Jonathan Leiter

I normally don’t reply to comments on this article lately, as no comment has given me a specific reason to. But I’m confused in this case because you seem to want to share with me an opinion which may prove entirely pointless in relation to this article if you had simply read the article before hand.

First of all, I find your opening line a bit of a paradox, as you cannot say that children will never be ready for darker films if said films are designed with children in mind. This is especially true these days, when so many “children’s films” have been dumbed down and simplified to fit the more censored approach that modern parents take towards their children’s media consumption. Whereas films from the 80s that were also designed for children captivated and fondly stayed with plenty of them. Clearly THEY enjoyed said darker films, so where exactly does your evidence come from to support your claim?

As far as I recall, I clearly state in my article above that it is in fact up to the parents to knowingly and actively gauge what is appropriate to show their kids, and to be as aware as they can be of what their own children are mentally and emotionally capable of watching: meaning that they do not overestimate it or underestimate it. It surely is a fine line we walk no matter how good any parent is. You can’t always know what will affect your children negatively: whether it will result in nightmares, whether it will produce an irrational fear in something they otherwise wouldn’t have, or if it may adversely shape their views on violence or other negative acts in their later lives.

But filmmakers and storytellers like Jim Henson and Don Bluth (who both produced very similar work in the 1980s) both contest that it is unhealthy for a child to grow up without a sense of fear or a lack of experience being scared or presented with something darker and more foreboding than they may find in their regular lives. And because of how I turned out, I am inclined to agree with this viewpoint.

And if one simply looks back at the children of the 1980s, you might recall that plenty of children were quite massive fans of all things dark and terrifying, plenty of whom were taken to R-rated movies like Robocop, Conan the Barbarian, Terminator, and the Predator films: much like how I see a lot of modern kids taken to the Batman films, violent dramedies, and Deadpool today. A lot of kids lived and thrived on this stuff. Does that mean they all turned out alright in the end, perhaps not. But we also cannot definitively say that any of them who saw such material were forever harmed or altered by it in a negative way. And yet those films obviously weren’t meant for kids, nor do I think parents should have responsibly taken their children to them.

So what about the films that were meant for children audiences: many of which I cover in this article? Aren’t they much more generally appropriate for kids to see? Things like “The Black Cauldron,” “Willow,” “Legend,” the original “Star Wars” trilogy (including The Force Awakens), “Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan” (and the new Star Trek films), “The Neverending Story,” “The Secret of NIMH,” “An American Tail,” and so on?

Of course, one of the key questions should also be, “how do you know if your kids will find something scary or not if you don’t try something first?” If you actively hide your children from scary things, then you do them a disservice because you create this belief in their heads that all things within a certain range of images, words, ideas, etc, are GOOD and happy, while potentially anything outside of that range is bad, wrong, or disturbing. Whereas children with a generally broad exposure to at least “family friendly” dark films from as far back as the 70s and 80s, and darker stories from almost any time, may grow up with an easier acceptance of both good and bad things, and won’t be so scared when scary things come their way, yet hopefully will also have a sensible respect for actual dangers and not be unwise in regards to confronting or fleeing them.

I may be getting a little convoluted in my thoughts here, I’m sure. It’s a little hard to explain in a concise way. Basically, I personally think it is nurture that softens a child too much in our modern society. Although, I have yet to really notice children turning soft, and more so have noticed more parents becoming far more restrictive about what their kids watch, read, or play, almost with no regard for what their children might actually be able to handle. Therefore, I think we shouldn’t try to hide them as much from darker imagery specifically (which doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with violence), because it could potentially give them less confidence in themselves to venture out into the world and society when they must do so, even with just going to grade school. A lack of darker imagery or a lack of sad and more emotional concepts may also cause a lack of empathy and understanding in children who have not been exposed to such material: these sort of things really help one to mature and become a more well-rounded person. Something I think a great part of the world still lacks.

Another angle to consider is the fact that grim and creepy things can also be quite fascinating and enjoyable. Zombies have a pretty broad fanbase, and many fans begin as children, particularly 9 or 10 years old, which is an age that I emphasize right away in my article as being a key age to experience darker themes and visuals. Any younger than that, I agree, may be an improper time.

The classic movie monsters were big sellers for 60s through 80s born kids. Godzilla as well. There are of course many cartoon baddies like the rosters that would appear in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Real Ghostbusters, Dragonball-Z, Courage the Cowardly Dog, etc. Even cartoons typically seen as harmless girly fare, like Rainbow Brite, were far more dramatic and had more believable stakes than comparable programs had in the early 2000s. Only now with the new My Little Pony, Steven Universe, and Gravity Falls animated series’ are we seeing a nice return of big stakes, emotional drama, relationship ups and downs, and actual consequences being presented in a children’s television medium again.

But really, I don’t expect anyone to do one or the other with regards to their children’s viewing habits after reading something like my article. My opinion is my own, and I will raise my own children as I see fit, when and if I even have any children. The rest of the world’s parents can do as they wish because that is their choice. I simply wish to share my opinion, and offer a different point of view to those who may not be fully aware of the broader perspective

I do, however, plan to make my own films fit this balance of dark and light, because I could not see myself creating anything different.

I don’t think the use of music, in this film’s case, means to suggest anything specific as familial ties. Rather it suggests or alludes to story themes and concepts that we are already (most likely) aware of.

The film uses mostly new themes as a way to differentiate itself from the previous 6. However, when it does use past themes, it uses them to an understandable and nostalgic effect.

We hear portions of the Vader theme (which was actually called “The Imperial March:” which is why it isn’t always used as just a theme for Darth Vader, but also a theme for the Empire as a whole) in two specific instances: once when the last few bars of the theme are used as Kylo Ren steps down from his ship at the beginning of the film, and again in a very slow rendition when we see Luke at the end of the film. This second usage is the strangest of all uses of previous themes, because it may suggest a conflicting battle of light and dark within Luke, but also the looming shadow of Anakin/Vader/Kylo’s actions from Luke’s past, and how they are coming back to haunt him now.

We also hear bits and pieces of the Millennium Falcon gunfighter sequence and the trench run, when the Millennium Falcon is first introduced.

And lastly, we hear the music from when Luke found his home destroyed, and the dead bodies of his aunt and uncle outside, played over the moment when Rey grabs the lightsaber with The Force during the climax. Now you might not have realized where that piece of music came from when writing your comment. But even if you did, thinking about it’s original scene in “A New Hope,” it makes much more sense that this musical score over Rey is meant to suggest that this is the moment when she leaves her past life behind, and embraces the way of The Force, and the path of The Jedi. When Luke saw his home destroyed and the skeletons of his family lying in the sand, that was it for him: there’s no turning back now. It’s all forward from here, where ever the path may take him. And the same can be said for Rey, when that same music is played over her moment, just before duking it out with Ren.

This piece of music does not directly support a familial connection. If it did, then every time they use it in “Star Wars: Rebels” it would mean that Ezra Bridger is related to Luke, and I very highly doubt that, since he’s a contemporary of Luke and Leia and is the same age as them.

I enjoy many aspects of them as well, and I grew up with them when they came out. However, I also saw all three originals when I was 5 years old, just before Episode 1 was released in 1999.

From this perspective, the main issue with watching the films in “Episodic Order” is that the original films were designed so that each introduction to a character would be a mystery, since they were all brand new to the audience at the time.

For example: we had no idea who Darth Vader was when he first appeared in Episode 4, which gave him a mystique and a more intimidating presence, as there was no backstory to him, nor any familial connection to Luke. This then allows the reveal that he is Luke’s father to be more surprising when you go to Episode 5, along with the reveal that the Great Master Yoda is a small green alien rather than a tall and muscular looking person or figure. The Emperor is also more fascinating and creepy when we only know of him from Episode 6. But then watching Episodes 1-3 enhances his character after the fact. But, if you watch the films in order, the Emperor seems much more to age until all he can do is shock you with lightning and not much else. He can’t even leap out of Darth Vader’s grip or stop him from throwing him down that shaft, when just 20 years earlier he would have been able to.

These and many other reasons are why I think it is still wise to watch the films in order as people born in the before the Prequels had: you watch 4-6 first, because it allows the suspense and mysteries set-up in those films to be maintained, and then you watch the Prequels to get the backstory and blanks left by the originals filled in, as it had for those of us who DID watch them second.

Just because George Lucas says that Episode 1 is the first episode, that doesn’t mean one has to approach them that way.

Star Wars Rebels is actually going to confirm that Kylo’s Lightsaber is based on an ancient saber design that used a cross-guard. But what makes his lightsaber so messy and violent looking is because he built it with incomplete specs, and a cracked Kaiburr crystal: which gives the saber another reason why it needs the cross-guards as vents for the escaping energy out through the cracks in the crystal itself. So it’s actually a layered design with multiple reasons for why it exists: including being a reflection of Kylo’s inner conflict and personality.

In what way. I’ve simply explained that certain facts and details presented by the prequels enhanced the historical weight of the new film and future films. Those same facts could have been a part of a different but better story just as much as they were part of the sub-par one that we got. Whether or not the prequels were good has no bearing on what I’ve laid out here.

What do you mean by Second Generation? I’m only 23, but I grew up on the original trilogy first because my mom had all the movies, and I watched them when I was 3-5, just before “The Phantom Menace” came out. So I actually was excited to learn the story of how Anakin became Darth Vader, rather than going in completely blind.

I will always appreciate the look of “The Phantom Menace,” and the feelings I had as a kid watching the trailers, reading the behind-the-scenes info, looking at comics, buying the toys, and seeing the film in theaters. I definitely don’t like the story, the writing, or the acting (from Natale Portman especially). But the music, the design, and the visual direction still stand up a lot better than the fully CGI environments of the latter two Prequels.

They’re not going to do that. I’m sure when handing over Lucas Film, George had a clause in the contract that stated they couldn’t remake any of the films that already existed. Nor do I think Disney would want to, considering all 6 have been around so long now, and there are die-hard fans on both sides of the Prequel fence. The new continuity and canon has also been very well established now, especially with the introduction of both “The Clone Wars” TV series, and “Star Wars: Rebels.”

Does no one appreciate what they’re doing with those TV shows. Does nobody watch them? Because they honestly fix a lot of the problems the Prequels introduced. And frankly, if you want to skip the Prequels entirely, save for “Revenge of the Sith,” you can do so, and just watch the animated shows. It’s really all you need to get caught up on pre-New Hope history.