By: Alexander Mervar
Patrick Gilger and Eric Sundrup examine the newest embark on the galactic journey of Star Wars and observe how it struggles with the ideologies of past films and the continuity errors that have been made. They suggest that these problems must be addressed in order to understand the fictional universe as a whole. If a solution is not provided, it can be hypothesized that the writers of the new Star Wars trilogy would be guilty of multiple logical fallacies as well as storytelling sins.
Gilger and Sundrup build their argument by reflecting on the past films of the original trilogy. To be more specific, the reader must reflect on The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, the fifth and sixth film in the series respectively. There we find moral obligations to tradition in order to truly grow in oneself and become the being that was in an individual’s fate. Master Yoda professes this when Luke Skywalker seeks to leave his training early even though he hasn’t fully developed. The reason why these scenes are so important to the analysis, is to juxtapose the new philosophy of what Gilger and Sundrup call the “‘new Yoda.’” This “‘new Yoda’” states phrases of internal recognition and pursuit without training, which directly conflict with past philosophy. Due to this confliction, the new trilogy adds errors in the storyline. Many other faults are pointed out in a similar fashion by Gilger and Sundrup.
With the publication of this paper, Gilger and Sundrup add a valuable and strong argument for the fault of the latest addition to the Star Wars canon. Instead of adding arguments of emotional backing, Gilger and Sundrup present logical arguments that enhance the understanding of the films in question.