I found a Filoni/Lucas interaction over the creation of Ahsoka, and I'm chortling.
Basically Filoni wanted Ahsoka to be a serious commentary on war and child soldiers and her lack of preparation because she's not trained for it
But then George basically told him:
So, in other words: She's got this, and lighten the fuck up :D
This sums up most of the difference between Filoni (and current authors/past EU writers)... and Lucas.
George: It's a movie for kids, it's a fun and entertaining modern-day fairy tale, the themes are surface-level and easy to grasp-- Filoni/others: -- no! There needs to be a second and third layer to ALL of it! This is dark, gritty, mature, nuanced, for grown-ups!
George: Ahsoka is a Padawan, she can handle this. Filoni/others: Ahsoka isn't just a Padawan, she's a child soldier in a warzone, because that's how corrupt the Jedi have become by joining the war and becoming warriors instead of peacekeepers! They'll use children as soldiers!
George: Anakin falls to the Dark Side because his lack of discipline, caused his ambition to flourish, his emotions to run unchecked and his attachment to grow until it reached greedy levels. Filoni/others: Anakin turns to the dark side within days but it's actually a frustration that had been building for a decade, and when he kills the Jedi, it's because they've never really sided with him and slighted him constantly.
George: Yoda's line about Jedi arrogance is a thinly veiled dig at Obi-Wan to intimate that the latter is being a bit too hard on Anakin because he can be arrogant too, somtimes. Filoni/others: Yoda's line about some of the wiser Jedi becoming arrogant is a commentary about how all Jedi have now become too political and have thus lost their way and lessened their connection to the Force.
George: Qui-Gon, as a Jedi, is a bit of a rebel. Filoni/others: But actually, if you really think about it, Qui-Gon is the only Jedi who's ahead of the curb in terms of his understanding of the Force, and he's the father figure Anakin needed.
George: The song is called "Duel of the Fates" because Obi-Wan is fated to have a similar duel with Anakin in the third film-- Filoni/others: -- Nope! It's because the duel decides Anakin's fate because Qui-Gon is secretly the only guy who truly gets what loving without getting attached is about, and so when he dies, Anakin's fate is sealed because Obi-Wan could never measure up to becoming the father figure Anakin needed in his life.
In a way, this kinda also explains the darth jar jar phenomenon too
Jar Jar Binks is fundamentally a silly kindhearted character, he is in this franchise that is for kids to entertain children and also to show the power of kindness and friendship (the heroes would not have been able to save the day without his help)
But the crux of "Darth Jar Jar" is a rejection of these themes and what Star Wars is, it warps this fundamentally good person into a twisted image because it's born out of hatred for SW's inherent silliness, whimsy, and belief in the power of goodness, "no fun allowed"
LEGO Star Wars: Rebuild the Galaxy is the best way to go about that stupid "Darth Jar Jar" theory Like, even besides the fact that this is
sharing again bc this tends to extend past just the jedi when it comes to classic sw (OT & PT especially)
another part of the story that often stumbles into the territory filoni takes with ahsoka/padawans/the jedi in general is padmé, and the position of queen of naboo. fans tend to give that character and her position the same consideration of: she was too young, and it was too damaging - when on-screen in anything lucas was a part of, there wasn't actually anything to indicate that padmé and naboo royalty couldn't handle their roles. she and others like her throughout the galaxy train for that, are given resources by their own cultures, with no suggestion that they're manipulated into it in any way. in fact, under lucas's canon, characters like her and satine are often fit into a similar narrative as the jedi are: they choose duty, follow it through (generally), and find the most fulfillment from it.
again, fan theories and fic tropes are great, i'll eat them up, but that's ultimately what they are. on-screen, padawans and the jedi order, and institutions like those in naboo, are taught to handle themselves. it's not dissimilar from cartoons for young audiences where the protagonists are younger as well, regardless of how harrowing the scenarios they're put in are. lucas sw was never meant to be excessively gritty to the point where it loses its whimsy. one can argue that it tries too many things at once (eg. grand political messaging w/ the nuance of rising fascism against democratic systems while appealing foremost to much younger kids), but lucas's sentiment still stands. "You guys are taking this too seriously. You need to have more fun with this."
I mean, Lucas literally built a galaxy wide high stakes good vs evil set up heavily involving politics, religion, grief, death, loss, and children having to handle all of the above -- and he's surprised we're taking that seriously? I get that people can make it overly gritty but that's because it's a gritty-ass subject.
People are upset we are taking this fiction about war not keeping war light hearted???
Leia watched her entire planet get destroyed. Luke saw the charred out remains of his home and remaining family. Obi-Wan watched his dad master die. Anakin was a fucking slave. Leia nearly becomes a sex slave. Padme was basically choked to death by her husband. Her infants had to be spirited away because they, and others like them, were getting hunted down and killed or tortured.
None of those things are very whimsical, and if he wanted to keep things light hearted, he should've gone about it differently.
Oh yeah, I had to give it in tags that there was something to how stories that were executed like the PT (movies specifically) resonated more closely with Lucas's intent at the time (late 90's/early 00's). The execution has been seen as clunky over time, but during it's airing, it did succeed in what it meant to do. The fantastical intent of the films wasn't lost even as older audiences spoke with not just each other but Lucas himself on the more mature themes to the films. Standards have evolved, and I think audiences need the writing of something that's trying to be both to thread the needle with more refinement (rightly so), be it bc of real-world events or just the art of movie/scripting developing over time, but it did do what it meant to do in this regard (past tense). Not everyone liked it, but the suspension of disbelief in toeing this line of whimsy-and-politics wasn't lost.
How the franchise is perceived in regards to its genre has shifted as well. Classic star wars, or Lucas star wars (OG & PT movies), is a fantasy that if we put it in a range, it's closer to something fairy tale like/a moral fable, as opposed to a fictional historical drama. There's more BTS back-and-forth btwn Lucas & Filoni that other notes in this post get into, how Filoni often wanted to lean into the latter, granting more detail to the events playing out that could ground what happens in a more practical "reality" while Lucas stuck to the more timeless & simple Good vs Evil narrative while still adding moral nuance with themes that yes, could be dark, but that younger audiences can absolutely handle.
The OG trilogy is something that time and again gets brought up as The Hero's Journey. It's simultaneously unavoidably whimsical as well as takes inspiration from real-world conflicts like war, fascism, familial cycles of abuse. But it's not a dichotomy; it's difficult to go into a fantasy setting that's about space warriors helping a space princess overcome the evil fascist wizard without its intended sense of whimsy. Similarly, the PT is about a magic kid who goes to a space school for wizards where he gets a glowing sword that helps with his space magic. It is also about his conflict between the resources that can help him vs the temptations of a dictatorship that promises it can give him everything he wants, and the tragedy of his failure.
"Having fun" with star wars as well as appreciating what Lucas & co. are trying to say with its themes & conflict isn't a dichotomy but admittedly a lot gets lost in the noise, and why I brought up the issue of the classics' genre is that being able to to do this is a lot less hard when going into Lucas's films knowing that what's on-screen isn't trying to be a fictional historical drama but closer to a fantastical fairytale/moral fable. TCW and other expanded works start to break that tone, but that wasn't for years after all six classic films came out. Classic SW is intended to be watched within the context of its original tone, and it helps the darker themes that those films were exploring easier to see and digest.
The themes on Good vs Evil are not absent of nuance but it's just not in line with the conflicts Filoni wanted to explore; Lucas's is still in line with keeping SW as a fairytale & moral fable. Luke can easily make the same mistakes as his father; he doesn't! There's conflict to remain mindful of his choices, of the people it effects, his anger, and the consequences thereof and the rewards of choosing better. There's an immense amount of nuance in the PT that audiences of the time might not have preferred in their Star wars but they understood it, esp once the political events of the time got rolling. How do people who start out good go so wrong? The Senate grants Palpatine power bc they're convinced at first it's the only way to save more people - there is a temporary boon but at the cost of making the democratic process more passive. It's the kind of power that Anakin is told by Palpatine he can have - if he just de-prioritizes selfless considerations of other people and communities, he can have everything he wants; a temporary boon at the cost of his principles in the longer run.
The thing is these nuances, these "darker" themes are not in conflict with the movies' genre; it's both "simple" Good vs Evil and "realistic" in its own way as well - the narrative shows how messy people can become when tempted by greed and fear. The messages are harder to lose this way; as someone in the notes said: Lucas had messages and had things to say. Plenty, in fact! But something like "child soldiers" wasn't one of them. That's not in line with the genre Lucas's star wars had, and in fact conflicts with the rest of its tone.
