Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Can Star Wars Episode VII Be Saved?

An anonymous reader writes "10 years ago today, in the wake of two disappointing Star Wars prequels, we discussed whether Episode III could salvage itself or the series. Now, as production is underway on Episode VII under the care of Disney, I was wondering the same thing: can it return Star Wars to its former glory? On one hand, many critics of the prequels have gotten what they wanted — George Lucas has a reduced role in the production of Episode VII. Critically, he didn't write the screenplay, which goes a long way toward avoiding the incredibly awkward dialogue of the prequels. On the other hand, they're actively breaking with the expanded universe canon, and the series is now under the stewardship of J.J. Abrams. His treatment of the Star Trek reboot garnered lots of praise and lots of criticism — but his directorial style is arguably more suited to Star Wars anyway. What do you think? What can they do with Episode VII to put the series back on track?"

282 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. Star Wars Sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The movies are all terrible. The only one that is half way decent is the Empire and that because Lucas neither wrote nor directed it. The more this new one completely ignores everything that came before it the better.

    1. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      IMHO, the sucky part is that unless the story arc skips ahead as many years, the by-now old/wrinkle-bound actors are going to look really out of place...

      (then again, in the interests of honesty, I never read eps 7-9, so...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      we discussed whether Episode III could salvage itself or the series.

      In addition to being shitty movies, the 3 "prequels" were doomed to failure before they were ever made. This is because you already know how everything has to turn out. Anakin Skywalker has two children who he hides and then becomes Darth Vader, Senator whats-his-name becomes "Emperor", the "clone army" become Imperial Storm Troopers, etc. etc. etc. All completely pointless.

      And now that the original cast is all a hundred years old they want to make a new movoe with them. That'll work out well.

    3. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The movies are all terrible. The only one that is half way decent is the Empire and that because Lucas neither wrote nor directed it. The more this new one completely ignores everything that came before it the better.

      Actually the only good one is Star Wars. Self contained no nonsense good guy versus evil guy. A princess, a farmboy and an adventurer. What more could you want ?

      From the first sequel onwards it all came crashing down. Yeah Empire is more sofisticated than Star Wars but a better film ?
      Nope. And ROTJ will having a good part in it (redemption of Vader) is just anahilated by all the other things (teddy bears waging wars against shock troopers, and the whole crazy part in Jabba the Hutt's palace).

      As for the prequels, lets not even touch the subject. Had JJB and midiclorians not been there APM could have turned out to be an enjoyable movie. But the second and third films are just huge trainwrecks and no amount of fan editing will ever be able to fix them.

    4. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and apparently lucas has nothing to do with this so...

      however. abrams is shit. he is just shit. star trek into darkness is just so shit. in the next star wars, han solo will be making a phone call to alternate(expanded) universe han solo to warn him that jar jar binks is going to screw him over in the _past_. makes sense? well, as much sense as any shit mr abrams puts in his movies.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The original Star Wars movies were great because we saw them when we were 13 years old, and they were filmed to appeal to 13 year olds. Watch it again now, and if you enjoy it that's likely due to fond memories of watching them as a child, not because they're such great pieces of filmmaking on their own.

      Any remake is doomed if you expect a remake. It's also doomed if you expect to be transformed back into a 13 year old while watching the movie. All Star Wars movies are children's movies, aimed at their eras 13-year-olds. All of us adults who imagined they would be anything different were disappointed.

      If you instead expect a movie that will entertain you, set in or near the original universe (but with modern filmmaking techniques and different characters,) you might put yourself in a position to enjoy it. But you'll probably enjoy it most if you bring your own child to the movie.

      --
      John
    6. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The first one had some simplicity about it. At the time, a sequel wasn't planned, so the princess wasn't related to the farmboy, the evil guy in the gas mask was just that... a figure to be feared. You were not having to think about events in other films or the Expanded Universe... the first film (before it was renamed to Episode 4: ANH) stood completely alone, like none of the others in the series could. The farm boy who has the mystic powers and brings down one of the mightiest objects in fictional history [1].

      ESB was good for its time. The bad guys were back and were not going to allow the loss to end their reign. ROTJ... I'll stay with the same opinion from the reviewer who said pretty much the same thing in 1983: Too much Ewok, too little main cast.

      Episodes 1-3 were OK, but they stood in the shadow of 4-6 since the plot was pretty much well laid down.

      In a way, episode 7 is breaking fresh ground. No prequel, the ability to move past the original characters, the fact that Expanded Universe can be tossed aside. Almost anything can be done. I just fear that instead of them making another Episode 4 or 5 where the evil was evil (and not grey/bland "misunderstood" types like most movies) and the heroes were the true good guys... not just the guys who won the firefights.

      Disney isn't dumb. I'm just crossing fingers that they can take the creative liberty with the strongest sci fantasy universe out there and break ground.

      [1]: Nowadays, most anime have weapons along the lines of "don't aim that at my local galaxy cluster", or the soliton wave universe destroyer from later Star Treks, but the DS at its time was pretty bad-ass.

    7. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      I disagree that knowing the gist of events prior to the original trilogy doomed the prequel trilogy before it even began. Sure, we knew, in broad strokes, what happened, but not how it happened. Beyond that, studies have shown that people actually tend to prefer a creative work if they've had the ending spoiled for them.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    8. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by JMJimmy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Can Star Wars Episode VII Be Saved?" as always with these questions the answer is a resounding: NO.

      gl4ss is 100% correct, Abrams is shit.

      Directing:
      Star Trek? Butchered - how many close ups do you need!?!
      Mission Impossible? Butchered - was there anything remotely "mission imposible-esque" about that movie?
      Super 8? Super Stupid

      Writer:
      Armageddon, Forever Young, Taking Care of Business, Felicity, Alias, Lost, Fringe: Not bad. The TV stuff not so much towards the end of their runs.
      Gone Fishin', Regarding Henry, Joy Ride, Mission Impossible 3, Lost Via Domus, Super 8, Undercovers: Complete SHIT.

      Producer:
      Star Wars, Super 8, Mission Impossible 3/4, Cloverfield, Morning Glory, Joy Ride, Suburbans, Pallbearer: ALL SHIT.

      In terms of movies, his success stems from 3 of his earliest films where he wrote/co-wrote the screenplay. The last of which came out 16 years ago. I have little to no hope for any of the Star Wars movies. What's worse is that this poser is going to be involved in the Half-Life/Portal movies too - another great franchise for him to ruin.

    9. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "Star Wars movies were great because we saw them when we were 13 years old, and they were filmed to appeal to 13 year olds."

      they where great for all ages because thy where ground breaking. They won academy awards, the first run was months, adults where lining up and waiting hours.

      In 1970s, no one spent millions making a movie for 13 year olds.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Not when the work itself sucks. Not when the twists in between are non-existent and the story itself is poor and told poorly.

    11. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Star Trek movie where fantastic Sci-Fi movies...sadly they where horrible Star Trek movies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re: Star Wars Sucks! by barlevg · · Score: 3, Funny
    13. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Just a taste of why it was a future fiction story and not a science fiction story: http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/0...

    14. Re: Star Wars Sucks! by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Yes, lets put a bunch of icky nerds/geeks commenting on issues they had to make broad strokes about the fan base. Ad hominem at it's best.

      I had no issues with the casting or the special effects, I didn't even have an issue with the lens flare. The story, the lack of science, the piss poor characterizations & character motivations, and the re-incarnated spirit of Jar-Jar http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net... those are things I took issue with.

    15. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well, the fact that we knew in broad strokes what would happen wasn't the ONLY problem with the prequels. I don't want to get into another tired discussion of why they, by and large, stunk; suffice it to say they suffered an incurable case of Lucasitis, with his lack of decent writing, theme planets, ponderous dialog, crap plotting and general inability to even make his plotting fit with the other films... but at any rate...

      I think making the prequels decent films was a taller mountain to climb than the first three movies. It wasn't impossible, and in the hands of decent scriptwriters it might have worked, though I still think the magic that the first three films, even awkwardly at times, were able to invoke simply wasn't possible. But even here, Lucas mucked things up. Midichlorians, taking the battle between Anakin/Vader and Obiwan over a lava pit becoming a battle on a whole fucking molten world, even making Leia's statement in RotJ that she vaguely remembered her mother a completely rubbish statement as Padme died about ten seconds after giving birth, the Clone Wars largely incoherent, and, by and large, the utter lack of subtlety in Anakin's transformation into Vader meant the films were, for all the new sophisticated filmmaking techniques, dull and wooden affairs.

      It's one of the things I hope the original cast returning can bring to it. Yes, they're in sixties and seventies, and certainly none of them were spectacular actors at the time (or ever in some cases), but at least they felt like real people and not archetypes with about as much energy as chess pieces.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Writing a good story that does not break canon does not require explaining/rehashing the other stories. It just requires that it takes place in or along side established events and does not directly contradict them. If you're telling a story based on events then it's not a story worth telling. Events are the backdrop for the story, which at it's core must be about something more (the heroes journey, emotion of some sort, growth/understanding, etc). If I remember correctly there are something like 6 basic stories which make up pretty much every story ever told - they're just set against different events. That was part of the problem with Eps 1/2/3 - they were about the events, the merchandising, and the effects - there was no emotional core to them.

    17. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

      Its already been stated that 7 takes place 30 years after Jedi.

    18. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Knowing the ending of a movie does not make it bad. The concept of Palpatine/Sidious duality with an "I win either way" was good, but unfortunately wasn't implemented fully until the clone wars TV show. Likewise, the tragic downfall of Anakin could have been excellent movie material, even (nay, especially) if you knew the outcome. Instead, we have a Jedi who decides to murder at the drop of a hat when a Sith Lord offers to heal his wife. The alluded-to storyline where Anakin might be the experiment of Darth Plageius (who could create life in the womb of a virgin) was never fleshed out, and could have helped fracture him and define his new persona: "you were Sith from the start". It could have been an epic tragedy, instead, it was a tragic failure.

    19. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But that's largely impossible, as it is clear that Disney intended on having the main heroes from the original trilogy reappear. It would be one thing if you were telling the stories of other characters in the Expanded Universe, but I'd argue even that would be a mistake. If Star Wars is going to be a functioning film franchise again, it has to link directly to the previous films. It can't be simply "it happens in the same universe...", for them to refire the franchise, they need to have major crossover; that means, Han, Luke and Leia, even if only in a more secondary role. Since pretty much every move those three characters make for decades after RotJ is mapped out by the Expanded Universe, I can't see how it could be done, or why one would even try. Once they get the franchise up, then they can make their other "in the same universe" films, but the first film out of the gates has to be a direct sequel to RotJ, and Abrams and the writers cannot bind themselves down like Lucas was to the prequels.

      I'll be blunt, the Expanded Universe fans are only a small subset of the potential ticket and merchandise buyers that Disney needs to convince to spend money. I get that the fans of the Expanded Universe are feeling let down, but they don't have the numbers to make or break the franchise, and Disney isn't going to worry its head off about maybe a few tens of thousands of readers when it wants to go after a billion+ theater-goers, toy buyers and McHappy Meal eaters.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    20. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by plover · · Score: 2

      Awards are granted to all kinds of movies, and aren't the definition of adult entertainment. These movies were not nearly as popular among adults as they were among kids. They were and are kids's movies first.

      --
      John
    21. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      I always find myself in this dilemma with music acts. Should a band mature with their initial audience or trying stick to the original youthful demographic? eg Metallica are an old band now. I still like their music, but I always come away from a performance thinking you guys are too old for this. Instead of trying to be hard, heavy metal gods appealing to 19year olds, they should tone it down a notch and mature with dignity. Madonna is suffering a similar fate, I never liked her much anyway, but watching a nearly 60 year old woman trying to act 21 is disgusting. At least when she was 21 she could pull it off. Performers need to grow old gracefully, and so do story lines. So I hope Star Wars 7+ tries to mature gracefully and appeal to its original audience (now in the 40+ age group). Sci Fi for adults, I'd pay money to see that.

    22. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      It's been announced that the story will take place 30 years after the events in Jedi - there's a 6 year gap in the canon from 29 ABY to 35 ABY in which they can tell the 3 stories. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki...

      The only major details that they have to look out for:

      1) Chewie, Akbar, and Anakin Solo are dead
      2) Luke and Mara / Leia and Han are married
      3) Leia and Han have 2 kids and one dead kid

      As long as he doesn't kill/revive/birth any established characters he can tell any story he wants and pay as much or as little attention to the events before and after that 6 year period as he wants.

    23. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 1

      I've got one sound for ya... Flush. Chewie is gonna be in Episode 7.

    24. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      In The Loop FTW. Now that's a TV series you can get behind.

    25. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      fantasy movie.

      really, really light on the science and even lighter on the consistency of it's own fantasy. basically, anything can be done at any moment. you can teleport through the universe. you can make a phone call if you wish. a trip can take either 2 days or 15 minutes of real time depending on how it fits the plot.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    26. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by coofercat · · Score: 1

      As a consumer through the transatlantic bullshit filter, I can say I've never heard of a good number of those films. Given we do get (by our standards) some pretty shitty films come across the pond, those ones must be truly horrific.

    27. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Teresita · · Score: 1

      Its already been stated that 7 takes place 30 years after Jedi.

      Thirty Earth years? What?

    28. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by Teresita · · Score: 1

      IMHO, the sucky part is that unless the story arc skips ahead as many years, the by-now old/wrinkle-bound actors are going to look really out of place...

      "Get off of my lawn fuzzball."

    29. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Except for the small details where by that point Coruscant is fucked over and the Vong have destroyed half the galaxy...and the New Republic collapsed and turned into the Galactic Alliance...I can barely imagine what the title crawl would look like for that movie ;-)

      Yeah, just small details. It's all pretty much the same thing.

      I hear that the original Stargate movie guys are talking about finally doing the sequels to the movie that they had planned but never did. It's easier to just ignore the EU rather than dance around a bunch of other authors' writing.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    30. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      I doubt there will be a title crawl. That said it's pretty simple if there is one:

      "The Rebellion succeeded, stumbled, and eventually formed the Galactic Alliance... yada yada yada"

      You can set the story in the other half of the galaxy, maybe throw in a random negative comment about the Vong, and leave Coruscant out of it entirely since it's one planet in an entire galaxy. If you do need to set part of the story on one of the planets the Vong trashed then have it as a trashed world and when they first land have a quick bit of diaglogue "- What happened here? - The Vong. They're gone now" and move on.

      It's really not that hard to skirt these issues.

    31. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine anything worse than making a Stargate sequel that references SG-1, Atlantis and all the other dreck they pumped out. A sequel to the movie, now that would be cool.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    32. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      After all that it's hardly a sequel anymore, though; it's pretty much just another series set in the same universe, where some of the original characters have managed to survive everything getting destroyed.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    33. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I found the original Zahn trilogy just over the top on exposition. The prose seemed very leaden, even if the plot itself was reasonably interesting. I admit it's been about 20 years or so since I read his original books, but I remember from the very first page, where Luke is talking to Obiwan's force ghost for the last time, that it just felt like very long-winded and exposition-heavy prose.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    34. Re:Star Wars Sucks! by delt0r · · Score: 1

      I love how everyone hates abrams, as far as i can tell, for the same reason they hate Michael Bay. Because it is popular to hate them. Yet they line up at the movie theater and just can't pony up the money fast enough to see their movies.

      And your criticizing time travel in star trek? Really? Perhaps you had severe concussion while your were watching the old star trek, cus you seem to have forgotten them.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  2. Lens flares by MouseR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...better be absent.

    1. Re:Lens flares by dunezone · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the Star Trek DVD commentary they(director and producer) even talk about how they overdid the lens flares. For the sequel they still had them but it wasn't as prevalent as the first. Its fine if you have like a single shot with it in there but not everything needs a flare.

    2. Re:Lens flares by lgw · · Score: 1

      Lens flares will be the good part. While Abrams will fuck canon sideways with a catus, I'm sure the film will be fast-paced and entertaining. Everything that was wrong, style-wise, for a Star Trek film will be right for a Star Wars film. Pointless running through hallways, action-central plots that don't really make much sense, lots of laser gunplay, the bad guys in a bigger, more-armed ship with sinister lighting -- all of it will be great.

      I'm fully prepared to treat it like the prequel movies: high-budget fanfiction works. But these should actually be good!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Lens flares by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      and replaced with ccd blooms...

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    4. Re:Lens flares by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And wipes. They were cool in the 80s.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Lens flares by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

      I always figured lens flares were the result of bad setup and shot planning. Maybe if you have four or five Oscars for cinematography you could get away with one or two as artistic license. Absent that, it just makes it look like you don't know what you're doing.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    6. Re:Lens flares by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      No they were there on purpose, and they were all real, too. They weren't added in with CG, Abrams actually had people hiding around the set to shine lights into the lenses.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    7. Re: Lens flares by barlevg · · Score: 1

      First off, Ricardo Montalban wasn't exactly Othello material for "Space Seed." Secondly, I can't think of a *better* casting decision for an arrogant egomaniacal superhuman than Bandersnatch Cummerbund.

    8. Re:Lens flares by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, it's hos style. He knows how cameras work.
      I don't like it, but lets be accurate.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Lens flares by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

      Honestly most Star Trek movies were bad. There were a few exceptions but by in large they were not "Star Trek". The TNG movies were especially guilty of that.

      So the question is what will the new Star Wars movies be? Will they be a "reboot"? Will they just use the Star Wars universe as a backdrop and be whatever? Or will they honestly try to be "Star Wars".

      Now with the way Lucas had his way with EP 1-3 at this point calling anything true "Star Wars" is a pretty low bar. But it will be what it will be. I am sure as hell not expecting much.

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    10. Re:Lens flares by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      "Honestly most Star Trek movies were bad"

      Half of them were. The Star Trek movies seemed to have the same weird "every other release is crap" bug that Microsoft has had since forever.

    11. Re:Lens flares by aybiss · · Score: 1

      It's especially ridiculous when it's a CG generated space scene and THERE IS NO LENS.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    12. Re:Lens flares by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Nothing needs a flare. They exist in movies without CGI because of physical properties of lenses, and many cinematographers try to reduce this as much as possible (shades, filters, positioning, etc). In other words these used to be considered flaws when they appeared in movies. The only reason they exist in CGI shots in movies is because people are artificially trying to replicate the flaws, so that they actually subtract from the realism of the scene. It's frustrating when people ignorantly say that it adds to realism.

      I do not think it is fine if there is a only a single shot with lens flare, because even one shot is treating the audience as stupid. It's like adding a halo effect to the explosion of a death star. Once you realize that it makes no sense to have lens flare then it becomes extremely difficult to ignore it when it pops up. It pops you out of the suspension of disbelief.

      It would make more sense if it was done to simulate looking through a viewing port on a space ship, but that's not what is being done when it's added.

    13. Re:Lens flares by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It is how lenses work, so when you see lens flare in a space shot then it implies that there is a camera man floating around in space filming things (and a camera with mediocre quality lenses as well). Normally filmmakers try to present an illusion of reality as if you were really there, rather than trying to present an illusion that it's all being filmed.

    14. Re:Lens flares by firex726 · · Score: 1

      You'd be right, there was a time when a lens flare required a reshoot and could get people fired.

    15. Re:Lens flares by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Just like the Wilhelm scream. So sick of that crap.

    16. Re:Lens flares by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Can't your eye lens make a lens flare? So rather than a camera man floating around in space, it's you, the spectator, that is floating around in space.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    17. Re:Lens flares by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      White-hispanic?

    18. Re:Lens flares by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No, your eye does not make a lens flare in the way depicted in these movies.

    19. Re:Lens flares by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Your right, they look different. If you squint your eyes then a flare is formed. There are also flares around lights when your eyes are filled with tears. So, if the movie depicted them like these, would that be ok?

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  3. You know... by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it's hardly even started filming yet. Maybe wait until it's released to worry?

    Or better yet, don't worry. Skip it entirely if you can't hold "sequel" and "rose-tinted memories of the originals" in your brain at the same time. No one's ruining your childhood if you just stay home...

    1. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Honestly, when i heard they weren't going to follow the expanded universe, I decided to go ahead and see it. My worry was they were to attempt to turn fanfiction into a movie and I was planning to stay away from that shit.

    2. Re:You know... by thedonger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not even that. Look at that quotes list. Awkward quote #1? Just Jar-Jar being Jar-Jar. That was an appropriate quote for the character and context. Quote #5 was a neutral way to avoid an awkward silence. #7 was Anakin being a 9-year-old boy--yes, 9-year-old boys say awkward stupid shit like this. Quotes #20 and #34 were frighteningly insightful: this is exactly what happened after 9/11.

      Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.

      The prequels sucked because they tried to cram foreshadowing into every scene, as if we needed every single event in the prequels to relate to a specific event in the original 3. Then after the second prequel they realized they left so much undone that the third was just two hours of screen wipe-divided vignettes, and right at the end they were like, Oh shit, Anakin only has the one fake hand. So 5 minutes, one ill-constructed fight sequence, and single slashing of a light saber and suddenly he is Darth Vader in all his shiny, black awesomeness. Crap. Crap. Crap.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    3. Re:You know... by thedonger · · Score: 1

      Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.

      Also, anyone who compares Ewoks and Jar-Jar is a moron. The Ewoks actually fought, using old but useful weapons to help defeat the imperial forces. Jar-Jar was running away like a coward and accidentally destroyed an invading force in the process. Both character types aimed at kids? Sure. But they were nothing alike.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    4. Re:You know... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There are many. many reason they are bad movies AND bad SW prequels.
      Manly he made everyone so damn stupid.
      Jar - Jar was close to being a great character. if he toned it down a little, and if has accident that save the day were intentionally done. That would have made him the smart outsider, instead of the Trix Rabbit.

      Did I mention everyone was so stupid?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:You know... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yup, right from the beginning. Why the f--- did the Trade Federation invest God knows how much on a bazillion combat droids that were so utterly fucking useless. After the very first scene where they were introduced and the Jedi were KNOCKING them apart with their telekinetic powers, I was like "Wow, it's like being attacked by Lego men!" Even the Storm Troopers from the original films, metaphorical red shirts one and all, were more effective. The final battle scenes were just awful; a young Anakin almost accidentally wipes out their entire fleet (the Force is apparently more of a lottery than a talent) whilst simultaneously a bunch of semi-literate amphibians won by playing a form of nine pins on the ground with yet more inept battle droids who could have cords in their backs that, when pulled, said such nifty phrases as "Roger roger" and "Uh oh". I remember watching the Phantom Menace the first time and just wondering "Trade Federation assholes, ever heard of fucking AIR SUPPORT!" I mean, even a few dozen fucking fighters could have wiped out that pathetic Gungan army in about fifteen minutes. For chrissakes, with some tactical nukes (it's not like the Trade Federation seemed to give a fuck about the rain forest anyways) and they'd have won without using ANY of those moronic droids.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:You know... by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      Easy there, fella.
      We all understand you've got the Ewok love.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    7. Re:You know... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Empire Strikes Back was awesome man. The rest sucked donkey balls.

    8. Re:You know... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The sequels also sucked because they were worse than the original is just about every possible way except for CGI. Acting is worse, story line is worse, plot is confusing and illogical, retconned explanations of things that needed no explanation, annoying kids, etc. It was like a fanfic version of Star Wars, and I think Jar Jar was the Mary Sue.

    9. Re:You know... by JDAustin · · Score: 3, Funny

      You do realize that after the Ewoks killed the stormtroopers, they ate the stormtroopers (like they were going to do to Han/Luke/etc)???

    10. Re:You know... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The sequels also sucked because they were worse than the original is just about every possible way except for CGI

      I would say the CGI does not necessarily make for a better special effect. The space battles in Return of the Jedi and the models they used looked more authentic than anything in the prequels, and the choreography was head and shoulders better.

      Physical R2D2? He looks fine. CG R2, especially when he starts flying around and spitting oil and nonsense like that? Looked terrible.

    11. Re:You know... by gsslay · · Score: 1

      The terrible truth is that as far as coherent plot and credible universe-building are concerned, Star Wars has always been third rate. When it does uncomplicated space-opera it's fun, but as soon as anyone tries to stretch it beyond that, it rapidly falls apart.

      The best we can hope from Episode VII is that it doesn't try to mend all that went before it, and just concentrates on being good in itself.

    12. Re:You know... by Rhaban · · Score: 1

      Also, anyone who compares Ewoks and Jar-Jar is a moron. The Ewoks actually fought, using old but useful weapons to help defeat the imperial forces. Jar-Jar was running away like a coward and accidentally destroyed an invading force in the process. Both character types aimed at kids? Sure. But they were nothing alike.

      And the Ewoks ate the stormtroopers they killed. They're like gremlinses in mogwai costumes.

    13. Re:You know... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Obi-wan seemed like a real dick after that scene. His former friend and pupil is lying there, on fire and dismembered. Obi-wan can't even be bothered to finish him off and put him out of his misery. Instead he just leaves him there to be horribly scarred and rebuilt into a hate filled cyborg that thinks nothing of blowing up entire planets.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:You know... by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      Crunchy on the outside, soft on the inside!

    15. Re:You know... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I don't get the plot thing. I saw the pieces come together as they went, aside from Count Doku just suddenly appearing as Palpatine's apprentice. The 6 year gap kind of had things happen.

      Most of the actors behaved exactly like real world people behave. From a 100-foot view we see they're doing dumb shit, but their perspective doesn't afford these benefits. Anakin was a child, then a teenager; he made distinctly not-adult decisions. Padme confided in and trusted Palpatine, who openly acted as her ally to her satisfaction, while subtly manipulating the larger chain of events in a way Padme didn't notice. These are all behaviors I've seen both in literature and in the real world.

    16. Re:You know... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Why the f--- did the Trade Federation invest God knows how much on a bazillion combat droids that were so utterly fucking useless.

      Support from Senator Palpatine. Money, lots and lots of money. Remember all the secret conferences they had?

      "Trade Federation assholes, ever heard of fucking AIR SUPPORT!"

      It's established that space ships don't work great in atmosphere. Both real physics and movie physics have continuously attested to this: space ships leave the atmosphere as quickly as possible. They likely didn't bring air support, instead having space fighters. They also made large tactical errors: the trade federation was certain of their superior firepower, considering they conquered the Naboo effortlessly in one sweep.

      Also, the Naboo were part of the Republic; some level of hostility will eventually gain you bad attention. There's a difference between "trade dispute and invasion" and "endless bloodshed and slaughter". People like to think they can abandon their allies and keep their hands clean, while they know they have superior power to resist the same threats or, ironically, allies to come to their aid. When they see vicious attacks, they feel personally threatened and are motivated to do something about it. When pressed, diplomats will tell you they don't want to intervene and escalate a mainly-peaceful (!?) situation to violence--a comforting pile of horse shit.

    17. Re:You know... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If air support has been part of battle in the real world for a hundred years now, one would think that the Trade Federation would have invested in some jet aircraft. Review that final battle on Naboo, and tell me that some fighter jets wouldn't have obliterated the entire Gungan army in very short order indeed.

      But Lucas's ground battle scenes have never made sense. The Hoth and Endor ground battles had ludicrous hardware. If they were itching to beat the Rebels on Endor, why didn't they just go Tet Offensive; burn the forest to the ground. We're talking about a bunch of teddy bears and a very small number of Rebels with little more than blasters. I get that the first squad was taken by surprise, but once they realized Death Star II's shield generator was about to be compromised, why fuck around at all? What, they don't have napalm in a galaxy far far away?

      But the Gungan-Trade Federation final battle was really silly.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:You know... by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the casting was intermittently terrible. Midi-clorians were completely unnecessary? Hayden Christensen (as my wife calls him "Mannequin Skywalker") had zero screen chemistry with Natalie Portman and their characters' relationship was simply incredulous. The story arc and plot points were thin and uninspiring. All of these are forgivable flaws.

      The one thing I absolutely can not get past is the blatant racist stereotyping.

    19. Re:You know... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If air support has been part of battle in the real world for a hundred years now, one would think that the Trade Federation would have invested in some jet aircraft

      Of course, because we've brought jet air craft with us in interplanetary battles where most of the battle is fought in space or on the ground for the past 100 years, right?

      Face it: The trade federation brought an interplanetary attack force to a backwater planet that didn't have jets or armies of battle droids. The United States would not send air support to invade a pygmy tribe in Brazil; they would send soldiers with guns and light armor.

      The Hoth and Endor ground battles had ludicrous hardware. If they were itching to beat the Rebels on Endor, why didn't they just go Tet Offensive; burn the forest to the ground. We're talking about a bunch of teddy bears and a very small number of Rebels with little more than blasters. I get that the first squad was taken by surprise, but once they realized Death Star II's shield generator was about to be compromised, why fuck around at all? What, they don't have napalm in a galaxy far far away?

      Again: they brought space support. They can blow up the planet, or they can run around with guns. Look at how these people operate: they often bring troop carriers, but not fighter crafts. The bad guys chronically underestimate guerrilla resistance. They took friggin' speeder bikes into the woods to look for entrenched rebels who could be hiding behind trees ready to pelt you with a rock and knock you off your high-speed floating motorcycle.

      They also want intelligence. They wanted to determine if the base was there, capture any useful information, and capture any people with useful information. Scorched earth was considered sub-optimal.

      Hoth was kinda weird though. Giant machines vulnerable to people in floating sports cars.

    20. Re:You know... by thedonger · · Score: 1

      Obi-wan seemed like a real dick after that scene. His former friend and pupil is lying there, on fire and dismembered. Obi-wan can't even be bothered to finish him off and put him out of his misery. Instead he just leaves him there to be horribly scarred and rebuilt into a hate filled cyborg that thinks nothing of blowing up entire planets.

      I don't think they had a choice at that point except to make him look like a dick. The story had to continue with him as Darth Vader because that's how it was written 30 years prior. They painted themselves into a corner by trying to tell the story starting way further back than they could hope to tell in three mostly consecutive movies, and then by wasting almost one entire movie (Episode 1) just showing us crap.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    21. Re:You know... by thedonger · · Score: 1

      Easy there, fella. We all understand you've got the Ewok love.

      Their like pocket-sized Wookies! What's not to love?

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    22. Re:You know... by thedonger · · Score: 1

      *They are.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
  4. No by tsa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it can not return SW to its former glory. That is because the three SW films that came out first have got their cult status over the last 30 years. You can't just 'make' that.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:No by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing you say is wrong but what you imply is.

      The prequels were fundamentally broken. Episodes 4-6 achieved cult status because they were enjoyable the first time around (not to mention the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th). The prequels released stand alone, not as part of the already established series, would have been laughed out of the theater. It's not rose colored glasses, there is a large and irrefutable quality gap between the original trilogy and the prequels.

    2. Re:No by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Plus, it's Disney. They're not going to take any chances. So expect safe, bland, middle of the road writing combined with lots of CGI action setpieces for the trailers--all carefully test-marketed to within an inch of the producers' lives.

      It's produced by the king studio of all that is mediocre, and directed by the Ron Howard of his generation. Are you expecting fucking Stanley Kubrick here?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't understand what everyone is bitching about. Episodes "original" 4 - 6 were campy and fun. Episodes 1 - 3 were pretty good. Anyone who didn't enjoy them as what they were was probably expecting too much. Just watch and enjoy it. Some aliens may be annoying - just like Jar Jar. Some may sound Japanese - like the trade federation. Who cares? Star Wars was never good "cinema". It was entertaining. It isn't literature. It is fun sci-fi. Love it for what it is or don't. But jeez, all the complainers seem to think that 4 - 6 were some sort of offering from god. They weren't.

    4. Re:No by fermion · · Score: 1

      When people tell me they have seen Star Wars(no episode number), and they are too young to have seen it originally in theaters, I ask if they have seen it on VHS. If the answer is no, then they have not seen Star Wars. That is because instead of leaving it as a static piece of culture, like Casablanca, Rocky Horror Picture Show, or Go, with all the warts and other defects, Lucas has managed and 'fixed' it to attract new audiences. Instead of letting the sequels get the new audiences, he very proactively retconned the films. And this is why Star Wars can't be saved. I am sure the new films will make a lot of money. I am sure that many will enjoy it. But unlike Star Trek, which may yet bounce back from Abrams sticky fingers, Star Wars does not have anything resembling such a solid base.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:No by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they saw IV as a child. It was epic in a way things can only be epic to a child. No adult viewing of the prequels could possibly live up to that.

      Beyond that, in 1977 it was new. The effects were leaps and bounds beyond the last action sci-fi flick. Even the theater technology was just upgraded (remember when 'in 35mm' was a thing?).

      Based on toys, It looks like the kids now reacted to the prequels about the way we reacted to IV-VI.

    6. Re:No by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I know far too many adults who saw it when it came out, in 77's, and still disliked the prequals. They where boring, and the parts that weren't boring where poorly done.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:No by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I can't not think of a worse SW then one done by Stanely Kubrick.
      His style would just make it... boring.

      And Disney has been taking chances, you might want to pay attention if you are going to comment on them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:No by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Plus, it's an overrated series, even if you just talk about the original 3. So many people like it because its Star Wars, rather than because they actually like it. Rocky Horror Picture Show is another example, where you basically have to profess your love for it when it comes up in conversation, or everyone looks at you like you're a snake; even the guy who only saw 30 minutes of it 15 years ago. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy Star Wars. But the level of hype and status it receives from people is just way out of whack.

    9. Re:No by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      There are actually DVDs of the original releases, Vaseline blur hiding the speeder's wheels and all. I've got a set of double-sided DVDs for the original trilogy that are the special edition (the "original" Special Edition) on one side and the actual original release on the other. It's interesting (and weird) to compare them on an effects basis; these days the SE effects are primitive (black lines around CGI stuff, for example) but at least they're recognizably modern special effects whereas many scenes in the original releases remind me of strongly that "this is a prop" (same way the wobble in the Enterprise's fly-by, TOS opening credits, does).

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    10. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you actually want an explanation why they're bad movies, I'd suggest red letter media's star wars reviews.

      Link to the first one:
      http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

      This "you just liked it cause nostalgia" BS needs to die.

    11. Re:No by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The problem with the prequels was that, for all the incredible CGI techniques, they were just dull fucking films. You have that pod race that is the major mid-film set piece, and, it's absolutely a snoozer compared to the speeder chase at the middle of RotJ, even though in every way the pod racer scenes are miles more sophisticated from a visual point of view than the pretty brief speeder bike scenes.

      I think one could look at why the chase scenes in RotJ worked, and why the pod racer bit didn't, and I sometimes wonder if the all-too-perfect effects in some ways made the Phantom Menace seem more like watching a video game over one someone else's shoulder.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:No by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      This. I saw Star Wars Ep IV when it came out. I was blown away by the movie. It had its faults but by and large was a good film and deserved the cult status. Ep V was also enjoyable, Ep VI was okay but the Ewoks ruined it for me as I didn't find them believable. Had they used Chewbaccas people as they originally planned it would have worked for me I suspect.

      The prequels were badly acted, badly plotted, filled with unnecessary elements that destroyed the feel of the movies for me and Jar Jar Binks. They also wasted some great actors in those films feeding them really lousy lines. The immediate impression I got was "this was written to sell toys" and it was plotted accordingly.

      My annoyance is primarily that the first films were (to me) aimed primarily at adults and I enjoyed them as such. The prequels were aimed at 8 year olds and I try very hard to enjoy them but usually can't. If your introduction to Star Wars was via the prequels, then you probably enjoy the whole set, if it was via Eps IV-VI then you probably don't.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    13. Re:No by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      It takes a bit of effort and a lot of downloading, but it is possible to get HD-quality fan reconstructions of the original theatrical cuts of the Star Wars trilogy. This obviously doesn't help the mass market, but if you want to show your friends and family the original movies, it's as close as one can currently get.

      Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition
      Harmy's THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Despecialized Edition
      Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI Despecialized Edition

      --
      Visit the
    14. Re:No by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      No man. The films were decent. IV as a kid was a decent film and V was ok for adults even. VI sucked (Ewoks, recycled destroy Death Star plot).

    15. Re:No by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      The main difference for me, is that ep4-6 were ground breaking stories for their time. There was nothing even close in it's genre (ok maybe Star Trek, but not to the same level). And despite the campy acting, it was fun. Ep1-3 were annoying. The whole Trade Federation piece was boring, Young Annakin was an annoying jerk, teenage Annakin was an annoying whiney twerp, Jar-jar was just ridiculous, And Boba Fett as a Maori was just plain dumb, especially for us Maoris :) Nothing took me away to different place, it just came across as Americans in Space. This begs the question can ep7+ match 4-6? Probably not. Because the sci-fi genre is well understood now. In 77 in was new and exciting, but westerns in space are done to death now. Sci-Fi as a genre has probably jumped the shark, so unless they go extremely left field and piss off all their fans, Star Wars can only ever succeed (financially) as a merchandising vehicle for 13 year olds.

    16. Re:No by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The prequels released stand alone, not as part of the already established series, would have been laughed out of the theater. It's not rose colored glasses, there is a large and irrefutable quality gap between the original trilogy and the prequels.

      I enjoyed the prequels as much as Episode 4-6. Let's be honest, the special effects were good for their time, but the writing was lame even in the beginning.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:No by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There were laserdisc versions of them. But those came out after the trilogy when the retcon had already started.

    18. Re:No by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Actually there are three sets of movies here. The first movie (retconned to being called number 4) was intended to be stand alone. It works best as a stand alone movie, an homage to space opera. It has a beginning, middle, and an end without any cliff hangers. Then the next two were tacked on to ride the success of the first, and they mostly succeeded because most of the same people were involved. Especially Empires Strikes Back had a lot of rough going for awhile, and the script was being changed on-the-fly (it was a late script change that made Vader into Luke's father), but Return of the Jedi redeemed it somewhat (except for ridiculous ewoks). The quality of the second two do match the first one with improvements in special effects, however the first was best in terms of story line and thematic elements. The last three really did nothing to advance the franchise and didn't improve the over-arching story line in any way.

    19. Re:No by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      I heard they're replacing Jar Jar with Olaf the Snowman.

    20. Re:No by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Simple. The hover bike chase scenes in RotJ mattered, because lives were at stake, specifically those of the main characters that we cared about, not some nebulous planetary population. They also made sense within the movie plot.

      The pod racer setup was so horribly contrived... just an excuse to show a hutt and show off some special effects as a way to make some quick cash and setup Anakin as the golden child.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    21. Re:No by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      The only thing even remotely Disney that has ever taken a chance before in history was Miramax--and that was a brief fluke, due mainly to the unexpected success and skill of the Weinsteins, never to be repeated again.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    22. Re:No by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they saw IV as a child.

      No, that's not the problem - easily refutable. Ep. IV followed a standard Campbell-esque narrative structure with Jungian archetypical characters while The Phantom Menace was a complete bloody mess of a story.

      If the story is terrible and the characters are a confused bag of parts then the movie is going to suck. When you were born has very little bearing on such ancient principles.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:No by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      For a while. They did eventually relent and put the original release on DVD a year or two back. It's available on Netflix, I believe. I'd post a link but I only stream Netflix these days and the UI won't let me in the DVD section.

  5. It's Not Possible by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Unless they put something in your drink to reduce your intellectual and emotional capacity to that of a 10 year old you are not going to like it.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:It's Not Possible by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

      The theatre I frequent serves alcoholic beverages. This may help.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  6. I remember... by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...when the Star Wars fans were laughing at the situation with Abrams and the Star Trek movies that he made...

    I've noticed that they're rather quiet now...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:I remember... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      They're the ones who have to deal with frickin' Jar Jar Binks. The worst we have is... Tribbles?

      Lots and lots of Tribbles.

    2. Re:I remember... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      One million, seven hundred seventy one thousand, five hundred sixty one tribbles, in fact.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:I remember... by Quirkz · · Score: 2

      You know, I was thinking, what's the point of having a Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument, if it's the same guy running both shows? Is there seriously no other competent director out there who could help maintain a different flavor in one of those universes?

    4. Re:I remember... by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Hollywood hates trying different things.

    5. Re:I remember... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      He makes money. If Uwe Boll made money, he'd have movies lined up out the door.

      Maybe we can put Uwe Boll and J.J. Abrams in a room together and let them fight it out? Only first we'd have to give J.J. brass knuckles or something because of that incident where Boll punched out some guy at a "charity" boxing match.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    6. Re:I remember... by phorm · · Score: 1

      And Space Herpes...

      OK, that was Robot Chicken... but it was pretty damn funny actually (youtube it if you haven't seen).

    7. Re:I remember... by TWX · · Score: 1

      At least they didn't hire Michael Bay. Then the enemy would have been made out of explosions.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  7. Does anyone care anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Our childhood memories have been raped six ways to Sunday, but does anyone care anymore? Yes, stupid remakes of the movies we grew up with exist. The songs of our youth have been remade into cheap dance tunes and ringtones. The games we played are now free-to-play tablet apps with in-app purchases. The originals all still exist, should we need them - but do we need them? How long can you hang on to the past without becoming old instead of grown-up? I just wish they would spare the actors the embarrassment.

  8. make people actually care for the characters by stewsters · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Making it a bit darker in a gritty way would be nice. More character development. I saw this on reddit today, and I kind of agree with where that's going.

    1. Re:make people actually care for the characters by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Making it a bit darker in a gritty way would be nice

      Because god forbid anything be bright or light-hearted.

      Gritty and dark is always better? And everyone has to wear black, or really dark grey. Or maybe dark brown, but it has to be dark enough that it looks black. And everyone has to be a miserable tortured soul. That's a sure sign that its 'good'. Its like AAA FPS development right? Because all those need to be good is more grit and darkness with each iteration.

      From the link you posted...

      "Maybe kind of like a Star Wars version of Shepard from Mass Effect."

      Yeah! Make it like Mass Effect! That ended well right? /sarcasm

      More character development

      Agree. Make a compelling movie.

    2. Re:make people actually care for the characters by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      That story doesn't need to be set in Space, require aliens, Jedi, Sith or the Force, and is told literally every day on the news.

    3. Re:make people actually care for the characters by stewsters · · Score: 1

      I would like a story that doesn't need funny aliens to carry itself. The original stories were basically samurai westerns. The space part was thrown in.

    4. Re:make people actually care for the characters by stewsters · · Score: 1
      Because god forbid anything be bright or light-hearted.

      Fine, you can put JarJar in there, but at least make me care for him this time.

      Gritty and dark is always better? And everyone has to wear black, or really dark grey. Or maybe dark brown, but it has to be dark enough that it looks black.

      You can do gritty without it being dark. Its more of a roughness of the area. Think Hoth, that is gritty and white.

      Yeah! Make it like Mass Effect! That ended well right? /sarcasm

      I liked the mass effect more than I did the Star Wars prequels. Yeah, the star child ending was weird, but that was the part that wasn't gritty. The issue people had with it was that the premise of the series is that you make choices that matter, and it didn't really.

    5. Re:make people actually care for the characters by vux984 · · Score: 2

      You can do gritty without it being dark. Its more of a roughness of the area. Think Hoth, that is gritty and white.

      Nearly all of the original star wars sets were "gritty". That was one of the better Lucas decisions in the film.

      I was just taking the piss out of your post; because "make it gritty and dark" seems to be the new fashion. Whether its lord of the rings, or start trek, or a new FPS or anything else... it just needs to be gritty and dark.

      And then that sort of dovetailed with the black and brown palette that all things gritty and dark must now use to show us just how gritty and dark they are.

      I'd like to see something light and optimistic once in a while. I'm sick of everything needing to be 'gritty and dark'. Gritty and dark is just a cultural fad, and its starting to get old.

      As for Mass Effect in particular:

      The issue people had with it was that the premise of the series is that you make choices that matter, and it didn't really.

      And this is PRECISELY the last thing you want for a movie. Where you do all this plot and the characters do all this development, and then you have a big dumb deus ex machina at the end that makes everything they se tup to that point completely irrelevant.

    6. Re:make people actually care for the characters by naasking · · Score: 1

      That story doesn't need to be set in Space, require aliens, Jedi, Sith or the Force, and is told literally every day on the news.

      Art imitates life.

    7. Re:make people actually care for the characters by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I don't mind aliens as long as they don't have stupid (possibly racist) accents and act in idiotic manners. They don't have to all be gung-ho soldiers and there can be humorous parts, but not "hey, I stepped in animal dung" humor.

      I think one of the things that made Chewbacca work was that he spoke in "Wookie-language" instead of in some weird dialect of English. If you got rid of the worst of the "Jar-Jar antics" and replaced his dialogue with some "Gungan-language" (which wouldn't resemble English at all but that could be subtitled to English if need be), Jar Jar might have actually been a passable character. That might make for an interesting experiment. Take some scenes from Episode 1 and replace all Jar-Jar dialogue with a made up alien language. See if it improves the scene at all.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:make people actually care for the characters by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The original Star Wars was an homage to space opera. Maybe that's passe now, but making it dark and gritty just is the wrong tone for Star Wars. Then again, Phantom Menace was completely the wrong tone for Star Wars also.

    9. Re:make people actually care for the characters by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      Great, now I've got the image of Rainbow Brite running around the universe shooting people, throwing hand grenades at them, decapitating opposing players with a way too small for the job crystal covered dagger, and her furry covered friends making up the rest of the dancing army walking into Naziland (because its hollywood, and they have to find a way to put Nazi's into everything...lest we ever forget Nazis were defeated by Rainbow Brite and her band of furry death dealing rainbow colored mercenaries).

         

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    10. Re:make people actually care for the characters by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      I don't mind gritty and dark everywhere. I just want them to quit with the teal & orange. My retinas need a break.
      http://theabyssgazes.blogspot....

    11. Re:make people actually care for the characters by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      I was scrolling all the way through that and thinking, "none of this involves the Jedi" and I was fine with that. I suspect the second last frame was just for fun, but in thinking more on it, I realise one thing that really causes problems for a 'serious' Star Wars movie, is OP force-wielding characters. All of my favourite star wars books, now that i think of them, also don't involve force users, and are more about space battles and guerrilla squads doing guerrilla things, or the plots tend to be highly political in nature.

      Further musings: The Jedi we really remember are those who seemed to have used the force the least ... flamboyantly. Obiwan never used it overtly in star wars (never moved anything, only did mind-bending that once), and Yoda only ever used it to pull the X-Wing out of the swamp, as an object lession to Luke. The prequels I feel had an overly large amount of gymnastics and blaster deflecting which to me took away from how subtle their ability was. I've seen the same in Lord of the Rings. Gandalf always seemed to be less about overt use of power, and more about planning and orchestrating things. Zeddicus in the Sword of Truth was a bit too overtly magical (Pug in Raymond E. Feist's books too to an extent). But then those series are based in different settings.

      I feel that Star Wars would do better in keeping the use of force powers much more subtle and manipulative, instead of open and flashy.

    12. Re:make people actually care for the characters by ThePocketgeek · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I would watch the hell out of that. I really liked the idea of brining things down to a human scale, rather than enormous space battles. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE space battles. Space battles are the best. But tell me a good story about someone I really, really want to care about and you've got me forever. You've got me long after the show's over and the credits have faded into black. You've got me arguing about it with family and friends and pissed off at the season finally that left characters in the lurch. Nothing but a long, hot summer of waiting. I want that and the Star Wars (and Star Trek) universe deserves that. Of course, to get that, we need Hollywood to stop treating the audiences like 10 years old hopped up on Double Red Bulls with ADHD. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon.

    13. Re:make people actually care for the characters by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Back when they were making the Harry Potter movies and they kept saying, "Ooooh, they keep getting darker!" I said that the last movie was just going to be a black screen with the sounds of the characters being tortured. But then again, they made 2 movies out of a book where literally the entire first half of the book was them sitting in a tent bitching at each other, so apparently I'm just crazy.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  9. What "other hand" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Hey, I liked reading a lot of the extended universe stuff.

    But as much as I enjoyed that, I'm not sure much of it would make for a great movie. At least not the parts they are thinking about now.

    And the Extended Universe has a lot of weight to it by now. It's also pretty piled on, not leaving a lot of room for creativity...

    I think a fresh start for Star Wars is a great thing, using the originals as a base. To me that offers the most excitement, a good story re-thought by people new to the universe.

    So, I'm pretty excited about that aspect of the movie, that it is removed from a lot of chains and story expectations.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. It's hopeless. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    Stick a fork in it, it's done.

    Seriously, this isn't going to turn out well. For one thing, they got JJ "Lensflare" Abrams to do it, and he'll probably have the protagonists all be teenagers.

    But even if they had a good director, they can't just undo the Prequels. They're already out there, and they've already ruined Star Wars. The only conceivable way to fix this is to not do Episode VII yet, but to go backwards and redo the Prequels, and pretend the old ones didn't happen. They're obviously not going to do that.

    What's more, even if you ignore the crappy Prequels, Episodes IV-VI are quite old now, and are a product of a different time, and being sci-fi, would not ever pass as modern sci-fi movies.

    1. Re:It's hopeless. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      ...they can't just undo the Prequels. They're already out there, and they've already ruined Star Wars.

      Oh really?

      Granted, Star Wars isn't Star Trek, but I'd prefer that scenario than see 1/24 of a second of Jar Jar Binks ever again.

    2. Re:It's hopeless. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Stick a fork in it, it's done.

      Seriously, this isn't going to turn out well. For one thing, they got JJ "Lensflare" Abrams to do it, and he'll probably have the protagonists all be teenagers.

      Unlike the original series, where Luke and Leia were adults and Han Solo sported a walking stick with a hidden blaster.

    3. Re:It's hopeless. by naasking · · Score: 1

      But even if they had a good director, they can't just undo the Prequels. They're already out there, and they've already ruined Star Wars.

      Some of the fan edits actually make the prequels decent movies.

    4. Re:It's hopeless. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      God forbid the cast of a SW movie be young~

      If the prequels ruined the movies that happen after the center 3, then that is on you. You are carrying that baggage.

      Grow up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:It's hopeless. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but considering how badly JJ screwed up Star Trek with his space-time rift (Vulcan destroyed, "red matter", teenage Kirk, Scotty inventing a transporter that renders starships obsolete, etc.), I'm not so sure the result will be any better than Lucas's spew. I guess at least JJ's take would have decent dialog, even if everything else about it is ridiculous and implausible (a really bad accusation for a sci-fi movie).

      If they handed it all over to Ronald Moore, however, or maybe Joss Whedon, I think the results would be great.

    6. Re:It's hopeless. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Luke was probably an older teenager in the original series (17-18), I'll grant you that, though it's entirely plausible he was a little older (18-21) and had been staying home to help with the moisture farm, and with his poor background wasn't in a position to rush off to something better. Han was an adult, probably supposed to be 25-30 or maybe more. He repeatedly called Luke "kid", and was a well-known smuggler. You don't get to be a well-known criminal like that as a teenager. I don't think Leia was supposed to be younger than 25 at the very least; she already had some kind of high diplomatic position in the first scene of the first movie.

    7. Re:It's hopeless. by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      Luke (and Leia due to being his twin sister) were supposed to be 19 in ANH. Carrie Fisher was 20, Mark Hamill was 25.

    8. Re:It's hopeless. by jxander · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Teenage protagonists wouldn't be all that bad, honestly. Mark Hammil and Carrie Fisher were only in their early 20s when A New Hope released, and that panned out alright. Just make sure to get good actors, instead of Teen Heart-throb of the Month

      It's certainly be a lot better than trying to have the original 3 actors just trying to rehash their original roles, to appease the old fanbase. Don't get me wrong, they're all great actors, but I can just see the new film trying to shoe-horn 75 year old Harrison Ford back into the same Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder that he was 40 years ago. And he's simply not that character anymore. Harrison has grown and changed over the last 40 years. Han would have too.

      Also, if you look back on the original 3.. sure, they were considered SciFi, but the Sci part only existed to serve the story. They never stopped to explain the actual science behind ANYTHING. How do light sabers work? No one cares, they're laser swords. Why did that guy just vanish when he died? And how is the dead guy talking? Because he's awesome. Shut up and watch the movie. How does The Force work? Midocl-NO ... no one cares, they're space wizards, just go with it. And we did, and it was awesome. The Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than 12-parsecs ... that made ZERO sense and NO ONE CARED. That some fans wanked out some way for it to sort of make sense didn't help the story at all.

      You want to save Episode VII? Here's how: Have Luke, Leia and Han present, but only enough to help introduce the new characters (be they teens, 20s, or whatever) and then move on. They can hang out in the background, but should not be the main focus past the first third of the movie. Better yet, kill one of them. Have Luke go out Obi-wan style (that is, an active choice of self sacrifice) to save the new hero kid. Oh don't worry, Mark Hammil can float around as a Force Ghost if we need. But let his death inform the audience that this is not his story. That story is over. Oh, and if my previous paragraph wasn't a hint, skip the science part. Do what needs to be done for a good story, and if anyone needs an explanation, just say "because fucking space wizards."

      Oh and one more thing. No obvious big twist "I am your father" moment. We expect it, we'll be waiting for it. The bigger twist is for it to NOT go for the obvious. If you absolutely MUST have some twist or gut punch, dig deep and make it a good one. Think: 24 season 3. Ending with Keifer just breaking down in the car. Something no one sees coming.

      --
      This signature is false.
    9. Re:It's hopeless. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see the next Star Trek movie do exactly that: undo all the damage done by JJ, so that by the end of the movie, the timeline is restored to the original one.

      Just involve the Borgs or something, the current new timeline being excessively bad for them, so they're the ones switching it back.

      There, I just saved Star Trek within the laws defined by pre-JJ Star Trek.

    10. Re:It's hopeless. by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      Teenage protagonists wouldn't be all that bad, honestly. Mark Hammil and Carrie Fisher were only in their early 20s when A New Hope released, and that panned out alright.

      Mark Hamill was 26. Carrie Fisher was 20.

    11. Re:It's hopeless. by jxander · · Score: 2

      As a 26 year old, I choose to believe that 26 is still "early 20s"

      --
      This signature is false.
    12. Re:It's hopeless. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Anything but the Borg... Please! Incredibly cool the first few times, but if there's an entry in the dictionary for overused villains, the Borg are the primary entry.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:It's hopeless. by Elky+Elk · · Score: 1

      That's alright, I think 33 is still "early 20s".

    14. Re:It's hopeless. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not insinuating that Star Wars was a masterpiece of screenwriting, because it definitely wasn't. ANH was rather campy, ESB was good but still not a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, and RoTJ was actually a step down from ESB. Of course, all three were far better than the Prequels, but Star Wars' strength was never magnificent screenwriting, it was the visual effects: the droids, the ships, the Death Star, with a bit of mysticism thrown in. So it wasn't really that much different from what you complain about with modern sci-fi spending all its money on special effects. To be honest, there haven't been very many sci-fi movies with both huge effects budgets, and really excellent screenwriting. Alien and Aliens come to mind. Star Trek II does as well.

    15. Re:It's hopeless. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They never stopped to explain the actual science behind ANYTHING. How do light sabers work? No one cares, they're laser swords.

      Sci-fi doesn't have to stop and explain the science behind anything. Those things are all plot devices; they just need to seem plausible. If we already knew how to build such things, they wouldn't be sci-fi, they'd be "modern technology". Besides, how often does a movie containing modern technology stop to explain the science behind it. How many movies stop to explain how cellphones work? Lots of people don't understand those too well. How many movies stop to explain how cars work? You'd be surprised how many people don't understand the inner workings of ICEs. How many movies stop to explain how the internet works? (Lots of movies have hilariously bad depictions of computers and networking, and they're set in the present day.) Those technologies would all be sci-fi to someone from the past.

      BTW, if lightsabers are possible at all, they're likely implemented with plasma. We already use plasma for cutting metal.

      Why did that guy just vanish when he died? And how is the dead guy talking?

      This stuff actually is explained, sorta: it's mysticism. The vanishing dead guys were Jedis, who obviously have some special mystical powers, so they don't just leave a corpse when they die. And then their spirits are able to talk to the living. This is one reason why so many fans were pissed at the Prequels: George invented "midichlorians" to try to explain the Force scientifically, when it worked much better left as something entirely metaphysical. Trying to invent microbes to explain it largely removed the mystical quality.

      The Falcon made the Kessel Run in less than 12-parsecs

      Unfortunately, SW wasn't the only sci-fi movie written by someone who really didn't understand basic scientific terminology, such as the difference between units of distance and units of time.

    16. Re:It's hopeless. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Fine! Make the last two movies a fantasy, that was Q messing around with the Universe.

    17. Re:It's hopeless. by replicacobra · · Score: 1

      I believe you have forgotten about that German fellow... What was his name again?

    18. Re:It's hopeless. by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      As a 26 year old, I choose to believe that 26 is still "early 20s"

      Hahah, fair enough. :)

    19. Re:It's hopeless. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Calling them "the Borgs" kind of undermines the entire concept of their existence. There is only one Borg. All is one and one is all.

      Except for the hot one you stuff into a catsuit, obviously. And that other one you find. And the occasional isolated family. And...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    20. Re:It's hopeless. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The part where Vader was poking Obi-Wan's empty robe confusedly really seems to imply that even he didn't understand how it worked.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    21. Re:It's hopeless. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was a little odd. It's probably because it was the first movie made and Lucas hadn't really thought all this stuff through at that point. It's already well-known that Lucas isn't the greatest scriptwriter, to put it mildly.

  11. Midi-chlorians begone! by juanca · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SW EP VII, Scene 1

    Leia: Luke, after studying for years the effect of Midi-chlorians in the way we use the Force, I've come to the conclusion that they bare no effect in who can or cannot become a Jedi, all we know about them is wrong...anybody can be a Jedi...

    Luke: whoa!

    --
    --Necesito una chela, bien fria...
    1. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by kruach+aum · · Score: 2

      If anyone can become a jedi, why are jedi special? Their restrictive moral code? The universe would be filled with light-saber wielding telekinetic lunatics of all it took was wanting it hard enough.

    2. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by aicrules · · Score: 1

      ...by injecting promicin? Or by being injected by whatever Dr Suresh Mohindar developed? Or ....

    3. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Nah, they'd be just like all those black belt wannabees we have today.

      Only a few would actually accomplish master status.

    4. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by unitron · · Score: 1

      Bear.

      (Bare means uncovered, unclothed, naked, unaided...

      "I wrestled the big brown bear with my bare hands"

      although probably not for long unless the bear had been heavily drugged)

      Better yet, "have no effect on who..."

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    5. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      If anyone can become a jedi, why are jedi special? Their restrictive moral code?

      Methinks you need to go back and watch Empire. There's a whole section in the middle with this little green guy that basically is all about your question.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    6. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Too bad Lucas didn't review that whole section of Empire before creating the concept of midichlorians. I tend to think of the Prequels as prequels to a film trilogy that vaguely resembles Episodes IV-VI, but populated by wooden, semi-coherent beings that need some bacteria to make them walk or talk at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Good call

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by Cealestis · · Score: 1

      You could look at it the way around. Maybe the midi-chlorians are there because of they're force sensitive, rather then the cause of it. Simply a physical response to being force sensitive.

    9. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Then Leia immediately bares something else...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    10. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      There aren't a universe of light-saber wielding lunatics because hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

      And it seems to me that in the first movie (ANH) they stated that anyone could learn to use the force. That it flows around and through everything. Perhaps that was Yoda saying that about the force between the land and the x-wing. So the midi-crap was just stupid.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    11. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      I've always thought Han was a retard and never understood his appeal. If there were a religion on earth right now that would let you move things outside your body with your mind and reflect bullets with a blade of light, you best believe literally everyone would be an adherent. We wouldn't even recognize it as a religion; it would be the only belief-system around because of the immediate obviousness of its superiority to literally everything else. In fact, guns probably wouldn't exist either, because of how useless they would be. Oh you've got a gun? That's cool buddy, I can LITERALLY SEE THE FUTURE.

    12. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and getting the remote from the coffee table without having to sit up from the slumped back reclined position would be much easier with the force also. And that's to say nothing of the bag of chips all the way in the other room.

      In Han's defense though, he does go on to say he has not seen any evidence that the force exists. Jedi had been almost wiped out at that point.

      Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. [Kenobi smiles] Anyway, it's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    13. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by juanca · · Score: 1

      Bear.

      (Bare means uncovered, unclothed, naked, unaided...

      "I wrestled the big brown bear with my bare hands"

      although probably not for long unless the bear had been heavily drugged)

      Better yet, "have no effect on who..."

      Thank you for explaining the difference unitron, english is not my native language and I don't always get it right :)

      --
      --Necesito una chela, bien fria...
    14. Re:Midi-chlorians begone! by unitron · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sure you're much better in English than I would be in your native tongue.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  12. Rocky V by Lucas123 · · Score: 2

    Another Star Wars sequel shouldn't be made in the first place. You can only take a movie story line so far and then you're just milking nostalgia for the sake of box office returns with no art or soul. The first three movies were perfection. Enough already.

  13. Worried I am not by portwojc · · Score: 2

    If Disney knows how to do anything it's to take the work of others and run with it.

    Episodes I-III barely touched the extended universe just as fan boy nods - the new ones can have this easily too.

    The books are separate from the movies. The masses don't know what all happened in them anyway. We'll wish to see it on screen but I'm thrilled to see what they do.

    In closing. They are doing fine with Marvel and Disney paid a billion dollars for Star Wars. A BILLION dollars. They won't mess this up. If they do well it's safe to say the mouse will be very upset.

    1. Re:Worried I am not by JWW · · Score: 1

      Disney spent 4 BILLION for Star Wars.

    2. Re:Worried I am not by tekrat · · Score: 2

      Lone Ranger / John Carter.
      Worried I am.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    3. Re:Worried I am not by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Lone Ranger / John Carter.
      Worried I am.

      The Avengers (2012)

      That's probably the best-case scenario for the Star Wars spin-offs... They'll be superficial and cliched, but tolerable, paced fast enough, and with enough action to get people in the seats.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  14. It's Disney by wbr1 · · Score: 2

    Jokes aside, Disney is one of the worst pushers of extended copyright and draconian content laws. I for one won't be giving them a dime of my money. If I want to see it, I know how I will.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:It's Disney by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget they'll push more cartoon like characters into the mix just to liven things up.

      So for episode VII I expect:

      1) a Cameo from an aged Jar Jar or Miley Cyrus or any other Disney groomed actress/singer. Wait, maybe we'll see a Wookie twerking?
      2) a new comical CGI generated character that will be a cross between goofy and daffy duck.
      3) extensive merchandise tie-ins.
      4) a script that will only appeal to people under the age of 14.
      5) live acting on par with the talents of Keanu Reeves.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:It's Disney by westlake · · Score: 1

      Jokes aside, Disney is one of the worst pushers of extended copyright and draconian content laws. I for one won't be giving them a dime of my money. If I want to see it, I know how I will.

      The pirate scrounges around for copies of the music and videos that other people have been willing to pay for.

      The paying customer gets a voice in future projects;

      In the case of "Frozen," a voice backed up by one billion dollars in ticket sales for the first run theatrical release alone.

      "Frozen" will get a big-budget sequel and is headed for a long run on the Broadway stage and quite possibly twenty-five years of regional stage productions, both amateur and professional.

  15. I liked Cloverfield by kruach+aum · · Score: 2

    I think a Star Wars/Cloverfield mash-up could be cool. The sith would set loose several huge Rancorrs on Coruscant to further the purposes of the dark side and then the jedi could carve them up and create buildings from the skin and bones that would grow on their own under the influence of the Light Side and turn Coruscant into a giant pulsating heart of Force. This would accidentally produce a tear in the Force and a new Chosen one would be born to restore balance. Twist: the one to bring balance to the Force is the first Rancorr able to become a Jedi. It mind-melds with the flesh-and-bone half of Coruscant and becomes a living planet capable of moving itself across the galaxy because of the number of Midi-chlorians it now commands, smashing itself into other worlds to absorb their life essences and drain Midi-chlorians from any Force sensitives.

  16. Keep Uncle George far, far away... by fallen1 · · Score: 2

    George himself broke so much canon, or "retold" it, that it is not even funny. I've gone back and watched the original trilogy many times (I own them on laserdisc), to keep it fresh in memory so when I get into discussions about original vs prequels I'm not looking back with nostalgia.

    Here is one great example:
    Yoda: Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.

    vs

    Qui-Gon Jinn: Midi-chlorians are a microscopic life form that resides within all living cells.
    and
    Qui-Gon Jinn: Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you'll hear them speaking to you.

    Complete and total turn around. The Force is now administered through a third party to let the Jedi/Sith know what to do - the will of the Force? *gags* *pukes* That is exactly opposite of what Yoda tells Luke - in that LIFE creates the Force. Quo-Gon says without midi-chlorians life could not exist and that you must "hear" the midi-chlorians speak to you. If that was the case, why didn't Yoda explain that to Luke? Because it was some retconning bullshit Lucas came up with to give life to his god-complex character.

    There are many, many other examples of complete "WTF?" moments between original and prequel.

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

    1. Re:Keep Uncle George far, far away... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The midichlorians were so absolutely unnecessary, and in many respects made no sense to the way the Force had been explained before. In the original films, Vader could sense Luke was strong with the force. Everything was predicated on the Force being this all-encompassing field that everyone, even rocks, had (remember Yoda explaining the Force to Luke in Empire... "the rock, your ship"). They did nothing to enhance the viewer's knowledge of the Force, and rendered much of the original Dagobah scenes', where Luke is receiving his tutelage, just plain wrong. It's baffling why they are in the prequels.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Keep Uncle George far, far away... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      cf. the bit in Stargate Atlantis where they could give people the Ancient gene via injection

      "Okay, so we've got the Base Force-Sensitive shot for 50 credits...the Generic Rent-A-Jedi for 500, and the Instant Yoda shot for 5000. Which one do you want?"

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  17. Abrams already ruined Star Trek by nctritech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why should we expect anything less for Star Wars? Fuck plot, let's move the camera so much that the audience gets motion sickness! BRIGHT LIGHTS! BIG EXPLOSIONS! VULCANS THAT HAS FEELS!

    The vast majority of Hollywood movies have been shit ever since this thing happened. Independent and classic film both seem far superior, especially since they have generally made up for poor access to special effects with creativity in other areas. (Remember when special effects were, well, special?)

    1. Re:Abrams already ruined Star Trek by Agares · · Score: 1

      I agree with you very much. I wish Star Wars and Star Trek were what they use to be.

    2. Re:Abrams already ruined Star Trek by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Abrams already ruined Star Trek

      Oh, so you're the guy who's opinion is the objective truth.

      There is a lot you could help clear up.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Abrams already ruined Star Trek by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The thing that bugs me about that formula isn't so much that there's a formula, but that it's the only formula.

      I can't remember the number of times I've watched a film knowing exactly how a scene was going to go because I've seen the formula played out so many times. It's almost a bit of a death spiral at this point because the prominence of the formula. If the story misses or screws up a beat the audience notices and starts questioning why. If you're trying to be self-aware that's fine, hell Joss Whedon's specialty is visibly screwing with conventions, but if you don't want people thinking about the story structure you're kinda screwed. If follow the structure people start counting off the beats, but it's worse if you change it because people get confused waiting for the missing beats and miss the story.

      The problem would go away if they just added one or two different formulas, you'd still have an outline for a well told story but the outline itself wouldn't be so visible to the audience.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Abrams already ruined Star Trek by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Informative

      BRIGHT LIGHTS! BIG EXPLOSIONS! VULCANS THAT HAS FEELS!

      It seems that over time people have forgotten quite a few things about Vulcans and Spock. Here's what's been canon for thirty years:

      First, Spock is not Vulcan. He's half-Vulcan, half-human.
      Second, Vulcans do not have an absence of feelings. In fact, it was established that Vulcans can have STRONGER emotions than humans, but they train to suppress and purge those feelings. Way back in Star Trek: the Motion Picture (an event that would been long after the events of the Abrams movies) Spock was shown going through a ceremony that would have purged the last of his emotions.. but it was interrupted, and the priestess declared that he still had human emotions.

      So the whole "spock can still have emotions" thing doesn't contradict what was already established. Spock still has a lot of work to do to attain Kolinahr.

  18. In the words of a great film... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    "Let them die."

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  19. product of its time by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    Like most things, star wars is a product of the culture at a particular time, so the further we get from that time period, the harder it is to recapture. It's sometimes possible to reinvent, but most times, the reinventions that actually do ok share little in common with the old. That's just the way it is. Lucas waited too long to flesh out the story and it shows.

  20. I long thought of an answer.... by Brethil · · Score: 1

    I long thought of an answer.... and after careful consideration I can synthesize an appropriate answer: NO!

  21. How to make money in film by kalayq · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Take series that people already have a connection to, getting around having to do so on your own.
    Step 2: Get rid of everything but the basics of the storyline, including what people liked about the series in the first place.
    Step 3: Try to reinvent the wheel using the same paint job of the original.
    Step 4: Release the movies and hope that the fans connection to the previous movies will push them into seeing it, even though it gets bad reviews.
    Step 5: Find new series, rinse and repeat.

  22. Re:Yes. by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

    If they cast M.C. Chris as anything, I'd probably go on opening night.

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  23. No. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will."

  24. Re:Begging the question by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Nope. The original trilogy managed to appeal to a wide swath of the population. It managed to be a cultural phenomenon with a scope so massive it's hard to relate to unless you actually lived through it.

    The prequels tried to pander to small children and failed.

    The originals treated the idea of being a Flash Gordon knockoff seriously. The prequels not so much.

    Much like some Trek suffers from too much Roddenberry, Star Wars suffers from the same effect. An artist that built a success on his vision as distorted by collaborators creates a big steaming pile because no one is willing to say WTF.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  25. Re:Abrams can't be worse by nctritech · · Score: 1

    Oh god. The memories.

    Internet alcohol binge commencing.

  26. painted into a corner... by jpellino · · Score: 2

    Yup. He painted himself into a corner by releasing them as 4,5,6,1,2,3. But that need not be a problem. There are plenty of times when we know what's going to happen - such as with any movie based on a book - LOTR, Harry Potter, GoT... so what's a director / producer to do? MAKE US CARE. Use actors that we want to watch just because they are such great artists. He had decent actors at his disposal - he did well with Liam Neeson, less so with Ewan McGregor (see Life Less Ordinary or Trainspotting if you're not sure how good he can be.) He had Natalie Freaking Portman. This is the actress who chewed up the scenery in The Professional. She looked by Ep3 like she was the greenest member of a high school drama cast. I cared what happened to people in 4,5,6. What held me through 1,2,3 was the whizzy parts, the arc of the story, and the four-parallel story technique that was actually done so well you don't really notice it.

    I think Abrams can salvage it and make it thrive. He may not follow the canon, but hey - it's story telling. Did you ever hear a story told the same way forever? We can all excuse The Kessel Run if it gives us Ep4, right? Same here. Heck, I'll spot him JarJar if he makes a movie that I want to turn right around in the lobby and watch again - like he did with Star Trek.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Telling a story in a new way has nothing to do with canon. Sticking to canon is about continuity with the stories that have already been told, even if you're putting your on style on how it's told.

      What he did with the Star Trek movies was moronic. I get wanting to reboot things, start telling a new story based on details of a universe - I often enjoy them. The problem with what he did was that it made no sense whatsoever. There were huge gaps in logic, huge plot holes, character logic issues, fundamental misunderstandings of the science/theory behind SCIENCE fiction, etc, etc. I could write a book on everything wrong with those movies without touching on any canon. The worst of it was that he broke what is at the heart of the franchise: that it's a story that attempts to envision what a utopian society might look like. He's not the first to do so in the franchise's history but he was one of the worst offenders. The reality is that you could change the names/uniforms/etc to just about anything and it wouldn't have mattered because other than the name and a few details they had nothing to do with what Star Trek is.

    2. Re:painted into a corner... by Hussman32 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I like J.J.'s work (minus lens flares), and I'm willing to support it. A nitpick, the definition of 'Star Wars canon' will be argued here,

      My view (and apparently George Lucas' at one time or another) is that the movies are canonical, the rest is fanboy fan fiction. Some of it is very well written fan fiction, and it brings you back to that special place in your head where you enjoyed the Death Star blowing up, but they are still not what Lucas made.

      I agree 1, 2, and 3, were not to the story quality of 4, 5, and 6, and I also agree that J. J. is not George Lucas so even these new ones won't technically be a Lucasfilm, but George signed off on it and he's a consulting producer, so that's canon enough for me. Here's hoping the force is with them.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    3. Re:painted into a corner... by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it's a fucking heinous thing to allow said fanboy fan fiction to published (for all intents and purposes, blessed by Lucasfilm) for money, and then shit all over it. It's a slap in the face to those authors and those who bought the works. If I were any more pissed, I'd demand they be forced to recall all of it.

      --
      ...
    4. Re:painted into a corner... by jpellino · · Score: 1

      1. ST is not the bible. Abrams 1 gave the franchise what it needed - a swift kick. Abrams 2 was just not a very good film and over-reached.
      2. TOS is a product of the culture of the 50s and 60s and was in some important ways hobbled by being so. It was always way too cerebral and libidinous to be a lot of fun. I'm not sure "utopia" was the reason it was the way it was - I suspect a lot of its porcelain tone and appearance was based on what they knew how to do in the 60s and what they were allowed to do on network TV.
      3. As for SF being solid science - well, I think that went out the door with half the goodies they had. Much of the science in science fiction is indistinguishable from magic and only internally sensible. The details of the science are less important than "how will humans do if they get new abilities or experience based on different sci/tech". He didn't go that far off the rails.

      I'm in a theatre for two hours, you need to entertain me, outsmart me and give me something to think about for a long time after.

      --
      "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    5. Re:painted into a corner... by TrekkieGod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TOS is a product of the culture of the 50s and 60s and was in some important ways hobbled by being so. It was always way too cerebral and libidinous to be a lot of fun...I'm in a theatre for two hours, you need to entertain me, outsmart me and give me something to think about for a long time after.

      Which is it? Do you cerebral and intelligent so that you can have something to think about for a while, or do you want mindless fun?

      There's nothing wrong with mindless fun movies. Sometimes I want to shut my brain off and be entertained by James Bond. But there is a place for cerebral movies. Now, to be honest, none of the Star Trek movies fit that bill, unfortunately. Even the original movies went the action route, they didn't really follow the footsteps of the cerebral star trek episodes. What JJ Abrams did was to turn the action into CGI-fest, which is ok, and turned the mindless action into something that will actively prevent you from suspending disbelief, which is not ok.

      Seriously, if I could have turned my brain off and enjoyed the action, it'd be fine. But he kept jolting me awake with things like "a supernova that threatened to destroy the galaxy". Does he realize how big galaxies are? That stars go supernova and hypernova regularly? Because your average Star Trek viewer does. Or how about the second movie where they stop a volcano eruption with a "cold" fusion device. Where "cold" means it makes the volcano cold and freezes the lava. Which for some reason stops the eruption, because it's about temperature, not pressure, right?

      I can't shut down my brain if the movie keeps saying stupid shit that forces me to analyze what they're saying. If they just had gone the other way and explained less, it'd be an improvement. But then, it would also be nice if they didn't fill it with plot holes. That also forces me to analyze the movie.

      Look, you want to make a Star Trek movie that is pure action, to bring in the non-nerds to the theater? I'd rather have the cerebral Star Trek movie, but I'm actually ok with it, because that's the strategy that every other Star Trek movie took. We just have the ability for better special effects now. But the JJ Abrams movies were horrible. If they didn't have the Star Trek label to them, they would still be fucking horrible movies. I'm not raging against the reboot, I don't care that he rebooted the franchise. I care that he made two really bad movies. If they had handed over the franchise to Uwe Boll, they might have turned out better. Well, at least it couldn't be worse.

      What about Star Wars? Could he make good Star Wars? Probably not, because he has no incentive to. The absolute crap he puts out is generally commercially successful, so that's what's he going to do again. What bothers me is that the best Star Wars stories are not the movies, but they're in the expanded universe. So here they have the opportunity to make Episodes 7,8,9 by making a movie version of the Thrawn trilogy (and yeah, recast the actors as younger people, give the old actors cameos if you want). Instead they go the opposite way and completely break with expanded universe. That doesn't bode well for what JJ wants to do with them.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    6. Re:painted into a corner... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      The worst of it was that he broke what is at the heart of the franchise: that it's a story that attempts to envision what a utopian society might look like

      No, the entire Next Generation era of shows broke that. Or maybe you think a society of people dressed in onesies, with no culture, no music (until billy bob country singer was thawed out) and nothing but sanitary, regulated "living" where everyone looks and acts the same as a "Utopia"

      I thought the world portrayed by the Next Generation was a depiction of a dystopian hell.

    7. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) The franchise did need a swift kick, just not to the head (it had enough of that with Voyager/TNG movies/Enterprise).

      2) Actually, Star Trek was the most expensive pilot in history and pushed the boundaries by having a black woman, a Russian, an Asian, etc. Those things were unheard of at the time. In the original pilot "Number One" was a female character - she was cut/replaced because she didn't test well with women oddly enough. As to the utopian nature of Star Trek it was intentional. Roddenberry wanted a world that had moved past racism/nationalism/war/social ills. The reason for this was two fold, one was that it allowed them to explore social issues in a non-threatening manner. Two, that the aliens/situations could represent aspects of humanity as they were in the 50s/60s contrasted against a utopian ideal.

      3) The science grounds the story. Even if the science is just theory and in the end is proven to be false, the strength of scifi is that these things that are and might be possible. It's that grounding that inspires and brings scifi above just another special effects mind numbing waste of time. Star Trek is far from perfect in that regard, there's a lot of stuff that's bogus/wrong, but there's also a lot that was based on actual science and some that became reality http://www.nasa.gov/topics/tec...

      Give me all the mind blowing special effects you want, so long as common sense/logic/basic intelligence are respected along with a solid story being told. I don't expect the next revelation in film - just something that has more intelligence than Love Guru.

    8. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "sanitary regulated onesie living" was a reflection of the fact that they were on the flagship of a psudo-military vessel. Militaries around the world wear much stupider things in this day and age:

      http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpima...
      http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpima...
      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... --I'd take a Star Trek onsie over this any day

      The civilians depicted did not dress in onesies, far from it - the costume design (especially in TOS) for the aliens/civilians was as varied and out there as it gets - again, it was a contrast of normalization (everyone dressing the same - a very 50s attitude) vs the creativity that is possible when you don't have the expectation of the norm (what the alien cultures provided)

      In TNG they started to bring in more personality to the characters with Picard's anthropology, Riker's music, Worf's Klingon culture, etc and the sets "10 forward", the holodeck, etc without losing the ability to contrast. In DS9 they used the contrast to great effect - especially with what they did with Jake and Nog. Jake became less and less "federation-like" in his attitudes and dress as the story progressed while Nog made the opposite journey.

      Throughout TOS/TNG/DS9 there were always very clear distinctions between "military" and non-military dress, attitudes, & culture for all the major races.

    9. Re:painted into a corner... by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 1

      Abrams didn't write either of them. Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman wrote the first one and Damon Lindelof joined them for the second one. But I do concede that if you have Abrams, you get some combination of the rest of them.

    10. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      He was the producer and director on both films - he had the ability to change the script or even get a re-write.

    11. Re:painted into a corner... by JDAustin · · Score: 1

      The proper viewing order is
      4 - A New Hope
      5 - Empire Strikes Back
      2 - Attack of the Clones
      The Clone Wars tv series
      3 - Revenge of the Sith
      6 - Return of the Jedi

      Why?

      First off, in this order Phantom Menace is unneeded (think about it). Without Ep1, Jar Jar is a slightly annoying background character. We first meet Anakin and Padme when they are proper ages. And none of that midichlorine crap. Now when Empire ends in the cliff hanger, we go right into the entire back story of Darth Vadar. The emperor, who's shown only a little in Empire, is properly revealed.

      The Clone Wars series, after a rough first season, expands on the jedi we see killed due to Order 66. The Clone Wars gives Revenge of the Sith the emotional gravitas it was missing. Finally, seeing the backstory of Vadar right before Return of the Jedi makes RotJ a better film.

      Are their plot holes still? Yea (r2d2 w/ jets, Padme mentioning her mother, etc). But it just works.

    12. Re:painted into a corner... by JDAustin · · Score: 1

      Umm.....Chekov wasn't in the show until season 2....

    13. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      Umm.....Chekov wasn't in the show until season 2....

      It was a poorly constructed sentence which combined a couple thoughts - having a positive Russian character a few years (5?) after the Cuban missile crisis was quite a change from the norm. Other media of the time depicted the Russians as evil (From Russia with Love) or bumbling (The Russians are Coming). So yes, he was not in the pilot, but the overall point is the same.

    14. Re:painted into a corner... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Which is it? Do you cerebral and intelligent so that you can have something to think about for a while, or do you want mindless fun?

      Ah yes, the false dichotomy program is clouding your mind. The Matrix Has You, Trekkie God.

      The fact remains that since time exists there is more than one event in a movie. Thus, a more competent film maker could achieve both a cerebral and intelligent plot with lots of "mindless" fun, all while remaining in the cannon universe. The mark of skilled creators and craftsman, and indeed even Hackers, is their ability to pull off amazing feats in a limited medium. Only a pathetic unimaginative fool dismisses such a fertile wealth of world crafting to tell new stories.

      Look around you. Hollywood is stuck in a retarding reboot loop that not even the faster than light Sci-Fi franchises could escape. Realize the truth: Rebooting doesn't solve any problem, it's primarily the mark of an amateur. ST TNG proved that the world can live on, that your past characters and plots can pass into the world's history and the future can march forward birthing new stars with their own unique and interesting characteristics.

      I understand the appeal of diverging from the themes Star Trek had, but if you must destroy the universe do that, then they are not Star Trek movies anymore by definition: If the universe we know is thrown out the window then what remains is merely name recognition. Novices would be better off using a different universe to tell their story if they can't figure out how to play well with others.

    15. Re:painted into a corner... by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      If I ever get around to it I'm going to re-edit the entire of the 6 films into 2 films mirroring the style of KILL BILL. heck STAR WARS even has the same numbers of letters in the words and the cover can be luke + lightsaber instead of Uma. That way you only need 2 / 3 handy flashbacks from the prequels to get back story and you can miss out a load of ewok garbage too. Just got to try to make Part 2 less talky

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    16. Re:painted into a corner... by sh00z · · Score: 1

      But the truth is the original three movies didn't (and still don't) need any prequels/sequels/bollocks.

      After the first movie came out, I was actually quite intrigued, and looking forward to seeing what the "Clone Wars" were about. From the name, there was clearly a fascinating story to be told about the morality and ethics of cloning, that must have led up to a huge, all-encompassing holy war on the order of Dune's Butlerian Jihad. The Clone Wars may or may not have been connected to the fall of the Republic; Obi-Wan's original tale to Luke was ambiguous. There was some intriguing fan fiction positing that cloning could have led to the corruption/dissolution of the Jedi Order (taking advantage pun-like naming opportunity through characters called "OB-1" and "OB-2.")

      The "Clone Wars" we got were anything but. The fact that the events leading up to the rise of the Empire would still be called "The Clone Wars" a generation later is still something I can't wrap my head around. Why in the name of all that's holy aren't these events known as "The Trade Federation Uprising," or "Collapse of the Republic?" Clones were only a portion of the action, and certainly weren't what the war was about.

    17. Re:painted into a corner... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure. I wouldn't put it past him to make Episode 7 about the Millenium Falcon and an X-wing chasing Grand Moff Tarkin's son in an Imperial Cruiser through a black hole to destroy the ice planet Hoth a week early and thus insure that the Empire Wins.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    18. Re:painted into a corner... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      The worst of it was that he broke what is at the heart of the franchise: that it's a story that attempts to envision what a utopian society might look like.

      I kind of agree with you, but I would re-frame it in a way that I think is not quite so bad. The thing is, his Star Trek reboot and sequel are fun space-adventure movies, which is great, but the movies are not what many fans were hoping for. The old series and movies were not just fun. When the stories were good, they were nerdy and philosophical. There was action and fighting and that kind of thing, but the action took place in the middle of a fairly dry, intellectual social critique. Abrams too the components of those dry scifi stories and retooled them into a somewhat mindless fantasy/adventure movie. Many people enjoyed them, but many fans weren't entirely satisfied.

      With Star Wars, on the other hand, the original stories were already inconsistent fantasy/adventure movies. So it's possible that he'll do a great job.

    19. Re:painted into a corner... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Just to point this out, the onesies only existed for a short time in TNG. Later on, their uniforms actually were separate pieces, consisting of black pants and a tunic, which is why the "Picard Maneuver" was necessary.

      That aside, I think there was some tension at times about the nature of the Federation and Starfleet. On its face, it was somewhat utopian-- money and poverty were abolished and people were more free to pursue the activities that they'd like. On the other hand, it's a world ruled by a vast paramilitary organization. It seems sort of fascist at times.

      I think this was largely ignored for a long time. There were some misguided individuals within the Federation, but it was usually treated as though it were an almost perfect benevolent organization that protected large portions of our quadrant of the galaxy. As far as I recall, it wasn't until Section 31 comes up in DS9 that the idea of corruption within the Federation was explored.

    20. Re:painted into a corner... by miller701 · · Score: 1

      Chekov wasn't added to make some sort of point about All humans working together, the network just wanted someone who looked like Davey Jones

    21. Re:painted into a corner... by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      This is known as the "Machete Order": http://static.nomachetejugglin...

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    22. Re:painted into a corner... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it's a world ruled by a vast paramilitary organization.

      A) If Starfleet wasn't the military force, I'm not sure what was. There was no "para-" about it.
      B) You can have a "vast military force" without being a crushing fascist regime. Compare and contrast the U.S.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    23. Re:painted into a corner... by TJNoffy · · Score: 1

      Hell, all of the scientific inaccuracies aside, I couldn't take Kirk being promoted from boot ensign to commander of the Enterprise after no time on board. What happened to all of the other officers in the chain of command with seniority and more experience? Maybe it's just my Navy (which Starfleet emulates) background, but that was pretty dumb.

    24. Re:painted into a corner... by Dancindan84 · · Score: 1

      Ah, the Machete Order http://static.nomachetejugglin...
      My favourite is actually a slight variation:
      4 - A New Hope
      5 - Empire Strikes Back
      1 - The Phantom Edit (Fan edit version with lots of the hokey crap taken out. Actually makes it a decent movie. It's mentioned in the link above).
      2 - Attack of the Clones
      3 - Revenge of the Sith
      6 - Return of the Jedi

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    25. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      It was ruled under a democracy with an elected president. The stories were told from the perspective of Starfleet, the space equivalent of a merger between a Navy and NASA.

    26. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      The network wanted a Davey Jones, Roddenberry used the opportunity to push the envelope.

    27. Re:painted into a corner... by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      I couldn't take Kirk being promoted from boot ensign to commander of the Enterprise after no time on board.

      I agree with you completely. In my mind, it made Kirk less badass. In the original timeline he goes through some shit on his way to captain. As an ensign on the USS Republic, he had to make a choice between friendship and duty, and ended logging a bad mistake made by a friend that cost that friend the chance to ever be promoted to captain; As a lieutenant on the Farragut he encountered the cloud creature, which ended up killing his captain, something he blamed himself for many years afterwards; he spent some time as an instructor at Starfleet Academy, with a reputation for being an incredibly tough teacher; he was awarded several medals and distinctions and had an exemplary record as was read in the episode Court Martial...

      By the time Kirk became captain, he had a proven record and the career and life experience to go with it. He was young, but he wasn't green. Then JJ Abrams just went and took all that away from him.

      But even that I could forgive if it had been an otherwise good movie. There are actually some real life precedents for stuff like that. Nathanael Greene was promoted from private to Major General straight out. It was the Revolutionary War, and it was an army that was just formed in response to the Siege of Boston, not exactly a well established military, so a bit easier to understand.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    28. Re:painted into a corner... by N_Piper · · Score: 1

      I'm in a theatre for two hours, you need to entertain me, outsmart me and give me something to think about for a long time after.

      And that's what Abrams has shown in his film work to not be able to do, What he CAN do however is give you allot to SPECULATE on, What is the monster, Who is Walter, Why does Riverside Iowa look like southern California, Where is this island supposed to be, When is this going to end.

    29. Re:painted into a corner... by MPAndonee · · Score: 1

      Telling a story in a new way has nothing to do with canon. Sticking to canon is about continuity with the stories that have already been told, even if you're putting your on style on how it's told.

      The reality is that you could change the names/uniforms/etc to just about anything and it wouldn't have mattered because other than the name and a few details they had nothing to do with what Star Trek is.

      This, is one of the best comments I have ever read on Slashdot.

      I am glad so many /. agreed with me and modified you to "insightful".

      I am one of the few Trekkies in the world who did not buy into what J.J. was selling in the theater and to this day, I have not seen the 2nd movie he made. I understand where he's coming from in the reboot, but I don't have to agree with it.

      I am afraid the same thing is about to happen to Star Wars, and that saddens me.

      --
      Nothing to see here -- move along now...
    30. Re:painted into a corner... by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      *blushes*

      I just wish I could correct the typo ;) hehe

    31. Re:painted into a corner... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      The problem with what he did was that it made no sense whatsoever. There were huge gaps in logic, huge plot holes,

      You just described every star trek movie and episode ever. In fact almost every sci fi story ever.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    32. Re:painted into a corner... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      they didn't really follow the footsteps of the cerebral star trek episodes..

      Holy crap the only way anything out of the star trek anything could be described as cerebral is if your 5 years old and find "hitting $SOMEONEDIFFERENT in the face for fun is bad" a moral dilemma. They are about as shallow as everything else on TV.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    33. Re:painted into a corner... by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      My problem with the new Star Trek movies is that they're fun, but they're not Star Trek. They're an SF action movie in Star Trek clothes.

      Star Trek is always about the human condition. When I leave the theatre after a ST movie, I want to be asking myself if I would have done the same thing as in the movie.

      The Adams ST movies have none of that, they're as empty as a Transformers movie.

      A Star Trek movie needs to make me wonder and question myself.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    34. Re:painted into a corner... by camazotz · · Score: 1

      I'm in a theatre for two hours, you need to entertain me, outsmart me and give me something to think about for a long time after.

      I think by that criteria he failed 2 out of 3 then. Abrhams made a Star Trek that didn't outsmart anyone: it confused, annoyed and disrespected its audience more than anything. Did he make us think about it for a long time after? I'd venture to suggest that people dwelling on the starship-sized plot holes is not quite what you intended, and suggest that no, these films were essentially irrelevant. That's a shame, because by contrast I still think about and enjoy the original films and many of the TV episodes, but the two latest movies were spectacle without substance. I'll agree his ST take was popcorn-at-the-movies-bam-wow-wizbang entertaining, though.

  27. Just give us something new by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    like something that has never been done before. I love the og Star Wars and all the Star Trek shows but I'm sick on the same lets "reboot" every 20 years bull shit that is happening.

    GIVE US SOME NEW SCI-FI. I think The Matrix was the last show when you can really say WOW I'll be re-watching this for years to come. Yes there were plenty of other good sci-fi but nothing to keep talking about for 40 years.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Just give us something new by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Firefly (and, relatedly, Serenity) are more recent than the Matrix and fill that space for me, but I agree.

      Unfortunately, economics are against us. SF is expensive to make and has a relatively niche audience. The fiscally responsible way to make SF is to go with what is known to be popular and works well. Experimental plots and untested settings are a huge risk. Avatar was one of those (the setting, not the plot) and did fantastically... but it was also a massive gamble in terms of investment.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  28. It's all about the story.. by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

    There were some pretty terrible story elements in both Abrams Star Trek movies that made stories in TOS and TOS movies (as well as some of the other Star Trek series) sure to not happen in the new Abrams reality and some of the characters were acting very out of character since Trek fans know them like they were members of the family.

    The problem is that Star Wars fans have been feasting on material that is now going to be thrown out and we will now have a new Star Wars reality, if the story is good and the characters true to the originals it may stand a chance of being good but if the story changes the original characters in ways the fans disapprove of it's not going to be well received by the traditionally minded.

  29. Avoid medechlorians and jar-jar by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

    Pretty easy:

    1) avoid medechlorians, JarJar and Ewoks.

    2) Avoid really stupid looking special effects

    3). Avoid really bad dialog

    4). Avoid truly stupid plots.

    5). Avoid completely transparent toy marketing.

    Then the movie will make a billion dollars, as will the next two. Its really not that hard.

    1. Re:Avoid medechlorians and jar-jar by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Replicate what was good in the first movie (also known as number four). Keep the movie self contained and not as a vehicle for sequels. Be a space opera. Keep the pace moving, but slow down occasionally instead of being frenetic. Don't make an action scene too long (ala pod racing). Add just the right amount of over-the-top good versus evil.

  30. Betteridge's Law of Headlines by neminem · · Score: 1

    It is crazy that that particular meme has not yet been posted, as this is a pretty clear example of where its invocation would be accurate.

  31. Disney Crap Sequels Division by Animats · · Score: 2

    Disney has an entire division devoted to cranking out crap sequels to hits. They're responsible for Cinderella 2 and 3, Bambi 2, Pocohontas 2, Mulan 2, Tarzan 2, The Lion King 1.5 and 2, The Jungle Book 2, Lilo and Stitch 2, and a host of others, most of which can be found wherever used DVDs are sold. So grinding out Star Wars 7 is in line with the established Disney production pipeline.

    Yes, Star Wars 7 is nominally a live action film, but today that's just a few principal characters on top of CG animation. Most of the pixels come from the animation teams.

    1. Re:Disney Crap Sequels Division by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's an absurd claim. Disney spends an enormous amount of effort and money on "originals," and that's what these will be to them considering the amount of money to be earned. Why would you compare new Star Wars movies to straight-to-DVD cartoon sequels for young children?

    2. Re:Disney Crap Sequels Division by Prien715 · · Score: 2

      I love John Lassester (Pixar, including Toy Story and Bug's Life ).

      From your link:
      On June 22, 2007, management of DisneyToon Studios was turned over to the control of Ed Catmull and John Lasseter under the banner of renamed Feature Animation studio, now called Walt Disney Animation Studios. As chief creative officer, Lasseter called for the cancellation of all future films in production or development at DisneyToon Studios that weren't connected to a Disney Consumer Products franchise. As a result, planned or in-progress sequels to Dumbo, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and The Aristocats were all cancelled, among other projects.[1][9] A few days later, it was announced that DisneyToon Studios would no longer produce future sequels to Disney animated films, but will instead focus on spin-offs and original films.[10]

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    3. Re:Disney Crap Sequels Division by Animats · · Score: 1

      will instead focus on spin-offs

      Yes, Disney issued such a press release in 2009. They're not "sequels" now, they're "spin-offs". Since Catmull and Lasseter took over, they've released "The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning" (a prequel, not a sequel!) "Tinker Bell", "Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure", and "Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue" ( a spin-off with two sequels) and are working on "Planes: Fire & Rescue" (too early to tell if it's a spin-off or a sequel).

    4. Re:Disney Crap Sequels Division by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there are two more Tinker Bell movies you are missing. There is the winter land one with Tink's twin sister that lives in the snow (Secret of the Wings or something) And there is a new Pirate Fairy movie also.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  32. Re:Simple Answer: NO by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Wait... is that supposed to be bad?

  33. Getting ahead of yourself with the headline by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Ask Slashdot: Can Star Wars Episode VII Be Saved?

    Episode VII has barely started filming. Did you mean "Can Episode VII save Star Wars?"

    Well... I expect it to be at least the 4th best film in the franchise.

    That's not including the Ewoks movies, of course.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  34. No by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    The 1st one ever released in the late 70s was a gem, and in my opinion remains a stand-alone classic. Everything after it became less story and more eye candy, and the frustration of moving audience targets. ...Seems they are going to milk the franchise dry until it becomes unprofitable, then discard it like an empty milk carton.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  35. Re:Star Wars fanois Sucks! by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The original Star Wars movies were great because we saw them when we were 13 years old, and they were filmed to appeal to 13 year olds. Watch it again now, and if you enjoy it that's likely due to fond memories of watching them as a child, not because they're such great pieces of filmmaking on their own.

    yes plover, you nailed it

    often when I hear people talk about why the love trek or star wars or D&D or video games it relates to exactly the same...I just sort of insert "I like nostalgia and fun things" for whatever they are babbling about (fyi of all these i'm a 'trekkie' and a gamer sub-genre of tetris nerd)

    there *is* of course the times when these silly things that were aimed at middle schoolers have really interesting storylines that go beyond their target market

    that's up to interpretation, but it's all about distinguishing **why**

    Star Wars and Alien are awesome scifi films but are hugely different in tone/subject matter....I'm sure some fanbois would argue that both are equally great in all ways but they aren't. Alien is written and acted much better in all ways. Again that's an interpretation but it's one most people share and its easily defendable.

    I say the original trilogy are all "classics" for their own reasons...but in film discussions should be viewed as a whole...sort of like LotR...the prequels are kind of a B-/C+ retread, but reduced to its component parts it has some moments that are "classic" (note that the fan-edited versions of the prequels are much better)

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  36. You really happy to be a haters? by w1zz4 · · Score: 1

    I don't understand all this hate shit against Star Wars VII. Movie is in early stage, last SW movie was quite good (SWIII), ok we had two "bad" one before, but the III still a pretty decent prequel. Bunch of old school actors are back, JJ didn't made a bad job with Star Trek (way better than any previous ST movie previously release than JJ ones). I don't think disney made a bad Job with X-Men franchise nor Iron Man, nor Avengers (those movies revenues are speaking by themselves). At least have decency to wait the movie release before hating it...

    1. Re:You really happy to be a haters? by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      "JJ didn't made a bad job with Star Trek (way better than any previous ST movie previously release than JJ ones)."

      I couldn't disagree more. The Abrams Star Treks were, in my opinion, the worst of the lot by far. They were bad movies that often made no sense at all, but even worse (and unforgivable) was that they failed to even try to stay true to the established Star Trek universe.

      I expect the same treatment of Star Wars. That is, a hatchet job.

  37. Will it really matter? by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    You know it will have a "blockbuster" opening, probably clearing the production budget in a couple days. Just from a curiosity factor, people will go just to see what Luke, Han and the rest look like.

  38. No faith by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    After the unforgivable hatchet job he pulled on Star Trek, I don't trust JJ Abrams with any more of my childhood playthings.

  39. Kevin J Anderson is wiped from continuity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't care about the movie, but at least everything Kevin J Anderson did to the Star Wars universe has just been erased from continuity. That alone is the best thing that's ever happened to Star Wars.

    1. Re:Kevin J Anderson is wiped from continuity! by Zembar · · Score: 1

      Can we get Disney to buy the rights to Dune and do the same thing there?

  40. How does one not disappoint in VII? by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Really, the stakes are too high. Too many people have memories of IV, V, and VI that are too fond. Even if we had a young George Lucas directing it we would still likely deem it a failure after the first 10 minutes. If you try to make it feel like the original trilogy people will discard it as "uninspired" or "derivative". If you try to make it groundbreaking people will say you "tried too hard". And obviously he can't reboot it like he did with the new Star Trek movies for much the same reasons.

    I actually feel bad for JJ Abrams, as he will be the scapegoat in the end regardless of how good - or bad - the screenplay is.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  41. I can happen by haplo21112 · · Score: 2

    1. Deep Storyline, focusing on story first action second, that's what made the original trilogy good
    2. Don't throw away the content the fans are screaming for...ok some of the expanded universe is just silliness, but there is some good stuff...AKA Timothy Zhan books...keep most the concepts from there...Mara Jade, Leia and Han's kids...
    3. Attribute 1,2,3 and to unclear memories and retcon some of that crap!
    4. Don't make new characters poor clones of previous characters
    5. for the love of god make sure the villains aren't Vader/Emperor retreads...and PLEASE don't find some half asses way to resurrect the them!

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
    1. Re:I can happen by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      5. for the love of god make sure the villains aren't Vader/Emperor retreads...and PLEASE don't find some half asses way to resurrect the them!

      You mean like how Zahn did with the Emperor's ghost and clone?

      I read Zahn's books. While certainly better than the other trash to be found in the Expanded Universe, they were pretty bad.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  42. Re: Begging the question by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    The whole point was that the original trilogy was very much a whiz-bang adventure story with cool looking aliens (well, providing you exclude the cantina scene from A New Hope). Things were goofy, lots of knockoffs of Golden Age B film serials, but it was all a great deal of fun. Even when things got a bit more serious in Empire and RotJ, there was still that goofiness; Yoda was funny and cool all at once, the Emperor was spooky and just over the top enough that a Nazi SS uniform wouldn't have been out of place.

    And then you get the prequels, filled with a late middle aged Lucas's political angst, his desire to make these big expensive films that would make some sort of point beyond just being some crazy action sequences interrupted by a little green guy spewing Zen-like metaphysical phrases. Oh no, it had to be about THE FALL OF DEMOCRACY AND THE RISE OF TYRANNY, and everything that actually made Star Wars a silly and fun experience was tossed out the window.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  43. Get rid of J.J. Abrams by kheldan · · Score: 2

    Don't get me wrong: I liked Lost and Fringe. However I wanted to strangle someone over Star Trek. The first three Star Wars movies were pretty good, I thought, and didn't need to have anyone pile on for more profit, but they did it anyway. I'll even admit to kind of liking the animated television series. But now Disney mucking about with this, and getting J.J. Abrams involved in it? Screw that, it's probably going to be a crime against humanity by the time they get done with it. Memo to Disney: Dump J.J. Abrams. I'd rather he keep making weird television series and stop mucking about in movies. Of course if I had my way I wouldn't have Disney having anything at all to do with anything Star Wars, either.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  44. C3-PO was dreaming by luckymutt · · Score: 2

    Opening scene of ep VII should be C3-PO waking up from a 30 year hibernation mode and say: "I just had the strangest dream that I was built by a young Darth Vader, hung out with an irritating alien no one liked, and everyone spoke in the most flat, two dimensional manner. It was a horrible, horrible dream. I'm certainly glad none of that actually happened."

    That is one way that ep VII could save the series and get it back on track.

  45. no by csumpi · · Score: 2

    it will be shit, just like episodes 1-3. except more masturbatory cg fx. but it will make shit loads of money anyway.

  46. Maybe by accident by Salvage · · Score: 1

    Abrams directs action/drama videos. Now, they can have a Star Trek theme, or a Star Wars theme, or whatever theme seems appropriate, but they're action/drama. So how much does a Star Wars theme mesh with Abrams' approach to action/drama?

    As far as establishing new canon goes, I'm rather more skeptical. I rather get the impression that either consistency is a low priority, or he's having later parts of the video retcon earlier parts, or something.

    I, for one, find that Abrams' videos are not to my taste. I expect to skip his take on Star Wars.

    --
    T. M. Pederson
    "Lies, Damn Lies, and Documentation"
  47. Bad camera work by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    Fuck plot, let's move the camera so much that the audience gets motion sickness!

    Every Hollywood blockbuster is going to follow the same basic formula because that's what sells tickets. Rehashing The Hero's Journey isn't exactly new, either.

    Disney didn't buy the rights to Star Wars so they could make a 3 hour space opera - they are making a Summer blockbuster to get a return on their investment. You can be sure that means a Hero's Journey based plot and lots of explosions. If you think that looks like shit, no one's forcing you to watch it. No one's taking away the multitude of indie movies where the characters swear at each other for two hours and everyone dies from AIDS at the end.

    On the other hand, "shaky camera" needs to die and never come back. JJ Abrams and Michael Bay both should be locked in a room and forced to watch portrait video shot on an iPhone by a hyperactive 6-year-old until they learn the value of proper camera work.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  48. Re:The Return of Jar Jar Binks. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I have to admit that I like Jar Jar. The force channels his goof-ups into good deeds. Why would the force only make use of careful people? Chaos may be more difficult for the Dark Side to counter because it's by definition unpredictable, keeping the Dark Side off course and confused.

    It's a lot like (vintage) Manu Ginobili of the Spurs (NBA): his herky-jerky style confused the defense, allowing him to either get to the basket or get fouled.

    It's all very logical, and good for a chuckle. Go Binks!

  49. No secret, just make an amazing movie by quantaman · · Score: 2

    If you make a sequel within a few years of the original film you're essentially making another version of the same film. The actors are roughly the same ages and playing the same characters, the action and direction style are similar. You have a pile of things that worked great and all you have to do is tweak the formula.

    Such was the case with the original trilogy. The first film was great, the next two were variations on the first film so they were great as well.

    But if you make the sequel decades later the characters are different, the action and direction are now outdated in the current era, all you have is the mythology which gets people in the door but doesn't tell you how to make a film.

    Thus the average decades late sequel ends up being as good as the average new movie, it sucks. You hear about most movies for a year or two and then forget them. The only difference with the sequels to the big franchise is they stick around so you keep remembering how not amazing they were.

    The second trilogy died with the first film. They came up with a crappy film and were stuck re-shooting that for the next two prequels.

    There's no secret for making Episode VII great. Even with the same actors the characters will have to have grown and they need a new feel. Hopefully Star Trek has shown Abrahms what not to do and he'll find something good. But make no mistake, this is essentially a new SF action/adventure movie. It might be great and it might suck just like any other movie.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:No secret, just make an amazing movie by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't agree. Star Trek The Motion Picture largely worked, and I've come to appreciate it far more over the years. In fact, the the ST:TOS films did a pretty damned good job all in all of moving the franchise from the 1960s TV series into the film world, and set the stage for the franchise's later successes. The key to TOS, television series and films, was that the characters were so sufficiently defined that you could literally hang any damned story you wanted on them and make it work.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:No secret, just make an amazing movie by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I don't agree. Star Trek The Motion Picture largely worked, and I've come to appreciate it far more over the years. In fact, the the ST:TOS films did a pretty damned good job all in all of moving the franchise from the 1960s TV series into the film world, and set the stage for the franchise's later successes. The key to TOS, television series and films, was that the characters were so sufficiently defined that you could literally hang any damned story you wanted on them and make it work.

      Doing the sequel later doesn't mean you can't have a great film, it just means you don't really have a special advantage.

      Now the Star Trek films did have one special advantage most distant sequels don't have in that they already had a main cast with a lot of chemistry. And the new Star Wars will have that to a degree though they might lose it if they add new main characters.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  50. Dump JJ by dougiewright · · Score: 3

    Get rid of JJ. The man's a menace to everything sacred.

  51. You Can Never Go Home Again by Scot+Seese · · Score: 2

    No, because you can never be a child again. So you will never view Star Wars through the lens of the young person you were when Ep. 4/5/6 were released.

    Lucas had stuffed teddy bear people, cute robots and cartoonish muppet alien characters in all of the original films. Fans loved them. Lucas put silly characters in Ep. 1/2/3 and they were panned.

    Did Star Wars change?

    No.

    You did.

    --
    THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
    1. Re:You Can Never Go Home Again by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I remember watching RotJ ad intensely disliking the Ewok scenes. They still seem absurd, pointless and jarring, and are one of the reasons RotJ is the lesser of the original three films. Yoda, on the other hand, was one of the breakout characters of the whole franchise; wise, powerful and a bit cranky, pretty much a kung fu master transplanted into a galaxy far far away.

      But Jar Jar was a whole other level of awful. First of all, he was, whether Lucas intended it or not, a horrible racial caricature, but even if you look beyond that, he literally serves no purpose. As a comic foil, which C3PO was so successfully in the first films, he just stunk. Lucas clearly didn't like him, as he spent a good deal of script space having the other characters abuse him, culminating in Jar Jar selling out the whole bloody Republic by recommending to the Senate that they give Palpatine unlimited powers. C3PO and R2D2 may have been comic foils, much as the characters they were based on from Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, but they were still, by and large, loyal and trusted companions. Jar Jar was a pathetic idiot intensely disliked by everyone.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  52. short answer by yanyan · · Score: 1

    No.

    Long answer: Fuck no.

  53. ... as Obi-Wan said ... by Chemware · · Score: 1

    "I have a bad feeling about this"

  54. A New Hope, with probabilities of disappointment by BoFo · · Score: 1

    The original Star Wars was simply a good, swashbuckling tale that just happened to take place in a future time far, far away. The ideas and representation of that future were novel and ground-breaking at the time, but its an excitement that simply could not be repeated today. The SFX have improved exponentially in films since then and the franchise has become tired and worn.

    The answer, IMO, is simple to express but may be impossible to execute. Good story, less reliance of special effects, good and interesting characters that have good chemistry on the screen can still make a good movie and great experience. They could do like Star Trek and mirror current political and mortal dilemmas in their world where the subjects can be examined as a commentary on the current day.

    Also, please god, REAL science fiction authors!

  55. Incorrect by aepervius · · Score: 2

    I first saw star wars I was 20+ (due to a combination of not owning a TV for a long time after I left my parents home, and before that I watched few TV). And they are good film with an arc, comply to standard story telling and film. The prequel do not comply. Check the red letter media review, plinkett bring a lot of good points :
    * You can easily tell who is the protagonist and main hero in SW4,5,6. You cannot with SW1 and arguably SW2.
    * character ? Character in SW4,5,6 can be described with trait independently of their role. It is much harder with SW 1,2,3
    * Plot ? The plot in SW4,5,6 is simple and follow the standard heroic epic there are plot holes but not many Villain actions make sense as a wehole. In SW 1,2,3 the plot makes no sense whatsoever as the villain is givign contradictory order to its goal.

    and I pass many other. Look I did not watch SW when I was young , but already an adult. I could recognize it as a nice fantasy (not SF) story with knight in space. The throne room scene still leaves frisson in me. The lava scene is forgettable. Lucas mistook the fight in the throne room for what it was. He then added fighting everywhere to break the boring dialogues.


    As a whole the prequel are poor tredning to bad. It is not only rose colored glasses , but simply a fair assessement.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  56. Agreed but marketing is in the way by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Not many people liked the cannon of star trek. In fact many young people I talk to find the best episode of all series of star trek, then one without fight and the one with philosophical implication, the most boring. So the two newest star trek were filmed for the new audience , not the old one, as an explosion loaded action flick. Which is why JJ Abrams was chosen for the star trek reboot. It sounds to me that SW7 will be like that : action loaded. Now for SW it is not too bad. The question is : will the protagonist have character development, or will the plot and characters be secondary, and that is the 2$ question.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Agreed but marketing is in the way by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

  57. So... by alphazip · · Score: 1

    the same guy is directing Star Wars and Star Trek?
    I can see it now: Captain Kirk will be making out with Princess Leia, and Han Solo will shoot first at the Klingons.

  58. J.J. Abrams by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    If it's J.J. Abrams, then the central theme will be around time travel. Maybe Luke will become evil and travel back in time to kill himself. There you have it :P

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  59. fanboi AC with a sig by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Star Wars (as it was called then) paved the way for the first Star Trek movie and most SciFi movies that came after. It's that big a deal.

    "it's that big a deal"

    right.....

    above comment is an example of a fanboi who has his internal self-concept tied up to his interpretation of his existence in terms of a sci-fi film franchise

    as long as 'Star Wars' is an epic film series unlike any other that changed the world of not just sci-fi but *all film* then this AC's internal self-concept is balanced...

    "Along came this renegade movie director."

    when someone puts 'Star Wars' into context with other films with no ego connection...well...it pisses fanbois off...because you're piercing the fiction of their self-concept

    I can tell this partially because parent is an AC, yet somehow has a signature at the end of the comment...

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  60. Only if Jar Jar is back by bregmata · · Score: 1

    Please please make sure Jar Jar comes back. He was what made episodes I and II. I'm so looking forward to getting my picture taken with him, and maybe R2D2 in mouse ears, at Walt Disney World.

    I hope they do up a Tattooine cantina as a family-style restaurant and some animatronic singing Ewoks having a hoe-down would be most excellent. Maybe they could transform that Epcot sphere into a deathstar for the lulz and have daily incinerations of the Canada pavilion.

    It'll be the swagalicious product that will remake Episodes VII-IX what the originals were: a massive toy sales ad campaign. Nobody does that better than Disney. Nobody. Mees-a thinks-a so.

  61. Re:I am THRILLED by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I agree absolutely. Even the best EU books are mediocre at best, and the worst are worse than fan fiction. There was no way Disney was going to take this franchise it had spent a bazillion dollars and hang it on the EU series'. No one in their right minds would.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  62. No it can't - not for you - not for me by Foppel · · Score: 1

    It cannot be "saved" or "salvaged" or "restored to former glory" simply because the original 3 Movies live in our childhood memories as these amazing experiences and fantasies and colourful images. No one can create a movie which will compare or surpass your childhood memory.

    Even with the argument that the original 3 Movies are still good if one watches them again now, you will just remember or re-live your own personal childhood memory.

    Are the 3 Original Movies better than the 3 newer ones? according to my 5 year old son yes - but then again for him it is Darth Vader that sells it. Besides Darth Vader it is Yoda for him in the 3 new movies he loves. Will he think the original 6 movies are by magnitudes better than Part 15 - 18? I am betting everything that he will feel that way.
    I am still looking forward to watch every single one of them together with him, because we love the Star Wars, each for his own reasons.

  63. Re: Begging the question by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    The original films were all about good battling evil, and they managed to do it, for the most part, without weighting the film down with a whole political sideshow. Just look at the gravitas of the scenes with Vader and the Emperor trying to pervert Luke to the Dark Side. Pretty good action, lots of cackling by the bad guy, Vader being Vader, and it worked because it was done economically. It helped that the filmgoer could relate to Luke, who was played as a likable fellow by Hamill, as opposed to Anakin, played by Hayden Christensen, an actor with the charisma of a block of wood. Frankly, I didn't care at all about Anakin, whereas Mark Hamill's Luke was someone I could like, care about, feel the tension as he fights his darker half, and then cheer at is final rejection of evil.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  64. This is a job for ... by devnulljapan · · Score: 1
  65. Re:The problem with the "Prequels" wa by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    so using "voting with your wallet" metrics, they are better movies

    Scan your eyes across to the "adjusted for inflation" column. And I'm sure that is using official government figures also.

  66. Star Open Wars by Xamataca · · Score: 1

    For the freaking bloody love of god, Star wars should be open source and tha damn VII episode script uploaded to github!!


    or whatever..

    --
    ***Game Over***Insert Coin***
  67. Re:fanboi AC with a hilarious sig by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    i have to give you props for this...I lol'ed:

    ---
    "Fuck you", how's that for a signature?

    otherwise, you're justifying your behavior...I put SW in a real world context and it casued you cognitive dissonance b/c you value SW way, way more than most people

    SW **fandom** is part of your self-concept...that's what I'm saying...your intpretation and application of the film to your life makes it part of your self-concept...and when someone makes SW look bad (rightly or not) it provokes a reaction in you

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett