NeverarGreat

"Nick, I'M MAKING THIS ONE UP! I'M MAKING IT UP!!! YOU CAN'T SAY YES TO IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T &*$%ING EXIST!!!!!"

darth_ender said:

[no caption necessary]

Caption: (right to left: Obi-wan Kenobi, CreepyPuppetYoda, CreepyPuppetAnakin)

And there are still people, many people, calling for new nuclear reactors to be built in America. This is the very apex of insanity.

georgec said:

"All I have to do is squeeze..."

"All I have to do is scream."

For anyone who claims that The Last Crusade is not the best Indiana Jones movie, I merely direct them to the fact that Hitler signed Jones's diary. That wins at moviemaking forever.

Mrebo said:

I know it will happen! I prefer Jedi War to Holy War.

Lol.

I don't think that Jedi War will stay either.

The thing is, I don't want to have Jedi in these movies at all. The goal is to have it be completely Jedi and lightsaber free, so that we first learn about the lightsaber when Obi-wan gives it to Luke.

As for Owen not knowing about Anakin, I would have liked him to be ignorant of Anakin's powers throughout the movies, but as Anakin becomes the poster boy for the war in the EU, I'll work in the fact that Owen and Beru are vaguely aware of Anakin's Jedi status in the 2nd and 3rd movies.

Okay, I've changed the title to STARS OF WAR, and the working titles of the two sequels are OPEN WAR and HOLY WAR (or JEDI WAR).

Blast it, I was kind of expecting this new thread to galvanize me into actually beginning to finalize the writing of these movies. Oh well. It will happen eventually.

Thanks. I think Open War is a better title for the second in the series, the first being between Episodes 1 and 2 and called something like STARS of WAR. This will cover the first breakaway of the Separatist systems, around 24 bby. The second will be directly after the death of Cliegg Lars and the beginning of the Clone Wars, and the third will be at the same time as Episode 3.

The whole idea behind this is that a good trilogy of movies could exist within the prequel and EU timeline, a series of movies that can be watched before the original trilogy and that don't give away Anakin's fall, Yoda, or Leia. They center on Owen and Beru, and their untold adventures throughout the galaxy. These 3 movies will be unnumbered, as Episodes 1, 2, and 3 already exist, but as STAR WARS was unnumbered, this could be seen as a thematic tie-in to the ORIGINAL original trilogy.

Hard to answer such a broad question.

Take Sunshine for example. It was made for about 30,000,000 dollars, which for a big sci-fi movie is very little. However, the effects look like the work of a much larger production.

Several years ago I made a 30 minute movie with a MiniDV camera which cost about 300 dollars. We used wooded locations, used few props (this was a medieval setting), and the "actors", including myself, were all unpaid because it was for fun. Premiere Elements cost 100 dollars, and with all of the supplies the production probably ran close to a thousand dollars. The movie was pretty shit, but with a better script it would probably have been watchable. So a thousand dollars doesn't buy that much in terms of quality.

To cover the basics, hire people with acting experience, write a good script, and get permission to film in interesting locations. The costs of shooting digital should be very small compared to what is in front of the camera. Anyone can create passable CG sequences these days, the trick is primarily in story, secondly in acting.

If you want to know what it takes to make a good movie on the cheap, look at The Movie Hero. That is one of my favorite movies, and it uses extremely little in the way of sets and effects.

The fact that there was little outcry to the CGI is what makes the CGI historic.

BeyondStarWars

StarWarsHistory

StarExplorer

StarReadouts

StarWarsDataTapes

StarWiki

Ewokopedia

Yodapedia

Windipedia

Jedipedia

...aaaand now it's just getting silly.

I'm thinking either StarWiki or the aforementioned Wiki of the Whills.

So I've calibrated my screen the best I can, looked through the comparison pictures, and the thing that stands out the most, colorwise, is the reddish haze in the final scene. It's plainly apparent even in the comparison shots, where it is even redder than the GOUT! I've seen Mike Verta's color correction and his 35mm source, and the atmosphere is nowhere near as red as 2.1.

It's difficult to get the colors corrected from the DVD or Blu-ray (I've tried for weeks), but it is possible, especially if the movie is being corrected scene by scene.

So I've been thinking about this for a while (read: years) and I've come to realize that every discussion of philosophical or religious matters is doomed to failure because nobody bothers to define their terms, or explain their basic assumptions.

So what about you? What assumptions do you base your life on? Remember, I'm not necessarily talking about all of your religious beliefs, though that could apply. I mean in a philosophical sense, what are your first principles? Do you have any?

My terms and principles are as follows:

Principle: Something cannot come from nothing.

That is my first principle.

I define Something as "that which has dimension in either space or time" and I define Nothing as "that which has no dimension in either space or time".

Principle: "Nothing" is the natural state of being.

Basically, nothing is the natural state of existence, and something cannot come from it. This is an appeal to logic. If Something was the natural state of being (as it appears to be, what with the universe and all), all bets are off. Anything can happen, for whatever reason. Basically, say goodbye to philosophy and reason. Many people believe this. This is probably why they disdain philosophy.

So it would seem like we are at an impasse. Nothing is the natural state of being, and something cannot come from it. Case closed. No universe. End of story.

I beg to differ.

Let's look at what we have to work with. Nothing. Hm. Not looking good for the universe. By the way, I was stuck on this one for over a year.

Let's take a closer look at Nothing. What are we saying when we say "Nothing"? No space and time. Got it. A point, in other words, generally speaking, if you were to look at it from the outside, which would be impossible without space. But whatever, a point will do for our discussion.

So we have a point. What are the properties of this point? If Nothing exists, and can be represented by a point, then naturally it is all that is, and must account for the appearance of reality, the space and time of it all, the matter, energy, as well as self-awareness, the mind, etc. A tall order, it would seem.

Does a point know anything? What kind of a question is that? Humor me for a moment. Let's try to explain Self Awareness with only a point. A point cannot know anything, as knowledge implies the passage of time. Basically, you learned something, and now you know it. Without time, knowledge is not an option. However, Awareness is. Awareness is present tense. A subtle distinction, so let me define it.

Knowledge: Information with a time component.

Awareness: Information without a time component.

So we've allowed for a point to have awareness, as awareness doesn't require time. But can it be aware of space? Well, no. If you have nothingness, represented by a point, you can have no space or time. Definitions and such. So what exactly is the point aware of? Well, again, the only thing that it could possibly be aware of is itself. So it has Self Awareness.

See what I did there?

To recap:

Nothing is the natural state of being.

Something cannot come from nothing.

Nothing can have self awareness. (notice that this changes in meaning depending on how you interpret the word Nothing)

Finally, we have some idea of what is possible with little old nothing. Now let's rephrase what we have done.

Inferred Principle: "Nothing" can exist.

Inferred Principle: "Something" cannot exist.

This is just rephrasing the combination of the first two principles. So let's describe these two principles. If something exists, then it is True. If something does not exist, it is False.

The existence of Nothing is True.

The existence of Something is False.

Binary. Simple. Childishly so, from our first principles. So to say this another way, Truth is Nothing, Falseness is Something.

So the universe, being made of dimension, both of space and time (or space-time if you want to be modern) is False.

This follows from first principles.

Self Awareness, however, is True, again from first principles.

I define Self Awareness as simply "I".

I am self aware. See?

As self awareness is an acceptable quality of Nothing, all people are nothing. They are also True. They are without a space or time aspect, which means that they did not begin, and they do not end. As nothingness has no space or time component, all people from all times are in truth one nothingness, or one Truth. They truly exist, whereas the universe does not.

So much for the universe.

And as for people:

People are one.

People are immortal.

Not bad at all for an understanding of two first principles.

Man, what I would give to argue about religion a little.

I always wanted to see a Star Wars story that looked more like a Ralph McQuarrie painting, what with the sparse, open expanses and the stark, "alien" atmosphere. It looks like this may be the closest we get.

In the case of what was put on screen in 77, it seemed to me that Star Wars was just too "well done" to be real, if that makes any sense. No story, even in Hollywood, was ever that perfect in so many ways. It makes you think that it was itself a remake of a single, pretty good movie instead of a unique entity, and that we can now get a glimpse of this "merely good" movie.

Probably making no sense.

Ah, well...

I can just imagine how the meeting went.

Executive 1: "What should we do for April Fools this year?"

Regretful Guy: "I know, let's have a fake contest to see what the best video on Youtube is!"

Executive 1: "...and then claim that we're shutting down the site after we find it! (Regretful Guy), will you make the video?"

Regretful Guy: "Sure!"

Executive 1: "Oh, and make it a live, all day streaming event."

Regretful Guy: (is regretful)

Best. April. Fools. Ever.

You managed to fool me.

For a second.

Seriously though, great thread.

(Here follows an account of the great civil war, later known as the Clone Wars, from the eyes of Beru Whitesun and Owen Lars, who, having no personal stake in the war, were nevertheless swept up in a life and death struggle across the stars. Their tale will not disprove the account of Anakin Skywalker, the dark and mysterious figure who claimed to Owen and Beru to be merely a navigator on a Spice Freighter while in hiding on Tatooine. However, this tale will expose the conditions on the ground for a galaxy at war, the plight of the poor and underprivileged, those with no allegiance and no home. It will reveal the true origin of Anakin and his abilities, and the curse that drove generations to despair. Finally, it will tell of the onetime greatness of the Old Republic, before it was destroyed from within, and its resurrection in the birth of the Rebel Alliance. But the story, to state it simply, is about a boy, a girl, and a universe.)

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....

STARS OF WAR

After a thousand years of peace, a confederacy of rebel star systems is breaking away from the great GALACTIC REPUBLIC, forcing an entire galaxy to the brink of war....

Back in the old days, there was more time spent immersing an audience in the movie world before the primary action began, now audiences are used to immediate and unrelenting action from start to finish.

When movies were filmed with technicolor cameras, they had an entirely different look and feel than movies today. This is because of the increased lighting, the different choices with regards to costume and staging, as well as the technicolor technology itself, which made for a bright, highly contrasting picture compared with the more muted hues of today's movies.

Special effects back then often warranted scenes being built around them, whereas today cgi is placed into the frame wherever it is deemed necessary.

And of course, in 77 a portal opened in space-time which allowed untold magic to escape into our realm, resulting in Star Wars, The Thing, Blade Runner, ET, The Dark Crystal, Alien, Back to the Future, The Princess Bride, and many other movies which were obviously Truth given Form, before the portal was closed in the late eighties.

At this point, I'd say the difference between them is negligible.

Hey, McFlabbergasty, I found this thread last year but then forgot that it was you when you posted the Star Wars Sequel story in the Script Rewriting thread. So...yeah.

I believe that everyone is precisely where they need to be. This is not because of some religious woo woo, it is simply that a person fears only that which they don't understand, and that which they don't understand they cannot control. This is a much more powerful force than people expect. Thus people find themselves constantly mired in fearful situations that seem beyond their control. If you feel like you are in a bad place in your life, know that it is simply because this situation is the one that you most need to learn from right now. You resist it intensely, but this is because you secretly fear it. How do you escape? You must find a way to understand it, by reading, by finding someone who has sailed those waters, by simple experience, whatever.

The upshot of all of this is that  every situation you find yourself in that you dislike is one that you can learn from. Whenever you are faced with an unpleasant something or other, whether it be the prospect of planning for the future, getting out of bed, getting a job, managing your finances, heating healthy, etc, know that it is only your level of understanding that keeps you from playing these games well. For that is what they are; games.

It can seem overwhelming at first, but do one thing at a time, and eventually you will begin to enjoy these games, if you are playing them correctly.

I've rewritten this post three times already, so it is what it is. Anyway, remember to be thankful for the horrible things in life, because these are the only things that will trip you up (and really, there aren't all that many of them, they're just all crowding around you waiting for their chance to teach you something).

I just bumped this thread...does that count?

Star Trek, while it has its emotional side, is a thought experiment. We journey several centuries into the future to consider how different (or how similar) humanity is at that time. We hope to be like these people, men and women of science and enlightenment going out to take our place among the stars.

Star Wars to me is mythological. It doesn't show humans as they might be, but humans as they have been and as they remain on a primal, subconscious level. It shows how humans are still deeply affected by magical thinking and desperately wish to see the world in terms of good vs evil.

I like both visions, but I think that the OT of Star Wars has more Truth to it than any Star Trek movie or episode I've seen, excepting perhaps First Contact.

As for Carrie not looking like she's in her 20s anymore; well, what did you expect? Her appearance changes dramatically even from Star Wars to Jedi.

I highly doubt that they will be going for "beautiful princess Leia" at this point. Rather, if they take the EU into account, this is a woman who has been at war, with the galaxy and with her own government, for thirty odd years. She's had three children with a man who was not known for his stable, fatherly influence, and has undergone the rigors of becoming a Jedi, something that loses many people their limbs, and often their lives. The face that has seen all that would be a tad careworn to say the least.

I agree that they don't need Harrison, unless his character changes as entirely as Leia's should. I don't want to see the same characters doing the same things. They are beyond that at this point.

If the child of Han and Leia was in his/her mid twenties, the story could pick up pretty much where RotJ left off, assuming that the child was already a good pilot and a fully trained Jedi. That way we wouldn't have to retread the "seduction of the Dark Side" story, and have it focus on something bigger than that. For example, if he/she had gained so much power that he/she had godlike abilities, the story could be about the struggle to use them responsibly and for the good of the galaxy instead of using them to save friends. Or it could do what the prequels tried to do, such as make a political thriller with the goal being an ethical galactic government. Or it could introduce an enemy that simply cannot be defeated through the exploitation of an easily accessible structural weakness.

As for the cast of characters, there are literally dozens of well known archetypes that haven't been used in Star Wars. Heck, we haven't even had a scientist as a major character in Star Wars, and Star Wars is SCIENCE fantasy. We could have a noble character who has a tortured and hidden past, a teacher who knows the history of the Old Republic and who teaches our hero about how to structure a lasting democracy, a mechanical being who nevertheless uses the Force, an archaeologist who discovers the buried secrets of the first Jedi, or even a Celestial, a being who isn't particularly interested in the wars of the galaxy yet has terrible power. New characters shouldn't be a problem. I'd say the worst option would be to simply recycle what has already been done simply because people liked it thirty years ago.