Star Wars TV Show, And An Unmade Trilogy

Necromutant writes "Mark Hamill comments about Episodes 7, 8, and 9 really got everyone's attention. Mark told those in attendance what Lucas told him the third trilogy would be about. Also confirmed today officially, a Star Wars television show coming in the future. -- I don't know if I should be happy or scared..."

Comments

A big stick and a dead horse

[Izago909]

Lucas is going to milk this story for all it's worth. He won't be satisfied until Star Wars is the campiest sci-fi series ever put on film. If he would have stopped after the first 3 movies, he would have been remembered as one of the greatest sci-fi producers ever. After the first 2 new episodes came out, the franchise has started to become the ass end of sci-fi jokes. I don't see another 3 improving the image of the series.

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[sqmagellan]

I can see another triology helping the Star Wars genre, but only if Lucas steps down as either Writer or Director. Sure, he can make some wonderful special effects, but he needs more creative imput if he plans his new saga touching more than just the most hardcore of fans.

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[bravehamster]

Star Wars is NOT sci-fi!

It's fantasy.

That is all.

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[dukerobillard]

He won't be satisfied until Star Wars is the campiest sci-fi series ever put on film.

Jeez, he should have been happy in 1978, then.

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[Flentil]

I think the problem with Star Wars today is more with the grown up 'lucas raped my childhood' ex-fans constantly bashing it. Once they die off Star Wars will retain it's place in history as one of the great classics of sci-fi fantasy films, prequals and (hopefully) sequals included. ...and no, I'm not trolling though I'm sure I'll be modded a troll for suggesting that the prequals might not be so bad.

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[Planesdragon]

Fantasy is a sub-genere of Sci-fi. It was a reinvention of the dead heroic myth genere in the late 19th century after science fiction writers like Jules Verne (!) proved that the novel-reading audience would read blatantly not-true stories.

Any definition you use for the difference between fantasy and sci-fi can be bent or broken by numerous excellent works, even though each subgenere is distinct into itself.

So, "Science Fiction" has three subgenres:

Fantasy, like LOTR or my own (unpublished) novel. Willing to change basic understandings of the universe and disregard Earth entirely.

Hard Sci Fi, like The Time Machine or Asimov's Robot series. Doesn't change any basic knowledge, but instead introduces a few "future developments" and explores their ramification here on Earth.

Soft Sci Fi, like 2001 or Asimov's foundation series, or Star Trek, which change something basic about reality.

Hmm... yeah, SW is fantasy. But it's still part of Sci-Fi.

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[adolfojp]

Sadly, I've got no mod points, so I will post instead.

I agree 100%. Star wars is fantasy. The only diference between SW and Lord of The Rings type of movies is the background. One is technological and the other is not. Considering that this background is in another galaxy in another time frame it doesn't imply any future technology, but a mere definition of its alien background and status quo.

There is no science behind star wars light sabers, ships, force (except the midiclorian mistake) or anything else in the universe. It is the analogy to magic swords, horses, unicorns, olifants and whaterer mechanical doomsday devices you might want to add.

Just because it has blinking lights doesn't make it sci fi.

Cheers,

Adolfo

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[Izago909]

It's very understandable that younger people are easily entertained. Just look at how much money can be made by cutting funding to screen writers and diverting the money to the CG department. I call it the "Shiney Nickel Effect". Special effects back when the first 3 were produced were not anything near what's available today. As a result, directors and producers had to rely more on practical action sequences, good dialogue, and a captivating story line. Modern film making techniques put CG special effects as a higher priority than the other 3 aspects. Personally, I'll take Blade Runner over any Sci-fi film made since then.

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[JudgeFurious]

I can say only one thing about the viability of three more "sequels" following these "prequels" and that is they would have to be absolutely incredible films to even have a chance to pull the franchise up to even ground level.

If you look at them in their intended sequence then you've got (And I don't care how good he makes Ep3) a very childish and frankly not very good story starting with Ep1 progressing to what the majority of people consider to be "the good ones" in Eps 4, 5, and 6. Of course Jedi wasn't up to Empire and really that's where things started getting pretty silly with those furry little previews of the abortion to come but we mostly tend to just lump those three movies together and call them "good" while we look at the prequels and call them (rightfully so) "lousy".

So if there ever were to be a trilogy of sequels then they'd have to be far more adult targeted in nature to even have a chance and they'd have to be the coolest friggin Star Wars movies ever to clean the taste of "Phantom Menace" out of our mouths. They would need to grow up and be serious (probably overly serious) and in effect age with thier audience to make most Star Wars fans happy. Then when the whole nine were viewed in order the story would get better and more serious as it moved along.

I don't see Lucas being capable of doing it. No way can he miracle up the ability to churn out three great pictures now. He is what he is, just a guy who had one really great idea, an excellent techician of film, a great editor, and a crummy director who's managed to pull a few pictures off.

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[Planesdragon]

So LOTR is science fiction too? Right, because there is so much science there?

Actually, there is. LOTR was in many ways a speculative exposition to backup the myriad of languages and linguistic shifts that Tolkein devised.

There's easily as much science behind LOTR as there is behind, oh, 2001 or Issac Assimov's Robot series. It's just not technological science, so it has a clearly different feel.

(and to be really anal, it fits science's "if X, then Y, right?" mold very well.)

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[Mark Hood]

Actually, yes it does. Sci-fi, even "hard" sci-fi, introduces devices that cannot be manufactured at current technological level.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke.

Now the magic abilities of LOTR & similar fantasy is presented as innate abilities of (some of) the 'people' who populate the world.
Compare this with the Jedi, force users and adepts. Until the 'midichlorians' were introduced, this was accepted as certain people being able to tap into the 'force which surrounds all living beings' - sounds pretty magical to me, not technological.

As for the tools of these 'magic force users', in LOTR magic rings & swords are, if not common, at least known of and accepted as such. In Star Wars we accept that the basis for the 'magical' devices is technology ("I see you have constructed a new light saber"), but then in LOTR 'people' created the magic rings, magic swords and all the rest - so isn't that advanceed technology?

I think it's tricky to draw a line, but if I had to, it couldn't be solely on the basis of technobabble, as you rightly point out, but it would be based on the attitude of the inhabitants of the universe. If we try and say 'I made this, and I used scientific principles' (even if those principles are technobabble, look at Star Trek!) then I'd say it's Sci-Fi. If we accept 'it's magic, and I made this device to tap the magical energies' then it's fantasy. Even if the device gathers magical rays from the air and produces a picture of things from far away.... Is it a TV? or a scrying stone?

I feel there's a very wide grey area between Sci-Fi and Fantasy, and the division is one of tone - the author gets to decide which it is, and he writes in that fashion. Perhaps this is why my local bookshop lumps them all together into 'sci-fi/fantasy' - to avoid this argument!

Mark

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[Descartes]

I'm not sure this really helps but I've seen Star Wars classified as a "Space Opera". It really isn't Sci-i, but others have proved that point quite well.
A New Hope was based on an old samurai movie called "The Hidden Fortress" which I think is pretty good proof that setting it in space was not integral to the story.

Star Trek is Sci-fi. It's in the future, it features technology that might one day exist and draws a direct line to present day science. Aliens and rayguns are important parts of the story.

Calling Fantasy a subgenre of Sci-fi is absurd. There is nothing scientific about LOTR or, I daresay, your unpublished novel. That's the whole point of the term, there is fictional science that enables the incredible things to happen in these stories.

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[lee7guy]

You are joking, right?

Most booksellers in general bookstores wouldn't recognize a Fantasy or SF book if it jumped up and bit them in the knee.

Their interests mostly lies in knowing their classics and reading the new hip author of the week, or maybe the latest Nobel Prize winner. In their eyes Fantasy or SF is low litterature, which would be kicked out of the shop faster than you could say ... if the worthless crap just didn't sell so many copies.

"Speculative Fiction" isn't a historic genere.

I guess you are trying to say "commonly accepted genre". But guess what? Your attempt to classify Fantasy as a sub genre of Science Fiction is even less so, at least among us that actually read the stuff.

Please explain why the fans of the genres would bow down to the genre explanations of librarians and booksellers whose experience of SF/Fantasy at most might extend to LOTR or Asimov's foundation series.

Would you willingly let a general physician perform a brain surgery on your mother?

Re:A big stick and a dead horse

[Oligonicella]

"Fantasy is a sub-genere of Sci-fi. It was a reinvention of the dead heroic myth genere in the late 19th century after science fiction writers like Jules Verne (!) proved that the novel-reading audience would read blatantly not-true stories."

Oh, really? Then E.A.Poe (1809-1849) wasn't writing fantasy? Gulliver's Travels (1675) isn't fantasy?

Ummm, bullshit.

I know...

[dfn5]

I don't know if I should be happy or scared

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Scared or happy?

[slavemowgli]

Scared. Definitely scared - maybe I'm a pessimist, but I think that this will be just more commercialization.

A Bink's Tale

[Ch3schir3]

So we watch 4,5,6, and think its about Luke. We watch 1,2,3, and realize that its about Vader. We watch 7,8,9 and maybe we will finally realize it's just about an old man who doesn't know when to let someone else take over.

The sad thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...there are plenty of great storylines that could be used from any of the dozens of EU books. Yet, Lucas will still find a way to ruin the final portion of the saga...

Money

[Viceice]

Dispite all the rants, If Episodes 7, 8 and 9 were made, they'd all do well at the box office. So is there any reason why they won't do it?

Good creative shows have been pulled because of money and stereotypical, nonsensical tripe put in replacement all in the name of money.

So whats makes SW diffrent?

Re:I always wanted to do this... ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone want to summarise the mp3? I can't be bothered to listen to it.

Re:Heh

[Masque]

It's still a competition for the silver medal, however, after the last two Matrix films set a world record in the 200 Minute Suck.

Re:tv based on brian daley novels?

[welloy]

Yes, i'd agree that the Zahn novels are quite good, but these deal with main plot line stories and probably would not make it into a TV show IF lucas is really making episodes 7-9. Though if lucas could work Thrawn and mara jade in that would be nice.

and i completely agree about Anderson. Some of the worst stuff i ever read.

Re:its about R2-D2

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Wars is, in effect, a story about a droid.

You discount the influence of Campbell/mythology on Lucas.

R2-D2 is the cinematic/literary anchor, the witness, the source of the retelling.

The next time you watch Saving Private Ryan pay more attention to the role of the typing pool.

Re:Ob. Spaceballs Reference

[rd_syringe]

Anyone else think a new Spaceballs sequel in this day and age would be funny as hell? Imagine all the jabs at Lucas and the prequel trilogy.

The Biggest Threat to Star Wars is..

[darthtrevino]

Fanboys. Seriously, just let Lucas do his thing. Every time ANYTHING is posted about Star Wars, all the posts are of the tone: I'm not buying **** until Lucas releases the original originals without Digital anything, straight from the masters!!!

Honestly, let it go. If you want to complain about the pillaging and raping of a franchise, go complain about Star Trek.

"it never really happened" episodes

[rjamestaylor]

The King of "it never really happened" episodes was not Sci-Fi/Fantasy at all, but the TV Soap Dallas with the dream sequence serving to negate the entire previous season and correct some major casting mistakes thereby. (I don't recall the details; I was a kid playing Ultima III while the women in the family watched Dallas dotingly).

A Question

[metalhed77]

I know nothing of this at all. But it would seem to the casual observer that sci-fi should be a sub-genre of fantasy. Quite simply, where's the science in a fantasy tale about elves and faeries etc.?

I'm of the belief that if it isn't this way allready it damn well should be for sanity's sake.

Re:Ob. Spaceballs Reference

[Rotting]

I for one would love to see this but I just don't know if it would feel quite right without John Candy.

I suppose he could get around this with a prequel though.

Re:Charlie Rose interview

[Reziac]

He's said that before. Several times. Shortly before announcing the next Star Wars film.

I remember back in 1977, Lucas swore up and down that the original Star Wars was a standalone film and there absolutely would NEVER be a sequel, because he didn't believe in sequels, period (he said something to the effect that only losers with no ability to create new material ever made sequels). Then Star Wars became a big hit -- and suddenly it was the first of a trilogy, and soon afterward was transmogrified into the 4th of nine that Lucas *now* swore up and down "he'd always planned to do".

Lucas is a master of "Hollywood truth": only what I say TODAY is true, and how dare you imply that I said something different yesterday!