If they were to end the entire Star Wars saga on 9, then I agree, it should be the biggest movie ever. Period. It should not be possible to top it. However, I see it becoming like the 3rd Pirates movie. A lot of incoherent action, little actual drama.
PS: Execute post 666.
I agree with Bingo here. The prequels should have told a smaller story than the OT, not a larger one. It's pretty easy to imagine your favorite things in the OT, just bigger, faster, and more intense, and put them into the prequels. But it will always feel more like a sequel than something that came before.
Apologies if this has appeared elsewhere, but I just saw this technology:
So what do you think? Granted, it's plasma, but it's caused by lasers, and could easily be modified to make a lightsaber in my layman's mind.
Heilemann said:
NeverarGreat said:
Well, this is a forum named Original Trilogy, so it would attract anyone who prefers the Original Unaltered Star Wars Trilogy, and as the creator of Star Wars is in conflict with this segment of fans, it is only natural for animosity to be the result.
That's true of course, but there are plenty of constructive ways to come together around the OT (see despecialized edition). And this whole Lucas-bashing is unbelievably old and dull. It's not a crime committed by everyone here, but it is pervasive nonetheless, and there seems to be moderation of the tone here.
Precisely. I'm not against George Lucas, or even the existence of the prequels. I think that all interpretations of Star Wars deserve to be preserved, and that is why I think that people are against the man. But fan preservations and restorations will be done, some better than even Lucasfilm could do, and so there is no need for the hate.
We here are all united in a way, for we all love Star Wars. (If not, then why are you on a Star Wars fansite?) I've often wondered why I (and millions of others) have such a fascination with Star Wars, and I think the reason is that it is so incredibly interpretive. In the OT, Lucas was adept at dropping hints of events and technologies throughout the story, always allowing the imagination of the audience to fill in the backstory and the events beyond the screen. If everyone here shared their interpretation of the original trilogy, I think that there would be as many unique answers as there were contributors.
Well, this is a forum named Original Trilogy, so it would attract anyone who prefers the Original Unaltered Star Wars Trilogy, and as the creator of Star Wars is in conflict with this segment of fans, it is only natural for animosity to be the result.
This is a shame, as the creation of the EU, the Prequels, and Fan Edits of the movies show that there are many different ways to interpret Star Wars and the Original Trilogy. Star Wars is a part of society now. If you see every new novel, video game, and movie as a fixed, immovable addition to a now "tarnished" original story, you will be forever pessimistic. However, if you see these things as unique and apocryphal tales, sprung from a mythic story that is able to support these wildly divergent perspectives, then the collective experience of Star Wars is an exciting adventure.
DuracellEnergizer said:
Building off of Zahn's vision of the Clone Wars hardly qualifies as adapting the Thrawn trilogy, so unless you're afraid that Thrawn himself or C'baoth would feature heavily in such a reboot, I have no clue as to what your problem with the idea is.
Zahn seems to be adept at writing military strategy and large scale conflicts, it's just that I don't see a deep understanding of the characters, or a desire to bring something new to the table as far as the story is concerned. For example, The Empire Strikes Back took Star Wars in an unexpected direction with Vader's revelation, and that type of story turn is absent from almost all EU fiction, for it would risk rocking the boat. Nobody seems willing to take the risks that Empire took, or to play with audience expectation except Lucas himself, for better or worse. One of the biggest problems with fanfiction in general is a blind adherence to previous convention, regardless of what is best for the story.
xhonzi said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
If a PT reboot were to be made, I'd want it to take the pre-1999 EU into account and stay faithful to it (the clones would be the enemies, Jedi would have children and marry, lightsabers would come in a large range of colours, etc.). Timothy Zahn and Tom Veitch would serve as creative consultants.
I'm thinking of kidnapping Zahn and Veitch and forcing them to show me their story bibles of all of the assumptions they made about the prequel timeframe.
Anyone in? Who can drive the big black van?
I'd like to know what Zahn meant by "Clone Masters" and what exactly they were.
But in all honesty, I'd rather they stayed away from the Thrawn trilogy, as it didn't really add anything to the Star Wars story in my opinion. There were few new characters, and the established characters were the stars of the show (except for Mara Jade and Thrawn). The problem with that is that those characters had their character arcs already, and they didn't change much (if at all). The final battle of Luke against his clone (cloned from Luke's severed hand) was right out of an amateur fanfic.
Dunedain said:
It makes sense that there would still be an ongoing fight with Imperial remnant forces (who aren't ready to just toss down their weapons because the rebels say so) after the destruction of the second Death Star, as they they try to maintain the Empire and retain control over sectors where they have a solid grasp. The Thrawn stuff would be silly, Imperial forces aren't ever going to answer to an alien, would make no sense at all, so it's good they are going with an original story line and not EU. The Empire has many competent officers that would be eager to crush any effort to fully re-establish the Republic.
There are lots of possibilities, and certainly Luke would be working on rebuilding the Jedi Order, and it would be cool if he appeared (but only if it's Hamill). :)
Imperial remnant? While I don't know how many ships are in the Imperial fleet, nor how many planets they control, a galaxy is a pretty big place. If anything, the rebel victory at Endor could have been a victory for the Empire, as the Emperor would probably have had an heir to the throne, an even more powerful offspring of the Emperor just waiting for the right moment to take power. Remember, the entire rebel fleet launched that attack on the Death Star. I can't imagine the Empire would just sit there twiddling its thumbs waiting for the rebels to escape. Also, the Emperor states outright that the Empire knows all about the rebel ship movements and strategy. It's how he set the trap.
I can definitely see an Imperial dynasty in power in the sequels, with the rebels all but defeated.
xhonzi said:
Heaven knows I've started several. Try this: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Original-Trilogy-Times-Chart/post/412779/#TopicPost412779 and this: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Act-Breaks/topic/11489/page/1/ though it feels like I'm missing one or two.
Ah, here's this one: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/A-New-Hope-Trading-on-Promises-or-Trailer-for-the-SW-Universe/topic/11379/ though I think I followed up on that one more somewhere else... perhaps it's in one of the other threads I just posted.
And I guess it's altogether possible I've never posted my extensive thoughts on trilogies as macro-three act structure and how then a trilogy of trilogies would really fascinate me as mega-three-act-structure.
Thanks xhonzi. My take on the three act structure, at least as it relates to A New Hope, is character driven. The first act establishes the world, and demands a decision from Luke. Will he choose to become a Jedi? So Act 1 ends when Luke decides to go to Alderaan and become a Jedi. Act 2 makes the hero's task seem impossible. Alderaan is destroyed, they are trapped on the Death Star, and finally Obi-wan is killed. When Luke sits on the Falcon in sorrow, dreams of becoming a Jedi shattered, goal seemingly lost, this signals the end of Act 2. Act 3 is the resolution to this seemingly impossible goal: Obi-wan can communicate with him through the Force. He begins to believe in Obi-wan's voice, and in himself.
There can be more acts in a movie or series of movies than just 3. Often, characters have many more important character decisions and developments than just these, so you could divide a movie into many smaller acts, but 3 is a good starting point.
Thanks for the links!
Bobocop said:
The New Adventures of Old Luke
(featuring Anakin and Obi-Wan as his loveable bickering Jedi ghost sidekicks)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rc4ltH27A
Bingowings said:
It would be better with an episode six made with as much care and attention as 4 and 5.
The problem with ROTJ is that it's all tying up and no story.
Kill off Jabba, Kill off Fett, Kill off Yoda, take Luke out of love triangle, kill off Piett and the Executor, Kill off Palpatine, Kill off Vader, Kill off the whole Empire.
That's the film, a shopping list.
Kill off Owen and Beru, kill off Greedo, kill off Alderaan, kill off Obi-wan, kill off Tarkin and the Death Star.
I would disagree that the Empire is destroyed, despite what the SE trilogy depicts. Crippled? Perhaps.
So by my count, six major players are destroyed in episode 4, if you count either the Death Star or Alderaan. That makes them pretty much even on the kill count. The only difference is that we've had more time to get to know some of the characters in ROTJ, making their deaths mean more.
Many of the things you mentioned are in service to the story. Yoda died to put pressure on Luke, as he was the last trained Jedi. Jabba died to show that Luke was serious in his threats, and was indeed a force to be reckoned with. Either Luke or Han would have ended up out of the love triangle at the end anyway, and Vader gave his life in a heroic sacrifice to kill the Emperor and save his son. These deaths are all in service to the story. Could Yoda have been handled better? Sure. Did Boba Fett need to die in such an inglorious way? Of course not. I agree that it is the weakest of the OT, but to dismiss it as a shopping list is to do it a disservice.
There's nothing quite like death to heighten the stakes. If many characters weren't killed, Lucas would be blamed for trying to sell more action figures. Remember that Gary Kurtz, the man who left Lucasfilm because he thought that Lucas was selling out, thought from the beginning that Han Solo should die. Lucas said that people would buy more Han Solo action figures if he survived to have more adventures in EU land, so in that case, keeping a character alive was to the detriment of the original story.
xhonzi said:
NeverarGreat said:
mfastx said:
I'd like to see them tie in to the originals and even the prequels in some ways. Like for example take a little something from a few of the films and incorporate it somehow. I hope it doesn't end up like a complete unrelated trilogy.
This goes back to the Trilogy of Trilogies idea, where the OT is a microcosm of the larger story, a fractal if you like. If you consider that episode 5 is to 4 and 6 as the OT is to the prequel and sequel trilogies, then you can come to some interesting conclusions.
For example: Episodes 4 and 6 had the Death Star, a unique and awe inspiring machination of the villains, which is only briefly mentioned in Empire. So if you extrapolate that idea to the 3 trilogies, you can have a huge plot structure repeated in the first and third trilogies that was only mentioned in the OT (The clone wars comes to mind). Of course, it doesn't have to be that, it should just be something that makes sense and implies a final trilogy to complete the story.
Take it to the 3 act structure thread!
There is such a thread?
The reason that I suggest a trilogy of trilogies is because it seems like the OT doesn't really end in a satisfactory manner if the prequels are taken into account. Heck, don't take my word for it; Lucas apparently thought so too. Why else would he put in an inexplicable montage of celebration from across the galaxy? ROTJ ended well for a trilogy. However, I don't think it really holds up as the end of a six part saga.
As for having three acts, I suppose you could say that. Although it doesn't need to have three acts, three is the socially accepted number for a movie series to feel complete. It's a cultural peculiarity, but a persistent one.
Bingowings said:
Commander Bane said:
Hear hear! I heartily agree with you here. ROTJ is very good.
The opening scene is just great.
The Jabba story is great.
The battle between the Rebels and the Empire at the second Death Star.
The triumph of the Ewoks and the Rebels. Lando shooting out of the Death Star with the famous Millenium Falcon.
The drama of the throne room scene where the Emperor is trying to make Luke angry, seduce him and is constantly patronising him. If you were Luke you would throttle him! But Luke had to go past this anger and conquer it. Especially when Vader said that his sister would turn to the dark side if he didn't. And finally Luke confronting the Emperor and getting electrocuted! And most important of all, Anakin Skywalker finally freeing himself from the one main villian from the entire Star Wars saga and throwing him over the hole to save his son! And also saving himself in the process as he turns back to the Light side.
As for what one other person said. The original and prequel trilogies is about Anakin Skywalker who is the chosen one but ends up going to the dark side. It then takes his son who then grows up and brings him finally back to the light. So its about Anakin and Luke Skywalker with a bit of Leia as well.
The Skywalker family. It is such a good story about the strength and unity of a family against evil.
CB
Nope it's just a tawdry contractual obligation album rehashing the popular bits from the earlier films only faster and with less emotional resonance.
If it wasn't for Hamill and possibly McDiarmid it would be as loathed as the PT.
Are you suggesting that the story of the original trilogy would be good "as is", with only episodes 4 and 5? We may both think that it was the weakest in terms of character development and originality, but to suggest that it was superfluous or unnecessary in tying up the story is to misunderstand the story entirely.
Bingowings said:
I keep telling you it's Leia.
Chokes Jabba to death, allows Chewie to nearly choke Lando to death.
Vader can see it, Luke doesn't want to see it, Carrie Fisher would be great as a villain.
Oh wow, I can't believe I never considered that! That's awesome.
Perhaps that's why Obi-wan never thought about training her - she was even more reckless than Luke. Though, if the Force ghosts knew about Luke's intention to train Leia, they probably wouldn't have been smiling in the Ewok celebration.
Actually, they were probably thinking "Finally! I'm dead, so I won't be recast and dragged through another blasted Star Wars trilogy!"
Alexrd said:
Slightly big difference: Sony had (and still has) to make a reboot/remake/sequel of Spider-Man from time to time in order to not loose the rights of the franchise back to Marvel. Disney doesn't have that risk. Besides, the prequels are one of the main reasons Star Wars has such an active fanbase today.
P.S: If they didn't do it to Tron, they won't do it to any Star Wars movie.
Fair enough, I had forgotten that.
My point was simply that the Spider-Man reboot was something that many people felt was unnecessary and perplexing, from a creative point of view. I agree that it isn't probable that they will be remade, only that it's possible.
mfastx said:
I'd like to see them tie in to the originals and even the prequels in some ways. Like for example take a little something from a few of the films and incorporate it somehow. I hope it doesn't end up like a complete unrelated trilogy.
This goes back to the Trilogy of Trilogies idea, where the OT is a microcosm of the larger story, a fractal if you like. If you consider that episode 5 is to 4 and 6 as the OT is to the prequel and sequel trilogies, then you can come to some interesting conclusions.
For example: Episodes 4 and 6 had the Death Star, a unique and awe inspiring machination of the villains, which is only briefly mentioned in Empire. So if you extrapolate that idea to the 3 trilogies, you can have a huge plot structure repeated in the first and third trilogies that was only mentioned in the OT (The clone wars comes to mind). Of course, it doesn't have to be that, it should just be something that makes sense and implies a final trilogy to complete the story.
Bingowings said:
No I meant these are prequels but they are also earlier episodes of sequence of films.
Most of the audience would know Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader and Luke and Leia are his kids so play with that and have another Anakin have kids and kill them (Anakin is just a name).
In a series with clones you could seem to kill off people but instead kill off a clone.
Make Palpatine a clone of the Sith Lord and then people will be guessing if he is the real guy gone bad or the bad guy pretending to be the good guy.
Shake it up a bit and make it less of a conveyor belt.
Sorry, your post just reminded me of this response on the Cracked forums:
"Six year old Anakin Skywalker steps outside to do his desert planet chores like planting water seeds or milking lizards or some dumb thing when suddenly a Jawa Sandcrawler pulls up in his front yard (doing this totally sweet donut in the process) and all of the Jawas just start pouring out of it, like buckets of fucking Jawas flying out in every direction and start beating him with mangled droid arms. They bust into his house and fuck everything up. He has to watch them trade his hot mom to Jabba the Hutt (who is all making out with her and shit in front of him) in exchange for this bitching awesome hat (it has LED lights that spell out "SLUTS" in Jawa talk) and keep Anakin around to scrape off sand barnacles or whatever space problem you get when you drive Sandcrawlers. Over the course of eight years he pieces together Threepio from droid scraps to keep his sanity but the Jawas find the droid before it even gets turned on on and they sell it to some space guy who uses it . Anakin gets so pissed that he goes and gets the awesome hat and he punches this big hole in the top. The Jawas are so mad they throw him in the sarlaac and he is digested for 1,000 years in horrible pain. SPOILER: he was not that Anakin Skywalker!!"
Alexrd said:
1990osu said:
What was once a joke could now easily become reality.
How and why? The prequels were a success, despite the vocal bashing of a few. There is simply no reason to reboot them. Same with the originals.
Same with the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy.
Bingowings said:
If expectations were played with it could have been great (the remake of Night Of The Living Dead worked this way, things happened differently creating new drama based on familiarity with the existing material).
Bingo, I'm confused. Are you saying that the prequels should be in an alternate universe? True, that could work, but it's like the Star Trek reboot, where you might as well not call it Star Trek, because it's in a different universe anyway.
But you're absolutely right that backstory can beget backstory.
I should probably explain what I mean by the "story of the OT."
The story of the original trilogy was the story of how Luke Skywalker became a Jedi Knight and helped defeat an empire. For Lucas to make the OT into part of a six film epic of the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker is unnecessary. Anakin Skywalker can have his own trilogy, and his own story, completely separate from the OT, with a (gasp!) happy ending.
Commander Bane said:
Guys,
The only problem I have here is that no matter how you change or reboot or create a new prequel trilogy entirely, the basic fact of the prequel story is that it is a backstory to the original trilogy. It is not meant to be filmed. It is a bad decision on George's part to attempt to film it.
I agree, the story that Lucas made for the prequels was unfilmable. However, many aspects of that story make no sense in terms of theme, plot, and basic continuity when compared to the OT. In that way, the Lucas prequels are NOT the backstory to Star Wars. Remember that he made up almost all of the details of the story after the OT, or at least there is no reason to think that he had it all planned out ahead of time. For Star Wars, the backstory will always be speculation, so more can always be created or changed.
I think that there are good stories to tell in the Star Wars universe. I just want people to tell them, not continue the story of the OT, which was only 3 movies long.
Bingowings said:
Me I would make Anakin a navigator on a Spice Freighter.
He uses his latent Force abilities to plot courses quickly and avoid danger.
He sends his money back to his wife and sister who live on his brother-in-law's farm on a Kansas cornfield planet.
He saves Obi-Wan and listening to his tales of the Force drops everything (including his wife, who he doesn't know is already pregnant) to become a Jedi.
But he gets drawn into an affair with the Queen of Alderaan.
Near the end of the story Darth Vader visits the farm and kills Anakin's wife forcing Kenobi, Owen and Beru to flee to Tatooine.
This is pretty much the story that was implied by the OT. Why Lucas didn't go with this is beyond me.
However, I would go back further into the past, making it 40 years before the OT while Anakin was a teenager. I've been working for some time on a prequel rewrite, and holding so closely to the 20 year time gap feels like it's rushing the story and limiting the audience's imagination of implied events.
If you want specifics, I'll go next.
- Make Anakin young, old, Luke's age, whatever, just make his character arc understandable in the context of the entire saga. I would make him a teenager, sans the whiny, but I can definitely see an older Anakin working well.
- More real sets. If possible, make the story smaller than the OT, so that it will dovetail with the originals when they are watched in episodic order.
- Above all: Don't give away the revelations of the OT, like Vader's identity, Yoda, and Leia as Luke's sister. Yes, everyone today knows these revelations, but think in the long term. People will watch the prequels first if they want to see everything in chronological order, so don't ruin the surprise, or step on the toes of the originals.
If Episodes 7, 8, and 9 are good, it won't be because of the original trilogy, or the prequels. Those stories have been told. It won't be because they interweave themselves with the Expanded Universe. It won't even be because they are part of the Star Wars universe itself. It will be because at their core, they are stories worth telling. So really, what the creators and viewers need to ask is "would this story be good if it didn't have Star Wars on the poster?"
For me, there was only one great story worth telling in Star Wars, and that was told 30 years ago. I believe that more great stories can be told in the Star Wars universe, but I doubt that Disney will be the ones to tell them.
Hmm. Is this trilogy a continuation of the Lucas prequels?
I assume that the "enemy" forces in this trilogy are the Rebels. How do you plan to make them a credible threat, given that they are not supposed to win any victory over the Empire until Episode 4?
Definitely a unique take on the idea of the prequels though.