It might not make much sense in a planet-wide fight, but its better than exaggerating their demise.

Well, who, specifically? It's been a while since I saw it, but didn't the planet get lazor'd? Not planet-wide destruction, but big enough to encompass all those fighting.

I don't really see what benefit making some of them survive would have given. It would have also skewed their contributions and risk. Given the level of risk in that mission, anyone surviving would have basically needed to hold out and not fully commit to the mission, which in turn could have led to its failure. Sure, maybe someone could have chickened out at some earlier point, and possibly been replaced by another, but I fail to see how that would make for a better story in any way.

I get that some people don't like character death. Whether it's in movies, or in games. But that's not a quality thing, it's just looking for something specific, such as an uplifting story, which these stories simply don't cater to. Tragedies are narrative classics, and a good chunk of stories that have survived centuries, if not millennia, don't have very good endings at all. If you didn't like that they all died in R1, you must have hated Romeo & Juliet. The kicker in that one, iirc, is that none of them even needed to die to begin with. If Romeo hadn't been so rash they'd possibly have their ever after.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Well, who, specifically? It's been a while since I saw it, but didn't the planet get lazor'd? Not planet-wide destruction, but big enough to encompass all those fighting.

I don't really see what benefit making some of them survive would have given. It would have also skewed their contributions and risk. Given the level of risk in that mission, anyone surviving would have basically needed to hold out and not fully commit to the mission, which in turn could have led to its failure. Sure, maybe someone could have chickened out at some earlier point, and possibly been replaced by another, but I fail to see how that would make for a better story in any way.

I get that some people don't like character death. Whether it's in movies, or in games. But that's not a quality thing, it's just looking for something specific, such as an uplifting story, which these stories simply don't cater to. Tragedies are narrative classics, and a good chunk of stories that have survived centuries, if not millennia, don't have very good endings at all. If you didn't like that they all died in R1, you must have hated Romeo & Juliet. The kicker in that one, iirc, is that none of them even needed to die to begin with. If Romeo hadn't been so rash they'd possibly have their ever after.

ah. Romeo and Juliet... such a tragedy. But if it was avoided the story would be ruined...

[Goblin_Priest]

ah. Romeo and Juliet... such a tragedy. But if it was avoided the story would be ruined...

Indeed, and though I didn't really like R&J (see! character death doesn't grant instant love! ;) ), any other ending would have been unfit of the story. Reckless passionate youth and all.

They died as they lived, as it was meant to be.

[zimmerwald1915]

as it was meant to be.

They were star-crossed, after all.

[Wizard_Lizard]

They were star-crossed, after all.

their star wars crossed

sorry


I beg forgiveness

[Goblin_Priest]

their star wars crossed

sorry


I beg forgiveness

Like Luke and Leia.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Like Luke and Leia.

ummmmm………
I may have some bad news…

[Goblin_Priest]

ummmmm………
I may have some bad news…

I only watched A New Hope. They totally get married and have a bunch of kids and live happily ever after, right?

[Takver]

Le Guin quote:

“Well, we come here to the Fastnesses mostly to learn what questions not to ask."

"But you're the Answerers!"

"You don't see yet, Genry, why we perfected and practice Foretelling?"

"No––"

"To exhibit the perfect uselessness of knowing the answer to the wrong question.”

In The Left Hand of Darkness, Genly Ai asks if he will achieve his mission, the work he has been sent to do. The answer he receives is both unambiguous and correct, but by the time it comes about, it doesn't mean the same thing to him as he had believed it would.

I love oracles in stories. They can give you that feeling of satisfaction when the prophecies are fulfilled and finally they make sense. But they also show what happens when human fallibility meets a piece of divine knowledge.

Vaarsuvius's answer was vague, but the bigger problem was that she wanted something for herself that was wrong. She didn't know enough to ask if she should be trying to achieve ultimate power in the first place.

Elan's answer isn't perfectly useless - I think we can assume he and Haley and Roy will be alive and well by the end of the story - but it certainly doesn't tell us everything. Didn't tell us Durkon would die. Or Roy, for a while. Or Therkla, or Nale. Didn't tell us what an evil person Tarquin would turn out to be. Elan's already seen a huge shift in what a happy ending means for him, when he realized that his family will never be what he hoped for it to be.

[Goblin_Priest]

Le Guin quote:



In The Left Hand of Darkness, Genly Ai asks if he will achieve his mission, the work he has been sent to do. The answer he receives is both unambiguous and correct, but by the time it comes about, it doesn't mean the same thing to him as he had believed it would.

I love oracles in stories. They can give you that feeling of satisfaction when the prophecies are fulfilled and finally they make sense. But they also show what happens when human fallibility meets a piece of divine knowledge.

Vaarsuvius's answer was vague, but the bigger problem was that she wanted something for herself that was wrong. She didn't know enough to ask if she should be trying to achieve ultimate power in the first place.

Elan's answer isn't perfectly useless - I think we can assume he and Haley and Roy will be alive and well by the end of the story - but it certainly doesn't tell us everything. Didn't tell us Durkon would die. Or Roy, for a while. Or Therkla, or Nale. Didn't tell us what an evil person Tarquin would turn out to be. Elan's already seen a huge shift in what a happy ending means for him, when he realized that his family will never be what he hoped for it to be.

So what you're sayin' is... Elan already got his happy ending in the pyramid?

[Wizard_Lizard]

I only watched A New Hope. They totally get married and have a bunch of kids and live happily ever after, right?

Ummm...
not exactly....

[Kish]

I only watched A New Hope. They totally get married and have a bunch of kids and live happily ever after, right?

If you only watched Star Wars, why are you calling it "A New Hope"?

[zimmerwald1915]

If you only watched Star Wars, why are you calling it "A New Hope"?

Some of us were born in the Nineties and watched the Special Editions on home video first, you know

[Resileaf]

Some of us were born in the Nineties and watched the Special Editions on home video first, you know

Nonsense. Everyone was born when Star Wars was first released.

[Lacuna Caster]

Some of us were born in the Nineties and watched the Special Editions on home video first, you know

Gods. People were born in the 90s? I just never get over that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Nonsense. Everyone was born when Star Wars was first released.

What, as a consequence of it?

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

Nonsense. Everyone was born when Star Wars was first released.

What, as a consequence of it?

If only Darth Plagueis had known!

[Fyraltari]

What, as a consequence of it?

Grey Wolf

Yes. The universe beginned in 1977, everything before (memory included) is but illusions created by George Lucas.

[Resileaf]

Yes. The universe beginned in 1977, everything before (memory included) is but illusions created by George Lucas.

See, the original Star Wars never ended. We're still in it right now. We're just doing stuff and George Lucas is filming it.