As I'm sure many of you have heard by now, Disney has acquired Lucasfilm, lucasarts and Industrial Light and Magic for $4.05 billion. In addition, they've announced a new trilogy of Star Wars movies, with episode 7 set for 2015, and each sequel following two years later. What does everyone think about this acquisition? Is it a good idea? Lets get a discussion going! Bring some life back to the forums!
Okay...I gotta be honest, I've been avoiding this topic because for some reason, it really, really bothers me. When I heard it on the radio the morning after it happened, when they officially announced it, I cried my brown eyes out! It was like, "This has been one B*TCH of a year. Now, just when I'm feeling okay again, they shatter my last little bit of security?! What is up with the universe?!"
However, I'm not sure how I feel about what will happen for the future of Star Wars (because, seriously, that's what I'm the most concerned about in this business ordeal!). When I got to school, still all upset about it, one of friends comforted me with several good points, but the best one was that it's Disney. As he said, "they inherently want the best for everyone. No matter what, they'll try to make everyone happy!" Wise words, my green-haired friend. Wise words indeed!
I think what bothers me the most out of all of this is--seriously, what can they possibly do with this storyline?! The rebels won (ooops, should I slap on a spoiler tag? :P), Han and Leia end up together, Luke comes to terms with his dad...what more can we ask for? Quit milking this cash cow! Besides, if you've followed fanfic but at all, you know what happens in their future.
I don't know. I am pretty upset still. What do other opinionated Questers think?
I've been mixed on the whole thing. I'm mostly concerned that Disney has destroyed my childhood lately, and this is just another franchise they can ruin for me. While I *want* to see more Star Wars, I think I always thought of a third trilogy (which had been rumored for years) as more of a pipe dream than anything else. I'm more concerned about the shows and the games than I am the movies, honestly. What will happen to The Clone Wars now? It's likely to switch networks, but will Disney keep it going, or end it? Furthermore, what about the myriad Star Wars games that are in (or rumored to be in) development? Will Battlefront 3 ever actually happen? I think all I can do is wait and see what happens. The other question I have is what will happen to the 3d conversions of the movies? They announced that episodes 2 and 3 were coming in the fall of 2013, but will Disney actually keep that going?
Quote from: dark-daventry on November 06, 2012, 10:13:47 AM
While I *want* to see more Star Wars, I think I always thought of a third trilogy (which had been rumored for years) as more of a pipe dream than anything else.
With the atrocities that were episodes I-III, I was really, really glad when Lucas more or less said he would not be making another sequel trilogy. I vaguely remember him saying that he had ideas for them (or did he say they were written already?), but I always assumed that if they were to be released, they'd be in script form as a book or something.
You know what sucks is, and I'm sure other fans feel this way, I HAVE to see the sequels. I'm upset and I feel betrayed by it, but I'm also a fan and I
have to know what they do with my series. Even if they suck worse than the prequels (and if the rumors of Kristen Stewart playing Leia are true, they will!), I have to see it if no other reason than to know my enemy and justify why they were terrible/good/whatever happens.
Quote from: dark-daventry on November 06, 2012, 10:13:47 AM
The other question I have is what will happen to the 3d conversions of the movies? They announced that episodes 2 and 3 were coming in the fall of 2013, but will Disney actually keep that going?
Oh, that I'm sure they''ll continue. :) That's something most fans would like to see, and they'd be dumb not to continue with it. If nothing else, they gotta keep on making more money!
Quote from: Haids1987 on November 06, 2012, 09:56:13 AM
I think what bothers me the most out of all of this is--seriously, what can they possibly do with this storyline?!
One thing they could do is make the point that although the empire has been defeated, evil (a.k.a. "The Dark Side") still exists. Whether there's enough to justify a new trilogy remains to be seen, though. :-\
Considering how vast the Star Wars universe actually is, there is always content they can pull on. Why don't they move away from the characters we'be seen and go with something from the expanded universe. Hell, turn KOTOR into a movie or something.
My friend Auston wrote a good blog about this: http://aahabershaw.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/the-revenge-of-the-mouse/
Interesting article to read. I'm going to play the wait and see approach with Star Wars, but until I see at least a trailer for episode 7 (which isn't likely to come for awhile) ill be cautiously optimistic. That being said, I feel it's important to note that I'm actually a bigger Star Trek fan than I am Star Wars. That isn't to say I don't like Star Wars (I had a very unhealthy obsession with it as a kid), I just prefer that other big science fiction property...
Quote from: dark-daventry on November 06, 2012, 10:13:47 AM
I've been mixed on the whole thing. I'm mostly concerned that Disney has destroyed my childhood lately, and this is just another franchise they can ruin for me. While I *want* to see more Star Wars, I think I always thought of a third trilogy (which had been rumored for years) as more of a pipe dream than anything else. I'm more concerned about the shows and the games than I am the movies, honestly. What will happen to The Clone Wars now? It's likely to switch networks, but will Disney keep it going, or end it? Furthermore, what about the myriad Star Wars games that are in (or rumored to be in) development? Will Battlefront 3 ever actually happen? I think all I can do is wait and see what happens. The other question I have is what will happen to the 3d conversions of the movies? They announced that episodes 2 and 3 were coming in the fall of 2013, but will Disney actually keep that going?
I'm not too worried about the fact that it's Disney that's in charge of this. Disney owns Marvel too, and the Avengers came out of that union. The other recent Marvel movies haven't been too shabby either. If there's anything bad that Disney has done to Marvel, I sure don't see it.
Let's see here...the Clone Wars will most likely be getting switched to the Disney Channel after its current season, which is fine by me. It's on a Saturday morning time-slot right now, which is very inconvenient to say the least.
Battlefront 3
better be made when the new movies start coming out.
Also, if the next three movies are an adaption of the Thrawn trilogy, then we'll probably be looking at something better than the original trilogy. Especially if they get actors who can actually act to play the leads (no offense, but Harrison Ford is the only one of the three that I can stand. Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher can go die in a hole). Also, bonus points if, at one point, Thrawn threatens the heroes, and Han Solo suddenly screams out "THRAAAAAWWWWWN!"
For the record, Disney had little involvement in the Avengers to my knowledge; Marvel had an existing deal in place with another movie studio (I think it was paramount, but I could be wrong) for the phase one movies. To my knowledge, Disney's first Marvel movie will be Iron Man 3. Which still looks kind of amazing.
I don't know much of anything about the expanded universe of the Star Wars franchise; what is the Thrawn trilogy about?
The Thrawn trilogy were books written by Timothy Zahn. I really despise it when people talk about the extended universe because there is just so much ridiculousness when it comes to Star Wars, but those books were really enjoyable. Thrawn was a Grand Admiral in the Empire who kind of took over the war effort. He was a tactical genius and was a really good villain. I'd love to see him on the screen, but also I don't know how well he'd translate since talks about tactical strategy make for compelling reading but not necessarily interesting viewing.
Some of my thoughts on Disney buying Lucasfilm is discussed here:
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-you-should-be-thrilled-disney-bought-star-wars/
My own opinion is that it really doesn't matter and in fact may be a good thing. This does get Lucas away from Star Wars. The prequels were horrific. And I know it's trendy to say that, but no joke, they really were terrible movies. They were boring, they were badly written, and they were hideously ugly with all that fake, bright CGI. How is Disney going to screw that up any more than Lucas already did, especially since they'll be making the films now, not Lucas? Plus, with Jar Jar, cutesy droids that chirp "Roger, roger" and bright colors, and ready for the toy store characters, Lucas has already Disneyfied his creation more than Disney ever could. Disney can only do good things with Star Wars. Anything else will just be status quo or different.
Besides, even if you hate what Disney does, they can't take away the original trilogy. Anything they do will just be seen as not-really-Star Wars. I know for a fact that's how people will deal with it because, as a Star Trek fan, I've been there and felt that. The new movie and its upcoming sequel are not Star Trek. It destroyed (literally) everything I grew up with and is now doing weird stuff with the characters. And I'm at peace with that. They can't take the movies, they can't take Next Generation, and they certainly can't take Deep Space 9 from me. They can take later seasons Voyager if they want though. And the Enterprise finale. They can take that too. That was horrible. Anyway, all that is to say that it will be fine. This was going to happen eventually. Star Wars is just too profitable not to return to. Let's get a fresh perspective on it, because otherwise we just have Lucas micromanaging another badly written CGI-fest.
Interesting thoughts, Damar. I guess I'll just wait and see what happens with Star Wars now. Not much else I can do anyway.
You always have such a unique perspective, Damar. :yes:
Quote from: Damar on November 06, 2012, 08:29:53 PM
The prequels were horrific....They were boring, they were badly written, and they were hideously ugly with all that fake, bright CGI. How is Disney going to screw that up any more than Lucas already did...? Plus, with Jar Jar, cutesy droids that chirp "Roger, roger" and bright colors, and ready for the toy store characters, Lucas has already Disneyfied his creation more than Disney ever could. Disney can only do good things with Star Wars.
:thumbsup: to all of the above. And you are very, very correct; I suppose Lucas was well on his way to "Disneyfying" Star Wars by the time he did the prequels. I never thought about it that way, but it's true; Jar Jar and all his cute little friends were too much, wayyyy too kid-friendly and very un-Star Wars. And you just more or less reiterated what my friend Dakota told me on this matter--Disney can't possibly screw it up any worse!
Quote from: Damar on November 06, 2012, 08:29:53 PM
Besides, even if you hate what Disney does, they can't take away the original trilogy. Anything they do will just be seen as not-really-Star Wars...They can't take the movies...Anyway, all that is to say that it will be fine. This was going to happen eventually.
Whew, well spoken. :) You must be really, really good at what you do, Damar, because I actually feel a lot better after reading this! It's true: although they might change it up and do scary, weird things with it, they can't erase the magic that started 35 years ago. We will always have Mark, Carrie, and my man, Harrison. :sweetheart:
All I know is that when I have my own kids, they sure as hell aren't going to even
know about any Star Wars other than the originals until they're old enough to appreciate them! Cutesy characters and horrid scriptwriting will not poison their minds into thinking that's normal Star Wars behavior!
Thank you, Damar. You eased this fangirl's restless spirit! :hug:
I happen to like the prequel trilogy a lot. Sorry Haids! I really don't mind that Disney bought Lucasfilm, since to me, Disney is awesome! I'm just a little saddened that we won't get that 20th Century Fox logo anymore. Like the Sierra halfdome logo for games, the 20th Century Fox logo is a great way to open any movie- good or bad.
Heh, it'll definitely take some getting used to to seeing Star Wars open with the Disney castle and not the 20th century fox thing.
Quote from: dark-daventry on November 07, 2012, 10:50:16 AM
Heh, it'll definitely take some getting used to to seeing Star Wars open with the Disney castle and not the 20th century fox thing.
...this never once occurred to me. :bomb:
Quote from: GrahamRocks! on November 07, 2012, 08:23:38 AM
I happen to like the prequel trilogy a lot. Sorry Haids! I really don't mind that Disney bought Lucasfilm, since to me, Disney is awesome!
No, it's cool, no need to apologize! :) You're entitled to your opinion, I can't fault you for that! :yes:
And of COURSE Disney is awesome, silly! :D It's the epitome of everyone's childhood, especially mine (my mom's whole family retired from Disneyland, and we're originally from Anaheim. :)) I'm glad that you're putting a positive spin on it too.
This thread has actually helped me feel a lot better about the whole situation. But like I said--this has been the worst year of my life. The selling of LucasFilm was the last straw in the tenth month of a sh!t year, and it affected me more than it should have! ;)
Haids, for what it's worth, we're all here for you! Your little forum brother is here (I think that's what you called me once lol).
This thread has made me feel a little better about the whole thing, but I'm still a little scared of what Disney will do.
I too am sorry that the Star Wars prequels are the worst things to happen since the Holocaust. /sarcasm/
Seriously, it's only "trendy" to hate on the prequels if you haven't seen our good friend M. Night Shyamalan's movies. Move on already.
I still maintain the opinion that the prequels aren't as bad as their rep gives them; there are plenty of movies that come out each year that are a lot stupider (*cough* Transformers *cough*). I think they're just bad by comparison to the original trilogy, because when it comes down to it, I'd rather watch one of the prequels than most of the other crap that somehow makes it to the theater.
Also, try comparing them to some of Lucas' other movies. The Phantom Menace or Howard the Duck? Yeah, I'd watch The Phantom Menace 10 times in a row before one sitting through Howard the Duck. Or how about Red Tails? I think The Phantom Menace knocks Red Tails out of the sky, and given how Red Tails was received much more poorly than any of the prequels, I know I'm not the only one.
So, yeah, there are plenty of movies out there that are worse. The prequels are still the golden standard for how to piss people off, though, given that people will still hulk out at the mere thought of them more than ten years after they came out.
I think it's a good thing. There's nothing Disney could do to Star Wars that hasn't been done to it already. I think they'll handle the property well.
Bt
Quote from: dark-daventry on November 07, 2012, 03:44:36 PM
Haids, for what it's worth, we're all here for you! Your little forum brother is here (I think that's what you called me once lol).
:) :hug:
I had heard that George Lucas originally wrote nine episodes.
Whether or not they were good, whether or not Disney will use the ones he wrote..... beyond that I have no idea. Frankly, I'm not a huge Star Wars fan so I'm kind of indifferent.
I admit to being a Star Trek fan moreso than I am a Star Wars fan, but I am a fan of both. I remember growing up I had heard so many rumors going around that Lucas had a three trilogy plan, but I have no idea if any of that is true or not.
My outlook is: well, they can hardly do worse than the prequels, can they?
QuoteI happen to like the prequel trilogy a lot.
I don't understand, but I'm glad you can enjoy them. But... my brain can't figure out *how* you can enjoy them. I recently rewatched all 6 films. After 4 and 5, I wanted more! After 1, 2 and 3, I just wanted to stop.
Quote from: darthkiwi on November 08, 2012, 05:06:08 AM
I don't understand, but I'm glad you can enjoy them. But... my brain can't figure out *how* you can enjoy them. I recently rewatched all 6 films. After 4 and 5, I wanted more! After 1, 2 and 3, I just wanted to stop.
:rofl:
Actually, I just did the same exact thing. I decided that, since I own all the movies, I might as well give the prequels another try. My opinions as a 25 year-old:
EPISODE I: Jar Jar Binks needs to die; the kid playing young Anakin is the worst child actor in history; Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, and Natalie Portman can kick ass in no matter what roles they play (even if said roles are atrociously written); and all the pod racing made the movie even more boring than it already was. Seriously? Was it really necessary to base so much of the movie on such a minor detail?!
EPISODE II: Hayden Christiansen is even
worse than his younger counterpart in Episode I (I was embarrassed FOR him and was glad nobody was around to see me cringing every time he spoke); Natalie Portman and Ewan McGergor are cute as ever and still do a great job (even though their scripts were nearly as terrible this time around); Samuel L. Jackson will be a badass no matter what color his lightsaber is; the love story between Anakin and Padme was simply cringe-worthy and I found myself laughing nervously during the "romantic" scenes (especially the part where Anakin is gushing to her on the couch, or when the pair of them are frolicking in the fields of Naboo...ugh...) because I wasn't sure how to interpret them; though all in all II was better than I--however slightly.
EPISODE III: Since sh*t got real in this one, I must say that I enjoyed Episode III more than the other two. But OH MY FREAKING GOODNESS, Hayden Christiansen is SO terrible! He seriously needs to let up on the gruff, spoiled little boy thing he's got going on--I know he's supposed to be evil incarnate, but there's a difference between being the toughest, scariest guy in the far, far away galaxy and a whiny little b*tch who stomps his feet and says defiantly to Obi-Wan: "Don't make me kill you!" Oh God, I'm laughing just typing it! :D Anyway, Anakin was really the worst thing about Episode III. I was distracted by how terrible his acting was the entire movie, even though the script was preeeeeeeeeetty horrid everywhere else too. When Palpatine is trying to provoke Anakin to kill Mace, he sounds like a toothless old man, especially when he starts shouting, "Nooooo! Nooooooo!! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!" :P But, all that aside, it was cool to finally see how it all went down and watch what happens to baby Luke and Leia. (Truth time: I found myself crying when they were delivered to their respective parents, and their theme songs were playing. ;])
Ep 3 creates some problems, too--like that Leia later says she remembers her mother in Ep 6. And the implication is that she means her REAL mother. While whomever Bail Organa's wife was, yes, she would've also been her 'mother', but still it kind of ruins that moment in Episode 6 with her and Luke talking about their mother.
I forget who or where, but I remember reading/hearing someone say an interesting twist could've been a love triangle of Padme, Anakin, and Obi-wan. I also think that could've been interesting and added a good twist and some good drama to the whole thing.
Once again South Park has the most interesting take on this. XD
I thought Padmé was the worst thing about Episode III. :P In the previous two, we had a strong, independent, politically active female character who was deeply beloved by everyone. In the third one her political career disappears apart from in one scene and she spends the majority of her time waiting around for Anakin, making it seem like she actually doesn't have a life that doesn't involve waiting for him and has nothing better to do with her time. :P
EDIT: The frolicking scene was the worst thing about Episode II. :P It was painfully awkward. :P For two people who are meant to be attracted to each other, they seem to have such an aversion to genuine affection. :P
Ugh, I know, I hate that!
Really, her character is mishandled in all 3, I think. First movie: okay, what? Who ELECTS a 14-year-old to rule their planet? But okay, let's say this happens. Let's see some of the ramifications of putting a 14-year-old into this position! this means she's been raised and groomed for this, she's always at risk of being manipulated (and is? isn't she? how does she react to that?). The group of handmaidens with whom she can easily blend in is a nice nod to that, but that's all we get.
Second movie: She spends the majority of the movie rolling around in the grass with Anakin, wearing dominatrix outfits around him, telling him they can't be together, then doing it anyways and getting married in secret in the end. This love story is even worse than Twilight! She's a senator, an important political figure, someone who grew up groomed for politics, and this is all she does: fall for a whiny teenager!
Third movie: As mentioned, she does nothing but stand around being pregnant here. That's it. No one asks her, hey, who's the dad? No one hounds her, she barely does anything despite being a senator...ugh.
Her character's set up is really intriguing and full of potential and it is wasted time and time again.
The problem with the third was that they tried to do too much too fast. It could have worked if it was split up into two movies.
The Sheer amount of villains and heros who were pathetically killed off is immense.
Padme dropping out of politics for a while because she finds out she is pregnant COULD have made for some good storytelling... but they didn't want to really do that they wanted her to be a Damsel for Anakin.
I completely agree with everything everyone's said. You've all said what I think of these movies. XD
I think 3 had a surprising amount going for it (given how awful 1 and 2 were) but even then, it doesn't quite pull it off. I like how Palpatine uses people's fear of a Jedi dictatorship to start up his own dictatorship, and I like the fact that Anakin has a more or less believable reason to become evil, but I just do not care about Anakin at all, and I lost all respect for Padme once she became a nonentity.
I just think Padme and Anakin should have gotten together earlier. There would have been so much potential for a scene with Padme teaching Anakin about his body. Oh well.
:rofl:
Quote from: KatieHal on November 08, 2012, 12:16:27 PM
Second movie: She spends the majority of the movie rolling around in the grass with Anakin, wearing dominatrix outfits around him, telling him they can't be together, then doing it anyways and getting married in secret in the end..She's a senator, an important political figure, someone who grew up groomed for politics, and this is all she does: fall for a whiny teenager!
Third movie: As mentioned, she does nothing but stand around being pregnant here. That's it. No one asks her, hey, who's the dad? No one hounds her, she barely does anything despite being a senator...ugh.
Quote from: Neonivek on November 08, 2012, 01:03:30 PM
Padme dropping out of politics for a while because she finds out she is pregnant COULD have made for some good storytelling... but they didn't want to really do that they wanted her to be a Damsel for Anakin.
This is all so true and sad. She was a powerful, well-versed young woman, and drops it all just because she's knocked up. And then at the end, giving up on her
life just because her husband turned evil, she "has lost the will to live?!" Ummm, hello, you give GAVE BIRTH TO TWINS. If that's not a reason to live, then I don't know what is!
The fact stands that Lucas, love him though I might, has lost his scriptwriting touch. The more we discuss it the better I feel...though there's still that nagging "ZOMG I FEAR CHANGE!!" voice in the back of my mind. ::) Ah, well, we shall see how it goes down!
He never "Lost his touch" it is because people always sort of kept him grounded or told him when his dialog was terrible (Heck, I even heard many of the scenes in the original Starwars trilogy was done on the spot or outright edited by the actors)
However what happened is he sort of became too famos for his own good so to speak so that no one would dare edit his scripts.
Heck, JarJar makes perfect sense if you understand Lucas' stance on Starwars.
AHHH! I just realised something
What does this mean about Lucas Arts and Monkey Island?
George Lucas lost his grounding when Gary Kurtz left.... that was post Empire Strikes Back.
Read these articles for more info.... but Kurtz and Lucas worked together since "American Graffitti" and he really helped him keep his ideas grounded. Without him, we spun off into RotJ territory - which wasn't horrible, but it paved the way for the prequels. If the prequels had a modicum of editing and focus from outside sources (instead of an insufferable 'yes man' like Rick McCallum) they could have been good films instead of the mediocre ones they are. I don't say horrible, because as far as Sci-Fi Space Operas go, they're like "Eh, okay." But, you know, "Eh Okay" kind of sucks.
http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2010/08/star-wars-producer-gary-kurtz.php
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/12/entertainment/la-et-gary-kurtz-20100812
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/08/12/star-wars-was-born-a-long-time-ago-but-not-all-that-far-far-away-in-1972-filmmakers-george-lucas-and-gary-kurtz-wer/ - Longer version of above article
http://www.vulture.com/2011/10/gary_kurtz_star_wars_prequels.html
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on November 08, 2012, 05:04:00 PM
George Lucas lost his grounding when Gary Kurtz left.... that was post Empire Strikes Back.
Read these articles for more info.... but Kurtz and Lucas worked together since "American Graffitti" and he really helped him keep his ideas grounded. Without him, we spun off into RotJ territory - which wasn't horrible, but it paved the way for the prequels. If the prequels had a modicum of editing and focus from outside sources (instead of an insufferable 'yes man' like Rick McCallum) they could have been good films instead of the mediocre ones they are. I don't say horrible, because as far as Sci-Fi Space Operas go, they're like "Eh, okay." But, you know, "Eh Okay" kind of sucks.
http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2010/08/star-wars-producer-gary-kurtz.php
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/12/entertainment/la-et-gary-kurtz-20100812
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/08/12/star-wars-was-born-a-long-time-ago-but-not-all-that-far-far-away-in-1972-filmmakers-george-lucas-and-gary-kurtz-wer/ - Longer version of above article
http://www.vulture.com/2011/10/gary_kurtz_star_wars_prequels.html
Bt
Have you ever read Lucas' first several drafts for the original Star Wars? They're literally horrid! He made like four or five drafts between 1973 and 1976 or so, refining it with help from others.....
Lucas, I think, often gets too much credit. There was Gary Kurtz, as you mentioned, who played a big role, and then there's other too often unsung heroes like Lawrence Kasdan and Irvin Kershner, and even Lucas' own former wife Marcia...Without any of these people, and many others (including many of Lucas' celebrity friends such as Coppola and Spielberg who offered ideas or advice), the original films would never have been anywhere near as good as they were.
Lucas sort of takes sole credit and promotes himself as this visionary genius when he had a whole bunch of people giving his vision shape. Don't get me wrong; Having a vision, having that spark of creativity and inventiveness within you is praise worthy, and Lucas is brilliant in his own way, but not on his own. He has good ideas, he simply needs other people to give those ideas workable shape, and to tell him when his ideas are bad ones.
I like the prequels for what they are...I actually think The Phanton Menace is a really good Sci-Fi film in it's own right and isn't a bad movie at all. The other two prequels are meh, IMO. But when you put any of the prequels next to the magic of the original trilogy, that's when they seem to suck.
By the way, Star Wars: A New Hope, the original '77 film, is my favorite. It has this wonderful standalone feel, this other-wordly, adventurous sort of feel, it hints at this huge universe full of interesting characters and worlds and beings and some grand struggle, and you don't need to view any of the other films to enjoy it, at all. It's also in it's own way the least commercial (no Ewoks abound here!). What's your favorite?
Empire. All the way. Series never got better than The Empire Strikes Back. I love Star Wars, and I agree that it's a totally enjoyable, self-contained movie - Empire just took the biscuit and made the gravy to go with it.
Bt
Though I did see the Poster for the next Starwars
It doesn't say good things to me
Quote from: Neonivek on November 10, 2012, 03:19:07 PM
Though I did see the Poster for the next Starwars
It doesn't say good things to me
I don't think there's an official poster for the next Star Wars yet. It's to be released in 2015.
Bt
The problem with the prequels was that Lucas wrote and directed them with little creative input, other than from his yes man Rick McCallum. There was no peer review. Nobody told him his writing was awful.
Lucas had good ideas for the framework of the story, but the execution was poor. That's where he needed people like Gary Kurtz, Marcia Lucas, etc. All those other people are who really made the original trilogy so great. But as Lucas changed between ESB and ROTJ, he took in less and less input.
My favorite growing up was actually Jedi. Even now I really like the movie, possibly better than the original. It's just fun and jaunty and action packed. It has a natural light-heartedness that Lucas has tried to forcefully recreate in the prequels (and failed miserably at.) Now my favorite is Empire for the usual reasons.
The prequels though, I can't even enjoy as entertainment. I can't get past the dull, pointless plot and pod racing of Phantom Menace to say nothing of the horrible acting. Clones was just as dull to me and Sith collapsed under the weight of its own flashy effects and wannabe melodrama. The plots never made any sense, the characters were pointless. And there were so many characters, too. And it was like I was expected to read their backstory prior. "Well, if you'd seen The Clone Wars you'd know all about General Grievous and why he wheezes and blah blah blah." Well, I didn't see the Clone Wars. I came to a movie and all I see is some lame character that came out of nowhere and is constantly coughing. I hated the midochlorians. And I hated how shocked everyone was when Anakin turned evil. There was a whole prophecy about him bringing balance to the force. Dude, you live in a world with only two (one and a half after fighting Darth Maul) Sith and approximately a crapton of Jedi and Jedi in training. If Anakin is going to bring balance to the force, what else did you expect him to do but slaughter everyone and make the dark side more powerful? There's just so much wrong with the movies that I can't enjoy them on any level. And I'm not just saying that because it's trendy. I really cannot enjoy the films. I tried my best to like them. And as a side-note, if there's anyone left on the internet that hasn't seen Redletter Media's Plinkett reviews of the prequels, go watch them. They utterly destroy these films.
But, again, Disney really can't do any worse than what already happened. In my mind, it's just not possible.
I originally thought that "bringing balance to the force" meant making the Jedi less uptight about the whole light/dark dichotomy. In the Jedi Knight games (set post-ROTJ) the main character is on the good side but uses force choke and lightning. My thinking was, that by destroying the Jedi and showing the damage a binary view of the force could do, Vader benefited the order in the long run by making them accept anger as part of life, not as something to be (hopelessly) repressed.
But I looked up all that stuff a few months ago and, no, according to Lucas the dark side is just a parasitic bit of the force which fundamentally unbalances it, so to balance it means to eradicate the dark side (ie. kill the emperor and his apprentice to destroy the sith). Which is 1) utterly boring and 2) makes no sense once you start looking at the expanded universe, since there are dozens of sith or dark jedi around at the very moment the Emperor is killed. Which is yet another reason to be sceptical of the EU, I guess.
Which is why I like Damar's interpretation better: "Balance doesn't mean a *good* thing! Why do you assume all prophecies are good!?"
Quote from: darthkiwi on November 11, 2012, 06:18:51 AM
...Which is yet another reason to be sceptical of the EU, I guess.
I read that as "... yet another reason to be skeptical of the European Union...."
Quote from: darthkiwi on November 11, 2012, 06:18:51 AM
Which is why I like Damar's interpretation better: "Balance doesn't mean a *good* thing! Why do you assume all prophecies are good!?"
Oo... I like that... :thumbsup:
QuoteWhich is why I like Damar's interpretation better: "Balance doesn't mean a *good* thing! Why do you assume all prophecies are good!?"
Which I'd counter that "Balance" is with complimentary opposites and not contradictary opposites.
Balance is not achieved by the existance of evil but rather evil is a product of an unbalance.
Actually I could see that being an argument leading back to what darthkiwi said, bringing balance by making the Jedi not crazy stoic monks with laser swords. But what would have been nice would be these ideas being discussed and explained, not just "there's a prophecy now lets watch pretty robots explode."
Quote from: KatieHal on November 08, 2012, 12:16:27 PM
First movie: okay, what? Who ELECTS a 14-year-old to rule their planet? But okay, let's say this happens. Let's see some of the ramifications of putting a 14-year-old into this position! this means she's been raised and groomed for this, she's always at risk of being manipulated (and is? isn't she? how does she react to that?). The group of handmaidens with whom she can easily blend in is a nice nod to that, but that's all we get.
That bothered the crap out of me the first movie. And the only reason I can think that was written is because Lucas is a hack writer. He wanted Anakin to have a Disney romance, which means a princess/queen. But that would mean that it's a monarchy and monarchy is bad! Democracy forever! U-S-A! U-S-A! So now we have an elected queen. We get all the Disney royal romance with all the evolved, red-blooded American democracy. But it doesn't make sense. No one would elect a 14 year old to anything. The constant use of robots was also Lucas trying to have it both ways. He wanted big battles and lots of violence, but didn't want death to mar his kiddie film, so all the big battles are with robots. Or animals. Lots of animals in clones. It's all Lucas trying to have his cake and eat it too.
But yeah, who can count on a 14 year old to rule anything? There's only one 14 year old I'd trust to rule, and she's Daenerys Stormborn, Khaleesi of the Grass Sea and Mother of Dragons.
Daenarys/Dragons in '16! ;D
QuoteActually I could see that being an argument leading back to what darthkiwi said, bringing balance by making the Jedi not crazy stoic monks with laser swords. But what would have been nice would be these ideas being discussed and explained, not just "there's a prophecy now lets watch pretty robots explode."
Well it is said that the "Light and dark" side of the force are not good and evil. Whether or not that is true I don't know but I like to think that is the case and that the "Good versus evil" themes mostly derived from the Jedi's mutual hatred of the Sith.
Well that and both the Sith and Jedi have went into severe decline.
QuoteI read that as "... yet another reason to be skeptical of the European Union...."
Well, now that you mention it I'm not a huge fan of the European Union either, but that's another story. XD
QuoteWhich I'd counter that "Balance" is with complimentary opposites and not contradictary opposites.
Balance is not achieved by the existance of evil but rather evil is a product of an unbalance.
I'm not convinced. What if there are two equally powerful forces which would destroy each other if they could, but for whatever reason can't/don't dare destroy the other? The obvious example is the Cold War. That's the perfect example of two contradictory forces balancing each other out; had the balance been broken, we would have got a disaster.
The idea that "evil" is a product of imbalance is also extremely questionable. For starters, evil is a human construction. Nothing is evil in nature. What's evil for one group of people is not evil for another. For the ancient Egyptians, I'm sure slaves rising up and smashing the idols of the gods would be pretty evil. The same act from the slaves' perspective would be good. I'm sure Luther and Calvin were seen as essentially the antichrist by the Pope, even as the Pope was seen as the antichrist by Protestants. Killing hundreds of thousands of Gauls is pretty much genocide, but to Julius Caesar it was expanding the Empire, so the ends justified the means.
So if evil is such an unstable construct that its definition changes from person to person, I don't see how it can simply be defined as something arising from imbalance. A better model, to my mind, would be that evil is simply anything deemed unacceptable by a culture which violates the foundation of that culture. You could say that such acts can come about from an imbalance (or, more correctly, a collapse or flaw) in that culture, though that's really beside the point: part of the reason they're considered evil is because they're antithetical to this cultural system, and to other cultures they might be considered good.
Of course, bearing Star Wars in mind this is all a bit academic, because it ignores a lot of these questions and goes straight to "light side good, dark side evil". But since the force is a superhuman element of the Star Wars universe, it seems to me that it shouldn't obey human ethics. So it would make more sense to me if this "balance" was just a completely amoral balancing of the so-called "light" and "dark" sides of the force, emphasising the fact that it's mysterious and beyond human understanding, but also that the morality derived from it is fundamentally human and, therefore, partial. I like to think that the light and dark sides are not moral, but reflect different bits of humanity. So the light side is everything restrained, controlled and uptight and the dark side is everything effusive, angry and difficult to control. Both are facets of humanity: it would be weird to never get angry, for example.
But of course they didn't do this. So meh. Damar: I agree! It would've been nice if they'd discussed it a bit. Less fighty, more talky.
^Reminds me of TSL' episode two opening with the conversation between Graham and the Arch Druid.
QuoteThe obvious example is the Cold War. That's the perfect example of two contradictory forces balancing each other out; had the balance been broken, we would have got a disaster
They arn't contradictory opposites. Light and Darkness are complimentary opposites.
Evil in this case is simply another word for "Unbalance". Unbalance and Balance are contradictory opposites.
When there is an unbalance the Jedi get snooty and distant and the Sith get malicious and self-defeating.
QuoteI don't see how it can simply be defined as something arising from imbalance. A better model, to my mind, would be that evil is simply anything deemed unacceptable by a culture which violates the foundation of that culture.
You have stepped so far outside the bounds of the arguement that there is no point in continuing because "Balance" is also something we define.
This "Balance" that exists in nature is a balance of conflict. Thus a balance sought in this way would be to find a way for eternal conflict. There would be no desire to achieve balance because balance is transient.
QuoteOf course, bearing Star Wars in mind this is all a bit academic, because it ignores a lot of these questions and goes straight to "light side good, dark side evil".
It really never did and it constantly questions itself as to whether the differences between light and darkness are truely that. It constantly betrays and reapplies this thinking, but it never went as far as to decide that the Dark side is evil.
Only so far that the Dark side is dangerous as it is easy to fall into the habit of power for power sake (Plus the Dark side seems to enhance those feelings)
QuoteSo it would make more sense to me if this "balance" was just a completely amoral balancing of the so-called "light" and "dark" sides of the force
Except you know. The "Balance" was always seemingly achieved by the destruction of all the dark side users and giving the light side users total power.
I think this "Balance" is "Light balance" and not a 50/50.
QuoteI like to think that the light and dark sides are not moral, but reflect different bits of humanity. So the light side is everything restrained, controlled and uptight and the dark side is everything effusive, angry and difficult to control.
It is better to think of the Light side as sort of justness personified. Yet with Justness there is pride and with pride there is a lack of learning. The Jedi often time failed to do good simply because they were so set in their beliefs that they were unwilling to learn. The extreme levels of self-control I feel has more to do with the Jedi order itself. The Jedi order is very archaic.
The Dark side is all about power. Yet with power comes the risk of power for power sake. Where the Sith often time went wrong is when the seeking of power, which is a very helpful tool, becomes for its own sake.
Of course even outside of that there is also the fact that the Force always manifests according to the practitioner's beliefs. It is why Adepts (people from primative societies) use the force in a completely different manner then the Jedi or Sith.
So it is very much possible that "Dark" and "Light" don't exist and that the Force just amplifies whatever tenants you go under.
Quote from: Damar on November 10, 2012, 08:34:52 PM
My favorite growing up was actually Jedi. Even now I really like the movie, possibly better than the original. It's just fun and jaunty and action packed. It has a natural light-heartedness that Lucas has tried to forcefully recreate in the prequels (and failed miserably at.)
Mine still is Jedi. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Damar on November 10, 2012, 08:34:52 PMIf Anakin is going to bring balance to the force, what else did you expect him to do but slaughter everyone and make the dark side more powerful?
Yet another perspective I had never even ONCE thought of. Interesting, yet totally sensible thought.
I will say that the most impressive thing about the Deathstar is not the weapon (which isn't all that impressive)
But rather the thrusters.
All of this chatter is why Star Wars sucks now.
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on November 11, 2012, 09:21:04 PM
All of this chatter is why Star Wars sucks now.
Bt
Yeah! People discussing Star Wars, analysing it, talking about what they do and do not like about it... TOTALLY RUINED!
I love how this thread went from a discussion about Disney's acquisition of LucasFilm into an analyzation of why Star Wars sucks now. :P
Quote from: dark-daventry on November 12, 2012, 11:07:38 AM
I love how this thread went from a discussion about Disney's acquisition of LucasFilm into an analyzation of why Star Wars sucks now. :P
It is mostly because we are analysing how possible it is for Disney to ruin Starwars
If Starwars ALREADY sucks now then what can Disney do?
Quote from: Neonivek on November 11, 2012, 10:17:40 PM
Quote from: Blackthorne on November 11, 2012, 09:21:04 PM
All of this chatter is why Star Wars sucks now.
Bt
Yeah! People discussing Star Wars, analysing it, talking about what they do and do not like about it... TOTALLY RUINED!
Well, it certainly ruins it for some people, who can't sit back and enjoy it - instead, they have to dissect it like it's "Beyond Good and Evil".
Bt
This isn't School where you have to analyse books until they stop being works of fiction and more like extensive books on litterary devices.
You really don't have to think about it if you don't want to. Nor is anyone expecting you to.
Quote from: Neonivek on November 12, 2012, 04:51:25 PM
This isn't School where you have to analyse books until they stop being works of fiction and more like extensive books on litterary devices.
You really don't have to think about it if you don't want to. Nor is anyone expecting you to.
I know. But witnessing people doing it is tedious. And then making demands on the series based on said discussions makes talking about Star Wars these days almost unbearable.
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on November 11, 2012, 09:21:04 PM
All of this chatter is why Star Wars sucks now.
Bt
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand we've reached the inevitable point in discussion where BT kills the mood. It's always a pleasure. Really. :pokerface:
I am the negativity king so it really doesn't bug me much at all.
Oddly enough the next starwars will have Luke Skywalker... but if I remember correctly he won't be the main character (and he will be in his 40s)
Seriously all of this chatter and analysis and no one -- NO ONE -- has asked how there were humans flying in space in a part of the universe totally removed from Earth when this all took place "a long, long time ago"?
I just want to let you all in on a secret that George Lucas apparently missed.
A long, long time ago.... we did not have space travel!
I asked that long ago.
Humans are in fact one of the most mysterious races in all of Starwars to the extent that their home planet isn't even known (Only guessed upon)
Another theory was that Starwars credits took place within its universe and the movie is the equivilant of a in universe documentary... Except that Universal travel is still impossible.
The thing is Crayauchtin. NO ONE in Starwars has the ability to travel from one Galaxy to another.
And yet you guys enjoy this series even though you admit that even within the context of its own universe it is not possible.
Like, I'm all for suspension of disbelief with fiction. But if the world you set up doesn't allow for the characters or story you've created to happen, you have a problem.
I think Star Wars is a decent story, but I really can't get into it because there should not be humans.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t97/Lambonius/971873-facepalm_display_super.jpg)
Not killing the mood, Haids, just pointing out why we can't have nice things.
Bt
Sorry, I meant:
(http://smashthatbutton.com/wp-content/uploads/darth-vader-facepalm.jpeg)
Quote from: crayauchtin on November 12, 2012, 11:03:35 PM
And yet you guys enjoy this series even though you admit that even within the context of its own universe it is not possible.
Like, I'm all for suspension of disbelief with fiction. But if the world you set up doesn't allow for the characters or story you've created to happen, you have a problem.
I think Star Wars is a decent story, but I really can't get into it because there should not be humans.
One theory is that in an even earlier time period there was a Universe faring race that picked humans up and planted them in the Starwars Galaxy.
Quote from: crayauchtin on November 12, 2012, 10:54:12 PM
Seriously all of this chatter and analysis and no one -- NO ONE -- has asked how there were humans flying in space in a part of the universe totally removed from Earth when this all took place "a long, long time ago"?
I just want to let you all in on a secret that George Lucas apparently missed.
A long, long time ago.... we did not have space travel!
Well clearly they're ancient astronauts. ::)
EDIT:
Neonivek, I like you. You say sensible things. XD
BT, the IA forums are a place where you censor things for yourself. No one is making you read this.
The whole "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away" thing is basically just "once upon a time", but in space. :P
I'm pretty sure the "current-day" Star Wars universe has never been elaborated on, so it's just there for flavor. :P
Quote from: Neonivek on November 13, 2012, 12:23:57 AM
Quote from: crayauchtin on November 12, 2012, 11:03:35 PM
And yet you guys enjoy this series even though you admit that even within the context of its own universe it is not possible.
Like, I'm all for suspension of disbelief with fiction. But if the world you set up doesn't allow for the characters or story you've created to happen, you have a problem.
I think Star Wars is a decent story, but I really can't get into it because there should not be humans.
One theory is that in an even earlier time period there was a Universe faring race that picked humans up and planted them in the Starwars Galaxy.
Right, but this theory is something speculated on by the fans. And while I'm all for speculation by the fans.... I'm a little appalled that no one who was writing this thought that it might be something to at least mention as being odd.
And Jafar -- "Once upon a time" isn't just a generic "We're starting a story now" thing to say. It tells us the setting of the story is neither in the present or the future, it tells us it is in the past. It's not just "there for flavor" and if the people who wrote Star Wars think it is, that's just putting a point in the "not as well written as almost any other SciFi space opera out there" column. :P
Quote from: crayauchtin on November 12, 2012, 10:54:12 PM
Seriously all of this chatter and analysis and no one -- NO ONE -- has asked how there were humans flying in space in a part of the universe totally removed from Earth when this all took place "a long, long time ago"?
I just want to let you all in on a secret that George Lucas apparently missed.
A long, long time ago.... we did not have space travel!
Who said they were human? Maybe they just look like humans.
It never was a huge point that the story is taking place "a long time ago", otherwise, we would've gotten more of a framing device than just a few blue words before the movie starts. ::)
The emphasis is on "a galaxy far far away". As in, a place far away where Earth might as well not exist, as far as the story is concerned. :P
Why do humans have space travel if it's "a long time ago"? Because this is a place where they've had space travel for a long time, not Earth.
Why are there humans in this galaxy? Because giving all of the actors alien makeup would be a nusiance, and renaming the species to something like Humes or Nahooms would be silly, and alienate (hehe) the audience. :P
You might as well ask why there are humans in any other series that doesn't take place on or ever mention Earth.
Quote from: snabbott on November 13, 2012, 09:38:16 AM
Who said they were human? Maybe they just look like humans.
C-3PO said they were human. :P
Quote from: Deloria on November 13, 2012, 06:55:03 AM
Quote from: crayauchtin on November 12, 2012, 10:54:12 PM
Seriously all of this chatter and analysis and no one -- NO ONE -- has asked how there were humans flying in space in a part of the universe totally removed from Earth when this all took place "a long, long time ago"?
I just want to let you all in on a secret that George Lucas apparently missed.
A long, long time ago.... we did not have space travel!
Well clearly they're ancient astronauts. ::)
EDIT:
Neonivek, I like you. You say sensible things. XD
BT, the IA forums are a place where you censor things for yourself. No one is making you read this.
Very true, but it doesn't mean I can't point out something idiotic when I read it.
Bt
Play nice, kids. If you don't wanna join in on the discussion, don't. If you want to add something constructive to it, do.
And in the immortal words of Wil Wheaton--don't be a dick.
Except it's not idiotic if people think it has value - which they clearly do, hence the debate. :P
QuoteI know. But witnessing people doing it is tedious. And then making demands on the series based on said discussions makes talking about Star Wars these days almost unbearable.
I was arguing because I was frustrated at the simplistic view of good and evil that Star Wars puts forward. Discussing it might lead to us thinking about good and evil in fiction in new ways which might lead to someone eventually making something inspired by that discussion, because they were stimulated by it.
Basically, if you can't stand a discussion, that's your problem.
I get the problem with humans and space travel and everything, but isn't that a problem of all fantasy/scifi set in a fictional world? For example, it's all spoken in English (or whatever language the book/film is in). But English only came about because of the conquest of England by first the Angles and Saxons, then the Normans. Without those events you do not get English. So how can it exist in all these fantasy worlds?
But I agree, having humans in these places is even more of a problem. You could say that the world's language is "translated" into English (or whatever) for our viewing pleasure, and that actually they have their own language. (Although this breaks down when you get puns, poems etc.) But for the entire human species to exist somewhere else takes some thinking about. But like I said, this happens in Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, and pretty much every fantasy book. The unusual thing about star wars is that, despite being scifi, it's not set in the future but in the past (though it might as well be a parallel present or future), so you can't just say "Oh, it's the future, space travel is all good now."
TLDR: I guess we just use the suspension of disbelief. You see a spaceship full of humans, you automatically think "Oh, it's a spaceship, and here are some humans!", rather than "Well how did THEY get there?"
Well the second issue Darthkiwi is the "Galaxy far far away".
Moving Galaxy to Galaxy is rather impossible in Starwars.
A theory is that the precursors had galactic travel and went to the Milkyway galaxy and took some humans as slaves.
I feel like all these explanations for the humans boil down to--
A wizard did it.
See also: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. :P
I was more interested in the light/dark balance discussion.
(Though that's because if I think about the humans in Star Wars too much, I start to feel like Cray (this once led me to read up on the "official" reasoning, etc.... never again.)
Quote from: Delling on November 13, 2012, 02:44:21 PM
I feel like all these explanations for the humans boil down to--
A wizard did it.
That seems to be humanity's response to all genesis questions. :P
Ugh. The discussion of why there are humans in Star Wars because OMG ITS IN THE PAST AND NOT THIS GALAXY FTL SPACE TRAVEL WTF?! is pretty much the most idiotic and pedantic Star Wars nerd conversation I've ever heard. And believe me, I've heard a lot. Darthkiwi summed it up nicely--it DOESN'T MATTER; it's a f****** fantasy. It's like watching or reading LOTR and saying, "wait, this makes no sense; there aren't talking trees in real life--TOLKEIN WAS A HACK!!!" Consider for a moment how stupid that comment sounds, then check yourself.
Sorry, Katie. I think I may have crossed the "play nice" line. I patiently await the inevitable Lamb-slap emoticon and my possible banning. It was worth it.
MOD EDIT: And WHAM, one week posting ban. I said play nice and I meant it.
Quote from: Deloria on November 13, 2012, 11:06:48 AM
Except it's not idiotic if people think it has value - which they clearly do, hence the debate. :P
People think a lot of crap has value - doesn't mean it HAS value.
Bt
*is quickly backing away* I... I'm staying out of this!
Alright. I'm gonna give a very strong suggestion that Bt & Lamb step out of this thread going forth. If you think it's dumb, good for you, now GTFO.
Lamb, that'll be easy for you! You can't post for a week now. Bt, persist in being an ass in here and that'll go for you, too.
FURTHERMORE, Star Wars proposes itself to be science fiction--that means, in theory, it's mechanics are rooted in science. Tolkein can have all the talking trees he wants because magic. While there can be strong arguments for Star Wars having fantasy elements, that's the genre it claims to be.
So, everyone else, chatter away to your heart's content.
Ultimately the thing I have with settings is that I accept the settings logic but what I do not accept is when a settings logic turns on itself.
It is why a Starship appearing in Lord of the Rings would raise a flag.
Starwars slowly got to the point where the Force was indestinguishable from magic (Admittingly... Vader did to the Transgalactic Force Choke through a camera... and Obi Wan did give himself to the force in an instant and in a canonical "What if" Obi Wan manages to fight in his ghost form), but even then it has its own logic.
Actually it is sometimes interesting to kinda find the points of Starwars where the force stops being telekenesis and sort of hops into something more.
The Force is, really, magic when you get down to it. I agree. It's kind of one reason why the "midichlorians" BS in Episode 1 was so aggravating and grating. Don't try to explain it! Just let it be!
Well, if we're going with "The Force is really magic" thing, then couldn't midichlorians just be another name for mana?
Then again, I watch the films to enjoy, not to analyze. Unless you ask me from what I've read on WookiePedia or StarWars.Com which I haven't checked out in a long time personally.
Actually, Star Wars never purported itself to be more than myth or fantasy. People have lumped it in with Science Fiction.
Bt
Huh. Really? Must be because of all the lasers and robots and stuff.
Quote from: KatieHal on November 13, 2012, 06:44:50 PM
The Force is, really, magic when you get down to it. I agree. It's kind of one reason why the "midichlorians" BS in Episode 1 was so aggravating and grating. Don't try to explain it! Just let it be!
Actually oddly enough when I first heard about it I didn't understand what was said and what I came up with was better.
That "Midichlorians" didn't actually give you the force but were a bacteria that was present in large abundance with force sensative individuals. Possibly feeding off the force itself. Thus testing blood for Midichlorians would be a good test to see if someone had the force.
Boy do I wish I was right back then.
QuotePeople have lumped it in with Science Fiction
It is science fiction. Science Fantasy perhaps. I also put it with Science fiction because the setting is mainly one of high levels of technology. The Jedi somehow thrust into the "Movers and shakers" inspite of their powers not actually meaning a whole lot.
No, it's not whether or not it's science fiction or fantasy. My complaint has nothing to do with science or reality.
My complaint is solely based on the world that Star Wars sets up that it's story takes place in. Here are the facts:
1) There is not inter-galactic space travel.
2) There IS space travel.
3) It is a long time in the past, so even if intergalactic space travel did currently exist, it did not then.
4) It is not in the same galaxy as Earth.
5) Not only are there humans (which WE know come from Earth -- being humans ourselves, even if the characters in the series do not know where the humans come from), there are humans on almost every planet and they basically run the government of the galaxy.
The problem is, you've put an entire galaxy in the control of a race of people who have NO way of being there, let alone being as populous as they are. And this is not ever addressed. I would take, magical portal brought humans to this part of the galaxy centuries ago and the populated like bunny rabbits over "this isn't actually possible, but this is the story we're giving you anyways."
Tolkein's world has no basis in reality, no. But the fact is, it is consistent. He created a world and the story he tells within it makes perfect sense given the world he created. Star Wars didn't manage that level of consistency even *before* the extended universe gets involved. I mean, it didn't even manage that level of consistency through the first scene of the first movie (that was made, that is).
And THAT is why I find it to be sub-par.
Quote from: crayauchtin on November 13, 2012, 10:47:49 PM
1) There is not inter-galactic space travel.
2) There IS space travel.
3) It is a long time in the past, so even if intergalactic space travel did currently exist, it did not then.
4) It is not in the same galaxy as Earth.
5) Not only are there humans (which WE know come from Earth -- being humans ourselves, even if the characters in the series do not know where the humans come from), there are humans on almost every planet and they basically run the government of the galaxy.
There are two possible explanations for this:
1) Superficial, apparently identical independent evolution--the humans of the Star Wars galaxy evolved independently of Milky Way humans to look almost exactly like them. Apparently, this is the official reasoning according to Wookiepedia with humans evolving on Coruscant.
2) Slavery and relocation--some super-species evolved in the Milky Way and for some reason, after enslaving early humans, decided to leave for the other galaxy... my best narrative guess would be that some prophecy told them they were about to die out and that for the race to survive they should go to some distant star, but said star turned out to be the Star Wars galaxy. They headed off over there but still died out, leaving the newly seeded proto-humans to finish their development and become the dominant species in the galaxy... probably because they had access to this arch of super-tech that significantly advanced their understanding of science, etc. No one now has inter-galactic travel because those guys died out and deconstructing an inter-galactic drive to figure out how it works... not that simple. ::)
Quote from: Neonivek on November 13, 2012, 08:48:18 PM
The Jedi somehow thrust into the "Movers and shakers" inspite of their powers not actually meaning a whole lot.
Even in a scientifically driven society, the guy who shows up and demonstrates "Hey, I can move stuff with my mind" still kind of wins... if you understand physics, then this guy has just said "I can generate arbitrary forces at will"... that's incredibly useful (though it does raise questions as to why force-sensitives aren't seen in industrial work... still, the police work they do do does make sense). :P
QuoteTolkein's world has no basis in reality, no. But the fact is, it is consistent. He created a world and the story he tells within it makes perfect sense given the world he created.
Well, maybe, I guess. But surely the axiom you missed from that list is the very one you're worried about: "Humans live in this galaxy." Yes it makes no sense, but neither does the fictional universe itself since, as far as we know, FTL travel is impossible and there is no evidence that any of the Star Wars alien races could evolve like that.
Think about Tolkein for a moment. Yes his world is internally consistent, but how could the world exist at all? Where is it? Which planet is it on? When did it happen? What is the basis for all of his languages etc.? He can get around some of this by specifying that a God created the world and work forward from there, but it still doesn't answer the basic question: how can this
be?!
So any fiction, really, is set in a world which is completely impossible, because it never happened and almost certainly never could happen. But that doesn't mean you should write it off. You just take on a set of axioms at the start. And I agree, a spaceship turning up in LOTR would be absurd, because it breaks the internal ruleset. This was one reason so many people hated the Mass Effect 3 ending, I guess. But I think that "humans live here" is part of Star Wars' axiomatic set, because we see humans pretty much as soon as the film starts.
To be honest, I can see where you're coming from - and it's a fun thing to pontificate over - but ultimately, the fact that nobody who watches Star Wars goes "Wait, there are humans here?" when they see them for the first time kind of shows that this probably isn't an issue.
Star Wars threads are easily the most amusing on the web. The discussion goes in so many directions!
QuoteEven in a scientifically driven society, the guy who shows up and demonstrates "Hey, I can move stuff with my mind" still kind of wins... if you understand physics, then this guy has just said "I can generate arbitrary forces at will"... that's incredibly useful (though it does raise questions as to why force-sensitives aren't seen in industrial work... still, the police work they do do does make sense).
Those are the least useful Jedi abilities when you go to a galactic scale.
The REALLY useful Jedi abilities are things like sensing, Mind tricks, and being psychic. (Ignoring expanded universe abilities like the ability to make everyone in an entire dogfight fight better.)
As for "Why sense sensatives arn't seen in industrial work" there are a few reasons
1) Force sensativity isn't common and for some races (like Wookies) it is incredibly rare
2) Using the force requires very focused training. Leia for example is Force Sensative but never manifested it.
3) Machines are still far supperior to the force in that regard with few exceptions (and those exceptions being universe class Force users)
4) Most people will not know they have the force as the clues are often invisable. Anakin for example just appeared Talented.
Quote from: darthkiwi on November 14, 2012, 11:22:49 AM
To be honest, I can see where you're coming from - and it's a fun thing to pontificate over - but ultimately, the fact that nobody who watches Star Wars goes "Wait, there are humans here?" when they see them for the first time kind of shows that this probably isn't an issue.
Uhm, no. Nobody who likes Star Wars -- obviously not nobody or we wouldn't be having this discussion. :P Those of us who notice that humans don't fit the axiom of any other race (they don't have a homeworld, at least not that's called a homeworld in the movies being one such example) and that they don't seem to make sense in the universe tend not to be fans. Cause, y'know, seems like poor writing. :P
Like, why be fans of a space opera that can't or doesn't explain the presence of one of its main races when you could be a fan of Farscape, Star Trek, Babylon 5.... virtually any other space opera? I'm not saying these are all thoroughly consistent (I'm looking at you, Klingon noses! And I know they
tried to explain that too but I'm not buying it either! :P) but at least the things that aren't consistent are mostly cosmetic, not major facets of the story.
QuoteStar Wars threads are easily the most amusing on the web. The discussion goes in so many directions!
I know. And I keep replying, and every time I do I feel a bit sillier. XD Oh dear.
@Cray: fair point, but to my mind Star Wars was never really in the same boat as, say, Star Trek. (I've not seen B5 or Farscape so bear with me.) Star Trek is about what humanity might be like in the future, how it might view its past, how it manages to get along with others races, and what kind of ideals it might have. Whereas Star Wars is about cowboy-like shootouts or sword-fighting-like combat when on a planet, and WW1/2-like dogfights when in space. Basically, it's an excuse for an adventure: the adventure comes first, then the humans. And there are some aliens because, like, aliens are cool. And an Empire because everyone loves a David and Goliath fight and, more importantly, this is an American film.
So it always seemed to me that the mysteriously unexplained humans were just there because you can't have an adventure without humans (at least without very expensive special effects). So it was just "part of the fun". Which doesn't mean that I think Star Wars is better than the series you listed - in fact, I think it's just silly fun, but I think episodes 4 and 5 are surprisingly well-written silly fun, so I enjoy them. They're not going to trump "The Brothers Karamazov" as a work of incredible, humanistic endeavour, but if you take them on their own terms they're pretty good.
Nobody watches Star Wars for the moral dilemnas or the intellectual wranglings - that's what ST:TNG is for. They watch it for the space dogfights and the lightsabers.
Quote from: darthkiwi on November 15, 2012, 07:01:40 AM
QuoteStar Wars threads are easily the most amusing on the web. The discussion goes in so many directions!
Nobody watches Star Wars for the moral dilemnas or the intellectual wranglings ...
:o Wait...
... they don't? :(
Oh, well then...
*drops pile of binders and notebooks*
del http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/*Actually, I think it's all rather silly too. Also, I think the complaint "but they have humans..." can reasonably be raised about any number of settings. It is a point which is almost never raised in fantasy, but I think it reasonably could be there as well... But, eh, news flash: humans are self-agrandizing and insert themselves into everything. ::) :P
QuoteAlso, I think the complaint "but they have humans..." can reasonably be raised about any number of settings
The major difference however is that in Starwars case it takes place in our own universe rather then being some entirely seperate universe entirely.
Mind you I guess I can think of a few other settings with humans existing inexplicably.
-NOT Original Startrek: They are aliens... they just look exactly like humans.
-The Dungeons and Dragons Pathfinder Universe: Yep humans and human-like gods existing in our own universe. Mind you they specifically mention that earth is genuinly far away from our world.
I'm not too familiar with Pathfinder, but there's some notably bizarre D&D settings. :P Is Pathfinder connected to Spelljammer at all? It's the D&D space-travel setting...... where Illithids travel space in giant Illithid heads.
Don't look at me like that. I didn't make it up. :P
Now, it's true that Star Trek is much more complex than Star Wars intellectually but you're looking at the themes and morals of the stories, not the actual universe that was created. I'm not looking at anything else but the fiction here. It's weird, it seems poorly done.
As for humans in fantasy settings, most of the time there IS a given explanation. Most fantasy worlds actually have explanations for how every race came to be. Even if a lot of those explanations involve magic or divine influence... they're in a fantasy world, so that's pretty consistent. However, most fantasy settings are actually utterly removed from Earth.
For example, in Warcraft humans evolved from a race of giants. When they were born, they were cast out for being so dimunitive. The giants believe (and so far there is no evidence to the contrary) that they lost their height due to the Vrykul (those are the giants) losing their faith in their gods (the Titans) and failing to fulfill their duties to them. I suspect we'll eventually discover, though, that it's actually a curse placed on them by the Old Gods that made lose their height but so far that hasn't been actually established.
In Lord of the Rings, men were a race created by the god Illuvatar. This is pretty standard for the origin of a race in that world though. Tolkein was super inventive except when it came to racial origins. :P
And Neonivek, I'm confused by what you said about Star Trek? :\ Humans are humans from Earth in all of the Star Trek series (I think in later series, Earth is sometimes called "Terra" or "Sol III" but it's still Earth). There's some races that look just like humans, but if they're not humans they don't count. :P Farscape, for example, has Sebacceans as the most populous race in that part of the universe. They look just like humans and -- as it turns out later in the series -- are genetically similar enough to humans to breed with them (well, him) but that's actually a plot point. I think Star Trek has an episode where they were investigating why so many races are so similar to humans as well though it must not have been a very good episode since I don't remember what happens in it. :P
Anyways, all I'm saying is.... there's not even a throwaway "Coruscan is the human homeworld" even in the Phantom Menace when they go there? There's not even like a minor character who is bitter that humans came from some mysterious nowhere and took over the galaxy, who gets shot and killed thirty seconds later. Like, you don't have to delve deep and you don't have to make a major story arc out of it. A tiny little sidenote. But the Star Wars universe doesn't even do that. They go so far out of the way to make sure we all know there is no Earth ("groundquake" instead of "earthquake") but they don't bother to not call them humans? It just seems sloppy to me.
I just want to know why Star Wars doesn't have any bathrooms.
:-X
And I never, ever, ever use emoticons.
Bt
QuoteAs for humans in fantasy settings, most of the time there IS a given explanation. Most fantasy worlds actually have explanations for how every race came to be
They really don't need one. I just assume Humans occured naturally the same way they did on earth or were created by a god or however the setting is set up.
Starwars only needed a reason because Starwars takes place in our universe.
QuoteAnd Neonivek, I'm confused by what you said about Star Trek? :\ Humans are humans from Earth in all of the Star Trek series
Ohh in the original Startrek they will often go onto planets with... what is essentially humans in everyway. Such as Mafia Planet. They were always aliens they just looked exactly like humans.
Ohhhh, no, no, I know what you're talking about now!!
Yeah, there's a "scientific theory" in the original series (which is basically never addressed again afterwards, except maybe in the Enterprise series which I never watched) called (I looked this up on the Wiki I don't just know it :P) "Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development" which states, basically, that planets that are similar will develop similarly -- not just in the sense of similar races evolving, but similar societal and cultural developments on planets with sentient races.
So, you have Earth-like planets that are populated by races practically indistinguishable from humans who have reeeeeeeeeeeeally similar histories. It was basically a way for them to explore parallels Earths without dimension hopping. They did this with the Roman Empire in one episode -- they came across a planet which had had a "Roman Empire" (it presumably wasn't called that though) except the Empire never fell.
(The problem with this is that the planet had only developed to the industrial revolution, technologically, and if you actually look at for-real history, if the Roman Empire had never fallen we'd most likely have much more advanced technology than we have today rather than being further behind but that's a debate for another thread. :P)
But Star Trek also (and I just looked this up on the Wiki too) did explore the idea that a lot of the humanoid races were (or *may have*) been genetically altered by much much much more advanced races in the distant past. Some of these ancient aliens also abducted humans and transplanted them onto other planets. In these instances though, the presence of humans where it doesn't make sense is actually the entire premise of the episode, not something they ignore and just carry on with whatever's going on just because they wanted some extra humans. (And these human-identical races usually aren't given names, but they're never called humans. "Human" is a word from Earth.)
Are these terribly cheesy explanations? Yes. Do they exist just because of budget constraints? Pretty much. But I think they accomplish exactly what Star Wars wanted to do by having humans without making the presence of humans seem totally nonsensical.
Quote from: 929572 on November 15, 2012, 12:23:50 PM
I just want to know why Star Wars doesn't have any bathrooms.
It's because the characters don't have to use the bathroom. Only humans have to use the bathroom and since these characters are not from Earth... I think it's probably explained somewhere in the extended universe. Hard to believe it wouldn't be as the extended universe has always seemed like a circus sideshow to me. It's fun to think what other differences there might be between these human looking aliens and actual humans. Like, maybe, when Leia kissed Luke in Empire that's the way these aliens get it on! Oh yeah, I went there!
In the end, none of it matters though, because Star Trek is so much better!
No. Star Wars is better.
<WARNING: flamewar has begun>
You just had to say it, didn't you?
NO!
My Little Ponies is better!
....I'm kidding.
This thread makes me feel embarassed to be a Star Wars fan.
Quote from: Jafar on November 19, 2012, 12:31:32 AM
This thread makes me feel embarassed to be a Star Wars fan.
Why do people keep chiming in here to say things like this?
I am starting to feel embarassed for being a human being.
Debating and analyzing is all well and good, but what's the point in stretching out a childish, inane argument like the one this thread degenerated into? :P
Quote from: Jafar on November 19, 2012, 12:44:18 AM
Debating and analyzing is all well and good, but what's the point in stretching out a childish, inane argument like the one this thread degenerated into? :P
Well, see, I'm not sure on this point. There was an actually interesting point/discussion to be had (though off the original topic of the thread, so I didn't follow it). Why are there humans in every story we tell? If there aren't humans, there are usually anthropomorphized characters, etc. Even discussing the implications of the Light/Dark-side duality in comparison to a good/evil duality is somewhat more interesting than sitting around talking about how cool lightsabers are. :P
So, my point is that it is possible to have interesting, intellectually stimulating conversation on points that seem arbitrary or silly and that running around calling every analysis of something you find unanalyzable (because you consider it silly or arbitrary from the outset and therefore unworthy of proper intelligent analysis) stymies actual productive conversation. To that end, Neonivek has a valid complaint: he is interested in the discussion, but people keep chiming in not only to not contribute but also to detract by sharing their opinion that the conversation is silly, inane, childish, or pointless.
Here's the thing: if you don't reduce either intellectual or moral arguments or messages from media, then you are going through life with your brain lodged firmly in the off-position. You have the choice of when to turn it on or leave it off. So, you don't want to analyze Star Wars? Don't. Hopefully, you do analyze or consider the morality or logic underpinning at least some of what you consume. Now, if you don't want to do that for anything ever, I highly recommend that you get some intellectual depth... that or continue to be a drain on society. (Ok, I've slipped into using "you" for generic third person... I'm too lazy to change it now.) Telling other people their conversations are silly, inane, childish, or pointless is a way of trying to deny them intellectual curiosity, and if nothing else, unless they've done that to you, it is simply unfair. You think it's silly. You don't contribute.
...We're on the bloody TSL-forums, for Pete's sake--precisely how many times did some troll come along to say "you're all wasting your time, this is silly, this game will never happen"? Honestly. ::)
[spoiler]It was a lot.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Also, also, we so meta--we be discussin' the virtues of discussin' stuff. ::)[/spoiler]
Quote from: Delling on November 19, 2012, 04:49:05 AM
...We're on the bloody TSL-forums, for Pete's sake--precisely how many times did some troll come along to say "you're all wasting your time, this is silly, this game will never happen"? Honestly. ::)
You're all wasting your time. This is silly. I wanna be like you when I grow up, Delling :3
(http://i50.tinypic.com/141an9.jpg)
It's possible to have intelligent discourse and fun conversation simultaneously, without developing into the drek this thread became. And just because it's on "The TSL Forums" doesn't mean it's always going to be "silly". There's the asylum for that, and frankly, the walls of text in here belong in there. I thought we banned Baggins for a reason....
Bt
BT, :) we have registered your complaint. :) Thank you very much for your time. :) We are a forum dedicated to your whims :) and we will do our utmost to accommodate you in whatever way we can. :) From now on we will only talk about things that interest you in the way you want to. :) I'm so sorry the rest of the people posting in this thread haven't understood how absolutely pivotal your happiness is to our own. :)
EDIT: I didn't use enough ":)". I thought that might be offensive.
Not asking for that, Deloria. But I am commenting on the sad state of affairs about this discussion, and I'm not alone in that opinion.
Bt
Ok - speaking in my official moderator capacity, can we get back to discussing the actual topic and not the merits of discussing the topic? If you're not interested in discussing, then don't. Thank you. :)
And NOT in my moderator capacity:
The question of why there are (nearly) always humans or humanoids in SciFi is an interesting one imo and might be worth its own thread, as it's really not specific to Star Wars.
Thank you, snabbott :)
From a story-perspective, there are always humans because that way we, as humans, can easily settle into the story. We are humans, we know humans, we know how they/we tick, think, what our strengths and weaknesses are. Not to say that we don't get into stories without humans, but if you start with that, you've gotta set up a lot about the race/species of the characters before you can get to your story.
Also, it cuts down on the effects budget.
Quote from: KatieHal on November 19, 2012, 09:32:06 AM
Also, it cuts down on the effects budget.
Right - I forgot to mention that! Though that doesn't explain it in books. :P Isaac Asimov had an interesting way of handling it. In his Foundation books (set ~20,000 years in the future, IIRC), Earth was the only planet in the universe that had life because it was the only planet that had a large moon (leading to tides, tide pools, etc.).
I'm BAAAAAaaaaaack! ;)
Unrelated note: Phantom Menace was on TV today. I watched for a few minutes but was forced to change the channel shortly after Jake Lloyd opened his mouth. Good Lord. For my money, he's WAY worse than Jar Jar. Just absolutely kills the watchability of that film. Yeesh.
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080817001007/darth/images/6/6d/JakeLloydsFans.jpg)
And here we have Jake Lloyd, more than twelve years after the release of Phantom Menace! As we can clearly see, he is surrounded by swarms of fans, and is trying desperately to sign as many autographs as he possibly can.
I don't know who Jake Lloyde is by heart but let me just guess who he is by comments.."Worse then Jar Jar" and "Forced to change channel the second he opened his mouth"...
Hmmm... Was he Anakin? He was pretty dang whiney and all his lines were uttar drech...
I have to say that inspite some people saying the third movie was the best I personally felt it was the worst of them all and the reason is because the plot was by far the worst, being the most contrived thing ever!
The first was ok as a opening to the movies to come without opening up the political aspect. The second raised the stakes giving us not only a grand villain but an entire clone army! The Third throws EVERYTHING away and has to make every single thing on the spot just to link it to episode 4 even going as far as to make people act completely out of character in order to do this.
The problem with the new Starwars movie that I have a feeling of is this
They could make it for youth first. A Starwars for teens is fine, but when people aim for a age group rather then just aiming to make a really good movie... things get fuzzy
Or they will make an amazing Starwars... I have more faith they can pull it off then George could right now.
Yes, Jake Lloyd was little boy Anakin. Possibly one of the worst actors I've ever seen in a film. Every line sounds like it's being read off a cue card. Terrible. Even Hayden Christenson was better.
Quote from: Lambonius on November 24, 2012, 07:38:40 PM
Yes, Jake Lloyd was little boy Anakin. Possibly one of the worst actors I've ever seen in a film. Every line sounds like it's being read off a cue card. Terrible. Even Hayden Christenson was better.
It almost seems like the prequils suffered from needing to line up with the original trilogy sometimes.
I mean when you think about it Anakin was a bit of a super prodigy... something that the force doesn't give you.
I'm not even oing to bother giving my opinion on the prequel trilogy. You wouldn't believe me if I told you.
Quote from: GrahamRocks! on November 24, 2012, 08:12:40 PM
I'm not even oing to bother giving my opinion on the prequel trilogy. You wouldn't believe me if I told you.
Hmmm you love them and think they are better then the originals? Because I've heard that before.
That Jarjar is the greatest character ever made and should have been the star of all three movies? Now THAT would be surprising.
QuoteHmmm you love them and think they are better then the originals? Because I've heard that before.
That Jarjar is the greatest character ever made and should have been the star of all three movies? Now THAT would be surprising.
HAHAHAHAHA!!! XD That made my day, right there.
No, I don't think they're BETTER than the originals, but I do consider them if not on par with the originals, then at least good movies in general. As for Jar-Jar? I like him actually. I REALLY don't see why everybody hates him, and the only person who agrees with me is my music pastor who is a big Star Wars fan himself.
Would I like him to be the star of all thre movies? No, that might be pushing it, even for me. But I don't despise/hate him nearly as much as most people do. It probably has to do with the fact that by the time I got into Star Wars (around late 2004-early 2005, right when Episode III was about to come out), I'd gotten used to characters that many consider "annoying": Jar-Jar Binks, Navi, Tatl, Fi, Scrappy Doo, Short Round, Ash Ketchum, The Gargoyles from Hunchback of Notre Dame, Cedric the Owl, Sid the Sloth, Mater (I LOVED Cars 2, okay?!), heck, I even LIKED Chikorita in my Soulsilver game... and had the exact opposite reaction that everyone else did. I didn't mind them at all.
I don't hate Jarjar either... but it isn't fair because I have the GREATEST annoying character filter ever known to humanity.
Oh really? What do you mean?
I don't hate JarJar. I do think George Lucas has a terrible sense of humor that resonates with only maybe 10% of his audience, and that the idea of JarJar acting as a comic relief character falls horribly flat because he simply isn't funny. But I don't hate him, per se. He'd be totally fine if he was written a bit better.
I really just can't stand the terrible canned acting, Phantom Menace Anakin being the most stomach-turning example. :)
Quote from: GrahamRocks! on November 24, 2012, 08:58:16 PM
Oh really? What do you mean?
You know how there are famosly annoying characters?
I am not annoyed by any of them.
Quote from: GrahamRocks! on November 24, 2012, 08:47:31 PM
I'd gotten used to characters that many consider "annoying": Jar-Jar Binks, Navi, Tatl, Fi, Scrappy Doo, Short Round, Ash Ketchum, The Gargoyle from Hunchback of Notre Dame, Sid the Sloth, Mater (I LOVED Cars 2, okay?!), heck, I even LIKED Chikorita in my Soulsilver game... and had the exact opposite reaction that everyone else did. I didn't mind them at all.
I'm noticing a distinct lack of Cedric. :P
I feel bad for Jake Lloyd. He got saddled with that crappy role - and now he has to live into adulthood with that. He must get harassed about it constantly. I remember seeing a video on Youtube where someone was interviewing him about it, and he wasn't too happy or friendly about it - and frankly, I don't blame him.
Bt
The performance of a 9 year old is on the director, not the child. And if the child wasn't the right pick, that's also on the director and producers.
Not to mention the dialogue he was asked to say. "Are you an angel?" "Yippee!"
Hardly Lloyd's fault. Can't imagine how bad it's been for him to deal with all the ridicule.
Quote from: Rosella on November 25, 2012, 10:26:06 AM
Quote from: GrahamRocks! on November 24, 2012, 08:47:31 PM
I'd gotten used to characters that many consider "annoying": Jar-Jar Binks, Navi, Tatl, Fi, Scrappy Doo, Short Round, Ash Ketchum, The Gargoyle from Hunchback of Notre Dame, Sid the Sloth, Mater (I LOVED Cars 2, okay?!), heck, I even LIKED Chikorita in my Soulsilver game... and had the exact opposite reaction that everyone else did. I didn't mind them at all.
I'm noticing a distinct lack of Cedric. :P
Fixed.
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 25, 2012, 06:27:22 PM
The performance of a 9 year old is on the director, not the child. And if the child wasn't the right pick, that's also on the director and producers.
Not to mention the dialogue he was asked to say. "Are you an angel?" "Yippee!"
Hardly Lloyd's fault. Can't imagine how bad it's been for him to deal with all the ridicule.
Yeah, exactly - it's on the director and producers. Unfortunately, you get the overly enthusiastic Star Wars fans who blame HIM, and still give that poor guy crap about it today.
The Phantom Menace is a turkey for a few reasons - and Lloyd's character and performance is one of them. There's some moments I really enjoy in that flick - but the presence of Anakin Skywalker in that movie is severely underwhelming.
Bt
I remember hearing that Natalie Portman had made some comment about the material not quite being Shakespeare in those movies. And yep, spot on there, ma'am!
Quote from: KatieHal on November 26, 2012, 08:08:32 AM
I remember hearing that Natalie Portman had made some comment about the material not quite being Shakespeare in those movies. And yep, spot on there, ma'am!
And thank goodnes it wasn't. (http://slacktory.com/2012/04/star-wars-by-william-shakespeare/)
One of the more interesting stories I've read is that Hayden Christensen received the Attack of the Clones script only about two weeks before filming began. After reading it he confessed to close friends and family, "I'm f***ed."
Really, the prequels are full of bad performances other than Ewan McGregor. It shows how important good directing and writing are. People often forget about those two components and their critical part of a performance.
Natalie Portman practically sleepwalks through the trilogy. It's like she told herself, "Dialogue is terrible, George doesn't care, I'm just going to do this and be done with it." Samuel L. Jackson's acting is even worse, yet he's one of the better actors in the last 20 years.
Well sometimes the reason why actors are often lifeless is because the dirrector is often asking for exactly that.
It is a shame when people blame the actor when the dirrector asked for that performance. Mind you I don't know whos fault it is in this case.
Steven Spielburg is guilty of the same thing with various performances in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, particularly Harrison Ford's performances. Ford is good for most of the film, but his first few scenes are really painful. The way he delivers lines like "You're not from around here, are you?" in the film's prologue are just awful.
Quote from: MikPal on November 26, 2012, 08:38:57 AM
Quote from: KatieHal on November 26, 2012, 08:08:32 AM
I remember hearing that Natalie Portman had made some comment about the material not quite being Shakespeare in those movies. And yep, spot on there, ma'am!
And thank goodnes it wasn't. (http://slacktory.com/2012/04/star-wars-by-william-shakespeare/)
'Twas a mere act of trickery all along! Zounds!
On a more serious note, let's talk about the bad guys in the prequels. Boy, oh boy, were they underwhelming...
I know a lot of people liked Darth Maul, but then again, a lot of people liked Boba Fett too, and I was thoroughly unimpressed with both. Maybe if they were halfway competent fighters, that would be one thing. But I'm sorry, "looking cool" does not a good villain make. Grievous falls under this category, too, 'cause I admit, I think he
looks cool...right before he starts hacking and wheezing.
Also, I'm pretty sure Christopher Lee was in the movies at some point, but his character was so utterly boring and devoid of screen presence that he's not even worth talking about. He died ten minutes into his last movie, and should've died sooner than that.
Actually IIRC, in the EU there actually IS a reason why Grevious not only hacks and coughs, but also why he resembles a droid but has a heart and lungs.
EU should never count in a film. If it's not in the film, (or discussed in the film) it's bad film-making.
Bt
Quote from: GrahamRocks! on November 26, 2012, 05:41:15 PM
Actually IIRC, in the EU there actually IS a reason why Grevious not only hacks and coughs, but also why he resembles a droid but has a heart and lungs.
He hacks and coughs because he was force crushed by Mace Windu (previously a Dark power, but the differences between dark and light are more and more meaningless).
He resembles a droid but has a heard and lungs because he is a cyborg.
Both which you can find out in the Clone Wars cartoons and Tv series.
Quote from: Blackthorne on November 26, 2012, 06:44:19 PM
EU should never count in a film. If it's not in the film, (or discussed in the film) it's bad film-making.
Bt
From Lucas' point of view, it's good marketing (to convince people to buy other products to get the "back story").
The prequel trilogy is fundamentally a major advertisement for toys, games, comics, and the whole SW brand. You could say the same for any movie, I suppose, but with SW merchandising the scope is just so much larger. The movies were not designed to tell the best story possible. They were designed to sell the most toys, by cramming as many digital, goofy looking aliens and exotic locations into each movie as possible. They had no heart like the original trilogy.
Between ESB and ROTJ Lucas' priorities changed drastically. This is all the proof you need, right from one of the real brains behind the OT - Gary Kurtz.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/gary-kurtz-outlines-original-darker-ewokless-endin,44162/
QuoteWe had an outline and George changed everything in it," Kurtz said. "Instead of bittersweet and poignant he wanted a euphoric ending with everybody happy. The original idea was that they would recover [the kidnapped] Han Solo in the early part of the story and that he would then die in the middle part of the film in a raid on an Imperial base. George then decided he didn't want any of the principals killed. By that time there were really big toy sales and that was a reason."
Same thing from Harrison Ford:
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/11/05/star-wars-sequel-harrison-ford-han-solo-exclusive/
QuoteAs Ford told ABC in the same interview: "I thought he should have died in the last one to give it some bottom...George didn't think there was any future in dead Han toys."
Han Solo dying in ROTJ is pretty much the worst idea ever. Thank god for George Lucas.
Quote from: Lambonius on November 27, 2012, 12:36:39 AM
Han Solo dying in ROTJ is pretty much the worst idea ever. Thank god for George Lucas.
Honestly I kinda agree.
Especially with all these sad and bittersweet endings now adays.
You guys have (conveniently) missed the point of those two quotes entirely.
The point isn't whether it was a good idea or not to kill off Han. The point is that from the time between ESB and ROTJ onward, Lucas' decisions were made based on merchandising and toy sales potential rather than primarily on storytelling.
This is why I tend to avoid Star Wars conversations. :)
Yeah. I actually mentioned Gary Kurtz several pages ago, before we delved into a miasma of non-sequiturs.
Yeah - definitely, the films began to service the machine between 1980 and 1983. The merchandising went CRAZY then. I know; I remember, I was there. When ROTJ came out in 1983, the sheer number of Star Wars toys, playsets, lunchboxes, sheets, pajamas, curtains, tableware, t-shirts, etc that I owned was staggering.
Like I said, though - explaining WHY Grevious had those injuries/coughs in the EU is just bad film-making. You shouldn't have to go outside of a film to get the answers you need or require within it. The prequels, honestly, while entertaining in parts - were just poorly made films. They were.
Bt
I don't really need to "get" the point inm8#2. Sometimes people stumble into the better choice by making the choice based on marketing. In this case letting Han Solo live.
Heck I can think of a show or two that were created PURELY for marketing purposes that because they were handed to good writers turned into a good show.
QuoteYou shouldn't have to go outside of a film to get the answers you need or require within it
Honestly it felt more like they were trying to make an excuse as to why Grevious wasn't as awsome as he was in the cartoon.
*sigh* Forget I said anything.
Quote from: Neonivek on November 27, 2012, 09:18:29 AM
I don't really need to "get" the point inm8#2.
That is why you fail. You have made up your mind on a false notion and stubbornly reject all else.
QuoteSometimes people stumble into the better choice by making the choice based on marketing. In this case letting Han Solo live.
Heck I can think of a show or two that were created PURELY for marketing purposes that because they were handed to good writers turned into a good show.
Your claims are deeply flawed and don't remotely refute any facts I've presented. Making a decision for "marketing purposes" then handing off writing duties to competent writers is different than one guy, who happens to be a terrible writer, making decisions for "marketing purposes" then commencing said writing.
Nevermind that Star Wars was saved in the editing room, and Empire/Jedi were written by others based on rough story outlines from Lucas. Note how when Lucas took sole writing duties, the result was the prequels.
You're trying to find any way to rationalize the preconceived notions you have. LOL by claiming you don't need to "get" someone's point shows you aren't being rational or open minded. And you've completely rejected the very evidenced trend that as Lucas prioritized merchandising and toy sales his storytelling suffered deeply.
But don't let facts get in the way. ;)
I remember seeing Attack of the Clones for the first time and specifically thinking, "Who is this Grievous character and why should I care about him. Did I miss something?"
Apparently, yes. Yes I had.
Then he whipped out four lightsabers, and I facepalmed.
(Posted on: November 27, 2012, 03:10:54 PM)
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 27, 2012, 12:08:52 PM
Quote from: Neonivek on November 27, 2012, 09:18:29 AM
I don't really need to "get" the point inm8#2.
That is why you fail. You have made up your mind on a false notion and stubbornly reject all else.
QuoteSometimes people stumble into the better choice by making the choice based on marketing. In this case letting Han Solo live.
Heck I can think of a show or two that were created PURELY for marketing purposes that because they were handed to good writers turned into a good show.
Your claims are deeply flawed and don't remotely refute any facts I've presented. Making a decision for "marketing purposes" then handing off writing duties to competent writers is different than one guy, who happens to be a terrible writer, making decisions for "marketing purposes" then commencing said writing.
Nevermind that Star Wars was saved in the editing room, and Empire/Jedi were written by others based on rough story outlines from Lucas. Note how when Lucas took sole writing duties, the result was the prequels.
You're trying to find any way to rationalize the preconceived notions you have. LOL by claiming you don't need to "get" someone's point shows you aren't being rational or open minded. And you've completely rejected the very evidenced trend that as Lucas prioritized merchandising and toy sales his storytelling suffered deeply.
But don't let facts get in the way. ;)
Uh oh--nerd rage alert!
Quite calm, actually. :)
But if all you have are petty personal attacks to deflect the discussion to something else, it speaks volumes regarding your lack of both maturity and a sensible argument.
Presenting reasoned facts to disprove others' false claims =/= "nerd rage".
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 27, 2012, 12:15:48 PM
Quite calm, actually. :)
But if all you have are petty personal attacks to deflect the discussion to something else, it speaks volumes regarding your lack of both maturity and a sensible argument.
Presenting reasoned facts to disprove others' false claims =/= "nerd rage".
And you're creating an argument where none exists. Nobody was refuting any of your points. Nobody said, "George Lucas wasn't concerned about marketing and toy sales while making ROTJ." Nor did anyone ever claim that he was a brilliant writer. And then you come up with a wall of text bitching about how we're not properly refuting your arguments. There was never any disagreement.
And who's "nerd-raging"? :suffer:
You're again deflecting and using straw man arguments.
Last I checked people were discussing whether EU should count in the movie or not. My points are quite relevant because the emphasis on merchandising and brand sales influenced the writing decision to leave certain things out of the films, so that people could spend more money on other products to "get the back story." I then provided the background for how Lucas evolved on this.
You and another then cherry picked the idea of Han dying while ignoring the actual point of that example, so I clarified it. Then someone said they don't need to get a point that's central to a discussion. So, I brought in even more reason and facts to bring the discussion back to the original point, relevant to the merit of EU, instead of letting it diverge with the false counter claims.
"Wall of text bitching" - if that's what you see you need to try harder instead of becoming emotional and projecting your anger onto me.
LOL I forgot how fun these conversations are, and how rational and calm some SW fans can be. :)
I think they got the point - but they're saying sometimes "the point" (decisions being made based on merchandising vs. being made for storytelling reasons) doesn't matter, when in the end, it's the right decision.
Killing Han would have been a bad decision; even though it was born from "toy sales", it was a good decision for the story.
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on November 27, 2012, 12:44:19 PM
I think they got the point - but they're saying sometimes "the point" (decisions being made based on merchandising vs. being made for storytelling reasons) doesn't matter, when in the end, it's the right decision.
Killing Han would have been a bad decision; even though it was born from "toy sales", it was a good decision for the story.
Bt
Right, and though that may have worked in the original trilogy, and ROTJ still turned out to be a pretty good movie, it didn't work for the prequel trilogy. However, I think it would be oversimplification to say that the prequel trilogy is bad because it was too concerned with marketing. It was bad because they are terribly written, acted, and directed films, with an over-emphasis on hollow CGI special effects that fail to capture the charm of the practical effects in the original trilogy. Among other reasons. :)
Also, I strongly doubt the only reason Lucas didn't want to kill off Han was because it would have hurt toy sales. ;)
Yeah...there's a balancing point to strike there. Listening to what people loved or hated and incorporating that into your product is by no means a bad idea. Listening to it too much or too little can cause problems, though.
My original point was that Lucas' emphasis on creating merchandising opportunities instead of creating strong stories tipped that balance over time. The prequels were the result of too much focus on toys, CGI, and other superficial things with little emphasis on quality writing and directing. Lucas went from having input on the original movies to basically being surrounded by yes men. Lack of peer feedback hurt those movies. The hollow CGI was marketing - the films were sold almost exclusively on the visuals.
So, you guys are agreeing with the end results, but I'm pointing out the causes and longer term evolution that preceded them and somehow it's causing problems.
As for those quotes about Han, they're from Kurtz and Ford. I'd say they're qualified to know the development of the film.
I am fine with Imm even if he/she started to get pretty offensive aka the "You fail" part. Mostly because most of the time people completely misunderstand what I am saying and for once that isn't the case. In this case he sort of got the idea of what I wrote but misunderstood the point.
QuoteThat is why you fail. You have made up your mind on a false notion and stubbornly reject all else.
It is simply by virtue that I don't need to know your point to make mine. I do not need to know how much George Lucas went commercial to understand that just because you go commercial it doesn't nessisarily mean you hurt your project.
In fact you sort of picked up on my point but thought it was the flaw in my arguement
QuoteYour claims are deeply flawed and don't remotely refute any facts I've presented
Yes, exactly. It doesn't refute what you are saying at all. It wasn't supposed to, that is why I was able to ignore large swaths of your arguement.
Quoteyou've completely rejected the very evidenced trend that as Lucas prioritized merchandising and toy sales his storytelling suffered deeply
No, I was mostly legitimising the quality of shows, games, and movies created for marketing but are good. That is my only point.
It had nothing to do with anything but that.
QuoteListening to it too much or too little can cause problems, though
Yeah there was this Cartoon I watched a little back that I am just a bit embarassed to saw I watched because of how girly and cheesy it was (not MLP).
There was a comment about it I saw someone made that the entire show was just garbage because it was created by a commercial company to advertise toys.
I was confused since honestly for a TV show made for little girls, with no action, and with nearly steriotypical villains... it was actually very entertaining and was freekishly deep as well. (In fact I later found out the reason the show was cancelled... was because people stopped buying the toy, not because the show became unpopular)
"That is why you fail" is a quote from ESB. ;)
Where we disagree is that I believe Lucas went so far commercial that he lost touch with his roots as a filmmaker and storyteller, and his focus on merchandising the SW brand meant less emphasis on writing and story. I presented this as an example of strong focus on "marketing" being "bad" for telling a story. I didn't present it as a blanket statement that every single decision ever made for marketing purposes is automatically "bad".
And if we're talking offensive posting, I can point out Lambonius' comments directed at me. But nobody else seemed to mind those. :)
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 27, 2012, 03:59:09 PM
As for those quotes about Han, they're from Kurtz and Ford. I'd say they're qualified to know the development of the film.
Of course. But I think you're taking them a bit too seriously. Kurtz simply says that toy marketing was "A reason," not THE ONLY reason. And Ford is clearly making a sarcastic joke. :)
(Posted on: November 27, 2012, 07:24:18 PM)
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 27, 2012, 04:14:15 PM
And if we're talking offensive posting, I can point out Lambonius' comments directed at me. But nobody else seemed to mind those. :)
You get what you give, man. Check your tone before you post and you won't get rude comments back in return.
::)
When someone dismissively says they "don't need to get the point", they're begging for clarification. Hardly an issue of tone on my behalf.
Now the thread can move along to something else more productive? I think I'll just quietly head out the back door...
Maybe we hould make this the Star Wars General Discussion thread instead?
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 27, 2012, 03:59:09 PM
The hollow CGI was marketing - the films were sold almost exclusively on the visuals.
To be fair, this is true of a lot of Hollywood blockbusters, not just Star Wars.
Quote from: Lambonius on November 27, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 27, 2012, 04:14:15 PM
And if we're talking offensive posting, I can point out Lambonius' comments directed at me. But nobody else seemed to mind those. :)
You get what you give, man. Check your tone before you post and you won't get rude comments back in return.
And keep in mind that it can be really hard to judge someone's intent based solely on text. You may not think you're being rude, but someone else may take it that way.
Thanks for the lessons in internet etiquette, everyone. Glad these can be selectively applied to me, but not universally for others who make rude comments. :)
Anybody else want to jump in before the thread gets back on topic?
Depends, anybody else wanna be a wise-ass and seal the deal on this thread getting locked? 'Cause it's been bordering on it for quite some time now.
To elaborate: Talk about Star Wars. If you must debate, debate politely and don't be a dick. That goes for everyone.
Now then. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away....
Quote from: snabbott on November 28, 2012, 12:01:55 PM
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 27, 2012, 03:59:09 PM
The hollow CGI was marketing - the films were sold almost exclusively on the visuals.
To be fair, this is true of a lot of Hollywood blockbusters, not just Star Wars.
Right. That's actually something I made clear in my first post.
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 26, 2012, 11:58:17 PM
The prequel trilogy is fundamentally a major advertisement for toys, games, comics, and the whole SW brand. You could say the same for any movie, I suppose, but with SW merchandising the scope is just so much larger. The movies were not designed to tell the best story possible. They were designed to sell the most toys, by cramming as many digital, goofy looking aliens and exotic locations into each movie as possible. They had no heart like the original trilogy.
The Matrix came out around the same time as TPM, and it also was marketed heavily on visuals. But when people saw the movie, it was the clever, original storytelling that really grabbed people's attention (along with visuals). I can't speak for everyone, but it seemed like most people who saw TPM came out disappointed with the story and characters. And I think that while visuals can be a huge draw for audiences, the story and characters are what matter most for people's reactions.
I'm not sure if I have a major point here, but again my original intent was to provide my opinion that Lucas focused too much on most things except story and characters. And part of this was not fleshing out the backstory of supporting prequel characters like you guys were discussing before I hijacked the thread. And of course, having the opportunity to fill in those backstories with comics, toys, games, tv shows, etc. is what helps to keep the Star Wars brand alive and profitable.
It may be a cynical viewpoint, but I think there's a lot of truth behind it regarding how Lucas' priorities focused on these things. Just look at the period from 1983 to the early 90s. There really wasn't much going on with Star Wars. Then Timothy Zahn wrote his trilogy, and the EU kind of exploded. I think Lucas saw how much people wanted more Star Wars content in a variety of ways, and it formed his vision for how to craft the prequels, and how to use the prequels as a springboard for a new generation of merchandise. I don't hold it against him as it's something any sound businessman would do.
I have tried to stay away from this for as long as possible but quite frankly, I could not care much anymore about what some of you may think of this. But this time around, let's just say it's just a mod rant.
inm8#2,
In behalf of the POS staff I would like to extend my apologies, I'm afraid my colleagues here have meant nothing but trying to steer a conversation back on track. I would like to point out that I wished other words were used in he process, but that is just a personal note for future reference. In no way shape or form I want anyone that has supported this community in such positive way for years to feel brushed off, specially over a misunderstanding like this.
I know and I appreciate your input has been over the time regarding POS work (in here and other places), and I also want to say thank you for everything. Again, I'm just sorry for this... whatever this thread deteriorated into, seriously.
Regarding the other two posters involved in the situation:
Lambonius,
I've got not much to say, really. I understand you're an opinionated individual and I sort of enjoy your strange sense of humor. However, It's sort of odd seeing someone so articulate and so seemingly well put together as you go ahead and snap with a "Check your tone" thing. I know you don't mind getting banned, but even Katie gets annoyed and she loses her lovely lady like self and goes to post something like:
"Anybody else wanna be a wise-ass and seal the deal?" kind of thing. Poor Katie. I like her. Don't give he an ulcer, please. We need her for the upcoming -may or may not be cliched- episodes.
Neonivek,
I believe you enjoy discussion and you have your own idea of entertainment, however if you are to post in this community you are to be mindful of how you come across to members of this community.
Ok. That's all.
I officially hate Star Wars.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_n7Vt1sT-3_4/Sw_d6D6MrFI/AAAAAAAACqo/KuQCwhRiG4s/s1600/Super_Cute_Star_Wars+_02.jpg)
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 28, 2012, 12:57:33 PM
Thanks for the lessons in internet etiquette, everyone. Glad these can be selectively applied to me, but not universally for others who make rude comments. :)
Ok - apparently I need to apply my own advice better. I apologize inm8#2 - the etiquette comment wasn't specifically directed at you, nor was I trying to defend rude comments from anyone.
Back to the discussion...
(Posted on: November 28, 2012, 04:46:11 PM)
Quote from: inm8#2 on November 28, 2012, 01:29:00 PM
Then Timothy Zahn wrote his trilogy, and the EU kind of exploded.
I haven't read any of the novels, but these sound interesting. Maybe I should...
QuoteI believe you enjoy discussion and you have your own idea of entertainment, however if you are to post in this community you are to be mindful of how you come across to members of this community.
How extremely vague. Though I interpret the second part as: "Communicate better", which is sort of tougher then one might think given the concepts I try to get across.
QuoteI officially hate Star Wars
What? But starwars has brought so much joy to us! Remember Spaceballs?
"When will then be now?"
Quote from: Say on November 28, 2012, 01:54:25 PM
Poor Katie. I like her. Don't give he an ulcer, please.
But making Katie pull her hair out is the primary reason I post here! ;)
Quote from: Lambonius on November 28, 2012, 04:29:44 PM
Quote from: Say on November 28, 2012, 01:54:25 PM
Poor Katie. I like her. Don't give he an ulcer, please.
But making Katie pull her hair out is the primary reason I post here! ;)
:smack:
I hate lamb. Especially with mint jelly. :P
Quote from: KatieHal on November 28, 2012, 04:28:32 PM
"When will then be now?"
Looking this up, I came across another quote that seemed appropriate:
Quote
Yogurt: Merchandising, merchandising, where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs-the T-shirt, Spaceballs-the Coloring Book, Spaceballs-the Lunch box, Spaceballs-the Breakfast Cereal, Spaceballs-the Flame Thrower.
:P
Quote from: KatieHal on November 28, 2012, 04:39:27 PM
I hate lamb. Especially with mint jelly. :P
Truth be known I don't like Lamb either.
Quote from: Neonivek on November 28, 2012, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: KatieHal on November 28, 2012, 04:39:27 PM
I hate lamb. Especially with mint jelly. :P
Truth be known I don't like Lamb either.
(http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/2/2d/Trollface_HD.png/618px-Trollface_HD.png)
oh, man, Lamb. I'll give you a hug.
*ahem* Star Wars... ::)
Quote from: snabbott on November 28, 2012, 10:34:50 PM
*ahem* Star Wars... ::)
I think we should continue talking about how much people like me. Perhaps I should start a separate thread for that though?
Quote from: Lambonius on November 28, 2012, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: snabbott on November 28, 2012, 10:34:50 PM
*ahem* Star Wars... ::)
I think we should continue talking about how much people like me. Perhaps I should start a separate thread for that though?
Yeah, that would probably be best. :P
Quote from: snabbott on November 28, 2012, 11:30:09 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on November 28, 2012, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: snabbott on November 28, 2012, 10:34:50 PM
*ahem* Star Wars... ::)
I think we should continue talking about how much people like me. Perhaps I should start a separate thread for that though?
Yeah, that would probably be best. :P
Done and done. And I mean DONE.
People had been soaking up "EU" stuff since the first film - The Marvel Comics, Splinter of the Mind's Eye - I had all of that stuff when I was a kid. The EU really expanded out in the 90's, and at first some of it was kind of neat - I enjoyed The Thrawn Books, liked the games Rebel Assault, X-Wing, Dark Forces... but then it just got out of control.
And frankly - I liked it better when I DIDN'T know as much about the Jedi and the Jedi Order. Man, when I was a kid - there was SUCH mystery around Obi-Wan Kenobi. How long had he been living in the desert? Why did he just disappear when Vader hit him with the saber? How long could Force ghosts guide Luke? Where did Yoda come from?
It was better when I didn't know. Sometimes NOT having specific details makes for a better story.
Bt
As an asside I meant Lamb... not the person Lambonius.
Also you are perfectly right Blackthorne it is why sometimes I think the "Word of God" so to speak should stay away from filling in certain details especially those about interpretation.
Mind you I think some of them were only filled in over time simply because they didn't age well or because they were thought to be an inconsistancy. Obiwan's disapearance was always just odd to me and so odd in fact that I filtered out there even being a mystery.
And no more Rick McCallum.
http://io9.com/5963413/producer-rick-mccallum-did-not-survive-the-lucasfilm+to+disney-buyout
QuoteTo have his departure be mentioned as an aside on a fan podcast is crazy, but equally crazy is that the news of McCallum's "retirement" has been secret for so long. Again, no announcement, not even a mention in the trades, nothing. That's weird, folks, and the most logical reason I can come up with is because Disney told him his services were no longer required, leading to this bizarrely secret "retirement."
Which is fine with me because, as a Star Wars fan, I've come to blame McCallum for pretty much everything that's gone wrong with Star Wars after Return of the Jedi. Greedo shoots first? Jar Jar? Anakin's hatred of sand? All these things happened under McCallum's watch, and I blame him. This is probably irrational, and I don't care in the slightest.
And more fuel for the rumors that director Matthew Vaughn is doing Stars Wars Ep VII. Jason Flemyng reveals info in video.
http://www.thesuperficial.com/matthew-vaughn-star-wars-episode-vii-jason-flemyng-video-11-2012
Bt
Quote from: MikPal on November 26, 2012, 08:38:57 AM
Quote from: KatieHal on November 26, 2012, 08:08:32 AM
I remember hearing that Natalie Portman had made some comment about the material not quite being Shakespeare in those movies. And yep, spot on there, ma'am!
And thank goodnes it wasn't. (http://slacktory.com/2012/04/star-wars-by-william-shakespeare/)
......I kind of want to produce that show all of a sudden.