Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD** — Page 86

Baronlando said:

I fell down that rabbit hole last year and discovered that blog considers TFN too moderate and disloyal. They're about a year away from sending suicide bombers to simon pegg's house. JJ and episode 7 are already on their shit list.

What did Abrams do to deserve such fate? The nerds are pretty vocal about how he should ignore the PT, sure, but he's done a good job of avoiding passing judgement on those. There's no details on ep VII yet and Abrams has been very PC and very diplomatic so unless I've missed something they should pretty much love him for not siding with all of the people who bash the PT.

m_s0 said:

Baronlando said:

I fell down that rabbit hole last year and discovered that blog considers TFN too moderate and disloyal. They're about a year away from sending suicide bombers to simon pegg's house. JJ and episode 7 are already on their shit list.

What did Abrams do to deserve such fate? The nerds are pretty vocal about how he should ignore the PT, sure, but he's done a good job of avoiding passing judgement on those. There's no details on ep VII yet and Abrams has been very PC and very diplomatic so unless I've missed something they should pretty much love him for not siding with all of the people who bash the PT.

It could be that differences between the directing of Lucas and the directing of Abrams worry some fans.

While that's a valid concern, I think Super 8 showed Abrams isn't all shaky cam and lens flares. He mimicked 70's Spielberg pretty well in that movie, and these rumors about how he's trying to get the look of the film grain just right for Ep7 say to me that he's trying to make a movie that feels of a piece with the OT.

darklordoftech said:

m_s0 said:

Baronlando said:

I fell down that rabbit hole last year and discovered that blog considers TFN too moderate and disloyal. They're about a year away from sending suicide bombers to simon pegg's house. JJ and episode 7 are already on their shit list.

What did Abrams do to deserve such fate? The nerds are pretty vocal about how he should ignore the PT, sure, but he's done a good job of avoiding passing judgement on those. There's no details on ep VII yet and Abrams has been very PC and very diplomatic so unless I've missed something they should pretty much love him for not siding with all of the people who bash the PT.

It could be that differences between the directing of Lucas and the directing of Abrams worry some fans.

But that's a good thing.

TFN goes to disturbing lengths to defend the EU and the continued existence of the Sith in it and their theoretical ST. They say "Sith is an idea." "Sith" is a sect, not an idea. They also say that users of the dark side of The Force who aren't called "Sith" will confuse non-fans, a claim so rediculous that I don't know what to say.

DominicCobb said:

Jeez, anyone who makes a first time viewer watch the PT than the OT should be eaten and then slowly digested over a thousand years.

The funniest (or saddest) post I saw at TFN regarding the order to see the movies for a new viewer:

"I am 100% confident they will enjoy the story 1-6, so have them start with The Phantom Menace and that will leave them wanting more...."

I was going to respond, "Or that will leave them wondering why they should watch the other 5 movies!"  But I been banned there so many times, I can't make comments like that anymore.

I want to point out that nobody ever says, "Anakin became a Sith." (although he did). Everybody always says, "Anakin turned to the Dark Side." In addition to that, "Sith" is largely a prequelism, so Disney and Abrams might want to avoid it.

Episode VII without Nick Gillard. That's good news...

twister111 said:

 

darklordoftech said:

In addition to that, "Sith" is largely a prequelism, so Disney and Abrams might want to avoid it.

I can't speak for Abrams but after what Disney did to Power Rangers, shortly before Saban saved it, I wouldn't put it past Disney to embrace prequelisms.

 

I can't wait for "padawans" and midi-chlorians.

A personal curiosity: what (if anything) will the Jedi robe be in the ST?

The word "Sith" is far from a prequelism

"Dark Lord of the Sith" has been used as Darth Vader's title ever since 1976, in the novelization of Star Wars. That's 6 months before the movie even came out, so the word "Sith" is older than the movies. It's as old as "The Journal of the Whills." Calling it a "prequelism" just because it was never spoken in a line of dialogue in the original trilogy ignores the fact that it's been around just as long as the original trilogy has.

What it meant was vague back then; it wasn't used to refer to the Emperor and it didn't necessarily have to be a sect of the dark side. Of course if J.J. Abrams and Disney use the word now, they are bound by the specific definition it's been given over the years.

I don't think it's enough to distinguish between words used on screen vs. words used outside the movies in tie-in materials.... I think a further distinction should be made between words that were around at the same time as the films vs. words that were invented later when the prequels came out. For example, in Return of the Jedi, we are never told in the movie what those small furry creatures on the forest moon are called, but publications outside the movie referred to them as "Ewoks," and since those publications are as old as the movie itself, nobody disputes that they are Ewoks.

Luke's Jedi dressing in the Tatooine robes would've been a nod to hermit Obi-Wan. For them to use those robes in the PT made zero sense, though.

Although "Sith" might not technically be a prequelism, the association is still there, and there is the whole "unlimited powah" thing. In addition to that, post-ROTJ Sith would be like a dead character returning and wouldn't be very threatening.