A new Star Wars Trilogy on the way? — Page 4

TV's Frink said:

I've never understood this point of view.  I remember having this discussion (if you want to call it that) with vaderisnothayden several times.  You don't have to consume the new product.  It's pretty easy to ignore, even on this forum.  I do it all the time with the EU.  But why take it away from those who might enjoy it?

 I agree it is easy to stay away from SW stuff, as I have never gotten into EU, or the new Clone Wars stuff.  But there is a point where dillute your product just to make money, and to me it cheapens it a bit.

Why didn't Coppola make Godfather IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, etc. ?  Why didn't Seinfeld continue on with Season 9, 10, 11, etc. ?  Why didn't the Beatles continue making music together after 1970 up until John Lennon's death in 1980?

The reason all of the above are iconic is they knew when to stop, and didn't dillute their product. Godfather III was savaged, as even Coppola admits it wasn't that good and he did it because of financial problems, but he knew when to stop.  They all could have made more money with more movies, TV episodes, and albums, and there would have been a market out there that would have paid for it.  But that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. 

Sorry, but Star Wars and George Lucas is not looked at the same as it was in 1983.  Star Wars was iconic, and in some ways the OT still is, but it has been dilluded by the SE, the PT, and the endless knockoffs that puts it in the same vein as Star Trek.  It is now created a fanbase that is a punchline of virgins, and losers who camp out on the opening day. 

If George stopped after 1983, he wouldnt have made as much money, but he and the movies would be looked a whole different way in 2010.

It's not a big deal, but it feels like kids get sort of gypped if they don't have something that's totally new, instead of our warmed-over leftovers.

You down with dp, yeah you know me.

CO said:

If George stopped after 1983, he wouldnt have made as much money, but he and the movies would be looked a whole different way in 2010.

But why do you care how Star Wars is looked at today?  I enjoy the movies the same regardless of how kids today look at it, or how any of you look at it.

CO said:

Why didn't Coppola make Godfather IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, etc. ?  Why didn't Seinfeld continue on with Season 9, 10, 11, etc. ?  Why didn't the Beatles continue making music together after 1970 up until John Lennon's death in 1980?

I know this is off-topic, but the Beatles broke up because they didn't want to dilute the product anymore or taint their legacy?

Also, Seinfeld did do a Season 9, and many (including I) think it's easily the worst season.  But it doesn't affect me when I'm watching a gem from Season 5.

TV's Frink said:

 

 

I know this is off-topic, but the Beatles broke up because they didn't want to dilute the product anymore or taint their legacy?

Also, Seinfeld did do a Season 9, and many (including I) think it's easily the worst season.  But it doesn't affect me when I'm watching a gem from Season 5.

 The Beatles stopped touring in 1966, so they could concentrate on Studio albums, and they went on to make great albums like Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, and Let it Be.  Ultimately, they broke up because they hated each other (like most groups), and Yoko Ono was in on every studio session too.  But the point is that the Beatles never did anything crappy, and that is what makes their legacy that much more incredible, they never jumped the shark.

As for Seinfeld, I meant he never did a Season 10, as the first 2 seasons were half seasons, so I always count them as one.  But Seinfeld has said, he felt the quality in the last season wasn't as great as others, and he knew it was time to retire on top.  I can't tell how many great TV shows went on and on and ruined their legacy.  Case in point, The Sopranos was THE BEST DRAMA I have ever seen on TV for the first few seasons, and then it went about 2-3 season too long, and I honestly don't look at it the same, because it got really bad the last couple of seasons.

My point is that Jedi was probably the tip of the iceberg to Star Wars jumping the shark, and if Lucas stopped in 1983, I guarantee it wouldnt get much flack.  But after the SE, PT, and the other crap he has put out, now people realize that Jedi WAS the beginning of the end.

So I disagree with you, even I look at Jedi different then I did before the PT, because I realize alot of bad shit in the PT seems to have started with Jedi.

People camped out in line in 1980 and 1983. In fact, I have a newspaper article from here in Toronto where a couple was married in the line-up to ROTJ...dressed as characters.

In 1983, Star Wars was also looked at as a cheap, merchandise-driven money-making empire. It was seen as diluted and hollow, an excuse to sell toys. And it was considered a cult, nerd-like thing the way ST was seen at the time.

It's really the same arguments. We tend to look at the past as a nostalgic "good ol days" as we age, but Star Wars hasn't actually changed much over the years, except the newer films weren't as good. So, in 1983, merchandising the fuck out of a good movie was perhaps questionable but fun. In 2010, merchandising the fuck out of a bad movie is seen as "reprehensible" or whatever. It all depends on whether you enjoy the stuff that its spun off from, ultimately. Its true that it cheapens the franchise, but the franchise has been cheapened since 1978, the only thing that changed, aside from an increase in output, has been that the films weren't as good.

@CO:

Regardless of when a franchise calls it quits, how does the legacy of the franchise affect your enjoyment of the franchise?  I just don't understand why this bothers people.  A legacy is more about how others relate to the thing you like rather than how you relate to it, and why would you care if less people like what you like because the legacy is diminished?

Do you actually enjoy watching the OT less because of the PT?  Should you need the PT to recognize the flaws in ROTJ?

TV's Frink said:

@CO:

Regardless of when a franchise calls it quits, how does the legacy of the franchise affect your enjoyment of the franchise?  I just don't understand why this bothers people. 

 Couldnt agree more. As I said in the "stop being fun" thread, nothing Lucas can do can lesson my enjoyment of the OT one iota.

zombie84 said:

In 1983, Star Wars was also looked at as a cheap, merchandise-driven money-making empire. It was seen as diluted and hollow, an excuse to sell toys. And it was considered a cult, nerd-like thing the way ST was seen at the time.

My memories of '83 in Northern Ireland SW had fans of all types. In my school the Skin-heads to the nerds all considered SW cool...it was just the nerds who liked Star Trek. Maybe it was different in other parts of the world, but SW back then broke the mold in making sci-fi cool, thats why most sci-fi now are blockbusters.

J

As soon as a conversation turns to "legacy" instead of what is enjoyable, I immediatly imagine we're all in black t-shirts, smoking, saying how our favorite bands old stuff was better, and sneering at anyone who likes popular music.

Star Wars could continue and without fizzling out under the right kind of stewardship.

A new trilogy would have to have something new to say.

If the PT was about the erosion of liberty (George might have screwed it up a bit but that's the essential theme) and the OT was about the fight to restore it and new trilogy could be about what happens to freedom fighters after they win.

History is replete with heroic freedom fighters who struggle to keep what they have won from falling apart and even become just as bad as what they replace.

That in itself is a very interesting potential story.

Seeing Luke as the wise old teacher could be powerful stuff but I wouldn't trust Lucas to deliver the goods.

To me Lucas can be seen like the rock bands who always played the same music for decades: it can be sad to see/hear them now because they are not exactely the same on stage, indeed, but at the same time you can't really say to them to stop it.  Because it's their job.

At one point they just realized they can't (or don't want) to do anything else. And this is happening to a lot of people in every day life, not just "famous artists" people.

So, you're free to go to the show, or to stay at home, but you can't say to them to stop making music or to not make one more reunion tour and to rest near their swimming pool instead. It's the music they created, they have the right to play it if they want.

This whole "tainting the legacy of past works" thing reminds me of something Stephen King said when asked if it bothers him when bad film adaptations ruin his books (paraphrasing here):

"They're not ruined.  They're sitting on the shelf right behind me."

xhonzi said:

 

Lost Season 6 was a complete disappointment to me.  I can't say I feel the same about Lost since.

 

I think Lost, which was one long serial mystery has a greater ability to 'spoil' itself. If you find the conclusion to a mystery to be lacking, it effects the way an entire story works. 

This idea really came to the forfront of my mind while the wife and I were reading the Thrawn Trilogy last year.  The biggest problem is that Reconstruction doesn't have the same tone as the Revolution.  That's actually pretty interesting in and of itself- history has shown that the best revolutionaries often make the worst governors.

Let me take this moment to plug "Deathstalker" my favorite sci-fi novels. It's a 5-part balls to the wall space opera about revolution and a tyrranical empire... but they kill the Emperor and overthrow the corrupt government in book 3. The next two books are just what you say, the problems and compromises of trying to build a new system... only it still kicked ass.

I actually kind of like the idea. The novels always tried to come up with newer, stronger villains. Why not pit the good guys against each other?

This is silly, if you ask me.

Before we can move on with even more material, I think we need to sort out the mess that the canon is in. If I were in Lucas' shoes, I'd step up and start to sort through this mass of contradictory material and select only the very best for a new "Alternate Canon".

I'd release restorations of the theatrical cuts of the original Star Wars trilogy and return the first two unaltered installments to their status as canon. I'd finish off by selecting the best of EU material - comics, video games, novels etc. - for re-release under this new Alternate Canon brand. Then I'd have completely new prequels made, with a talented writing team and director.

Then, only then, with solid foundations, would I begin to even consider making some new material.

As it stands (and it's very tragic, really) the Star Wars franchise just isn't worth more material.

xhonzi said:

The Bingo:

If the PT was about the erosion of liberty (George might have screwed it up a bit but that's the essential theme) and the OT was about the fight to restore it and new trilogy could be about what happens to freedom fighters after they win.

History is replete with heroic freedom fighters who struggle to keep what they have won from falling apart and even become just as bad as what they replace.

This idea really came to the forefront of my mind while the wife and I were reading the Thrawn Trilogy last year.  The biggest problem is that Reconstruction doesn't have the same tone as the Revolution.  That's actually pretty interesting in and of itself- history has shown that the best revolutionaries often make the worst governors.  The new Gov't is a completely different thing than the revolution that birthed it, it has different needs and different challenges.  But from a film perspective (an adventure fueled fantasy film, especially) there's no "war" anymore, there are more grey areas as pertaining to "good guys" and "bad guys", heroes become dried up wells of potential, bureaucrats take power, etc...  I personally find all of that pretty interesting, but I can't imagine that in an actual Star Wars movie.

In other words: if you thought trade route disputes were boring...

The thing that Lucas forgot with the PT is that you don't have to mention the policies or even show the government to demonstrate political discord.

He worked on Apocalypse Now and made ANH neither of those showed the actual politicians involved in those situations or clearly outlined what their decisions were, it just showed the effects of those decisions and how the characters responded to them.