Anchorhead

Lots to take in, all of it good.  In a word;  chills like I was 15 again.

Comes up about halfway through the article.

Tobar said:

Oh definitely, Williamson was the best Star Wars comic artist there ever was. 

Ultimately,  I think that's why I haven't purchased any Star Wars comics.  There are some very nice covers these days, no doubt. However, nothing takes me to that galaxy far far away the way Williamson did. Not even close.

With his work, I'm in the story, on the adventure. With the new stuff, I'm looking at someone's drawing of it. Williamson captured the strange and very distant universe the same way McQuarrie did with his illustrations, or Jung in the original one-sheet.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Tobar said:

Speaking of which, they're still doing quite a number of variants for these Star Wars comics. While deciding on what cover to use in my review of the issue, I went with one that I felt really embodied the spirit of the story.

But I have to say, I really dug this one:

I really love Alex Ross' take on Star Wars. I hope someone gives him the opportunity to paint an entire comic someday.

 I agree.  That is a fantastic piece.  Fully captures the spirit of the 1977 film.  For me, the best of the comic variants by far. I love that she's lifted from the original one-sheet.

Buckles said:

Why is this thread not about a young woman's strange, erotic journey from Milan to Minsk?

 Isn't that playing at the Paragon Theater?

Back on topic; I suppose I'm expecting their roles (original cast) to be peripheral, but not cameos. At least I hope not. I'm most interested in seeing Luke. Solo will be interesting to catch up with too, but I'm expecting a sort of Indiana Jones type of grizzled veteran role. Wouldn't be at all surprised if they're only in this first film.

 The NTSB final report will come from the FAA investigation. I haven't flown in over 15 years, before 9-11.  I suspect there will also be Homeland Security fingerprints on the investigation. 

(Sorry, Humdingers, I jacked-up the quote structure using my iPad so I deleted it).

The FAA will be controlling the investigation. They were probably there before he was in his hospital room. They tend to take over quickly and completely.

[/former helicopter pilot mode]. No, not kidding.

TheBoost said:

ATMachine said:

 My point was that Lucas apparently felt he could not use the name Picts--it was too close to something pre-existing. And given the similarity of "King Kael" to "King Kull," another Howard connection seems quite logical.

If you still don't believe that Lucas frequently took pre-existing names and lightly altered or combined them, all I can do is point you to the word "Jedi" itself.

The Jedi were originally called "Jedi Bendu" in the early scripts of SW 1977. But in fact, this name is really a combination of the first part of jidai-geki, the Japanese name for period-piece samurai films, and the second half of "prana-bindu," a set of meditative exercises mentioned in Frank Herbert's Dune.

And if that doesn't convince you, then it's obviously fruitless for me to spend any more time arguing with you.

You can stack cow-patties all you like they never turn into bricks.

You're making LOTS of assumptions. Let's follow this chain of reasoning. 

• A: Lucas used the name of a real historical people in an early script.
• B: A comic adaptation called them something else.
• something something something
• C: Therefore Robert E. Howard.

or

• A: The word Jedi probably comes from samurai films
• something something someting
• B: Therefore "Arik Thaughbeaer" is clealy based on the name "Theoden" 

(FYI: Since Prana Bindu is a really yoga practice, the Picts are real people and Tir Na Nog is real Celtic folklore, pointing out that it is used in another work of literature means very little as evidence)

 I'm with Boost on this.  In nearly all of these explanations, your topic sentence is wildly speculative and you support these supposed discoveries with paragraphs of heavily embellished assumptions.  Using your thesis statement to show the connections as fact does not validate your pages of supposition.

Today is a bad day.

I wouldn't have had all the stories connected.  To me, it is apparent with the Original Trilogy that there wasn't enough story for three films.  Which, by the way, is fine. Put the story first and the audience will follow. Put the number of films first and the stories become filler.

This weird devotion to everything being A Trilogy has caused writers and directors to pad and stretch to the point of it being a detriment to the films.  Tell a story.  If it takes two films, fine. If you want to make more films, tell a different story.  The same people can go on different adventures.

Lucas never had more than one film of story in 1977 and he sure as hell didn't have twelve films of story.  Truthfully, he couldn't keep his BS straight back then either.  It was 12, then 6, then 9, then 12 again, etc, etc. He started rehashing by the third film.

Letting reality influence the story didn't help either. Harrison Ford's contract status with regard to Raiders became an in-universe weirdness that drove some of the dumbest parts of the third film.

Stories\films can exist in the same universe and reference each other.  Star Trek is a perfect example.  So are the Indiana Jones films.  James Bond and Doctor Who are also great examples. References and tangents are fine. Stretching isn't.

Lucas almost got it right when he hired Foster to write the sequel. Not sure why he abandoned his original idea of an adventure series and switched to trying to write a continuation story.

In answer to the original question, I would have done it the way Timothy Zahn has handled his novels.  Some stories are continued, some stories are tangential to the previous story and characters. Brian Daley did the same.

It certainly looks like Disney is handling the franchise that way. Force Awakens is somewhat related to the 1977 story, while the stand-alones are only vaguely related. 

If you can have twelve Star Trek films (some related, some not) and twenty four Bond films (some related, some not), then you can certainly have twelve Star Wars films.  Just not when Lucas is involved. 

Hal 9000 said:

 Starting in June, one film a month. Also in need of Star Wars themed drinks. Not necessarily all alcoholic. 

 http://geekgirlbrunch.com/2014/05/29/starwarscocktails/

They're all over the internet.  These seemed like some of the more palatable.

I don't remember us ever having a Jedi Appreciation thread.

;-)

Well done, Emanswfan.  Always room for Sally Sparrow.  *swoon*  One of my Top Five episodes.

I'm with Eric on this one.  Missy felt like a very real threat.  Not a cartoon, not a cardboard cut-out villain, not comic relief. Actual, serious danger.  There were depths to her performance that have been non-existent in the past. 

The graveyard scene was particularly amazing.  She was equal parts wanting to ruin him and wanting to be with him.  Very eery to say the least.  This scene may have been the finest moment of the season;

Armies are for people who think they're right. And nobody thinks they're righter than you. Give a good man firepower, and he'll never run out of people to kill.

... All those people suffering in the Dalek camps? Now you can save them. All those bad guys winning all the wars? Go and get the good guys back.

....You will, because you don't have a choice. There's only way you can stop these clouds from opening up and killing all your little pets down here. Conquer the universe, Mister President. Show a bad girl how it's done.

I'm going to watch it again tonight. This has put me in the mood.  Not that i need much of a push to watch Missy.

Now...Say.  Something.  Nice.

http://au.ibtimes.com/star-wars-force-awakens-may-get-early-release-date-report-1420237

Fingers crossed.

skyjedi2005 said:

 Now Lucasfilms will no longer be made by Lucas.

 Far from the first time that's happened.  

Louis Mayer

Samuel Goldwyn

Harry, Albert, Sam, and Jack Warner

Walt Disney

William Fox

Several studios have continued long after their founders moved on. More often than not, they've given us many cherished, classic, and culturally significant films.  Personally, I see Lucasfilm without Lucas to be very positive. It's a new era. One that I've been waiting on for thirty years.  Lucas lost his way decades ago.  

Four great novels, those.

DominicCobb said:

In regards to the possibility of a Solo child, I think it would be strange if, 30 years later, none of the main characters from the OT had had children. So it just seems natural that we'll see one of their offspring in the new film and that they would be one of the major new characters.

 No doubt we will.  It's just me wishful thinking that we'll finally leave Lucas' incestuous ...Solar System Far Far Away.

Bingowings said:

MacArthur Park is no place to do fan art.

 Dude, there are maybe five of us on here old enough to get that reference.  Well done, by the way. ;-)

Bingowings said:

Erik Pancakes said:

I've gotta say, that whole "leak" sounds like a big load of bullshit to me. I really can't believe they'd be stupid enough to go the Death Star route again.

I think the idea of a woman who had her homeworld demolished by one of those things using one herself is pretty good if they follow through with it and don't just have her conflicted about it and then resolve not to do it.

 I think that's a very interesting idea. I also think it works because of the very long time since, both in-story and in reality.  Part of what didn't work for me with Return was the fact that we'd just seen it all a few years earlier.  In this case, she looks like the time and stress have taken a toll.  It could really work.  Even more so if the massive weapon were something only resembling a Death Star.

Something that would really make me happy is if none of the new cast are related to the original cast.  Lucas shrunk the universe to the extreme.  Time to let the story take a deep breath and expand the universe again.

Mithrandir said:

The Prequels sucked, not because we knew the story already, but because they were shittily told, in every single way, from script to visuals.

Now there's a virtually unlimited number of movies, and it should be time to realise there's a lot more to tell in any story than deus-ex-machina-kind of stuff. I mean this diegetically, and non diegetically, a film is perfectly enjoyable even if you know everything that will happen.

 I agree.  It's not just the story, it's how it's written, acted, directed, and presented.  Lucas served up shit for decades.  Shouldn't we at the very least give Abrams a chance to show us what he's done?

FFS.. There are people here who are going to draw the line at a Death Star or Solo offspring, but they repeatedly watched and purchased all the prequels and SEs?!  That's a damn head-scratcher for sure.

Interesting and pretty cool.  Looks like J. J. helped convince them;

http://www.indiewire.com/article/film-is-here-to-stay-a-list-directors-and-kodak-strike-a-deal-20150204

Last summer, Hollywood directors including Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, J.J. Abrams and Judd Apatow urged Hollywood studios to support Kodak to keep film stock in use. Today, Kodak announced it has finalized new film supply agreements with all six major Hollywood studios.

Some of the biggest films of 2015 are being shot on Kodak film as well, including "Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens..."

Nocturnaloner said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm trying to decide if I should be offended at this point or not.  I certainly don't think enjoying making sarcastic and silly posts makes me a candidate for an ADD diagnosis.  And I do love when people start throwing around an autistic diagnosis on someone they don't know, especially given they probably don't actually know someone autistic in real life.  Or even more likely, do know someone autistic, but don't know it.

Ok, I've decided to be offended.

 And now I feel officially welcomed to the forum!  I'm off to a great start. 

Let's see:

• Abominationsaber
• Autistic spectrum
• ADD
• ADHD
• Off topic
• Double ended saber

Just to be sure, is there anyone in this thread I haven't offended yet?  I'll get right on it!

 That would be a mistake.  As would further discussion on all but one of your bullet points.

If it's strictly the style over substance trend, Independence Day, Armageddon, and the Matrix trilogy are every bit as responsible.