Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Star Wars Prequels Television Entertainment

Star Wars TV Show Tainted By Memories of Jar Jar 474

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the that's-a-lot-of-taint dept.
bowman9991 writes "Can George Lucas' new Star Wars TV series, the first Star Wars spin off with real actors, atone for the flawed follow-ups to his original classics? Producer Rick McCallum calls the new series 'much darker,' a 'much more character-based series' and 'more adult,' while George Lucas himself calls it more like the first Star Wars film. The new TV show takes place in the 'dark times' between the last prequel Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, when most of the Jedi and anti-emperor politicians were hunted down and killed. The characters of Boba Fett, C-3PO, and the Emperor Palpatine will return, and casting has now begun. Mark Hamill, the actor who played Luke Skywalker from the original movies, believes George Lucas lost his way, 'making it bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger until you're just exploding with special effects all over the screen like some fireworks display,' but thinks the new show is a 'positive' step forward. Hopefully George Lucas can wipe the memory of Jar Jar Binks, Anakin and Padme's romance, his shameless merchandising, and some lame attempts at humor from everyone's minds once and for all."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Wars TV Show Tainted By Memories of Jar Jar

Comments Filter:
  • Hopefully, this show will get it right, and have a little bit of depth to it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by altoz (653655)

      if by depth you mean CG animation in the background, yes, it will.

      if by depth you mean actual storytelling, i'm afraid this won't. if episodes 1-3 proved anything, it's that lucas just doesn't know how to tell a good story unless he's ripping off kurasawa.

    • by Rary (566291) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:16AM (#31099132)

      Hopefully, this show will get it right, and have a little bit of depth to it.

      Well, for starters, it is set in the best possible time frame. Rather than the time of the wooden Jedi Council and the useless Senate holding endless meetings, it's set in the time of the rise of the Rebel Alliance. There's so much potential for a good show in that era.

      Also, George plans to hand the reins over to someone else after writing and producing the first season. So, it might have a slow start, but the possibility of a decent series growing out of it is actually fairly high — depending, of course, on who takes over in season two.

      • by jalefkowit (101585) <jason@jasonlef k o w i t z . n et> on Thursday February 11, 2010 @11:02AM (#31099626) Homepage
        Assuming it survives to season two. One season is plenty of time for Lucas to drive it into the side of a mountain.
      • by altoz (653655) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @12:03PM (#31100478)

        Well, for starters, it is set in the best possible time frame...

        Are you kidding me? The prequels had so much potential, a great subtext for plots and whatnot. Think about it. The reason Lucas made the films in the first place is because everyone was curious about how Darth Vader became Darth Vader. If that's not a good setup to a story, I don't know what is. The corruption of Anakin Skywalker is an amazing setup for a good story. Instead, it was Lucas that bogged down the prequels with useless CG, pointless Senate meetings and a Jedi Council that really wasn't anything more than a showcase for Yoda. Lucas was the one that felt the need to recycle every character from the first films.

        Put a talented writer like Joss Whedon on a project with such clear boundaries and he would have made an amazing film. We could have seen the slow moral corruption of an innocent Jedi. The seduction to the dark side by the emperor. A realistic romance between Anakin and Padme. Several brand new characters that would have depth to them and interesting plot twists could have been made all around. Instead we got a train wreck full of discombobulated stories about characters that no one finds interesting. In short, the story was set up well by episodes 4-6. Lucas just blew every advantage he had in Episode 1. He had three fat pitches down the middle and he swung and missed every one.

        Compare that to the setup for this series. You have an already evil Darth Vader hunting down Jedi. Somehow, the emperor is going to show his evilness to the world such that rebels will start rising up. You think senate hearings are boring? How else are you going to show any protest by rebelling planets? Remember that the emperor doesn't dissolve the senate until ep. 4. What about action? The Jedi are mostly already dead. Yoda and Obiwan are supposed to be hiding. What can you anchor the story around? Some Jedi that's running away? A planet that keeps getting oppressed (how exactly? through trade embargos)? It's not obvious and not easy to tell a good story in such a setting. This is like a slider away that you have to hit. A single is possible. A strike is more likely.

    • Darn, and I was hoping for something along the lines of Peewee Herman's BigTop adventures, with Jarjar the main character, constantly breaking the third wall to talk to a juvenile audience about toy endorsements, "Can yousa kids say to Mommy, "Meesaw want Jarjar action figures!" "
    • by Dachannien (617929) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:41AM (#31099400)

      Mark Hamill is probably just bitter because he never did get those power converters.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by GMFTatsujin (239569)

        You know Lucas won't be able to keep himself from fucking with establish events. In this version, Luke goes to Tashi Station first.

    • It's far too late... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fuzznutz (789413) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:54AM (#31099534)
      I was a huge fan of Star Wars until the abomination that was episode 1. I watched episode 2 at the theater we affectionately call "The Welfare Flicks", a second run theater. For the third, I just rented the DVD and that was just for closure. Now, I have no more interest in Star Wars. He f*cked up the originals, and I just don't even care anymore if he ever releases a decent DVD of the originals.

      As for my kids, their only interest in Star Wars is a video game with little characters made out of Legos. They couldn't care less about the movies. If they run any of the movies on cable, their attention span is about 15 minutes.

      George Lucas killed Star Wars.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by farble1670 (803356)

        the original star wars movies were extremely cheesy and mark hamill, carrie fisher, et al., were terrible actors. when i watch the original movies i get chills of embarrassment for them. at the time episodes 4-6 were packed with state of the art flashy special effects. as for the story ... let's see. a moon-size space station that is destroyed from a tiny fighter with a single shot ... and then destroyed again (whoops!). a planet of teddy bears that defeat the hardened imperial stormtroopers? i can go on.

        t

  • Hey, Polyanna (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geminidomino (614729) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @09:50AM (#31098812) Journal

    Hopefully George Lucas can wipe the memory of Jar Jar Binks, Anakin and Padme's romance, his shameless merchandising, and some lame attempts at humor from everyone's minds once and for all.

    Don't bet on it.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    "Hopefully George Lucas can wipe the memory of Jar Jar Binks, Anakin and Padme's romance, his shameless merchandising, and some lame attempts at humor from everyone's minds once and for all."

    I had managed to block all that crap from my consciousness. That is, until you brought it up again just now. Thanks a lot - you can expect to see my therapist's bill.
  • Humm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hognoxious (631665) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @09:51AM (#31098820) Homepage Journal

    Hopefully George Lucas can wipe the memory of Jar Jar Binks, Anakin and Padme's romance, his shameless merchandising, and some lame attempts at humor from everyone's minds once and for all.

    I find your excess of faith disturbing.

  • Never mind prequels (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rossdee (243626) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @09:53AM (#31098838)

    We want sequels to Return of the Jedi. Wasn't he originally going to do 3 sets of trilogies: with the 3rd set later on, and the only common characters would be the 2 droids?

    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:13AM (#31099094) Journal

      We want sequels to Return of the Jedi. Wasn't he originally going to do 3 sets of trilogies: with the 3rd set later on, and the only common characters would be the 2 droids?

      Yes, those were the initial plans. Although there was a very important if in their plans. From what I've heard through rumors, Lucas had two trilogies he could tell and he picked the stronger of the two (prequels) to do first. If that was financially successful and well received then he would continue with the sequels. I think this strategy changed with the release of the first or second episode and the latter sequel was canceled altogether.

      Keep in mind that Harrison Ford turned down a Han Solo spinoff [slashdot.org] and opted instead for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (with a fifth shaping up [aceshowbiz.com]).

      I don't want later sequels. If anything is done in the Star Wars universe, I want the Timothy Zahn Trilogy [wikia.com] done as three movies. Thrawn is badass. I want a TV series that takes stories like the "Tales" series of SW books and brings them to life.

      Personally I think the characters in Episodes I, II and III were so weak that we need new characters that aren't supposed to fulfill some other plot line's obligations.

      • by Rary (566291) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:28AM (#31099250)

        As I understand it (and most of this is, of course, rumour and speculation), the original trilogy was supposed to go on much longer than it did, with ROTJ not being the last episode. Darth Vader (intended to be a somewhat minor villain) was to be killed, while the hunt for the real villain, the Emperor, would continue in the subsequent episodes. Han Solo was supposed to be killed off, paving the way for the love affair between Luke and Leia (the brother/sister idea was only thrown in at the last minute).

        Unfortunately, with Lucas' failed marriage weighing on him, he got sick of making these movies and decided to just wrap everything up quickly and not-so-cleanly in ROTJ.

        If he had plans later on to attempt to create a sequel trilogy (of this I have no doubt), it was more of a "milk the cash cow" idea than even the prequels were, because there really is no story left to tell after the destruction of the second Death Star and the death of the Emperor. At least, not a particularly relevant story. I really hope he doesn't ever head down that road.

      • I think I must be about the only person in the world that detested most of the early Extended Universe (Zahn included) stuff as much as he detested the prequels that followed some years later. No idea what the later stuff was like as I never bothered with it, Han Solo calling someone a "panty waste" and lame story after story was just too much for me.
      • by Fozzyuw (950608)

        I want the Timothy Zahn Trilogy done as three movies.

        Absolutely, the Thrawn series is awesome and a great read... but, the problem I have with that is the Luke, Leigh, Han characters are firmly ensconced in Ford, Hammil, and Fisher and they're a little bit past their ability to really pull off the "hey, I'm like a year or so older than RotJ". I don't think SW is in the same place as Star Trek in terms of being able to do a "reboot" of sorts or work like Batman where the lead character could be played by anyone.

        However... in the "future" timeline that was wri

    • by TBoon (1381891)
      Among one of the things I've heard was that he said (at the time of making the prequels) that he didn't want to make episode 7-9 because he "would be too old for that" by the end of it... Guess he changed his mind, as well as the setting and format...
    • He was originally going to do a movie called "The Star Wars". He was kinda thinking of making a loosely-based series of movies in that setting, but more of the feeling of Saturday matinees when he was a kid; not really any kind of grand space opera. I believe that the very earliest reels of Star Wars didn't even have the Episode IV subtitle. He didn't come out with the idea of making 3 trilogies until a little while later, at which point Episode IV: A New Hope was added to the opening scroll of Star Wars
  • by aurispector (530273) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @09:53AM (#31098840)

    I recall watching the original Ep.4 as a 12 year old. The bar scene was particularly intense because it showed humans as a bit player in a big, bad universe. Fast forward to the updated remake with the CGI singer - just another funny looking alien to laugh at. The two headed announcer in the pod race scene is another example - funny aliens who exist primarily for the amusement of a human dominated universe. I don't think Lucas ever grasped this difference.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kenp2002 (545495)

      The "first" film was the best because you were 12 years old at the time. Talk to a 12 year old now and they love pod races.

      Nostalgia is a lie. I liked Jedi the most because it appealed to me at my age at that time.

      We hate the prequels because we expected to see them like we were all 10 years old again. The problem was we are all now in our 30s for example trying to watch a film made for young kids and expecting to see it like a young kid. The fact is the prequels were not made for us, they were made for kid

      • None of you seem pissed that Barbie keeps getting rebooted every generation or would you prefer she stayed in the Kitchen barefoot and pregnate while Ken worked his union job driving a bus and threatening to punch Barbie "To the moon?"

        Sir, I salute you in lieu of mod points that I don't have. You captured my sentiments exactly.

      • by p4ul13 (560810) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:20AM (#31099162) Homepage
        Perfectly stated!

        Or more accurately, stated in a manner that completely agrees with my stance, which of course I consider to be perfect.
      • by CrackedButter (646746) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:33AM (#31099306) Homepage Journal
        No, I think the parent makes a good point. The aliens are remarkably different from the two different trilogies. It doesn't matter if you're a child or not, as an adult we can see the difference between the treatment of the aliens.
      • Well said. I do think that Episode I feels substantially different (note how shiny the ship is vs. the decroded Mellinuium Falcon), but those are pretty purposeful thematic choices (even if they're not as cool).

        The best way to address this lack of perspective is from a quote from Episode IV that threatens to ruin the movie with its overwhelming lameness almost as much as Jar-Jar did Episode I:

        You came in that? You're braver than I thought!"

        Don't forget to feign incredulity.

      • by sammy baby (14909) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:37AM (#31099362) Journal

        There's an easy test to your theory. Go find some people who saw all of the movies as adults and ask them what they think. So far, everyone I've asked who was an adult for both sets of movies (including a bunch of friends in the office and my dad, a lifelong sci fi fan) thought the original films were much better.

        I'm not saying they were masterpieces. But chalking it all up to the audience having grown up is just willfully denying what everybody really knows.

        • by curare19 (1339937) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @02:06PM (#31101868)
          I'm in a very rare group. I saw both sets of movies as an adult - within two years of each other. Although I love sci-fi, I grew up with parents who had zero interest, and somehow got through high school and college without ever having seen Star Wars. I think it never even occurred to my friends that I hadn't seen it.

          I went to see the first set of Star Wars when it was re-issued to movie theaters. When Leila kissed Luke, someone in front of me said "Ewwww! They're siblings!" I said "WHAT?! They are?? Thanks for ruining it!"

          At that moment, my friends came to the realization that I had never seen the movies before. At subsequent movies, they announced to the surrounding moviegovers that I had NEVER SEEN IT and to make SURE to not reveal any upcoming secrets (including the "big one").

          It was great, actually - my friends, who were born around the time of Star Wars, were super excited to see someone's first reaction to the movies.

          Anyway, as a perfectly controlled experiment, I agree that the first set of movies was far superior to the second set. The prequel seemed hacked together in order to resolve things from the first set, and over-reliant on special effects and lame jokes to the exclusion of the storyline.

      • by ibwolf (126465) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:39AM (#31099380)

        Have a 30 year old watch Star Wars for the first time and, on the few times I've been able to find someone who has never seen it, gotten the same 'meh' response I had to the Phantom Menace.

        Anyone who hasn't seen Star Wars by the time they turn 30 are not going to enjoy it. Not because it doesn't appeal to 30 year olds, but because if that person was likely to enjoy fantasy/sci-fi movies he or she would have watched the movie a long time ago. It's not like the Star Wars movies are a well kept secret.

        Back in 1977 there were literally millions of 30+ year olds queuing up to see the movie (and enjoying it!).

        The thing is, the original Star Wars was a movie for all ages. Episode One (in particular) was a kids movie with little regard for the kids' parents.

      • by jedidiah (1196) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:42AM (#31099416) Homepage

        Given the nature of the subject matter in the prequels it SHOULD have been something that a 30 year old could relate to better.

        It should have been more Dune and less Howard the Duck.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by master_p (608214)

        It has nothing to do with "Star Wars being for children only".

        If Star Wars was only appreciated by 12 year old kids in '77, it would never have been so successful. The original Star Wars was successful in adults, not only in kids.

        Nowadays Star Wars-like films do not appeal to 30 year old adults, because expectations are different. Society has changed. What was acceptable back then it is not acceptable now. It has nothing to do with "SW being for kids".

        And that's why successful franchises are being reinvente

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kungfugleek (1314949)
        For some, maybe. But Return of the Jedi was my favorite of the 3 when I was a kid. Watching them now, Jedi is pathetic but Empire is awesome. Episodes IV and V were actually very good sci-fi adventure movies. They have a lasting quality that is lacking in Jedi and the prequels. They don't have to be the sci-fi equivalent of the Godfather in order to still be enjoyable by adults. But they do have to be fun and engaging. The first two are that. The last 4, not so much.
      • by SuperGT (1104423) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @11:08AM (#31099690)

        Not sure if you were generalizing to everyone, but... I watched the original trilogy when I was 18. I loved it. I watched them because I went to see Episode 2 (at my friends' insistence) and I decided to watch the originals to understand the story better. I later watched Episode 3 (which I loved) and then Episode 1 (which I hated). I can say, having watched all six around the same time, that the original trilogy is way better than the prequel trilogy - the only saving grace being Episode 3.

        Just a few examples:
        The chemistry between Leia and Han is much better than Anakin and Padme.
        The humor is worlds apart - not only were the droids a lot funnier than Jar Jar (I realize the droids were in the prequel movies as well, but they weren't as prominent), but Han was funny, the whole Han/Leia/Luke "love" triangle was funny, etc...
        I did not like Hayden Christensen's acting, but I also believe that a good director would've fixed that. If it's a bad take, you do it again. He was awkward and it made me cringe a few times.

        So it's not that the original trilogy was cooler because I was younger when I saw it. It really was better, imo. I think if any of the kids enjoy the prequels more than the original, it's because it has prettier CG and more action.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by BlueParrot (965239)

        The "first" film was the best because you were 12 years old at the time.

        The first film was not that good tbh. It's just a classic adventure IN SPACE! The opening is a work of art however. Easily the best bit of the movie.

        Empire strikes back is my favorite. The entire movie builds up the Darth Vader character as a cold and heartless tyrant who will kill even those closest to him merely because they disappoint him, before finally revealing at the end that he's the protagonist's father. You just didn't see it

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Rary (566291)

          Anakin comes off as too much of a kid, which kinda ruins the buildup to turn him into vader. He comes of more as a whining brat that a jedi corrupted by fear and anger.

          Anakin as we saw him in the prequels turning into Vader as we saw him in the original trilogy was so beyond implausible that it hurts. Vader was pure evil. Like you said, he was "a cold and heartless tyrant who will kill even those closest to him merely because they disappoint him". Anakin was a whiny brat with some questionable politics that he didn't really seem to hold too closely to anyway who became bitter and jaded because his wife died. It's like we need a whole other trilogy to find out how the bitt

      • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday February 11, 2010 @11:37AM (#31100088) Homepage Journal

        The "first" film was the best because you were 12 years old at the time.

        I was in my twenties, and loved it. It was simply the best science fiction film made (at the time; there have been better sci-fi films since).

        IMO the worst one was episode Six. I hated that one, thought even Jar Jar was better than Ewoks. Most slashdotters were terribly disappointed in episodes 1-3, but I thought they were all well made, entertaining movies. Face it, even episode 4 wasn't exactly deep.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by JerryLove (1158461)

        That "because you were a kid" explanation is used by Lucas too, and "the good-old days weren't all that good" is certainly a rant of mine.

        But, as someone who at 12-ish didn't like RotJ because the Ewoks were silly: EpIV and EpI simply are not the same. The relatively sophisticated abbot-and-costello of the driods, or the interactions of Han, Chewie, and Leia are replaced with Jarjar stepping in 'camel' poop, getting farted on, and shocking his tounge numb. That's not metaphorical, all three happen and are u

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by skorch (906936)
        I think you're overlooking something for the sake of making your point. For the first 3 films, there were plenty of adults and children who loved the films, whereas with the last 3 films there were only children who loved them. This is because, children have a much lower threshold for enjoyment, but are still capable of enjoying things that also appeal to older crowds. So it is possible to make something that appeals to all ages (Pixar have largely mastered this), but some filmmakers think that the only way
      • by foo fighter (151863) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @12:17PM (#31100634) Homepage

        The "first" film was the best because you were 12 years old at the time.

        I am so fucking sick of this patronizing line being trotted out and modded up on every single fucking Star Wars thread.

        I probably saw the first film when I was three- or four-years old. I was too young to remember, but my dad told me he picked up the laserdisc shortly after it came out in 1982 and let me watch with him. Honestly, I loved the toys more than the movie.

        But now, almost thirty years older, I still like the first film the best.

        The are so many fucking legitimate reasons for that, you ignorant tool:

        * It is a story told cleanly and effectively. It isn't cluttered with too many plot-lines, a major failing of the prequels. ESB, good as it is, begins the slow descent into plot-line hell with Luke separated from Han and Leia. RotJ cleans things up a little, but the prequels are absolutely, mindnumbingly confused about what story they are trying to tell.

        * The characterization is fantastic and the acting is good. ESB and RotJ simply manage to not completely fuck up the characters introduced in Star Wars. Who can deny Han Solo and Darth Vadar are two of the greatest characters of all time? Harrison Ford's portrayal of Han is rightfully legendary. And Vadar wouldn't have been nearly as fearsome without David Prowse's physicality and James Earl Jones voice. Mark Hamill's acting throughout the original trilogy is underrated, btw. He's winy and annoying in the "first" one because Luke is a fucking brat. Carrie Fisher's Princess Leia is no Disney princess: yeah, she's hot, but she takes no shit and can use a gun. Again, ESB just continues the character development begun in Star Wars and none of the other films introduce a character worth remembering or feature performances worth watching again.

        * The sound. Holy shit the sound. Blasters, light sabers, even ships in space. "There's no sound in space," you say. I say fuck you these are the greatest space sounds ever. Do any of the other films introduce any better sounds? Do any use the sounds introduced in Star Wars better?

        * The score is a modern classic. The later films introduced new themes and variations on the themes introduced in Star Wars, but none could do better than the first.

        * The cinematography is some of the best ever. From the opening shot of the star destroyer filling the screen, to the landscape shots on Tatooine, to the claustrophobic interiors of the ships and Death Star, to the trench run at the end, it is some of the best ever. Yes, many of the shots are homages to earlier works, but the elevate and often exceed the originals.

        * Do I have to even mention the production: set design, costumes, aliens, etc? Fucking fuck.

        In conclusion, fuck you. Star Wars is a fucking classic film and a great work of art. Fuck you, you ignorant cunt. You think Firefly would ever have existed without Star Wars? You think 30-year-olds "meh" reaction to Star Wars might be because they're your friends and you've self-selected people as dense as you are? Or that they've been exposed to thirty-plus years of films that have been hugely influenced by the original film?

        If you can't watch Star Wars as an adult, appreciate it as a masterpiece of film-making, and understand why someone could love it as their favorite film of all time, let alone their favorite "Star Wars" movie, you are a pitiful, pathetic person. Fuck.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lymond01 (314120)

        We like Firefly\Serentity because we can RELATE to it better. That is the key. My nephew loves the first 3 movies and is rather 'meh' about the last 3.

        Any movie or book is about what moves your emotions. If you're not moved, you're going to come away with a feeling of "meh". Episode IV had the tried and true (some would say overdone) story of a youth going on a great adventure, and with the help of a handsome and wily rogue, rescuing a princess from the dark lord. I liked it, and still like it, for the h

      • by NEW22 (137070) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @01:35PM (#31101516)

        I think a good test is to explain what Episode 1 and Episode 4 were about, and which seems most likely to appeal to kids. I don't see how someone could honestly expect children to understand the plot to Episode 1, or even adults or George Lucas himself.

        Episode 4: A poor water farmboy has dreams of leaving the farm, visits a hermit who exposes him to an exciting greater world that needs saving. Returning home he sees his family has been killed, leaving him with no ties to home and thrusting him into a grand adventure where he meets a rogue and a princess, learns magic and blows up an evil Empire's greatest weapon, saving untold planets.

        Episode 1: Some warrior diplomats come to discuss a trade dispute, trade federation blockades planet, then for some reason starts a war. Diplomats try to warn the princess, but instead end up coming across some aliens before getting to the princess and leaving the planet. Princess needs to convince the Senate to intervene. On the way to the Senate they stop at a planet and come across a little kid who races pods and has potential. After the Senate does nothing, these same people, with a kid in tow, go back to the planet and start a big fight. The day is saved when the kid they picked up accidently flies a ship into a space station and blows it up.

        The only reason I could like one over the other is because of the age I was when I saw it...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chris Burke (6130)

        If you can't think of any reasons why Star Wars was an objectively better made movie than Phantom Menace then you're hopeless.

        You can relate to Firefly/Serenity better because it has better characters. Star Wars had great characters. It had characters even no-name actors could bring life to and make memorable. Phantom Menace has characters so boring even outstanding actors can't do anything with them.

        You can relate to Firefly because it has intelligent dialogue that developed the characters. Star Wars c

    • by OzPeter (195038)
      There was no Ep. 4 .. there was only StarWars
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11, 2010 @09:54AM (#31098854)

    Memories of Jar Jar sounds like a fragrance that George Lucas would put on the market.

  • by CFBMoo1 (157453) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @09:58AM (#31098908) Homepage
    "There is no fixed release date for the show, but it's expected sometime in 2011 or 2012..."

    Lets see, the Mayans called it in 2012.
    Nostradamus called it around 2012.
    People are all end times for 2012.
    Then we had Jar Jar... DEAR GOD NO!
  • Must be said (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kenp2002 (545495) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @09:59AM (#31098914) Homepage Journal

    Your computer runs on smoke. Once you let the smoke out, you can't put it back in thus your computer has stopped working.

    Or in the old days: "Once you let the cat out of the bag..."

    The fact was Lucas proved you can in fact destroy a successful cannon of work. Most of the hard core Star Wars fans I knew growing up washed their hands of the whole thing (some even went to the dark side... Trek...)

    The whole "Joss Whedon is my master now" was a slap in the face to Lucas I'm sure but I think it is too late for damage control. The MMO crew I play with were chomping at the bit to beta test damn near everything out there with one exception.... the new Star Wars MMO coming out. With the first 3 films plus that train wreck of an MMO and it's subsequent "fixes" the franchise is dead. The inital 3 month subscription figures will be telling on how bad the damage has been.

    Warhammer and most AAA MMOs should clear around 500,000 copies in the first 90 days and should clear at least 200,000 in pre-orders. Watching this new MMO release may gauge how much damage the franchise has taken over the years.

    Comic runs, novels, etc are all factored into the success. Prior to the first 3 films in the series at the local book store there was an entire section (4 shelves high, arm span length) of Star Wars books. Now it is a single shelf post-prequels. That strikes me as significant damage. That puts the book count equal to Terry Brooks Shannara series and they haven't even gotten a film yet (which is suprising, the first three books strike me as very film\mini-series friendly. In fact now that I think of it the first book The Sword of Shannara would make a pretty good 3 season series or 4 part mini-series. The special effect requirement for his works is actually rather low until Scions...)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bkr1_2k (237627)

      I think you've hit the nail on the head. Finding Star Wars books that weren't in the "young adult" section used to be much easier, and they were even decent pulp, if not great novels. Lucas is a shitty writer and horrible director. If he writes the first year of episodes I can guarantee I won't be watching any of it.

      Reading the article mentioned they wanted it to be like "Young Indiana Jones", which I was surprised to hear about for the first time. If it has the same success, I suspect this star wars "s

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by kria (126207)

        Despite having approval on the novels (at least, that's what I've heard), Lucas let a lot of things go into the novels that he later contradicted with the prequels. I feel tremendous sympathy for these novelists scrambling to reconcile what has been written and things that are now, for good or ill, considered canon.

        Re: GP's comments about the MMO, I got the impression that Bioware and the Old Republic era works have a much better odor among fans. I know that my husband, who is a much bigger fan than I am,

    • Honestly, I could not make head nor tail of your entire post, despite re-reading it several times. "Single shelf"? "Book count"? You're sure you're a fan of a movie, and not someone in the publishing industry?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:01AM (#31098944)

    There's a 3-way my mind could have done without.

    • by iggymanz (596061)

      could have been worse, someone could have mentioned with that tongue jar jar could do oral sex on someone's fallopian tubes or large intestines

  • by ScottyB (13347) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:06AM (#31099002)

    George, there's an easy way to go back to the "good old days" before the prequels (if you haven't seen the 7-part, 1+-hour-long review of the Phantom Menace on youtube, go now and find it). Let somebody else direct them, and you just be a producer. It's clear that nobody on your staff is willing to contradict your "artistic vision," and thus we end up with crap results. Let somebody else direct, and then you throw in some criticism for a back-and-forth, and maybe these won't suck.

    But smart money would be on them being terrible.

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:07AM (#31099020)

    Why do so many screenwriters equate "something that adults will enjoy" with "darker"?

    Most of Raiders of the Lost Ark was not "dark", but I loved it when it came out, and I still really like it. There was action, adventure, wonder, and surprise. There was no soul searching over life's moral ambiguities, or "deep" plot elements where Indy tortured bad guys with car batteries. Similar with the first Star Wars movie (episode 4).

    If this is Lucas' attempt to atone for past mistakes, it seems like he's still off the mark.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The opening sentence of the article states "In the history of cinema it's hard to top the utter disappointment felt when watching George Lucas' follow ups to the original Star Wars movies."

    I don't know about that. I saw Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:11AM (#31099070)

    These days "Much darker than its predecessor" has become Hollywood doublespeak. It means nothing. "This Harry Potter movie will be much darker than the last one" is just the studio's way of trying to get more adults to come see it (at the end of the day, it still ends up being the same PG-13 rated CGI-fest).

    Here's a good rule of thumb, if they have to *say* it's much darker, it probably isn't. If you want to see if it's just doublespeak, ask the simple follow-up question "But it's still suitable for kids, right?" If they fall over themselves saying yes, then you know the "much darker" thing is just a con.

    • by Assmasher (456699)

      Exactly, when they say "much darker" I'll be interested if they mean "as in Dark Knight" darker; ergo, NOT suitable for children - or my wife.

    • by paulhar (652995)

      > These days "Much darker than its predecessor" has become Hollywood doublespeak. It means nothing.

      Maybe they're much darker because they're 3d?

    • by jzarling (600712) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:29AM (#31099252)
      "Much Darker" just means more poorly lit sets.

      Gritty means there will be rain, garbage strewn about, and major set pieces will be taking place in either abandoned industrial complexes, or abandoned buildings.
  • by iggymanz (596061) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:16AM (#31099126)

    star wars horse has been beaten to death, skinned, gutted, bones and hooves boiled to glue. Then Lucas squatted over the offal and took a shit lasting for years. Time to forget the whole damn thing.

  • Euwww (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chrisq (894406) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:27AM (#31099222)

    Hopefully George Lucas can wipe the memory of Jar Jar Binks, Anakin and Padme's romance

    I must have missed this perverse threesome when I watched the film.

  • meh (Score:5, Funny)

    by rarel (697734) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:34AM (#31099320) Homepage
    I'll be waiting for CSI: Coruscant

    "We found him in the Academy sewers and the burns on the decapitated corpse indicate lightsaber cuts, which means the killer is probably... *beat* It's not a Jedi that I'm looking for. Please move along. Move along!"

  • More Sith (Score:5, Interesting)

    by camperdave (969942) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:35AM (#31099344) Journal
    Hey Lucas,

    Instead of rehashing the train wreck you made of the Skywalker Saga, why don't you tell the story of the splitting of the Jedi and the Sith. In The Phantom Menace, Darth Maul says "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have revenge." Tell THAT story: why they are in hiding; what are they getting revenge for.
  • It doesn't matter (Score:3, Informative)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @10:56AM (#31099558) Journal

    Star Wars is tainted by more than the memory of Jarjar. There's three loud, busy, but ultimately empty prequels, terrible acting by people who should know better, idiotic plot developments, a painfully pedestrian, bizarrely animated series, and years and years of disrespect towards the fans from whom he got his wealth.

    Never again. I don't care if the new series ignored everything made after Empire Strikes Back and was produced by Ridley Scott and directed by Martin Scorsese. (Which it won't be; it'll be ham-fisted ol' George at the helm, as expected, and he'll make a mess of it, as expected.) Let's all face it -- George Lucas is never going to repeat the success of 1977. It's time to move on. And even if by some bizarre set of circumstances he did, who cares? I'm so through with Star Wars that I was reluctant to spend two minutes to write this. Never again. That ship has sailed. Life is too short for bad TV.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @11:19AM (#31099842) Homepage

    We want some drama and action. It's a simple formula really. We don't need "comic relief" and especially not in a TV series.

    But there is another thing wrong with the prequels and this series as well. Unless nearly all characters are completely new, we know who will live and who will die -- it's worse than the guys named "smith and jones" wearing red shirts on Star Trek. We KNOW the characters will live and in what state they will be in by the time Episode 4 comes around. (I think the family guy star wars spoof said it plainly and accurately when it was said "we have most of the major characters in this story on this ship. I'm pretty sure we'll all make it through just fine" or something like that.) Not knowing what will happen next is an important factor in a good story.

    Will Darth Vader die? Nope! Will he turn away from the dark side? Nope! (Might be tempted here and there I presume.) Will he remember that he built C3PO?

    Now here's a question -- will characters from "The Force Unleashed" be in this series??? Will there be aspects of X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter and related games in this series? I seriously hope so -- those were great games with great stories.

  • by TrippTDF (513419) <hiland@NOsPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday February 11, 2010 @11:25AM (#31099946)
    This guy had some good ideas in this essay [nildram.co.uk]. You could expand on some of this and have a great story line.
  • by dswensen (252552) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @11:40AM (#31100124) Homepage

    No fan will ever forget Jar-Jar, or indeed any mistake Lucas has ever made. Hating Star Wars is now an integral part of liking Star Wars. Fans will never let it go, regardless of the quality of future product. They'll continue to enthusiastically shove C-3PO cereal into their mouths, yowling "this cereal tastes so awful it raped my childhood!" until the goddamn sun goes dark.

  • by Jim Hall (2985) on Thursday February 11, 2010 @11:44AM (#31100182) Homepage

    Dear George,

    Look, I was a huge Star Wars nerd back in the day. I saw the original 'Star Wars', like, 1000 times in the theatre, and about a hojillion times on VHS. I had all the toys - it was easier to count the things I didn't have in the little Star Wars catalog/pamphlet that came with the toys, than count the things I did have. Loved 'Empire', and tried my best to love 'Jedi' even though it had dancing Ewoks in it. Honestly, though, you lost me with Episode 1, and totally killed that Star Wars geek in me with Episodes 2-3.

    You won me back (somewhat) with 'The Clone Wars' animated series. I think it's that I don't really mind cheesy dialog when spoken by CGI-animated puppets in a CGI-animated show. (Note the difference between that and Jar Jar.) I really dig this show, and I watch it every week.

    But I'm really worried about your plans to do a show about the "Dark Times" between Episodes 3-4. We know how that ends; you end up with Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, Ben, Darth, and the gang. I don't want to see Luke Skywalker grow up, I don't want to know what it was like when he got his first pimple or kissed his first girl (or Jawa, whatever they do on Tatooine for entertainment.) I don't want to see how they built the first Imperial Star Destroyer, or installed the freaking air conditioning system in the Death Star.

    If you must do something in the Star Wars universe, please please please give us a new story. What happens after the Empire crumbles, who takes charge then, how does the new Jedi order come about? There's a whole Expanded Universe Storyline you can play with there. And we don't know how any of it ends.

    Sincerely,

    a worried fan (reformed)

There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?

Working...