Movies or Films where the Prequel, Sequel or Reboot was better than the original?

[Kaleredar]

Part of it was I think they focused too much on Sauron and the be-all end-all evil force. Morgoth was only vaguely referred to at the Council of Elrond. Tom Bombadil was also mentioned there in the books as a possible guardian for the ring, that was cut too. There was no mention of the "things deeper and darker than Sauron that even he knew not" and no exposition as to Shelob's backstory. Anything bigger and older than Sauron was cut.

Well, consider... in the context of three movies... is that stuff ultimately important? Does it form a plot point worthy of inclusion in the film?

In screenwriting, even for fantasy, it's less "including detail for details sake" and more introducing characters and situations that are going to inform our main characters. Not having the heroes bum around at Bombadil's place for 15 minutes of screentime doesn't ultimately affect their journey. The whole thing with Morgoth is ultimately not relevant to the plot of the film. All you really gotta know is that... Sauron is evil, there's this evil ring he wants, gotta take the ring to the volcano to destroy both of them and save middle earth. Easy elevator pitch.

Hell, including both of these sort of things could ultimately serve to sort of confuse the narrative of the film. We learn that the ring holds no power over Bombadil... that's neat, I suppose. But that never really comes up again as it pertains to any of our main characters, nor does Bombadil ever make another appearance or another character like him, and you're sort of denigrating the power of the ring at the outset of the first film. It's far more compelling that the ring appears to be this all-corrupting, insidious force that tempts any and all that would bear it, and adding "well except for this one forest dude!" doesn't add much to the movie's narrative. Moreover, having Sauron as the ultimate evil in the film series makes defeating him all that more sweet, rather than there being a notion of "well we blew up the big eye and we're going to launch into our multiple ending scenes but... ooh, there's still a big bad lurking around!" Kind of cuts into the "happily ever after" that Return of the King ends on, does it not?

Shelob doesn't have to be anything other than a giant spider that demonstrates... yes, Frodo should have trusted Sam and not Gollum, especially considering the fact that she appears at the end of the third film right around the transition from Act 2 to Act 3, when most of the exposition should really be out of the way. Stopping to explain who or what she is before you see her ruins the surprise of seeing our hero attacked by a giant spider, and stopping to do so afterwards... is kinda pointless and interrupts the flow of the story when things are really gearing up to the finale.

[RampageBW1]

Hell, including both of these sort of things could ultimately serve to sort of confuse the narrative of the film. We learn that the ring holds no power over Bombadil... that's neat, I suppose. But that never really comes up again as it pertains to any of our main characters, nor does Bombadil ever make another appearance or another character like him, and you're sort of denigrating the power of the ring at the outset of the first film. It's far more compelling that the ring appears to be this all-corrupting, insidious force that tempts any and all that would bear it, and adding "well except for this one forest dude!" doesn't add much to the movie's narrative. Moreover, having Sauron as the ultimate evil in the film series makes defeating him all that more sweet, rather than there being a notion of "well we blew up the big eye and we're going to launch into our multiple ending scenes but... ooh, there's still a big bad lurking around!" Kind of cuts into the "happily ever after" that Return of the King ends on, does it not?

It bothers me that The One Ring of Power doesn't effect Tom, like at all. It doesn't seem to corrupt his mind, the ring doesn't attract Sauron's minions to him during the one time he puts it on to demonstrate how the ring has no power over him. Since the Ring of Power essentially hold Sauron's essence inside it, it implies that Tom is literally more powerful than Sauron. And Tom doesn't want to go on this grand adventure to Mt Doom to show Sauron how powerless he is in comparison to Tom?

I get it, Tom is True Neutral. But as you say, it kind of defeats the purpose of this Ring being the source of the (current) greatest evil Middle Earth is facing when there's literally one person Sauron can't influence with the Ring.

[Kaleredar]

It bothers me that The One Ring of Power doesn't effect Tom, like at all. It doesn't seem to corrupt his mind, the ring doesn't attract Sauron's minions to him during the one time he puts it on to demonstrate how the ring has no power over him. Since the Ring of Power essentially hold Sauron's essence inside it, it implies that Tom is literally more powerful than Sauron. And Tom doesn't want to go on this grand adventure to Mt Doom to show Sauron how powerless he is in comparison to Tom?

I get it, Tom is True Neutral. But as you say, it kind of defeats the purpose of this Ring being the source of the (current) greatest evil Middle Earth is facing when there's literally one person Sauron can't influence with the Ring.

Who then isn't even relevant to the plot afterwards, as you note.

We already have the "why didn't they just ride the eagles to Mordor" sticking point... we don't also need "why didn't Tom Bombadil just carry the ring the whole time?" on top of that. And even if there are "explainable reasons," taking time out of the film to explain why this one random guy who never comes back "isn't affected by the ring" while every single other person is is not a good use of screentime.

It makes sense why Jackson eliminated him, and it demonstrates intelligent use of page-to-screen adaptation as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Not even close. Fury Road had nothing going for it except action, no decent plot. Thunderdome and Road Warrior are both miles ahead of it.

The beauty of Fury Road's plot is its simplicity. A movie doesn't need have a complicated interwoven plot to be "good." Also, the way that movie does its worldbuilding almost wholly through visual storytelling is absolutely brilliant. Furiosa... Max... Nux... all three of our main characters have fully realized arcs that bring them together from three completely disparate starting points. That film was nominated for Best Picture for a reason, and it wasn't just for the stuff blowing up.

Also, while Thunderdome is certainly a memorable movie... it's a really silly movie, dude.

[melodramocracy]

I don't know about comparing it to the book,
but I felt
Charlie in the chocolate factory was better than Willy wonka and the chocolate factory.

Well, that's enough internet for today.

- - - Updated - - -

My votes:

Rogue One is better than quite a few of the other Star Wars flicks.
The Road Warrior is better than the first MM movie.
Most of the Star Trek sequel movies are better than the '79 original.

The new Dune will most likely be better than the original as well.

[cparle87]

Well, consider... in the context of three movies... is that stuff ultimately important? Does it form a plot point worthy of inclusion in the film?

In screenwriting, even for fantasy, it's less "including detail for details sake" and more introducing characters and situations that are going to inform our main characters. Not having the heroes bum around at Bombadil's place for 15 minutes of screentime doesn't ultimately affect their journey. The whole thing with Morgoth is ultimately not relevant to the plot of the film. All you really gotta know is that... Sauron is evil, there's this evil ring he wants, gotta take the ring to the volcano to destroy both of them and save middle earth. Easy elevator pitch.

Hell, including both of these sort of things could ultimately serve to sort of confuse the narrative of the film. We learn that the ring holds no power over Bombadil... that's neat, I suppose. But that never really comes up again as it pertains to any of our main characters, nor does Bombadil ever make another appearance or another character like him, and you're sort of denigrating the power of the ring at the outset of the first film. It's far more compelling that the ring appears to be this all-corrupting, insidious force that tempts any and all that would bear it, and adding "well except for this one forest dude!" doesn't add much to the movie's narrative. Moreover, having Sauron as the ultimate evil in the film series makes defeating him all that more sweet, rather than there being a notion of "well we blew up the big eye and we're going to launch into our multiple ending scenes but... ooh, there's still a big bad lurking around!" Kind of cuts into the "happily ever after" that Return of the King ends on, does it not?

Shelob doesn't have to be anything other than a giant spider that demonstrates... yes, Frodo should have trusted Sam and not Gollum, especially considering the fact that she appears at the end of the third film right around the transition from Act 2 to Act 3, when most of the exposition should really be out of the way. Stopping to explain who or what she is before you see her ruins the surprise of seeing our hero attacked by a giant spider, and stopping to do so afterwards... is kinda pointless and interrupts the flow of the story when things are really gearing up to the finale.

That's part of the problem, though. It isn't faithful to the source material. Sauron isn't the big bad. There are beings that the Ring has no power over. There are beings stronger and older than him. And even in the case of mortals, even men, there are those who can shrug it off. I was pissed off that they rewrote Faramir ignoring the ring for that whole stupid "take him prisoner to the river and only let him go when you realize you have Nazgul bait with you." All for the sake of bloating up Sauron even more.

Imagine watching the Marvel Cinematic Universe only for it to end before Thanos is introduced, and for every foreshadowing of him and mention of him stripped from the movies. When you fully know there's more to the story that the movie deliberately cut out to make some pre-Thanos villain look like the big bad of the series.

[Kaleredar]

That's part of the problem, though. It isn't faithful to the source material. Sauron isn't the big bad. There are beings that the Ring has no power over. There are beings stronger and older than him. And even in the case of mortals, even men, there are those who can shrug it off. I was pissed off that they rewrote Faramir ignoring the ring for that whole stupid "take him prisoner to the river and only let him go when you realize you have Nazgul bait with you." All for the sake of bloating up Sauron even more.

Imagine watching the Marvel Cinematic Universe only for it to end before Thanos is introduced, and for every foreshadowing of him and mention of him stripped from the movies. When you fully know there's more to the story that the movie deliberately cut out to make some pre-Thanos villain look like the big bad of the series.

Except Jackson set out to tell the story of the fellowship of the Ring, the two towers, and return of the king. Not more than that. There was no intent to set up an extended universe or any of that stuff. And all of that extra stuff is not important to telling the story Jackson set out to tell.

It took them... what, 18 movies to set up infinity war? The Lord of the Rings told their story in 3. And while Morgoth and all of that stuff might have an extremely detailed backstory... none of that transpires or even really effects the events we follow along with in Lord of the Rings. For all intents and purposes, "There's a dark lord that created this extremely powerful ring that can corrupt people, we have to destroy it to save middle earth" is absolutely enough narrative to go on to set up Sauron. All the reams of lore of previous eons and complicated legacies and power struggles before that? Not relevant to the journey Frodo is going to go on. They're taking the ring to mount doom to destroy the forces of Sauron and it ends with a happily ever after. Wrap picture.

When you're telling a story, it is first and foremost to follow a character along a journey. Not to "set up a cool world where things happen." Middle earth is the framework in which we follow Frodo and the other characters along their journey... you have to realize that Frodo and the other characters are not "points of interest in middle earth," because following them is the point of the story. Middle Earth is not. In essence, all the details that you include should serve the characters. If they don't, no matter how "interesting" they may be... they're just getting in the way. And the lord of the rings films are already pretty damn long just to fit in all the stuff that is relevant without trying to also fit in all the stuff that's "not relevant but cool."

[Ielenia]

No its not. The whole side plot to find a single individual who is the only hacker? Oh wait we find random dude 47 in the prison who can do it (also how does Maz Kanata know someone who can handle this, the ONLY person apparently, when it is a new tech, guess she hides it next to her randomly collected lightsaber).

The light speed ram? Yeah for some reason no one has done it before though it allows a much smaller ship to destroy star destroyers and shit, a maneuver you could program bots to try, yeah sure some fail, but if you send 1000s of X wings to kill a few destroyers seems like a win to me.

The whole terrible fucking chase sequence, where no one on the empire thinks to jump ahead and stop them, so we get this dumb long chase sequence in space.

The whole fucking AWFUL humor with Luke was terrible, the fact that Snoke can apparently manipulate Kylo into dark enough thoughts that Luke strikes at Kylo from across the fucking galaxy (like seriously, we now have the ability to corrupt force padawans from across the galaxy, why the fuck didn't Palpatine do this, oh wait he had to slowly in person corrupt Anakin along with circumstances, but apparently in this trilogy all the powers are bumped up to 34).

The terrible and forced as fuck love will win by Rose after she somehow catches Finn who is maxing out his speeder after falling behind him leading to a terrible kiss, and some bullshit ass pull save, UGH. The fact that they have bb-8 act drunk once he puts a box on, yet somehow saves the crew half a dozen times across the movie.

The terrible opening bombing run that uses gravity, IN SPACE.

The Atrocity that is the leading by Holdo. The Leia force pull myself to safety from space after an explosion.

Rei showing another deus ex machina (after mind controlling someone in Episode 7 with 0 Jedi training) manages to lift dozens of boulders after minor training with Luke (good thing we had episode 5 show him struggle with one rock while training with Yoda).

I could go on, but the movie was not worth me writing more even, it tried so hard to be edgy by "breaking out expectations" which I guess worked, because I expected a somewhat boring but coherent story I could enjoy, but instead I got served a giant pile of shit. I won't defend the prequels, and the original had its issues sure, but the originals were still forming the universe, so new things were to be expected. Over half a dozen movies, hundreds of books, probably a hundred games, and so much more story/lore later I expect to have most things firmly set, not new, bad, bullshit being thrown at me. Also since you dont want to add me to the ignore list I'll add you.

I know you said "you could go on", but I think you should have mentioned the biggest sin of episode 8: the complete assassination of Luke Skywalker's character, who was an undying optimist who believes in the good of people (considering how he tried to get his father to come back to the Light side) in the original movies, andsomehow become a bitter cynic in episode 8 who would just chuck his lightsaber over his shoulder like rotten fruit.

[Super Kami Dende]

All Episode 3 has going for it is one 15 minute fight on a lava planet. That’s it, and that’s all people remember beside the memes. One 15 minute cgi video game fight does not a compelling film make.

Incorrect. It also had the Battle above Coruscant, The slaying of Dooku, the March on the Jedi Temple, Emperor vs. Yoda, the Droids attack on Kashyyyk, Obi-wan vs Grevious, and the entire Order 66 scene.

Fair enough you are one of the types to just blatantly hate the prequels. But at least make your reasons logical otherwise you just sound like an idiot.

[exochaft]

Pretty much. It was on TV a few months back so I decided to watch it again, well I tried to anyway; the first 30 minutes or so is absolutely terrible, and it doesn't get much better until way into the final act.

Hey now, beside the fight scene (which has quite a bit of actual swordfighting and evidence that the actors/creators took the time to learn choreography compared to swinging laser swords like baseball bats), there were some other good parts that elevated Episode 3 above Episode 1/2. For example, Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine is enjoyable in basically every scene he's in, especially the opera scene with Anakin. The movie suffered mostly from trying to cram so much plot into one movie, in a similar fashion to Episode 9... except with Episode 3 it's easy to comprehend what's going on despite being rushed along. I still think if people watch the prequels and treat them as a hammed-up opera instead of a standard movie, the portrayals via acting and dialogue is much more bearable and enjoyable in many cases.

Anyways, having issues coming up with movies that were better than the originals, as most examples that come to mind it's either really close or they were superior in different ways to their original but not necessarily superior in the same way. As an example, Terminator and Terminator 2 are both great movies, but better than the other in various ways. The original is a much better suspense/sci-fi horror than the sequel, but the sequel is a better action flick than the original. Alien and Aliens is pretty similar in this right, as Alien is a much slower burn sci-fi horror than Aliens, but Aliens is a much better from an action flick perspective. In both cases, both movies are great, and good sequels tend to go a different direction instead of rehashing what's been done in the original. That different direction can be tone, story, genre, or basically anything where you don't feel like you're watching the exact same movie while still being easily related and attached to its predecessor.

[Kaleredar]

Incorrect. It also had the Battle above Coruscant, The slaying of Dooku, the March on the Jedi Temple, Emperor vs. Yoda, the Droids attack on Kashyyyk, Obi-wan vs Grevious, and the entire Order 66 scene.

Fair enough you are one of the types to just blatantly hate the prequels. But at least make your reasons logical otherwise you just sound like an idiot.

Battle over Coruscant, 10 minutes of CGI nonsense. Dooku, the only villain in the prequels to last more than one movie, in that he immediately gets offed in the third one. March on the Jedi Temple, where Anakin kills "younglings" because suddenly he needs to be evil enough to slaughter children without second thought, Emperor vs Yoda, a flippy CGI fight that's ultimately pointless in the narrative (Yoda could literally have just decided he needed to go into exile without pointlessly fighting the emperor,) the droids attacking Kayyshk which exists for literally no reason but to show that Yoda knew Chewbacca(?!) and Obi-wan vs General grievous, a completely wasted villain that meant absolutely nothing to Obi-Wan as a character and whose entire existence contributed nothing to the story. So sure, you picked out a few more "visually interesting CGI scenes," but forgot the part where they... supposedly made Episode 3 a good movie?

You can cite as many parts of Episode 3 you want, it doesn't make it good.

[Heavens Night]

Ok the people saying Jurassic World is better than Jurassic Park 1 and Mission impossible 2 is better than mission one need to have their critic credentials revoked.

Best examples of sequels improving apon the first film that come to mind are,

Batman Begins to The Dark Knight

The Karl Urban Judge Dredd compared to sylvester stallone's.

Empire Strikes Back to A New Hope.

Harry Potter and the prisoner of azkaban to chamber of secrets.

Winter solider to first captain America film.

Man a lot of my picks are superhero related....I wanted to say blade runner 2049 as well but that is hugely debateable. As well as Aliens vs alien. I personally prefer Alien.

Some good calls here, regarding MI, Dredd and Empire. I also prefer Alien but I don't like 2049, at all.

I would add, Bourne Supremacy is better than Identity, First Contact is better than Generations and Superman II is superior to Superman. If these qualify as they are all sequels that IMO outclass their predecessors.

[Kaleredar]

I know you said "you could go on", but I think you should have mentioned the biggest sin of episode 8: the complete assassination of Luke Skywalker's character, who was an undying optimist who believes in the good of people (considering how he tried to get his father to come back to the Light side) in the original movies, andsomehow become a bitter cynic in episode 8 who would just chuck his lightsaber over his shoulder like rotten fruit.

It's almost like 30 years and having your nephew kill all your other students can change a person.


The Luke we saw in Episode 8 was the Luke that had to exist at the end of Episode 7. The only reason he would have isolated himself is because he was either 1) jaded and cynical with the force and fearing his involvement would only make things worse, which is the Luke that we got, or 2) was afraid and was a coward hiding from the first order. Which would be worse for Luke's character?

Moreover, you're really ignoring the fact that... Luke has an entire character arc in Episode 8. He goes from being the bitter cynic you note to living up to being the legend the galaxy believes him to be, while doing so completely nonviolently. You might scoff at Luke flippantly dismissing his ability to "walk out with a laser sword and face down the whole First Order" but that's literally what he does at the end of the film. And sacrifices his life to do so and to save the resistance. That is entirely within Luke's characterization.

That Luke didn't say "YOUR TRAINING BEGINS NOW!" upon first meeting Rey and then throwing all those AT-ATs into the sun at the end of the film is not "character assassination," especially with what Episode 7 set us up to expect.

[bledgor]

I know you said "you could go on", but I think you should have mentioned the biggest sin of episode 8: the complete assassination of Luke Skywalker's character, who was an undying optimist who believes in the good of people (considering how he tried to get his father to come back to the Light side) in the original movies, andsomehow become a bitter cynic in episode 8 who would just chuck his lightsaber over his shoulder like rotten fruit.

*sigh* I try to forget it, much like the rest of that dumpster fire.

Also wouldn't say better, but The Mummy 2 was as good as The Mummy (both the Brandon Frasier movies).

[Ielenia]

The Luke we saw in Episode 8 was the Luke that had to exist at the end of Episode 7. The only reason he would have isolated himself is because he was either 1) jaded and cynical with the force and fearing his involvement would only make things worse, which is the Luke that we got, or 2) was afraid and was a coward hiding from the first order. Which would be worse for Luke's character?

Both are bad. And this is not a dichotomy. We could have, for example, a Luke that was in isolation to further train himself in the Force and become stronger. What about Yoda? The guy went through a complete massacre of the Jedi, adult and children alike, with Order 66, and yet he was nowhere near as "jaded" and "cynical" as Luke.

Moreover, you're really ignoring the fact that... Luke has an entire character arc in Episode 8. He goes from being the bitter cynic you note to living up to being the legend the galaxy believes him to be, while doing so completely nonviolently.

Oh yeah! "I'll go suicide myself! That'll show them!!!" Another shining moment of turd in Luke's legacy.

[Kaleredar]

Both are bad. And this is not a dichotomy. We could have, for example, a Luke that was in isolation to further train himself in the Force and become stronger. What about Yoda? The guy went through a complete massacre of the Jedi, adult and children alike, with Order 66, and yet he was nowhere near as "jaded" and "cynical" as Luke.

Yoda went into isolation to avoid getting offed by the purge and to maintain the hope that Anakin's children could later be taught by Obi-Wan and him.

Luke had no reason to suspect that some "light side force hero" would crop up for him to train, especially considering the "divine heir" of the Skywalker legacy had turned to the dark side.

Oh yeah! "I'll go suicide myself! That'll show them!!!" Another shining moment of turd in Luke's legacy.

He saved the entire resistance, including his sister, with it, and went on to inspire others around the galaxy through his action. (that's what the kids, including the force-sensitive one, are talking about at the end of Episode 8... a narrative point that Episode 9 completely wastes.)

He was willing to sacrifice his life to allow the fight to continue. You know, like a hero. For as much as people are all high on Luke "nobly willing to sacrifice himself to save Darth Vader," they seem to be pretty down on him ACTUALLY sacrificing himself to save the Leia and the resistance.

[Jastall]

Except Jackson set out to tell the story of the fellowship of the Ring, the two towers, and return of the king. Not more than that. There was no intent to set up an extended universe or any of that stuff. And all of that extra stuff is not important to telling the story Jackson set out to tell.

It took them... what, 18 movies to set up infinity war? The Lord of the Rings told their story in 3. And while Morgoth and all of that stuff might have an extremely detailed backstory... none of that transpires or even really effects the events we follow along with in Lord of the Rings. For all intents and purposes, "There's a dark lord that created this extremely powerful ring that can corrupt people, we have to destroy it to save middle earth" is absolutely enough narrative to go on to set up Sauron. All the reams of lore of previous eons and complicated legacies and power struggles before that? Not relevant to the journey Frodo is going to go on. They're taking the ring to mount doom to destroy the forces of Sauron and it ends with a happily ever after. Wrap picture.

When you're telling a story, it is first and foremost to follow a character along a journey. Not to "set up a cool world where things happen." Middle earth is the framework in which we follow Frodo and the other characters along their journey... you have to realize that Frodo and the other characters are not "points of interest in middle earth," because following them is the point of the story. Middle Earth is not. In essence, all the details that you include should serve the characters. If they don't, no matter how "interesting" they may be... they're just getting in the way. And the lord of the rings films are already pretty damn long just to fit in all the stuff that is relevant without trying to also fit in all the stuff that's "not relevant but cool."

Exactly. LOTR wasn't the starting point for some massive Middle-Earth Cinematic Universe (thankfully), it was a self-contained trilogy. There was no reason to start dwelling in the universe's past if it doesn't affect the plot, and the films are already long enough as they are, especially the extended editions.

Cramming in so much extraneous "cool" shit and pointless backstory nods was one of the things that sunk the Hobbit films in the first place. No idea why some people would see the far better paced LOTR trilogy be bogged down by such nonsense. Tolkien was out to craft an entire fantasy world, Jackson was out to make good movies, these are not the same goals and should not use the same methods.

[Ielenia]

Yoda went into isolation to avoid getting offed by the purge and to maintain the hope that Anakin's children could later be taught by Obi-Wan and him.

Luke had no reason to suspect that some "light side force hero" would crop up for him to train, especially considering the "divine heir" of the Skywalker legacy had turned to the dark side.

It's irrelevant. Yoda still went through much worse than Luke did, and he continued to be optimistic and the same Yoda as ever. And "divine heir"? Leia's son, whose name I don't care enough to look up, as far as I know, was not a "divine heir", just a heir.

And even then, if the last trilogy really wanted to gives us Luke Skywalker, the man would probably be training to defeat this new evil, instead of going "fuck it, I don't care anymore if the universe burns" childish attitude.

He saved the entire resistance, including his sister, with it, and went on to inspire others around the galaxy through his action.

It's still idiotic and wasteful, considering he could still save the resistance, his sister, and inspire others around the galaxy without committing suicide.

He was willing to sacrifice his life to allow the fight to continue. You know, like a hero.

And yet he died like an idiot.

For as much as people are all high on Luke "nobly willing to sacrifice himself to save Darth Vader," they seem to be pretty down on him ACTUALLY sacrificing himself to save the Leia and the resistance.

Except he did not "sacrifice himself". He just wasted himself. Because what he did was nowhere near the only thing he could've done. He could've actually joined the rebellion. Considering how much the rebellion spoke highly of him, back when they were trying to locate him, having him join the rebellion would "inspire others" just as much. And then he could sacrifice himself in battle to save others.

Unless another Dumbo decided to ram him with a speedster to prevent him from doing an actual worthy sacrifice, of course.

[Kaleredar]

It's irrelevant. Yoda still went through much worse than Luke did,

Except Luke felt he was responsible for it. Aaaand... he kinda was.

and he continued to be optimistic and the same Yoda as ever. And "divine heir"? Leia's son, whose name I don't care enough to look up, as far as I know, was not a "divine heir", just a heir.

The "divine heir" is the whole notion of the Skywalker bloodline being the most important one in the galaxy, something that the prequels and original trilogy would hold, and something that Episode 8 tried to break it from.

In essence, Luke was believing his own hype, and that allowing BEN, (real hard star wars name to remember, I guess?) his nephew, to fall to the dark side was him utterly failing his own bloodline.

And even then, if the last trilogy really wanted to gives us Luke Skywalker, the man would probably be training to defeat this new evil, instead of going "fuck it, I don't care anymore if the universe burns" childish attitude.

Yoda wasn't training to defeat jack shit. He was chilling on Dagobah waiting for Luke or Leia to eventually show up. He was entirely content doing basically nothing, and even had to be convinced by Obi-wan to train Luke in the first place.

It's still idiotic and wasteful, considering he could still save the resistance, his sister, and inspire others around the galaxy without committing suicide.

Uhhhhh... how?

Letting alone how you think he'd actually travel from Ach-to to Crait in time, do you think he could have actually beaten Kylo and the entire first order with a laser sword in person?

And yet he died like an idiot.

He set out to do exactly what he wanted to, and reaffirmed his place as the Legend the galaxy believed him to be.

Except he did not "sacrifice himself". He just wasted himself. Because what he did was nowhere near the only thing he could've done. He could've actually joined the rebellion. Considering how much the rebellion spoke highly of him, back when they were trying to locate him, having him join the rebellion would "inspire others" just as much. And then he could sacrifice himself in battle to save others.

Him being an unassailable, unknowable legend, capable of superhuman feats, which he proved himself to be, was far more useful to the Resistance. By Force projecting himself, he COULD do those things. In person, he very obviously could not. Luke Skywalker or not he was an old man. Would you expect Obi-Wan in Episode 4 to have fought off an entire contingent of AT-ATs and a much younger sith lord?

[Ivanstone]

Army of Darkness is the greatest movie of all time, so its also greatest sequel of all time.

ill give you it had the best light saber fights out of all of them

No, it really didn't.

[Ielenia]

Yoda wasn't training to defeat jack shit. He was chilling on Dagobah waiting for Luke or Leia to eventually show up. He was entirely content doing basically nothing, and even had to be convinced by Obi-wan to train Luke in the first place.

I am pretty sure I was talking about Luke in that paragraph, not Yoda, considering I wrote his full name AND mentioned "the last trilogy".

Uhhhhh... how?

By being the actual Luke Skywalker we know, and joined the Resistance instead of being a mopey cynic with a "fuck it" attitude.

Letting alone how you think he'd actually travel from Ach-to to Crait in time, do you think he could have actually beaten Kylo and the entire first order with a laser sword in person?

I am pretty sure I mentioned, in our conversation, about Luke actually joining the resistance instead of shunning everyone away and not giving two fucks about the situation in the universe, and remaining in isolation even after he was found by Rei.

He set out to do exactly what he wanted to, and reaffirmed his place as the Legend the galaxy believed him to be.

No, he was an idiot, and not the Luke Skywalker we grew up with. He could have easily "reaffirmed his place as a legend" as well by joining the Resistance and helping them, as the legends say about what the Jedi did, instead of going "lol peace out!" and killing himself needlessly.

Him being an unassailable, unknowable legend, capable of superhuman feats, which he proved himself to be, was far more useful to the Resistance. By Force projecting himself, he COULD do those things. In person, he very obviously could not.

How do you know? It feels to me that you're making up excuses to justify Luke Skywalker needlessly killing himself.

Luke Skywalker or not he was an old man. Would you expect Obi-Wan in Episode 4 to have fought off an entire contingent of AT-ATs and a much younger sith lord?

"Age" has nothing to do with skill and power in the Force. Count Dooku fought Yoda to a standstill. Obi-Wan was roughly of Luke's current age during the Clone Wars sage. And Kylo Ren stopped a blaster shot in mid-air with the Force... rather effortlessly, if memory serves.