Vebber and Gould's "Fifty Reasons Why Jedi Sucks"---A Rebuttal

In Ted Edwards' "The Unauthorized Star Wars Compendium" (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1999), Dan Vebber and Dana Gould present a nearly-blasphemous, irreverent, irrelevant list of fifty "reasons" why George Lucas' cinematic masterpiece Return of the Jedi, as they say, "sucked." They begin with a brief essay filled with angst and bitterness against ROTJ and conclude with the following: "There are plenty of fans who argue that by the mere fact of its being part of the trilogy, Jedi should be above criticism. We'd ask those people whose initial response to this list is one of anger to apply the fifty points below to their next Jedi viewing." I have done so, and, as a true SW fanatic, I am prepared to answer their every point and remind them that ROTJ is not above criticism because it is part of the original trilogy, or indeed because it is part of the saga -- it is above criticism because it is one of the best damn films ever made! It is also the reason SW woke up that little part of my imagination that it now indwells permanently.

(This essay covers pages 207-222 of the Compendium's index; quotation marks and boldface type are used intelligently to indicate quotations from Vebber & Gould.)

1. Ewoks, Ewoks, Ewoks. "The Jawas were cool. But George had to push his luck. The Ewoks are not cool. Period. In circles of die-hard Star Wars fans, to say you hate the Ewoks is like saying you enjoy breathing air." They continue to add that the Ewoks' "unapologetic cuddliness is uncharacteristic and unwelcome" and then, for no apparent reason, criticize that "they live in boring surroundings." Vebber and Gould conclude that Ewoks were created solely to be marketed as toys, observing that the word Ewok is never in the film, yet everyone knows this is what they are called. I would like to point out here that the word "Ewok" is in the credits, followed by a list of people who played Ewoks. Anybody paying attention could figure that out. (What do you mean, you never watch the credits? What kind of movie buff are you?)

This is a hard one to start on because I can't use any of my three typical means of rebuttal: 1) point you to the film 2) cite history (literary or within the SW films) 3) provide expert testimony. I can only present my own opinion. I understand that there is a very strange and ongoing hatred of Ewoks that runs rampant, but I have never gotten why. To the charge that they look fake, I answer they are no more fake-looking than the Jawas (whose eyes occasionally betray the filaments of the light bulbs used). If you think Ewoks are cuddly, well, that's your opinion, I guess. I wouldn't want to cuddle one. They live in boring surroundings? Only in your mind, my very young apprentice! Endor is a beautiful planet, and the Ewok village is not only interesting, but the whole concept fits exactly with something George Lucas has woven throughout the entire trilogy: from the small, one-man fighter that successfully penetrates the Death Star's defenses to the young (and short), untrained farm-boy who is enough to turn the course of the Empire on its head, small things can conquer large. Inexperience can overcome training. And evil, no matter how powerful, can be defeated by good, no matter how weak. It's an object lesson, and one George is particularly fond of -- along with his scifi and fantasy predecessors, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and . . . shoot, everyone! It's all throughout the Bible, too! I say the most annoying thing about the Ewok sequence is that scene where everyone talks very stiltedly for no apparent reason: "But. these. are my friends. Threepio. Tell them. They must be set. Free."

2. The Tone is Inconsistent. "The rebellion is in ruins, Darth Vader is Luke's father, and Han is frozen. Why Lucas decided to smother these ambitious plot elements under a load of feel-good cliches and textbook plot structure is anyone's guess . . . Jedi never has any idea of what it's trying to be. . . . Jedi is impossible to take seriously and has little to none of the mythic, transporting feel of its predecessors. We're always aware we're watching a big budget movie."

Suddenly I find myself wondering if they're talking about the same film I know and love. I must confess the trilogy never transported me until Jedi; and hot dang, did it transport me! I don't know if the entire trilogy could be claimed to have anything other than "textbook plot" -- if by "textbook plot," you mean reinterpreting time-honored ideas that have been present in storytelling since pre-history. Everyone knows (or should) that George got many ideas from his mentor, Joseph Campbell, who pioneered the concept of universal mythology. Does it get more standard than "young hero started off on important journey by old wise teacher, accomplishes impossible task, and saves friends"? And yet ANH receives no complaints. (Side note: in my opinion, ANH is the dullest of the six films; so sue me.) As for the criticism that Jedi "herky-jerks" (wasn't aware that was a word) its audience from lighthearted to dramatic, this is a device Vebber and Gould should take up with Shakespeare (you know, the greatest of all English playwrights?) and the Elizabethan dramatists. Because this, like the theme of small and weak defeating great and powerful, is a time-honored trend that goes way back. The classic Elizabethan plays always included "high" (dramatic) and "low" (lighthearted) scenes. In plays like Marlowe's, these scenes had little to do with each other, if anything, and are rarely played today; it took Shakespeare to incorporate them. It was a recognized device; in order to make the drama more intense, amusing scenes are required. So, especially in Shakespeare's tragedies, you find a lot of his funniest work, usually in the act before everyone dies. Having justified all that, I will add that I personally find very, very little in Jedi that is particularly lighthearted; I never experienced the disconnect they complain of where "Vader seems in a different movie from the rest of them" (my paraphrase).

3. The Look is All Wrong. "After the second film, did the Empire celebrate its trouncing of the Rebellion by going through the galaxy with a big bottle of Windex? Everything in Jedi looks clean and polished."

Now this is the strangest complaint I have ever heard -- so far. Jedi is too clean?! Wow. How do I even answer this? Well, the rebels celebrated their first major defeat over the Empire by polishing Threepio up. Yet there was no real "trouncing" of the rebels in ESB as such, just business as usual. So Vader's suit is nice and shiny -- I got a thrill as never before when Darth Vader descended the ramp in that shimmering black -- my breath totally caught. As for the Second Death Star's shininess, you must understand that it is so new, they still have plastic on the chairs! And if they think that Jabba's palace looks "too clean," I don't ever want to see their living rooms. In short, the visuals in Jedi are comparable with those of ESB -- sweeping and grand, giving the idea of the power and granduer of the Empire, emphasizing it before it all gets swept away.

4. It's Just a Bunch of Muppets!

I can't find anything worth quoting from them here, I'm sorry. Vebber & Gould weakly defend the Cantina scene from ANH (improperly referred to as "Wars" throughout their essay, BTW) and Yoda before accusing the muppets in Jabba's palace of looking like actual muppets. The only other thing I can think to give you is Linus' speech from the epic movie Fanboys: "You gotta keep the flaws. Crappy effects, real puppets. That’s what makes it so good, you know?"

5. Painful Lack of Innovation "Jedi borrows from Wars on levels ranging from conceptual to minute. . . . Most of the creatures and droids seen on Tatooine in Wars make background appearances in Jabba’s court . . . Little thought seems to have been given to developing or maturing any of the main characters in a realistic manner. Han and Threepio suffer most, coming across as catch-phrase-spouting caricatures of their previous selves."

Again, the cyclic element has been widely time-honored in all sorts of venues long before SW got on the scene. (1) If you were the Empire and you had created an ultimate weapon, capable of destroying all planets, would you really just abandon it when it got destroyed? Of course you’d get started on it again; odds are it was under construction immediately after Vader got home from the first one’s destruction! But the Death Star is a subplot, you must realize that. (2) Yeah, okay, species and droids show up again on Tatooine. Huh, I guess there aren’t a limitless number of droids in the galaxy and that the same species gravitate toward the underworld life of crime! If it had been populated with all-new droids and beings, you would complain there was no realism in the endless variety of available species and droids! (3) Perhaps the characters haven’t matured much since the last movie because, oh, I don’t know, only two months have gone by?! How much do you mature in two months? (Note the irony of the composers of this list complaining about a lack of maturation.) Threepio can't be expected to change because, well, he is a droid . . . and how is Han supposed to mature while in carbonite?! The rest of them have all changed significantly and I'm puzzled you don’t see this: Luke has naturally grown more somber with the weight of his approaching destiny weighing on him, Leia is slowly beginning to thaw as she realizes she loves Han and tries to reconcile that to her whole screechy, princess self, and Han is testing the waters of this whole good guy thing. If they haven’t matured, it is because they have changed so dramatically from who they were originally that they are starting at square one.

6. Witty Banter "With one or two exceptions, the humor in Wars and Empire was subtle, based around throwaway lines and the personality quirks of well-written characters. Jedi’s overly-contrived ‘humor’ too often seems inspired by setup-to-punch wordplay . . ."

They then proceed to quote at length the exchange between Han and Threepio in the Ewok village. I find this totally unnecessary -- if you liked the movie enough to even read their list, you remember the exchange, and if you don't remember it, you probably don't care enough to even bother with this list.

Yet this is the only example they quote or even mention, and on my own, I can't remember anything else particularly upsetting. Also, if I may, I have always found this bit between the two of them hilarious. Even my anti-Star Wars sister who has no sense of humor always chuckles at it. And yet I need to address the complaint because I have heard (although never understood) the "witty banter" in every movie except ANH criticized. You must understand it’s hard to answer a complaint I don’t understand. The humor gets increasingly more frequent with each movie, so ANH has very little and ROTJ has more, but is it ungracious? Unsubtle? I don’t find it so.

7. Physical Comedy. "This is a galactic rebellion, for heaven’s sake! Yet an Ewok clocks himself with his own slingshot."

Then they proceed to make the very nasty comment that ROTJ is as good a parody of the trilogy as Spaceballs. No need to go there, gentle-beings! No need! First of all, the Ewok hitting himself on the head with a slingshot is, in the scheme of things, barely worth getting offended by -- particularly considering the actor was an 11-year-old. It’s two-second clip. It also fits with the tone, you pair of mismatched-tone-bashing pickies, like the Ewok being clumsy with the speeder.

They also object to the Sarlaac's belch upon swallowing Boba Fett. I'll explain this again, and again, in the course of this list, but this was a commentary from George Lucas, who never saw the appeal of Boba Fett’s character or understood why Fett became so instantly popular. While I adore Boba Fett (and adored him more when he was still the mystery man with the sinister voice and not a friendly-featured New Zealander), I say good on George for that! Let's face it: these movies are his brainchild, and they are better when he executes his vision how he sees it. When he allows himself to be bullied by fans (i.e., by reducing Jar Jar's role in E2 and E3), the quality suffers. It's not our business what G.L. does with his own movie; love it or don't love it. So go on, George! Take Fett out like a chump and punctuate it with a belch to let them know where you stand. It shouldn't stress 'Warriors who would be Mrs. Fett in a minute because, first of all, Fett comes back in the book Mandalorian Armor ('cause he rocks!), and second of all, let George express his own feelings about the character in his own movie: he finds Fett overrated and easily taken out. Let our director have his moments. His single-syllable comment was about as mature as your entire list, Vebber & Gould.

8. Uninteresting Locales. "Wars and Empire took us to locales that many of us have never seen before in real life . . . Jedi just rehashes what we’ve already seen, adding only one new biome: the woods (oh, so that’s what trees look like)."

Okay, I am going to try to avoid taking issue with the fact that they find a vast and ancient forest much more boring than a freaking desert (oh, that’s what sand looks like! -— actually, I think all of us who grew up with a sandbox were familiar with that scene a long time ago). Okay, no, I can't help it, I must take issue. This is just a stupid complaint, and if you're going to be upset by the presence of trees, why didn't you just whine about Dagobah? Your Honor, I object -- this is mere repitition prompted by a desperate attempt to reach 50 complaints.

9. The Forest Battle on Endor. "If we wanted to see improbable jungle shenanigans, we’d have rented Battle for the Planet of the Apes. . . . The Ewoks' victory still flies in the face of all reason, logic, and precedent."

The weapons constructed by the Ewoks are "offensive," according to these clowns. And "dozens" of Stormtroopers are beaten to death compared to only "one" dead Ewok. (And apparently some really belligerently-minded people out there cheer more over the one dead Ewok than over the Death Star exploding. Honestly, your perversity confuses me.) First of all, I never made the assumption that the Stormtroopers were being killed (they are wearing armor, you guys); they are just overpowered. You know, even tiny tribbles ground the Enterprise to a halt by their sheer numbers. Mosquitoes have wiped out armies. And second of all, I would ask you to take note that it was not the Ewoks' lack of technology that allowed them to succeed, but their ingenuity. They were never winning the battle until Chewie helped them capture an AT-ST.

10. Solo. "In Empire, Threepio states that the carbonite would keep Solo safe . . . but Threepio said nothing about the side effects. Namely, that people in carbon-freeze gain twenty pounds . . . [H]e’s just a good-hearted, slack-jawed simp whose comments . . . are almost exclusively played for laughs. . . . Harrison Ford does nothing to help . . . acting with a boredom rarely paralleled."

I will admit that the more times I watch ROTJ, the more I notice that Ford has begun to lose his affection for the franchise and he is not quite as "in to it" as before. And yet, this is not untrue of the other two movies. He has always seemed like he has one foot out the door -- perhaps this is merely how he portrays his grouchy character, as the 26-year-old Mark Hamill resorts to nasal whining to convey that he is a frustrated 18-year-old farmboy. I've already mentioned it once, but surely these kings of repetition wouldn't begrudge me a second mention: the only time Ford, or anyone, disturbs me is during the stilted Ewok scene: "What. did. he. say.," etc. But I would not go so far as to call him bored, or use it as a reason to condemn the whole movie as suckage. (I actually never noticed that he is heavier in ROTJ than in ESB, and I'll take your word for it, but one could argue that this is completely scientifically plausible. He isn’t in suspended animation, after all, only hibernation; and how do you know the body's response might not be to put on, or redistribute, a couple?)

Finally, Solo was always the crack-up in the trio; it’s why we all loved him first and caught on to Luke later or never. (Hey, if they can make emphatic statements about everyone to ever view the film, so can I.) Just because he’s turning into a good guy and abandoning his whole man-out-for-himself thing doesn’t mean you have to criticize him for it.