Ask Slashdot: Can Star Wars Episode VII Be Saved? 403
An anonymous reader writes "10 years ago today, in the wake of two disappointing Star Wars prequels, we discussed whether Episode III could salvage itself or the series. Now, as production is underway on Episode VII under the care of Disney, I was wondering the same thing: can it return Star Wars to its former glory? On one hand, many critics of the prequels have gotten what they wanted — George Lucas has a reduced role in the production of Episode VII. Critically, he didn't write the screenplay, which goes a long way toward avoiding the incredibly awkward dialogue of the prequels. On the other hand, they're actively breaking with the expanded universe canon, and the series is now under the stewardship of J.J. Abrams. His treatment of the Star Trek reboot garnered lots of praise and lots of criticism — but his directorial style is arguably more suited to Star Wars anyway. What do you think? What can they do with Episode VII to put the series back on track?"
Star Wars Sucks! (Score:3, Interesting)
The movies are all terrible. The only one that is half way decent is the Empire and that because Lucas neither wrote nor directed it. The more this new one completely ignores everything that came before it the better.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, the sucky part is that unless the story arc skips ahead as many years, the by-now old/wrinkle-bound actors are going to look really out of place...
(then again, in the interests of honesty, I never read eps 7-9, so...)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The movies are all terrible. The only one that is half way decent is the Empire and that because Lucas neither wrote nor directed it. The more this new one completely ignores everything that came before it the better.
Actually the only good one is Star Wars. Self contained no nonsense good guy versus evil guy. A princess, a farmboy and an adventurer. What more could you want ?
From the first sequel onwards it all came crashing down. Yeah Empire is more sofisticated than Star Wars but a better film ?
Nope. And ROTJ will having a good part in it (redemption of Vader) is just anahilated by all the other things (teddy bears waging wars against shock troopers, and the whole crazy part in Jabba the Hutt's palace).
As for the preq
Re:Star Wars Sucks! (Score:5, Insightful)
The original Star Wars movies were great because we saw them when we were 13 years old, and they were filmed to appeal to 13 year olds. Watch it again now, and if you enjoy it that's likely due to fond memories of watching them as a child, not because they're such great pieces of filmmaking on their own.
Any remake is doomed if you expect a remake. It's also doomed if you expect to be transformed back into a 13 year old while watching the movie. All Star Wars movies are children's movies, aimed at their eras 13-year-olds. All of us adults who imagined they would be anything different were disappointed.
If you instead expect a movie that will entertain you, set in or near the original universe (but with modern filmmaking techniques and different characters,) you might put yourself in a position to enjoy it. But you'll probably enjoy it most if you bring your own child to the movie.
Re: (Score:3)
"Star Wars movies were great because we saw them when we were 13 years old, and they were filmed to appeal to 13 year olds."
they where great for all ages because thy where ground breaking. They won academy awards, the first run was months, adults where lining up and waiting hours.
In 1970s, no one spent millions making a movie for 13 year olds.
Re: (Score:3)
Awards are granted to all kinds of movies, and aren't the definition of adult entertainment. These movies were not nearly as popular among adults as they were among kids. They were and are kids's movies first.
Re:Star Wars fanois Sucks! (Score:4, Interesting)
yes plover, you nailed it
often when I hear people talk about why the love trek or star wars or D&D or video games it relates to exactly the same...I just sort of insert "I like nostalgia and fun things" for whatever they are babbling about (fyi of all these i'm a 'trekkie' and a gamer sub-genre of tetris nerd)
there *is* of course the times when these silly things that were aimed at middle schoolers have really interesting storylines that go beyond their target market
that's up to interpretation, but it's all about distinguishing **why**
Star Wars and Alien are awesome scifi films but are hugely different in tone/subject matter....I'm sure some fanbois would argue that both are equally great in all ways but they aren't. Alien is written and acted much better in all ways. Again that's an interpretation but it's one most people share and its easily defendable.
I say the original trilogy are all "classics" for their own reasons...but in film discussions should be viewed as a whole...sort of like LotR...the prequels are kind of a B-/C+ retread, but reduced to its component parts it has some moments that are "classic" (note that the fan-edited versions of the prequels are much better)
Incorrect (Score:3)
* You can easily tell who is the protagonist and main hero in SW4,5,6. You cannot with SW1 and arguably SW2.
* character ? Character in SW4,5,6 can be described with trait indepen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and apparently lucas has nothing to do with this so...
however. abrams is shit. he is just shit. star trek into darkness is just so shit. in the next star wars, han solo will be making a phone call to alternate(expanded) universe han solo to warn him that jar jar binks is going to screw him over in the _past_. makes sense? well, as much sense as any shit mr abrams puts in his movies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Can Star Wars Episode VII Be Saved?" as always with these questions the answer is a resounding: NO.
gl4ss is 100% correct, Abrams is shit.
Directing:
Star Trek? Butchered - how many close ups do you need!?!
Mission Impossible? Butchered - was there anything remotely "mission imposible-esque" about that movie?
Super 8? Super Stupid
Writer:
Armageddon, Forever Young, Taking Care of Business, Felicity, Alias, Lost, Fringe: Not bad. The TV stuff not so much towards the end of their runs.
Gone Fishin', Regarding H
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek movie where fantastic Sci-Fi movies...sadly they where horrible Star Trek movies.
Re: Star Wars Sucks! (Score:4, Funny)
painted into a corner... (Score:3)
Yup. He painted himself into a corner by releasing them as 4,5,6,1,2,3. But that need not be a problem. There are plenty of times when we know what's going to happen - such as with any movie based on a book - LOTR, Harry Potter, GoT... so what's a director / producer to do? MAKE US CARE. Use actors that we want to watch just because they are such great artists. He had decent actors at his disposal - he did well with Liam Neeson, less so with Ewan McGregor (see Life Less Ordinary or Trainspotting if you're n
Re:painted into a corner... (Score:5, Insightful)
Telling a story in a new way has nothing to do with canon. Sticking to canon is about continuity with the stories that have already been told, even if you're putting your on style on how it's told.
What he did with the Star Trek movies was moronic. I get wanting to reboot things, start telling a new story based on details of a universe - I often enjoy them. The problem with what he did was that it made no sense whatsoever. There were huge gaps in logic, huge plot holes, character logic issues, fundamental misunderstandings of the science/theory behind SCIENCE fiction, etc, etc. I could write a book on everything wrong with those movies without touching on any canon. The worst of it was that he broke what is at the heart of the franchise: that it's a story that attempts to envision what a utopian society might look like. He's not the first to do so in the franchise's history but he was one of the worst offenders. The reality is that you could change the names/uniforms/etc to just about anything and it wouldn't have mattered because other than the name and a few details they had nothing to do with what Star Trek is.
Re:painted into a corner... (Score:5, Insightful)
TOS is a product of the culture of the 50s and 60s and was in some important ways hobbled by being so. It was always way too cerebral and libidinous to be a lot of fun...I'm in a theatre for two hours, you need to entertain me, outsmart me and give me something to think about for a long time after.
Which is it? Do you cerebral and intelligent so that you can have something to think about for a while, or do you want mindless fun?
There's nothing wrong with mindless fun movies. Sometimes I want to shut my brain off and be entertained by James Bond. But there is a place for cerebral movies. Now, to be honest, none of the Star Trek movies fit that bill, unfortunately. Even the original movies went the action route, they didn't really follow the footsteps of the cerebral star trek episodes. What JJ Abrams did was to turn the action into CGI-fest, which is ok, and turned the mindless action into something that will actively prevent you from suspending disbelief, which is not ok.
Seriously, if I could have turned my brain off and enjoyed the action, it'd be fine. But he kept jolting me awake with things like "a supernova that threatened to destroy the galaxy". Does he realize how big galaxies are? That stars go supernova and hypernova regularly? Because your average Star Trek viewer does. Or how about the second movie where they stop a volcano eruption with a "cold" fusion device. Where "cold" means it makes the volcano cold and freezes the lava. Which for some reason stops the eruption, because it's about temperature, not pressure, right?
I can't shut down my brain if the movie keeps saying stupid shit that forces me to analyze what they're saying. If they just had gone the other way and explained less, it'd be an improvement. But then, it would also be nice if they didn't fill it with plot holes. That also forces me to analyze the movie.
Look, you want to make a Star Trek movie that is pure action, to bring in the non-nerds to the theater? I'd rather have the cerebral Star Trek movie, but I'm actually ok with it, because that's the strategy that every other Star Trek movie took. We just have the ability for better special effects now. But the JJ Abrams movies were horrible. If they didn't have the Star Trek label to them, they would still be fucking horrible movies. I'm not raging against the reboot, I don't care that he rebooted the franchise. I care that he made two really bad movies. If they had handed over the franchise to Uwe Boll, they might have turned out better. Well, at least it couldn't be worse.
What about Star Wars? Could he make good Star Wars? Probably not, because he has no incentive to. The absolute crap he puts out is generally commercially successful, so that's what's he going to do again. What bothers me is that the best Star Wars stories are not the movies, but they're in the expanded universe. So here they have the opportunity to make Episodes 7,8,9 by making a movie version of the Thrawn trilogy (and yeah, recast the actors as younger people, give the old actors cameos if you want). Instead they go the opposite way and completely break with expanded universe. That doesn't bode well for what JJ wants to do with them.
Re:painted into a corner... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The franchise did need a swift kick, just not to the head (it had enough of that with Voyager/TNG movies/Enterprise).
2) Actually, Star Trek was the most expensive pilot in history and pushed the boundaries by having a black woman, a Russian, an Asian, etc. Those things were unheard of at the time. In the original pilot "Number One" was a female character - she was cut/replaced because she didn't test well with women oddly enough. As to the utopian nature of Star Trek it was intentional. Roddenberry wanted a world that had moved past racism/nationalism/war/social ills. The reason for this was two fold, one was that it allowed them to explore social issues in a non-threatening manner. Two, that the aliens/situations could represent aspects of humanity as they were in the 50s/60s contrasted against a utopian ideal.
3) The science grounds the story. Even if the science is just theory and in the end is proven to be false, the strength of scifi is that these things that are and might be possible. It's that grounding that inspires and brings scifi above just another special effects mind numbing waste of time. Star Trek is far from perfect in that regard, there's a lot of stuff that's bogus/wrong, but there's also a lot that was based on actual science and some that became reality http://www.nasa.gov/topics/tec... [nasa.gov]
Give me all the mind blowing special effects you want, so long as common sense/logic/basic intelligence are respected along with a solid story being told. I don't expect the next revelation in film - just something that has more intelligence than Love Guru.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm.....Chekov wasn't in the show until season 2....
It was a poorly constructed sentence which combined a couple thoughts - having a positive Russian character a few years (5?) after the Cuban missile crisis was quite a change from the norm. Other media of the time depicted the Russians as evil (From Russia with Love) or bumbling (The Russians are Coming). So yes, he was not in the pilot, but the overall point is the same.
Re:painted into a corner... (Score:5, Informative)
The "sanitary regulated onesie living" was a reflection of the fact that they were on the flagship of a psudo-military vessel. Militaries around the world wear much stupider things in this day and age:
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpima... [crackedcdn.com]
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpima... [crackedcdn.com]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org] --I'd take a Star Trek onsie over this any day
The civilians depicted did not dress in onesies, far from it - the costume design (especially in TOS) for the aliens/civilians was as varied and out there as it gets - again, it was a contrast of normalization (everyone dressing the same - a very 50s attitude) vs the creativity that is possible when you don't have the expectation of the norm (what the alien cultures provided)
In TNG they started to bring in more personality to the characters with Picard's anthropology, Riker's music, Worf's Klingon culture, etc and the sets "10 forward", the holodeck, etc without losing the ability to contrast. In DS9 they used the contrast to great effect - especially with what they did with Jake and Nog. Jake became less and less "federation-like" in his attitudes and dress as the story progressed while Nog made the opposite journey.
Throughout TOS/TNG/DS9 there were always very clear distinctions between "military" and non-military dress, attitudes, & culture for all the major races.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My view (and apparently George Lucas' at one time or another) is that the movies are canonical, the rest is fanboy fan fiction. Some of it is very well written fan fiction, and it brings you back to that special place in your head where you enjoyed the Death Star blowing up, but they are still not what Lucas made.
I agree 1, 2, and 3, were not to the story qualit
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree that knowing the gist of events prior to the original trilogy doomed the prequel trilogy before it even began. Sure, we knew, in broad strokes, what happened, but not how it happened. Beyond that, studies have shown that people actually tend to prefer a creative work if they've had the ending spoiled for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when the work itself sucks. Not when the twists in between are non-existent and the story itself is poor and told poorly.
Re:Star Wars Sucks! (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's largely impossible, as it is clear that Disney intended on having the main heroes from the original trilogy reappear. It would be one thing if you were telling the stories of other characters in the Expanded Universe, but I'd argue even that would be a mistake. If Star Wars is going to be a functioning film franchise again, it has to link directly to the previous films. It can't be simply "it happens in the same universe...", for them to refire the franchise, they need to have major crossover; that means, Han, Luke and Leia, even if only in a more secondary role. Since pretty much every move those three characters make for decades after RotJ is mapped out by the Expanded Universe, I can't see how it could be done, or why one would even try. Once they get the franchise up, then they can make their other "in the same universe" films, but the first film out of the gates has to be a direct sequel to RotJ, and Abrams and the writers cannot bind themselves down like Lucas was to the prequels.
I'll be blunt, the Expanded Universe fans are only a small subset of the potential ticket and merchandise buyers that Disney needs to convince to spend money. I get that the fans of the Expanded Universe are feeling let down, but they don't have the numbers to make or break the franchise, and Disney isn't going to worry its head off about maybe a few tens of thousands of readers when it wants to go after a billion+ theater-goers, toy buyers and McHappy Meal eaters.
Lens flares (Score:4, Insightful)
...better be absent.
Re:Lens flares (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No they were there on purpose, and they were all real, too. They weren't added in with CG, Abrams actually had people hiding around the set to shine lights into the lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Lens flares will be the good part. While Abrams will fuck canon sideways with a catus, I'm sure the film will be fast-paced and entertaining. Everything that was wrong, style-wise, for a Star Trek film will be right for a Star Wars film. Pointless running through hallways, action-central plots that don't really make much sense, lots of laser gunplay, the bad guys in a bigger, more-armed ship with sinister lighting -- all of it will be great.
I'm fully prepared to treat it like the prequel movies: high-bud
Re: (Score:2)
And wipes. They were cool in the 80s.
You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
...it's hardly even started filming yet. Maybe wait until it's released to worry?
Or better yet, don't worry. Skip it entirely if you can't hold "sequel" and "rose-tinted memories of the originals" in your brain at the same time. No one's ruining your childhood if you just stay home...
Re:You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even that. Look at that quotes list. Awkward quote #1? Just Jar-Jar being Jar-Jar. That was an appropriate quote for the character and context. Quote #5 was a neutral way to avoid an awkward silence. #7 was Anakin being a 9-year-old boy--yes, 9-year-old boys say awkward stupid shit like this. Quotes #20 and #34 were frighteningly insightful: this is exactly what happened after 9/11.
Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.
The prequels sucked because they tried to cram foreshadowing into every scene, as if we needed every single event in the prequels to relate to a specific event in the original 3. Then after the second prequel they realized they left so much undone that the third was just two hours of screen wipe-divided vignettes, and right at the end they were like, Oh shit, Anakin only has the one fake hand. So 5 minutes, one ill-constructed fight sequence, and single slashing of a light saber and suddenly he is Darth Vader in all his shiny, black awesomeness. Crap. Crap. Crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.
Also, anyone who compares Ewoks and Jar-Jar is a moron. The Ewoks actually fought, using old but useful weapons to help defeat the imperial forces. Jar-Jar was running away like a coward and accidentally destroyed an invading force in the process. Both character types aimed at kids? Sure. But they were nothing alike.
Re:You know... (Score:4, Funny)
You do realize that after the Ewoks killed the stormtroopers, they ate the stormtroopers (like they were going to do to Han/Luke/etc)???
No (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it can not return SW to its former glory. That is because the three SW films that came out first have got their cult status over the last 30 years. You can't just 'make' that.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing you say is wrong but what you imply is.
The prequels were fundamentally broken. Episodes 4-6 achieved cult status because they were enjoyable the first time around (not to mention the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th). The prequels released stand alone, not as part of the already established series, would have been laughed out of the theater. It's not rose colored glasses, there is a large and irrefutable quality gap between the original trilogy and the prequels.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they saw IV as a child. It was epic in a way things can only be epic to a child. No adult viewing of the prequels could possibly live up to that.
Beyond that, in 1977 it was new. The effects were leaps and bounds beyond the last action sci-fi flick. Even the theater technology was just upgraded (remember when 'in 35mm' was a thing?).
Based on toys, It looks like the kids now reacted to the prequels about the way we reacted to IV-VI.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, it's Disney. They're not going to take any chances. So expect safe, bland, middle of the road writing combined with lots of CGI action setpieces for the trailers--all carefully test-marketed to within an inch of the producers' lives.
It's produced by the king studio of all that is mediocre, and directed by the Ron Howard of his generation. Are you expecting fucking Stanley Kubrick here?
Re: (Score:2)
It's Not Possible (Score:2)
Unless they put something in your drink to reduce your intellectual and emotional capacity to that of a 10 year old you are not going to like it.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember... (Score:4, Funny)
I've noticed that they're rather quiet now...
Re: (Score:2)
They're the ones who have to deal with frickin' Jar Jar Binks. The worst we have is... Tribbles?
Lots and lots of Tribbles.
Re: (Score:2)
One million, seven hundred seventy one thousand, five hundred sixty one tribbles, in fact.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I was thinking, what's the point of having a Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument, if it's the same guy running both shows? Is there seriously no other competent director out there who could help maintain a different flavor in one of those universes?
Does anyone care anymore? (Score:2, Interesting)
Our childhood memories have been raped six ways to Sunday, but does anyone care anymore? Yes, stupid remakes of the movies we grew up with exist. The songs of our youth have been remade into cheap dance tunes and ringtones. The games we played are now free-to-play tablet apps with in-app purchases. The originals all still exist, should we need them - but do we need them? How long can you hang on to the past without becoming old instead of grown-up? I just wish they would spare the actors the embarrassment.
make people actually care for the characters (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Making it a bit darker in a gritty way would be nice
Because god forbid anything be bright or light-hearted.
Gritty and dark is always better? And everyone has to wear black, or really dark grey. Or maybe dark brown, but it has to be dark enough that it looks black. And everyone has to be a miserable tortured soul. That's a sure sign that its 'good'. Its like AAA FPS development right? Because all those need to be good is more grit and darkness with each iteration.
From the link you posted...
"Maybe kind of lik
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, you can put JarJar in there, but at least make me care for him this time.
Gritty and dark is always better? And everyone has to wear black, or really dark grey. Or maybe dark brown, but it has to be dark enough that it looks black.
You can do gritty without it being dark. Its more of a roughness of the area. Think Hoth, that is gritty and white.
Yeah! Make it like Mass Effect! That ended well right? /sarcasm
I liked the mass effect more than
Re: (Score:3)
You can do gritty without it being dark. Its more of a roughness of the area. Think Hoth, that is gritty and white.
Nearly all of the original star wars sets were "gritty". That was one of the better Lucas decisions in the film.
I was just taking the piss out of your post; because "make it gritty and dark" seems to be the new fashion. Whether its lord of the rings, or start trek, or a new FPS or anything else... it just needs to be gritty and dark.
And then that sort of dovetailed with the black and brown pale
Re: (Score:2)
That story doesn't need to be set in Space, require aliens, Jedi, Sith or the Force, and is told literally every day on the news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Art imitates life.
What "other hand" (Score:2)
Hey, I liked reading a lot of the extended universe stuff.
But as much as I enjoyed that, I'm not sure much of it would make for a great movie. At least not the parts they are thinking about now.
And the Extended Universe has a lot of weight to it by now. It's also pretty piled on, not leaving a lot of room for creativity...
I think a fresh start for Star Wars is a great thing, using the originals as a base. To me that offers the most excitement, a good story re-thought by people new to the universe.
So, I'm
It's hopeless. (Score:3)
Stick a fork in it, it's done.
Seriously, this isn't going to turn out well. For one thing, they got JJ "Lensflare" Abrams to do it, and he'll probably have the protagonists all be teenagers.
But even if they had a good director, they can't just undo the Prequels. They're already out there, and they've already ruined Star Wars. The only conceivable way to fix this is to not do Episode VII yet, but to go backwards and redo the Prequels, and pretend the old ones didn't happen. They're obviously not going to do that.
What's more, even if you ignore the crappy Prequels, Episodes IV-VI are quite old now, and are a product of a different time, and being sci-fi, would not ever pass as modern sci-fi movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? [yimg.com]
Granted, Star Wars isn't Star Trek, but I'd prefer that scenario than see 1/24 of a second of Jar Jar Binks ever again.
Re: (Score:2)
Stick a fork in it, it's done.
Seriously, this isn't going to turn out well. For one thing, they got JJ "Lensflare" Abrams to do it, and he'll probably have the protagonists all be teenagers.
Unlike the original series, where Luke and Leia were adults and Han Solo sported a walking stick with a hidden blaster.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the fan edits actually make the prequels decent movies [fanedit.org].
Re:It's hopeless. (Score:5, Interesting)
Teenage protagonists wouldn't be all that bad, honestly. Mark Hammil and Carrie Fisher were only in their early 20s when A New Hope released, and that panned out alright. Just make sure to get good actors, instead of Teen Heart-throb of the Month
It's certainly be a lot better than trying to have the original 3 actors just trying to rehash their original roles, to appease the old fanbase. Don't get me wrong, they're all great actors, but I can just see the new film trying to shoe-horn 75 year old Harrison Ford back into the same Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder that he was 40 years ago. And he's simply not that character anymore. Harrison has grown and changed over the last 40 years. Han would have too.
Also, if you look back on the original 3.. sure, they were considered SciFi, but the Sci part only existed to serve the story. They never stopped to explain the actual science behind ANYTHING. How do light sabers work? No one cares, they're laser swords. Why did that guy just vanish when he died? And how is the dead guy talking? Because he's awesome. Shut up and watch the movie. How does The Force work? Midocl-NO ... no one cares, they're space wizards, just go with it. And we did, and it was awesome. The Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than 12-parsecs ... that made ZERO sense and NO ONE CARED. That some fans wanked [tvtropes.org] out some way for it to sort of make sense didn't help the story at all.
You want to save Episode VII? Here's how: Have Luke, Leia and Han present, but only enough to help introduce the new characters (be they teens, 20s, or whatever) and then move on. They can hang out in the background, but should not be the main focus past the first third of the movie. Better yet, kill one of them. Have Luke go out Obi-wan style (that is, an active choice of self sacrifice) to save the new hero kid. Oh don't worry, Mark Hammil can float around as a Force Ghost if we need. But let his death inform the audience that this is not his story. That story is over. Oh, and if my previous paragraph wasn't a hint, skip the science part. Do what needs to be done for a good story, and if anyone needs an explanation, just say "because fucking space wizards."
Oh and one more thing. No obvious big twist "I am your father" moment. We expect it, we'll be waiting for it. The bigger twist is for it to NOT go for the obvious. If you absolutely MUST have some twist or gut punch, dig deep and make it a good one. Think: 24 season 3. Ending with Keifer just breaking down in the car. Something no one sees coming.
Re: (Score:3)
As a 26 year old, I choose to believe that 26 is still "early 20s"
Midi-chlorians begone! (Score:4, Interesting)
SW EP VII, Scene 1
Leia: Luke, after studying for years the effect of Midi-chlorians in the way we use the Force, I've come to the conclusion that they bare no effect in who can or cannot become a Jedi, all we know about them is wrong...anybody can be a Jedi...
Luke: whoa!
Re: (Score:3)
If anyone can become a jedi, why are jedi special? Their restrictive moral code? The universe would be filled with light-saber wielding telekinetic lunatics of all it took was wanting it hard enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they'd be just like all those black belt wannabees we have today.
Only a few would actually accomplish master status.
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone can become a jedi, why are jedi special? Their restrictive moral code?
Methinks you need to go back and watch Empire. There's a whole section in the middle with this little green guy that basically is all about your question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bear.
(Bare means uncovered, unclothed, naked, unaided...
"I wrestled the big brown bear with my bare hands"
although probably not for long unless the bear had been heavily drugged)
Better yet, "have no effect on who..."
Rocky V (Score:3)
Worried I am not (Score:3)
If Disney knows how to do anything it's to take the work of others and run with it.
Episodes I-III barely touched the extended universe just as fan boy nods - the new ones can have this easily too.
The books are separate from the movies. The masses don't know what all happened in them anyway. We'll wish to see it on screen but I'm thrilled to see what they do.
In closing. They are doing fine with Marvel and Disney paid a billion dollars for Star Wars. A BILLION dollars. They won't mess this up. If they do well it's safe to say the mouse will be very upset.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney spent 4 BILLION for Star Wars.
Re: (Score:3)
Lone Ranger / John Carter.
Worried I am.
It's Disney (Score:3)
I liked Cloverfield (Score:3)
I think a Star Wars/Cloverfield mash-up could be cool. The sith would set loose several huge Rancorrs on Coruscant to further the purposes of the dark side and then the jedi could carve them up and create buildings from the skin and bones that would grow on their own under the influence of the Light Side and turn Coruscant into a giant pulsating heart of Force. This would accidentally produce a tear in the Force and a new Chosen one would be born to restore balance. Twist: the one to bring balance to the Force is the first Rancorr able to become a Jedi. It mind-melds with the flesh-and-bone half of Coruscant and becomes a living planet capable of moving itself across the galaxy because of the number of Midi-chlorians it now commands, smashing itself into other worlds to absorb their life essences and drain Midi-chlorians from any Force sensitives.
Keep Uncle George far, far away... (Score:3)
George himself broke so much canon, or "retold" it, that it is not even funny. I've gone back and watched the original trilogy many times (I own them on laserdisc), to keep it fresh in memory so when I get into discussions about original vs prequels I'm not looking back with nostalgia.
Here is one great example:
Yoda: Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.
vs
Qui-Gon Jinn: Midi-chlorians are a microscopic life form that resides within all living cells.
and
Qui-Gon Jinn: Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you'll hear them speaking to you.
Complete and total turn around. The Force is now administered through a third party to let the Jedi/Sith know what to do - the will of the Force? *gags* *pukes* That is exactly opposite of what Yoda tells Luke - in that LIFE creates the Force. Quo-Gon says without midi-chlorians life could not exist and that you must "hear" the midi-chlorians speak to you. If that was the case, why didn't Yoda explain that to Luke? Because it was some retconning bullshit Lucas came up with to give life to his god-complex character.
There are many, many other examples of complete "WTF?" moments between original and prequel.
Abrams already ruined Star Trek (Score:4, Insightful)
The vast majority of Hollywood movies have been shit ever since this thing happened. [slashdot.org] Independent and classic film both seem far superior, especially since they have generally made up for poor access to special effects with creativity in other areas. (Remember when special effects were, well, special?)
Re: (Score:2)
Abrams already ruined Star Trek
Oh, so you're the guy who's opinion is the objective truth.
There is a lot you could help clear up.
Re:Abrams already ruined Star Trek (Score:4, Informative)
BRIGHT LIGHTS! BIG EXPLOSIONS! VULCANS THAT HAS FEELS!
It seems that over time people have forgotten quite a few things about Vulcans and Spock. Here's what's been canon for thirty years:
First, Spock is not Vulcan. He's half-Vulcan, half-human.
Second, Vulcans do not have an absence of feelings. In fact, it was established that Vulcans can have STRONGER emotions than humans, but they train to suppress and purge those feelings. Way back in Star Trek: the Motion Picture (an event that would been long after the events of the Abrams movies) Spock was shown going through a ceremony that would have purged the last of his emotions.. but it was interrupted, and the priestess declared that he still had human emotions.
So the whole "spock can still have emotions" thing doesn't contradict what was already established. Spock still has a lot of work to do to attain Kolinahr.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet alcohol binge commencing.
In the words of a great film... (Score:2)
Jar Jar Hill (Score:2)
Yay! [youtube.com]
product of its time (Score:2)
Like most things, star wars is a product of the culture at a particular time, so the further we get from that time period, the harder it is to recapture. It's sometimes possible to reinvent, but most times, the reinventions that actually do ok share little in common with the old. That's just the way it is. Lucas waited too long to flesh out the story and it shows.
No. (Score:3)
Just give us something new (Score:2)
like something that has never been done before. I love the og Star Wars and all the Star Trek shows but I'm sick on the same lets "reboot" every 20 years bull shit that is happening.
GIVE US SOME NEW SCI-FI. I think The Matrix was the last show when you can really say WOW I'll be re-watching this for years to come. Yes there were plenty of other good sci-fi but nothing to keep talking about for 40 years.
It's all about the story.. (Score:2)
There were some pretty terrible story elements in both Abrams Star Trek movies that made stories in TOS and TOS movies (as well as some of the other Star Trek series) sure to not happen in the new Abrams reality and some of the characters were acting very out of character since Trek fans know them like they were members of the family.
The problem is that Star Wars fans have been feasting on material that is now going to be thrown out and we will now have a new Star Wars reality, if the story is good and the
Avoid medechlorians and jar-jar (Score:3)
Pretty easy:
1) avoid medechlorians, JarJar and Ewoks.
2) Avoid really stupid looking special effects
3). Avoid really bad dialog
4). Avoid truly stupid plots.
5). Avoid completely transparent toy marketing.
Then the movie will make a billion dollars, as will the next two. Its really not that hard.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines (Score:2)
It is crazy that that particular meme has not yet been posted, as this is a pretty clear example of where its invocation would be accurate.
Disney Crap Sequels Division (Score:3)
Disney has an entire division [wikipedia.org] devoted to cranking out crap sequels to hits. They're responsible for Cinderella 2 and 3, Bambi 2, Pocohontas 2, Mulan 2, Tarzan 2, The Lion King 1.5 and 2, The Jungle Book 2, Lilo and Stitch 2, and a host of others, most of which can be found wherever used DVDs are sold. So grinding out Star Wars 7 is in line with the established Disney production pipeline.
Yes, Star Wars 7 is nominally a live action film, but today that's just a few principal characters on top of CG animation. Most of the pixels come from the animation teams.
Re: (Score:3)
I love John Lassester (Pixar, including Toy Story and Bug's Life ).
From your link:
On June 22, 2007, management of DisneyToon Studios was turned over to the control of Ed Catmull and John Lasseter under the banner of renamed Feature Animation studio, now called Walt Disney Animation Studios. As chief creative officer, Lasseter called for the cancellation of all future films in production or development at DisneyToon Studios that weren't connected to a Disney Consumer Products franchise. As a result, planned
Getting ahead of yourself with the headline (Score:2)
Ask Slashdot: Can Star Wars Episode VII Be Saved?
Episode VII has barely started filming. Did you mean "Can Episode VII save Star Wars?"
Well... I expect it to be at least the 4th best film in the franchise.
That's not including the Ewoks movies, of course.
No (Score:2)
The 1st one ever released in the late 70s was a gem, and in my opinion remains a stand-alone classic. Everything after it became less story and more eye candy, and the frustration of moving audience targets. ...Seems they are going to milk the franchise dry until it becomes unprofitable, then discard it like an empty milk carton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
How does one not disappoint in VII? (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually feel bad for JJ Abrams, as he will be the scapegoat in the end regardless of how good - or bad - the screenplay is.
I can happen (Score:3)
1. Deep Storyline, focusing on story first action second, that's what made the original trilogy good
2. Don't throw away the content the fans are screaming for...ok some of the expanded universe is just silliness, but there is some good stuff...AKA Timothy Zhan books...keep most the concepts from there...Mara Jade, Leia and Han's kids...
3. Attribute 1,2,3 and to unclear memories and retcon some of that crap!
4. Don't make new characters poor clones of previous characters
5. for the love of god make sure the villains aren't Vader/Emperor retreads...and PLEASE don't find some half asses way to resurrect the them!
Get rid of J.J. Abrams (Score:3)
C3-PO was dreaming (Score:3)
That is one way that ep VII could save the series and get it back on track.
no (Score:3)
No secret, just make an amazing movie (Score:3)
If you make a sequel within a few years of the original film you're essentially making another version of the same film. The actors are roughly the same ages and playing the same characters, the action and direction style are similar. You have a pile of things that worked great and all you have to do is tweak the formula.
Such was the case with the original trilogy. The first film was great, the next two were variations on the first film so they were great as well.
But if you make the sequel decades later the characters are different, the action and direction are now outdated in the current era, all you have is the mythology which gets people in the door but doesn't tell you how to make a film.
Thus the average decades late sequel ends up being as good as the average new movie, it sucks. You hear about most movies for a year or two and then forget them. The only difference with the sequels to the big franchise is they stick around so you keep remembering how not amazing they were.
The second trilogy died with the first film. They came up with a crappy film and were stuck re-shooting that for the next two prequels.
There's no secret for making Episode VII great. Even with the same actors the characters will have to have grown and they need a new feel. Hopefully Star Trek has shown Abrahms what not to do and he'll find something good. But make no mistake, this is essentially a new SF action/adventure movie. It might be great and it might suck just like any other movie.
Dump JJ (Score:3)
You Can Never Go Home Again (Score:3)
No, because you can never be a child again. So you will never view Star Wars through the lens of the young person you were when Ep. 4/5/6 were released.
Lucas had stuffed teddy bear people, cute robots and cartoonish muppet alien characters in all of the original films. Fans loved them. Lucas put silly characters in Ep. 1/2/3 and they were panned.
Did Star Wars change?
No.
You did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The original trilogy managed to appeal to a wide swath of the population. It managed to be a cultural phenomenon with a scope so massive it's hard to relate to unless you actually lived through it.
The prequels tried to pander to small children and failed.
The originals treated the idea of being a Flash Gordon knockoff seriously. The prequels not so much.
Much like some Trek suffers from too much Roddenberry, Star Wars suffers from the same effect. An artist that built a success on his vision as distorte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"JJ didn't made a bad job with Star Trek (way better than any previous ST movie previously release than JJ ones)."
I couldn't disagree more. The Abrams Star Treks were, in my opinion, the worst of the lot by far. They were bad movies that often made no sense at all, but even worse (and unforgivable) was that they failed to even try to stay true to the established Star Trek universe.
I expect the same treatment of Star Wars. That is, a hatchet job.