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?"
...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...
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!
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.