# Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4 billion! More Star Wars movies coming!



## Herschel (Oct 30, 2012)

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/disney-buying-lucas-films-for-4-billion/

Another Star Wars film in the works for 2015 with more to come.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 30, 2012)

The internet is exploding.

Star Wars VII in 2015, with two more to follow.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 30, 2012)

Hmmm. I'm cautiously optimistic about this. A bit concerned that Disney won't get the gritty feeling of the original trilogy, but then again, that was missing from the prequels too.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 30, 2012)

I wonder when they will remake episode one?  

I think this is great news for Star Wars.


----------



## CAFRedblade (Oct 30, 2012)

Thrawn Trilogy please.

Edit:
Oh, and since Disney owns Marvel, and Dark Horse publishes Star Wars comics... I wonder what'll happen there...
and maybe, just maybe we'll get some new Star Wars Flight games in the vein of the original X-Wing and Tie Fighter games.


----------



## Dragonblade (Oct 30, 2012)

This is great news! I'm so tired of Lucas complete mismanagement of the franchise. The prequels were an utter travesty.

Considering their amazing track record with Pixar and Marvel, this can only be an improvement.


----------



## jeffh (Oct 30, 2012)

Probably the best thing that could happen to the franchise is having it in new hands with Lucas as a hopefully-respected "creative consultant" but kept at a minimum distance of 50 feet from the writer's and director's chairs at all times.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 30, 2012)

Great news for Star Wars long term.  Probably sad news for some current Star Wars projects short term, though.  I imagine Clone Wars will get cancelled so the all-new animated Star Wars content can be launched on Disney XD, just like what happened with the greatly-missed Spectacular Spiderman show.

There were rumors that Season V would be its last anyway.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 30, 2012)

Oh thank the unspeakable gods of the Outer Hells! There was no chance Mr. Taking his ball & Going home would have EVER let the Expanded Universe make it to the big screen!

Only way I could be happier about this is if Disney announced they were getting H.R. Giger for costume design on the Yuuzhan Vong... that probably isn't happening, and would be a long ways off even if it did.


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Oct 30, 2012)

I feel a great disturbance in the force.

My initial reaction was that the announcement had to be a fake.  Color me stunned.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Oct 30, 2012)

I don't know that there's ever been a set of movies that were more forgettable and yet made more money than the prequel trilogy (Transformers, maybe?). Creatively, there's really nowhere to go but up. Financially, anything with the Star Wars label will do fine. This *could* be good.


----------



## Agamon (Oct 30, 2012)

I was all, "This Episode 7 better be Heir to the Empire!"

Then I was all, "Wait, the actors are too old for the parts."

Now I'm all, "This is bad news." 

I'd rather that they just restarted the franchise, ala Star Trek, than mess with canon.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 30, 2012)

Well, it isn't like the new movies could be much worse than the prequels, or what was done to the cartoon during season 3. It would be great if Disney turned SW over to Pixar and let them run with it.
Other than that, my childhood's bottom is anticipating being violated again.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 30, 2012)

I'm disappointed.

I don't want to see new Star Wars movies for a while, or at least not ones linked closely to the original trilogy and characters.  Disney is good, but I don't think they can pull off a movie every 2-3 years and maintain viable quality.  They'll just kill the franchise with dreck.

Maybe if they concentrate for a bit on web- or TV-series exploring some far-flung bits of canon ...


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 30, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Disney is good, but I don't think they can pull off a movie every 2-3 years and maintain viable quality.  They'll just kill the franchise with dreck.



The Marvel movies will make a fine litmus test for this concern. As to the Original Trilogy characters, sorry, but even the authors of the Expanded Universe realized those are the bread and butter of the fanbase.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 30, 2012)

Dragonblade said:


> I'm so tired of Lucas complete mismanagement of the franchise. The prequels were an utter travesty.




I'm betting the continuous stream of similar comments is probably one of the reasons he decided to sell...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm betting the next annoying race/character will be tall & rat like, with rounded ears and an incongrouously squeaky, high-pitched voice.


----------



## Knightfall (Oct 31, 2012)

Thank you Disney! Now get to work and make the Thrawn trilogy I've always wanted.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 31, 2012)

Agamon said:


> I'd rather that they just restarted the franchise, ala Star Trek, than mess with canon.




We can have R2D2 go back in time to save the Universe again!


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 31, 2012)

The prequels just needed more polish. They had a lot of interesting bits (Yoda vs Count Doku for instance, Jango Fett), and even the storyline wasn't bad, I just think he had forgotten how to make movies and perhaps hewed too close to the source materials, the old serials.

I also think people are missing that the series was mostly aimed at young'uns, not adults.


----------



## Votan (Oct 31, 2012)

Yeah, I suspect that this will end up being a good thing, one way or the other.  The best that can happen is some really cool movies.  The worst is that we just pretend the series ended after Revenge of the Sith.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 31, 2012)

I vote good news. Now we get new movies, a theme park for my eventual grand kids, and maybe even tv shows on ABC. 

At least now we have a chance of more content, and maybe some of it is good.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Oct 31, 2012)

CAFRedblade said:


> Thrawn Trilogy please.
> 
> Edit:
> Oh, and since Disney owns Marvel, and Dark Horse publishes Star Wars comics... I wonder what'll happen there...
> and maybe, just maybe we'll get some new Star Wars Flight games in the vein of the original X-Wing and Tie Fighter games.




Nothing.  Disney tends not to mess with the publishing rights of their licensed properties (until the license expires).  Case in point, I dont think they have moved any of the Disney Adventures line from Boom Comics and several other titles from other small publishers to Marvel.

-Sent via a cybernetic device.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2012)

1) given that the original Star Wars was based on a rather gritty samurai movie, it can only be partially true that it was aimed at kids.

2) in addition, good entertainment aimed at young'uns is also enjoyable by adults.  See classic WB cartoons...and the original Star Wars movie.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2012)

Anywho, I'm looking forward to the creation of a Mos Eisley Cantina themed dinnertainment venue along the lines of the Tiki Room...

Or a Pirates of the Kessel Run ride.


----------



## El Mahdi (Oct 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm betting the next annoying race/character will be tall & rat like, with rounded ears and an incongrouously squeaky, high-pitched voice.




"Hello Boys and Girls...May the Force Be With You"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2012)

I just had a vision of the next trilogy's Sith: he'll be covered in white feathers and have a yellow bill covered with tattoos...

(where's weem when we need him?)


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 31, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> The prequels just needed more polish. They had a lot of interesting bits (Yoda vs Count Doku for instance, Jango Fett), and even the storyline wasn't bad, I just think he had forgotten how to make movies and perhaps hewed too close to the source materials, the old serials.
> 
> I also think people are missing that the series was mostly aimed at young'uns, not adults.




Go to youtube. Look up Redlettermedia. He systematically dissects every mistake made in the prequels. And makes fun of the sort of people who argue about and get upset by that sort of thing in the first place. NOT for kids.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 31, 2012)

> He systematically dissects every mistake made in the prequels.




A quibble: he didn't get EVERY mistake- I have my own list of issues with the prequels that don't get covered too often...


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 31, 2012)

The Disney machine could easily put out a movie each year, alternating between live action and animated features.  Couple this with all of their other medium efforts and the rich, expanded, Star Wars universe could see tons of material flooding the market for years and years without ever losing steam.  DO IT!


----------



## Quickleaf (Oct 31, 2012)

I wonder if part of this deal included Lucas turning over the footage that he'd shot already for the "gritty" TV show about bounty hunters and such to Disney?


----------



## Holy Bovine (Oct 31, 2012)

Votan said:


> Yeah, I suspect that this will end up being a good thing, one way or the other.  The best that can happen is some really cool movies.  The worst is that we just pretend the series ended after [-]Revenge of the Sith.[/-] Return of the Jedi




fifm!

Disney has a track record of success with its properties.  As long as Lucas' influence on the final product is kept to a bare minimum I am pretty confident in the future of Star Wars


----------



## Ebon Shar (Oct 31, 2012)

Am I in the minority in hoping the Zahn books are not the basis of the new trilogy?  The anti-force lizards alone turned me off to them.  I'd rather see a focus on the kids of the originals/Jedi Academy storyline.  The age of the original actors is irrelevant then.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Oct 31, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A quibble: he didn't get EVERY mistake- I have my own list of issues with the prequels that don't get covered too often...




Yeah, I guess he did miss a few. Hard not to--there was so much. Is there a pm system so that you can send me your list without clogging this thread?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Oct 31, 2012)

I have to correct myself...  Disney transitioned their licensed properties to Marvel but they were gradual (they killed some floundering titles and then allowed titles to run until the license ended).

-Sent via a cybernetic device.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 31, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I'm betting the continuous stream of similar comments is probably one of the reasons he decided to sell...



GREAT!  Anything that gets the property out of the hands of _Mr. "I did it, needs to be the way I want it."_  is A+ in my book!


----------



## Orius (Oct 31, 2012)

As someone who loathes Disney, I have a very bad feeling about this!

Can't necessarily blame Lucas either.  While he isn't a great writer, his ideas aren't all bad.  The prequel trilogy had some good premises underneath it, but is was hampered in many places by weak dialogue and a few plot holes.  The Star Wars fanbase very much overstates his weaknesses though.  I can't blame him for being upset with the situation.

Good or bad whatever is done here is going to throw some huge snarls in the EU.  Now, there is a lot in the EU that is certainly worse than the prequels, but at least the Star Wars EU didn't have the problems of the Trek EU -- that is nothing is canon and sometimes better than what is canon.  That's why I stopped following the Trek EU.  Star Wars at least was easier, the movies were primary canon while the novels themseves were still pretty official.

I dunno.  I mean the OT actors are really too old to reprise their roles, and Lucas was talking about maybe making a new set of movies set at least 100 years after the OT.  If they follow something like this it might not be too bad.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 31, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I'm disappointed.
> 
> I don't want to see new Star Wars movies for a while.




I guess you could wait a few years before you watch them.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 31, 2012)

I heard on Dutch television that the new movies would focus on Luke, Leia and Han. Don't know whether that's based on an actual announcement somewhere or just a reporter not knowing enough about Star Wars to have considered any other possibilities.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Oct 31, 2012)

Any idea on how Disney handles licenses? How they treat RPGs?

It might be pretty hectic at FFG's right now.


----------



## Someone (Oct 31, 2012)

I can't wait for the opening line.

"Star Wars episode VII is the most dissapointing thing since Star Wars Episode III"

Go Mr Plinkett!!


----------



## Hal G (Oct 31, 2012)

If Disney can do to Lucas Films (Star Wars and Indiana Jones) what they did to Marvel, I say bravo.  Lucas was the issue for a long time to the SW franchise.   Maybe being less personally invested may make it better.


----------



## Someone (Oct 31, 2012)

Actually, the possibilities are endless. A Pixar movie with droids. Even better, with _toy droids_!! A crossover with the Avengers: Iron Man Vs the Sith! Luke Skywalker meets captain Sparrow!

And Leia as a Disney princess!!


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2012)

Dragonblade said:


> This is great news! I'm so tired of Lucas complete mismanagement of the franchise. The prequels were an utter travesty.




You realize, of course, that lots and lots of younger viewers prefer the prequels?  That they revitalized the business of the franchise, driving creation of the highly successful Clone Wars aniimated series, and untold millions in merchandise sales?

"Management of the franchise," is a business matter, and the answer is driven by the bottom line.  "The prequels were a travesty" is a matter of personal esthetic sensibilities.



> Considering their amazing track record with Pixar and Marvel, this can only be an improvement.




Pixar and Marvel are feathers in their cap now, yes, showing signs that Disney has learned a few things.  I do hope it carries over.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 31, 2012)

frankthedm said:


> Oh thank the unspeakable gods of the Outer Hells! There was no chance Mr. Taking his ball & Going home would have EVER let the Expanded Universe make it to the big screen!
> 
> Only way I could be happier about this is if Disney announced they were getting H.R. Giger for costume design on the Yuuzhan Vong... that probably isn't happening, and would be a long ways off even if it did.



Hopefully the folks in charge still have enough sense to follow "Mr Taking his ball & Going home" in that regard.  There has been precious little in the EU that has been anywhere near the quality of the original trilogies.  And it's not like they were incredibly cinema.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 31, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> I also think people are missing that the series was mostly aimed at young'uns, not adults.



I think that position has been repeatedly overstated over the years.  The first Star Wars movie featured some language that was pretty harsh in a show supposedly for kids in 1977.  Plus, it had a fair bit of brutal violence (Vader killing that officer in the first few minutes), bloody dismemberment (before Lucas cleaned up the blood in the DVD Edition)... sure, I was a 5  year old kid when it came out, and I loved it, but I really wonder how much it was aimed at kids vs. how much that's a story that's been told after the fact.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 31, 2012)

Ebon Shar said:


> Am I in the minority in hoping the Zahn books are not the basis of the new trilogy?  The anti-force lizards alone turned me off to them.  I'd rather see a focus on the kids of the originals/Jedi Academy storyline.  The age of the original actors is irrelevant then.



The Thrawn books were OK, not great.  The Old Republic stuff by Bioware was pretty cool.  Other than that, I have no interest in much of the EU, and in fact actively dislike it.  I take a perverse joy everytime some little detail in the prequels or the Clone Wars TV show skewers some point of C-canon.

I absolutely hope that everything in the EU, _including_ the Thrawn trilogy, is completely ignored by the folks working on the new movies, the same way George has done.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 31, 2012)

Jan van Leyden said:


> Any idea on how Disney handles licenses? How they treat RPGs?
> 
> It might be pretty hectic at FFG's right now.



They let them run out, if they can, but they don't really go around trying to actively break previously existing deals.  It's got to be particularly galling to them that Universal Studios had a pre-existing and apparently evergreen deal to host Marvel Island in their theme parks right up the street from DisneyWorld.

Other than that; stuff like the Marvel cartoons on Cartoon Network finished their seasons and then weren't renewed (to pave the way for new Marvel content launching on DisneyXD.)  Marvel still operates pretty independently.  All the pre-existing Pixar projects were left alone, etc.  I don't think that there's any notion that Disney would pull the plug on FFG.  They may not renew the license after whatever period that it currently has, though.  Which would be unfortunate if it only runs up until 2014 or 2015 or something like that.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Oct 31, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> The prequels just needed more polish. They had a lot of interesting bits (Yoda vs Count Doku for instance, Jango Fett), and even the storyline wasn't bad, I just think he had forgotten how to make movies and perhaps hewed too close to the source materials, the old serials.




Well, mythbusters proved you could polish a turd, so perhaps... 

There were moments, the biggest in my mind was Doku's attempt to lure Obi-Wan to his side by revealing that a Darth Sidious had taken control of the Republic.  What a colossal twist that would have been if Doku was really some sort of Knight Templar / Ends Justify the Means type character who started a civil war to destroy the last Sith Lord.  Sadly, no 



> I also think people are missing that the series was mostly aimed at young'uns, not adults.




You can make quality movies that appeal to kids and adults.  Pixar does it about once a year.  The best example of it was with The Incredibles (one of the best super-hero movies ever created).  The kid in us all enjoy the cool super heroics.  The adults enjoy the story of Mr. Incredible's mid-life crisis.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 31, 2012)

Umbran said:


> You realize, of course, that lots and lots of younger viewers prefer the prequels?  That they revitalized the business of the franchise, driving creation of the highly successful Clone Wars aniimated series, and untold millions in merchandise sales?



Uh... maybe.  I'd need to see a source for that before I believed it.

Anecdotally, my little boys (who are starting to get not quite so little at this point) really like the Clone Wars.  They think the prequels are badly made but pretty movies.  They think the original trilogy has much better stories and characters but look lame and old.  They're certainly discriminating enough to desire something with more of the storytelling chops of the first movies, without such clunky dialogue, abysmal pacing and complete lack of chemistry or likeability to the characters, but the visual design and special effects of the newer movies.

I'm feeling optimistic enough to hope for the same--something that manages to figure out what the strengths and weaknesses of both the original and the prequel trilogies are, capitalize on the strengths and minimize the weaknesses.  


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> "Management of the franchise," is a business matter, and the answer is driven by the bottom line.  "The prequels were a travesty" is a matter of personal esthetic sensibilities.



The franchise didn't really exist as such after about the mid 1980s, until the Thrawn books made Lucas realize that there was still life left in it.  Licensing it out to Dell Rey and then to various video game producers brought the franchise back to life to the point where Lucas could concieve of doing the movies again.  How much the prequels contributed to the growing of the franchise vs. possibly blunting efforts that were going on already anyway remains to be seen.  Certainly they made a fair bit of money in their own right, but not like the original trilogy (especially relative to their budgets.)  No matter how you cut it, the prequels were not nearly as successful as the original, and the franchise had already come back to life before the prequels came out.

With any luck, the franchise will continue for decades and we'll get tons of movies, James Bond style, as well as continued video games, LEGO sets, novels and who knows whatever else merchandizing.  And we'll look back at the era of the prequels as a bit of a low point, like the Roger Moore films, that only lasted temporarily.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 31, 2012)

Herschel said:


> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/disney-buying-lucas-films-for-4-billion/
> 
> Another Star Wars film in the works for 2015 with more to come.



I think the bigger news here is that the deal includes Industrial Light & Magic. Disney now owns ILM.

As for the Star Wars movie, I'm going to stay as neutral about it as I can until there's something to actually see. There's no way to know what direction they'll go and Lucas is still signed on as a consultant (whatever that means here).


----------



## Umbran (Oct 31, 2012)

Hobo said:


> How much the prequels contributed to the growing of the franchise vs. possibly blunting efforts that were going on already anyway remains to be seen.  Certainly they made a fair bit of money in their own right, but not like the original trilogy (especially relative to their budgets.)  No matter how you cut it, the prequels were not nearly as successful as the original...




Given that, adjusted for inflation, the original Star Wars is the #2 box office hit of all time does make it a tad difficult to match the originals.  I'd rank any expectation to do so as unreasonable.

But, the prequels are all themselves in the Top 100 movie grosses of all time, even adjusted for inflation.  



> ...the franchise had already come back to life before the prequels came out.




See above - nothing between the series of movies brought in money like a Top 100 movie.  While I have no quotes, I'm pretty sure the Thrawn books weren't selling Legos and plastic lightsabers at anywhere near the rate seen today. 



> With any luck, the franchise will continue for decades and we'll get tons of movies, James Bond style, as well as continued video games, LEGO sets, novels and who knows whatever else merchandizing.  And we'll look back at the era of the prequels as a bit of a low point, like the Roger Moore films, that only lasted temporarily.




In general, I agree, with the exception that Roger Moore's Bond is far, far more entertaining than the psychopathic bullet-spewing jerk they have on the screen now.  That's not a comment on Daniel Craig, who I know can act, just how the movies are now written as mindless brutal violence-fests.  YMMV.


----------



## Desdichado (Oct 31, 2012)

Umbran said:


> In general, I agree, with the exception that Roger Moore's Bond is far, far more entertaining than the psychopathic bullet-spewing jerk they have on the screen now.  That's not a comment on Daniel Craig, who I know can act, just how the movies are now written as mindless brutal violence-fests.  YMMV.



And obviously does; I think the Daniel Craig Bond are the best Bond movies ever made, and the Daniel Craig Bond is the most interesting Bond ever as well.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 31, 2012)

Umbran said:


> In general, I agree, with the exception that Roger Moore's Bond is far, far more entertaining than the psychopathic bullet-spewing jerk they have on the screen now.  That's not a comment on Daniel Craig, who I know can act, just how the movies are now written as mindless brutal violence-fests.  YMMV.




You're talking crazy.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 31, 2012)

Was it not Babylon 5 that had Disney Planet.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 31, 2012)

Hobo said:


> And obviously does; I think the Daniel Craig Bond are the best Bond movies ever made, and the Daniel Craig Bond is the most interesting Bond ever as well.




"After Sean Connery."  You forgot to add that.


----------



## Starman (Nov 1, 2012)

If I had to wager money, I'd say that the new movies will take place a generation or two after RotJ. Some of the original actors will have minor roles introducing and sending off the new characters. There will be some inspiration from the EU, but it will mostly be new stuff. I'm rather neutral on this news until more concrete info comes out about writer(s), director, and so on. 

One thing I do think would be cool is animated versions of the Thrawn trilogy. Then you don't have to worry about the original actors being too old. Hell, even if you can't sign them for the film, you can find talented voice actors who will sound nearly identical.


----------



## tuxgeo (Nov 1, 2012)

Someone said:


> < snip >
> And Leia as a Disney princess!!




Already conceptualized by Amy Mebberson on tumblr -- both Princess Padme and Princess Leia. (The drawings are five years old? She did those five years ago? Was Disney planning this purchase that long ago, or was Amy just that wishful/prescient?)

Edit to add: How many years to an Academy Award Nomination for Best Song, for "Trust Your Feelings (You Know It Is True)"?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 1, 2012)

Star Wars, Episode 7: TIE Fighter Willy

Star Wars, Episode 8: The Jedi's Apprentice

Star Wars, Episode 9: Hoth White and the Seven Ewoks


----------



## Orius (Nov 1, 2012)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> There were moments, the biggest in my mind was Doku's attempt to lure Obi-Wan to his side by revealing that a Darth Sidious had taken control of the Republic.  What a colossal twist that would have been if Doku was really some sort of Knight Templar / Ends Justify the Means type character who started a civil war to destroy the last Sith Lord.  Sadly, no




It's not too bad anyway, the main plot is that Palpatine is manipulating both sides here to undermine and eventually take control of the Republic.  So he's publicly running the Republic as the chanceloor, while his apprentice is pulling the strings of the opposition.

As for biggest plot holes, I think the whole secret marriage between Padme and Anakin is up there very high.  They've been together in Sith for something like 3 years, and nobody suspects anything, especially since Obi-Wan seemed to pick up on Anakin's feelings in AotC?  The Jedi really were getting pretty dense.  And there's no galactic paparazzi or anything who suspect something is going on between two very important and well-known people?  Padme gets pregnant and no one suspects Anakin is the father with all the time they spend together until Obi-Wan figures it out on Mustafar?  I sort of understand that Lucas was trying to go for a forbidden relationship angle here and he's imitating the style of classic movies, but some of that stuff doesn't really work today (which is why movies don't do things like say, Jar-Jar.), and Lucas's weak dialogue doesn't help matters either, unfortunately (the dialogue really kills the whole romance plot in Clones, which is unfortunate since he rest of the movie isn't really all that bad).



Umbran said:


> In general, I agree, with the exception that Roger Moore's Bond is far, far more entertaining than the psychopathic bullet-spewing jerk they have on the screen now.  That's not a comment on Daniel Craig, who I know can act, just how the movies are now written as mindless brutal violence-fests.  YMMV.




Moore seems to have the highest proportion of silly Bond movies like Moonraker.  Too much 70's goofiness in them to take most of them seriously.  Plus he's hard to take seriously as a Bond, he always seemed too wussy to me.  Brosnan I think had an excellent balance of class and cold blood which he brought to the role, but unfortunately hs last movie was Die Another Day which accomplished the task of making the worst of Moore's Bond films look good by comparison.


----------



## Dioltach (Nov 1, 2012)

Has anyone seen yesterday's instalment of The Dork Tower? 

http://www.dorktower.com/

(For those checking the link after a new comic has been added, check 31 October.)


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> "After Sean Connery."  You forgot to add that.



Heh.  No I didn't.



Starman said:


> If I had to wager money, I'd say that the new movies will take place a generation or two after RotJ. Some of the original actors will have minor roles introducing and sending off the new characters. There will be some inspiration from the EU, but it will mostly be new stuff.



Exactly how the Star Wars post-Jedi homebrew game I'm in currently is being run.  If it were me, I'd push it even further away in time, and make the events of the Original Trilogy semi-legendary.  Sort of like how we tell stories about George Washington and the cherry-tree kinda stuff.



tuxgeo said:


> Already conceptualized by Amy Mebberson on tumblr -- both Princess Padme and Princess Leia. (The drawings are five years old? She did those five years ago? Was Disney planning this purchase that long ago, or was Amy just that wishful/prescient?)



Disney and Lucasfilm have for years had a long relationship.  Ever ridden the Star Tours ride, or seen the Indiana Jones stunt show?  Ever picked up the Mickey as a jedi stuffed animals or pins?  It almost seems like formalizing something that kinda existed already.



Orius said:


> As for biggest plot holes, I think the whole secret marriage between Padme and Anakin is up there very high.  They've been together in Sith for something like 3 years, and nobody suspects anything, especially since Obi-Wan seemed to pick up on Anakin's feelings in AotC?  The Jedi really were getting pretty dense.



To me, the most irksome plot holes have to do with the Jedi order themselves, and their monumental inconsistency and self-righteous justification of whatever they want to do anyway.  One small example of which is Anakin being told that he'll be kicked out of the order if he abandons pursuit of Dooku to save Padme... and then ten minutes later, Yoda abandons pursuit of Dooku to save Anakin and Obiwan.  I find it the most irksome because if it were intentional, it would actually be one of the _most interesting_ plot elements out there.  If Anakin were somewhat _justified_ in turning against the Jedi, his fall would actually be interesting.  If the Jedi were clearly in need of a major house-cleaning of individuals, rules and practices.  But it's clearly _not_ intentional, and the Jedi aren't supposed to be shades of gray, they're clearly meant to be the the unadulterated good guys.  

Even though Luke is totally right, Obiwan and Yoda are both wrong, and it's his _compassion_ for his father, and not his Jedi _dispassion_ that allows him to succeed, that's never explored.  We're expected to believe Luke was actually wrong, paid the price by losing his hand and nearly falling to the dark side himself, and that he really only succeeded due to dramatic necessity.  Oh, wait.  We're supposed to be praising the Original Trilogy and condeming the Prequel Trilogy, right?

Still, I think that there's the elements of great story-telling in there, given the tension between the Jedi as explained to Luke, the Jedi as they actually are in the Prequels, and the new perspective that watching the OT with the knowledge of the prequels in the back of your mind gives you.  But mostly, _it's all accidental_ and Lucas was trying to tell a straight-forward, black and white, good vs. evil story.  Seen that way, it's full of idiotic plot holes and inconsistencies.  Seen as a deeper story with shades of gray, it's got potential that it never quite manages to reach.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 1, 2012)

Orius said:


> Moore seems to have the highest proportion of silly Bond movies like Moonraker.  Too much 70's goofiness in them to take most of them seriously.




Ah, there's your mistake - with 20+ Bond movies, we don't need all of them to be Serious Cinema.  There's room for some of them to be fun.


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 1, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I'm pretty sure the Thrawn books weren't selling Legos and plastic lightsabers at anywhere near the rate seen today.




The Thrawn books are basically what brought Star Wars back from being dormant.

After Return of the Jedi, Star Wars started to fade out.  The Marvel Comics run lasted another year or two before wrapping it up.  There were the Ewok TV movies, and that was about it.

In 1987 or so, West End Games got the license to make a Star Wars RPG.  Basically they had to create much of the "expanded universe" from scratch.  LucasFilm made it clear they wanted a coherent setting with consistency between licensed materials, but so little had been established that they had huge chunks to fill in.  There were the 3 films, the 2 Ewok movies, Splinter of the Minds Eye, the Han Solo and Lando Calrissian novels, and the Marvel Comics, and that was about it in terms of canon.

Lucas just basically said to leave the Clone Wars and the rise of the Empire alone, he was going to do that himself.  So, WEG filled in stuff about the Imperial era itself.  

Then, when Timothy Zahn got the contract to write a new novel, set after Return of the Jedi, LucasFilm asked him to use the WEG materials to build off of.  He has said he was originally offended, because he thought he had carte blanche to expand from the movies, but LucasFilm dropped off a crate of books at his house, he read through them, and basically liked what he saw, and worked in lots of references to them into his books.

Heir to the Empire was a bestseller, and that rekindled public interest in Star Wars.  WEG saw sales skyrocket (and released a second edition, and started producing material set in the New Republic era, since Zahn basically created the New Republic).

The Thrawn novels on their own weren't selling merchandise like hotcakes, but that's what restarted the fire that had cooled down after the cinema screens went dark in '83.  That's when merchandise started selling all over again, when comics started coming out again (this time from Dark Horse), when action figures started over again, when a steady stream of novels began to pick up, and so on, all following from the success of Heir to the Empire and showing that Star Wars could go on past the 3 films.

My big worry about the Disney buyout is the fear that Disney won't respect the canon, and will go off and make VII, VIII and IX completely separate from the established 20+ years of Star Wars continuity.

The dream scenario is a movie trilogy of the Thrawn novels, but realistically I don't see them doing it (would be the best-case scenario though).


----------



## Umbran (Nov 1, 2012)

wingsandsword said:


> The Thrawn books are basically what brought Star Wars back from being dormant.




I see this frequently asserted.  While I read and liked the books back when they were written, I think their effect is largely overstated.  



> The dream scenario is a movie trilogy of the Thrawn novels, but realistically I don't see them doing it (would be the best-case scenario though).




E!Online reports a source at LucasFilm stated the next will will be an original story, and not from previous novels, comics, or graphic novels.  That doesn't say that the movie will ignore canon.  It'll just not be a new presentation of already established canon.  I'm cool with that.  Leave the novels as novels, and don't rehash them (and, of course, likely have to change them) for the screen.


----------



## CAFRedblade (Nov 1, 2012)

wingsandsword said:


> My big worry about the Disney buyout is the fear that Disney won't respect the canon, and will go off and make VII, VIII and IX completely separate from the established 20+ years of Star Wars continuity.




As much as I really want to see the Thrawn series played out on Film, I realize that there would be a time issue, unless they recast the actors.  
From everything I've now read, it's unlikely that the new films will be the Thrawn Trilogy.  In fact it looks like Lucas wrote the initial Manuscript/Treatment they're working from, sooooo... I can only hope he takes a few cues from the Expanded universe novels and comics and integrates them into the new series.  Either that, or the new films could fall into empty spaces between the Expanded Universe timeline without too much disruption..  

Otherwise yes, all the last 20+ years of expanded universe will become moot..  Although the movies have always been the Prime universe for StarWars, it'll make it more difficult to tie the separate Universes together, even tenuously, if the new movies take a drastic step in another direction.

My second dream version after Thrawn, would be the Dark Empire Comics, and then the third would be Crimson Empire series..


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 1, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I see this frequently asserted.  While I read and liked the books back when they were written, I think their effect is largely overstated.




Well, look at it like this.

In 1991, when Heir to the Empire came out, it had been 8 years since the last Star Wars movie.  You couldn't go into a toy store and buy Star Wars action figures, you couldn't go into a comic store and buy Star Wars comics.  The only Star Wars novels out there were a decade old.  The last video game had been an NES game that just came out based on A New Hope, and before that you had to back to a RotJ arcade game from '83, and games that branched out from the plot of the 3 movies was unthinkable.  There was the RPG< but that was a niche product that the vast majority of consumers didn't even know existed.  There had been a couple of TV movies and a short-lived cartoon series right after the last movie, but there hadn't been anything new in years.

Heck, I was born in '78 and was 5 when Jedi was in theaters, and my parents didn't take me to it because I was too young.  I grew up with Star Wars on VHS.  I watched the films circa '87, then immediately wanted to go out and get Star Wars stuff. . .and found I couldn't.  No toys, no games, no comics.  I remember making a lightsaber out of a piece of plumbing pipe, a dowel rod and some blue spray paint because you couldn't go out and buy a toy lightsaber.  If you discovered Star Wars in the late '80's, you would find slim pickings.

Heir to the Empire came out, it hit #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list.  People who hadn't thought about Star Wars in years were now reading the further adventures of Luke Skywalker, and reading about new heroes and new villains.  They wanted more.  For the first time in years, there was strong public interest in more Star Wars.  Evergreen media "franchises" weren't quite as common 20 years ago, a spin-off novel from an 8 year old movie being a runaway bestseller?   That was a game changer.

It's 2012, the last Star Wars movie was 7 years ago, almost as far back as Jedi was when HttE came out.  I can go into a toy store and buy loads of Star Wars toys, I can buy Star Wars comics, new Star Wars novels come out every couple of months, there is an ongoing animated Star Wars TV series, and an MMORPG.  Star Wars is now a big media "franchise", it wasn't that in 1991.


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 1, 2012)

CAFRedblade said:


> As much as I really want to see the Thrawn series played out on Film, I realize that there would be a time issue, unless they recast the actors.
> From everything I've now read, it's unlikely that the new films will be the Thrawn Trilogy.  In fact it looks like Lucas wrote the initial Manuscript/Treatment they're working from, sooooo... I can only hope he takes a few cues from the Expanded universe novels and comics and integrates them into the new series.  Either that, or the new films could fall into empty spaces between the Expanded Universe timeline without too much disruption..
> 
> Otherwise yes, all the last 20+ years of expanded universe will become moot..  Although the movies have always been the Prime universe for StarWars, it'll make it more difficult to tie the separate Universes together, even tenuously, if the new movies take a drastic step in another direction.




Well, as far as I'm concerned, the new movies would be moot instead.  I probably won't even bother with the new movies if they completely disregard the EU and/or "invalidate" it. 

The Expanded Universe is why I'm still a fan after all these years, and why I'm a fan of Star Wars.

You see, when the Thrawn novels, and everything following on from them came out through the 90's, I was amazed at how well they all hung together coherently.  The big, elaborate setting they created was a huge thing for me.

I used to be a trekkie.  Used to be.  Star Trek has always had a much more relaxed view of continuity, both within the official works, and among licensed works.  In High School I would read Trek novels, but it got harder and harder to swallow each new novel since they were all just stand-alone tales, none could ever change the status quo, they could never have any continuity with each other (you'd almost never read a novel that referenced another novel, apparently Paramount insisted on that), the quality of the novels themselves were (at best) hit-or-miss with a few gems and lots of junk, and the fact that the shows and movies themselves had huge continuity gaffes themselves was another downer.  It was hard to stay a fan of a property that couldn't even take itself seriously, so I really lost most of my affection for Trek.

At the same time, I saw Star Wars and its big, coherent, consistent universe telling an epic tale that stretched for thousands of years.  I could read about a character in an RPG book. . .and see him referenced later in a novel, and those events would be talked about in a comic book, and it would all be the backstory to a scene from the movie.  It felt real, with a verisimilitude of setting I've felt in very few other fictional universes.  

They have spent 20+ years building this vast coherent setting, only to trash it to stamp out movies in a moneymaking grab?  Lucas had said consistently for many years he never intended to make anything after VI, most recently in an interview in May '08, when he said he left explicit instructions to his heirs to never EVER make any more SW movies, that the movies were done and it was in the hands of other authors (and Lucasfilm had set up an elaborate system, and full time employees, to make sure those stories were consistent).

So, more movies can't be seen as a natural growth of the setting and invalidating decades of continuity because Disney wants to see a billion-dollar box office take seems like a slap in the face to two decades of being a Star Wars fan.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 1, 2012)

My initial reaction was "Oh, hell no." After a few moments reflection, "Well, it's not like they could make it any worse."

But there are some other factors.
One of the best things Lucas did was make it an open license for anyone to use Star Wars materials, so long as there was no money involved. Thus, all the fanfilms could be made and distributed without fear of legal reprisals. Disney does not have that sort of policy. If anything, it is anathema to them. How is that going to work out?

EU has a few Gems hiding in the dross. The x-wing series was pretty good. Another thing: all EU writers were required to use the WEG RPG rules as a bible for writing novels. This was an effort to instill consistency. Naturally, Lucas himself was exempt, which resulted in the horribleness that is the Prequels.

SW is for kids? Really. EP1 is about taxes and trade disputes. Yeah, that's a kiddie pleaser. Ep2 is about... um... well, I guess politics and assassinations and while having a temper tantrum it is ok to kill people who are different from you. Ep3 is about... uh... politics and... um, spousal abuse is bad? and... enough CGI can hide the gaping holes in you writing?

As for the new Bond movies: in a word, "YUCK" comes to mind. QoS was so bad that I gave up on the franchise entirely (until there is a new writing staff). CR was pretty bad too, but when the first 10 minutes is a car chase where I cannot tell who is shooting at whom, what's the point? The girl's name was "Strawberry Fields"? Nice joke I guess--too bad they didn't think to provide that information IN THE MOVIE. I found out during the end credits. Compared to FYEO or TLD, or even Moonraker, the new movies are just garbage for the teenagers. Hell, even the invisible car, stupid as it was, was better than anything in the last 2 Bond flicks. It is a sad day when not even Dame Judy Dench can save the movie.

As for Pixar. Pixar was revitalized by a guy who got fired from Disney for expressing an idea. That was his crime: he suggested an idea. In front of witnesses. At DisneyCorp, an idea can get you FIRED, if it is at all outside the static corporate structure. Yup. Go from that. So he went to Pixar, and turned it into a massive success. So Disney weedled and cajolled until they could buy the company--guess they don't like competition or not having total control over the movies they distribute.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2012)

wingsandsword said:


> My big worry about the Disney buyout is the fear that Disney won't respect the canon, and will go off and make VII, VIII and IX completely separate from the established 20+ years of Star Wars continuity.



My big worry is that they'll do the opposite, and take most of the EU crap seriously.  I take that back; it's not really a very big worry, because historically, G-canon has always completely ignored and trumped C-canon, and I'm reasonably sure that they'll continue that, especiallly with Lucas as a creative consultant.


> The dream scenario is a movie trilogy of the Thrawn novels, but realistically I don't see them doing it (would be the best-case scenario though).



That makes no sense whatsoever given the many, many things in the Thrawn trilogy that are impossible given newer revelations that have come up in the prequels and the Clone Wars.


Umbran said:


> I see this frequently asserted.  While I read and liked the books back when they were written, I think their effect is largely overstated.



On the contrary; the effect is likely understated.  There was absolutely nothing going on in Star Wars when it came out, and probably would never have been if the first novel by Zahn hadn't been a bit of a surprise sleeper hit.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 1, 2012)

Hobo said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever given the many, many things in the Thrawn trilogy that are impossible given newer revelations that have come up in the prequels and the Clone Wars.




That is why the only intelligent thing to do is to completely ignore the prequels like they were a bad dream.

But can we have a "for Instance" on that?
The only thing that might be suspect is the idea of Mara Jade as a side apprentice, but then, maybe the emperor was already planning Vader's replacement?


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> As for Pixar. Pixar was revitalized by a guy who got fired from Disney for expressing an idea. That was his crime: he suggested an idea. In front of witnesses. At DisneyCorp, an idea can get you FIRED, if it is at all outside the static corporate structure. Yup. Go from that. So he went to Pixar, and turned it into a massive success. So Disney weedled and cajolled until they could buy the company--guess they don't like competition or not having total control over the movies they distribute.



If that's a reference to John Lasseter, that's not really a very accurate retelling of what happened.  Nor is it fair to condemn an entire corporation for the actions of one middle manager, some thirty odd years ago.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 1, 2012)

Hobo said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever given the many, many things in the Thrawn trilogy that are impossible given newer revelations that have come up in the prequels and the Clone Wars.



This. People who are afraid that Disney will somehow ruin or disrespect the continuity don't seem to realize just how badly it was already full of holes. Five different levels of official continuity that don't even mesh on a single-continuity level.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 1, 2012)

Hobo said:


> If that's a reference to John Lasseter, that's not really a very accurate retelling of what happened.  Nor is it fair to condemn an entire corporation for the actions of one middle manager, some thirty odd years ago.



Yeah, I'm horrible with names.
And sure it is fair, when it is indicative of the corporate mindset. Did Disney try to hire him back? Did they allow an appeal? Not that I am aware of. As I understand it, it was no warning, fired, goodbye, don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> That is why the only intelligent thing to do is to completely ignore the prequels like they were a bad dream.
> 
> But can we have a "for Instance" on that?
> The only thing that might be suspect is the idea of Mara Jade as a side apprentice, but then, maybe the emperor was already planning Vader's replacement?



I'm actually talking more about the Clone Wars than the prequels.  Sure, the prequels are easy to pan, but the Clone Wars is head and shoulders (in general) than the EU by a long shot.  For instance, the EU gives us such inane ideas as "Greedo was a bounty hunter, therefore his entire species has a culture based on hunting and collecting bounties!" or "Jabba had twi'lek slave dancers, therefore the twi'leks have a history of being enslaved and forced to work as entertainers and dancers!"

The EU, with few exceptions (especially the BioWare stuff) brings the setting down and makes it sillier, and frequently misses the whole tone of Star Wars anyway.  The Clone Wars, on the other hand, is tightly integrated with the prequel stories, yet manages to go a long way towards rehabilitating them.


----------



## rkwoodard (Nov 1, 2012)

*I can't guess on the movies*

Hello,

I will not hazard a guess on the movies.  But I certainly see a Jedi Academy show on Disney XD ala the Tron cartoon they now have.

RK


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 1, 2012)

Hobo said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever given the many, many things in the Thrawn trilogy that are impossible given newer revelations that have come up in the prequels and the Clone Wars.




Like what?  Name a single discrepancy from the Thrawn novels that hasn't been fit into the larger continuity with the prequels?

Spaarti Cylinders instead of Kaminoan technology?
An older, more dangerous cloning technology that was hauled out by the Republic when Kamino's cloning facilities were finally shut down/destroyed.

Pellaeon talking about fighting clones while in the Republic Navy?
Established that the Kaminoans had tried to create their own clones to rebel against Republic control, after the Republic had put a garrison on the planet during the war to protect it against the Separatists, but Kamino wanted to remain independent.  

The timeline established for when Honoghr was poisoned? 
This has been retconned that the years given in terms of how long ago were Honoghr-local years, not galactic standard years, so the poisoning could have happened 40+ local years ago, but only happened 27 years ago by normal reckoning, heck the poisoning of Honoghr was actually shown somewhere in the various Clone Wars media.

Those were the big three that I knew of, and authors in the EU went far out of their way to retcon things in.  Every little discrepancy that the prequels introduced came along with fixes to blend it all together.  Authors intentionally were vague about the clone wars era because they knew Lucas would one day come along and write stuff there, so they didn't put a lot there, and left lots of wiggle room where they did.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 1, 2012)

No wonder he wanted the money.....I could care less about continuity. I want to he entertained. Sure. The next few movies should be consistent with each other, bit do they have to be consistent with every movie, tv show, and book? Not for me, and I would guess, not for most people.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> Yeah, I'm horrible with names.
> And sure it is fair, when it is indicative of the corporate mindset. Did Disney try to hire him back? Did they allow an appeal? Not that I am aware of. As I understand it, it was no warning, fired, goodbye, don't let the door hit you on the way out.



Which it isn't.

Plus, Lasseter basically tried to do an end run around his immediate management and get something green-lit by _their_ bosses, which is _never_ a good idea. 

Plus, this was many years before the dot com corporate culture started influencing corporate culture overall towards more casualness.

If you're judging Disney based on that one incident, you're making a big mistake, IMO.  By all measurable metrics, Disney is one of the best large corporations to work for in the world.  And I'll also point out that in spite of that history, Lasseter doesn't seem to have any problem working for Disney again now.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2012)

wingsandsword said:


> Like what?  Name a single discrepancy from the Thrawn novels that hasn't been fit into the larger continuity with the prequels?



Dude, I haven't read those books in at least ten years.  I don't remember the details that are specific to the Thrawn trilogy.  I did remember giving a little cheer mentally when they showed the Rodian, Mandalorian and Twi'lek homeworlds and culture and that they're nothing like what was established in the EU, though.

And frankly, even those examples you gave are more like fitting round pegs into square holes.  Sure, Star Wars has done it before ("Well it _is_ true... from a certain point of view") but it's a bad fit and it's an obviously patched over retcon rather than a smooth consistency.

Like I've said repeatedly, though... that doesn't really bother me much.  If I can accept the retcon that Darth Vader is actually Anakin Skywalker instead of his murderer, then I can accept plenty of other changes to EU continuity.  In fact, I mostly welcome them, since for the most part, the EU hasn't particularly impressed me.

And if the Yuuzhan Vong _ever_ make an appearance in a Star Wars movie, I'll know for sure that Star Wars movies have jumped the shark.  Jumped a second shark after the one that they already jumped somewhere between _Empire _and _Jedi_.  Whatever.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 1, 2012)

Disney is one of the best corporations to work for? Have you spoken with an actual Disney employee?
I've talked to several. Unless you are a die-hard mouse worshiper, the only good thing I've heard them say is that Disney pays on time. That's it.
Seriously. Unless you are on the East Coast. West coast employees frequently get screwed over by corporate decisions made in NY.


As for Clone Wars: The Animated movie and first 2 seasons were the best thing to come out of the whole prequel debacle. Even the music was better (am I the only one that got tired of the chorus? "Chor-US Chor-uuhhhhs. Chorus-chorus-chorus-chorus. CHOR-AAAHHHSSSS.  CHOR-usssssss). I find it fun to watch the segments with Finelli (or whatever his name is--remember, I'm horrible with names). It seems like every time he says "And this was a brilliant idea from George," what he is really saying is "I'm sorry. I know this was dumb. Lucas forced it on us. I'm really, really sorry. It's not my fault."


----------



## Someone (Nov 1, 2012)

Hobo said:


> For instance, the EU gives us such inane ideas as "Greedo was a bounty hunter, therefore his entire species has a culture based on hunting and collecting bounties!" or "Jabba had twi'lek slave dancers, therefore the twi'leks have a history of being enslaved and forced to work as entertainers and dancers!"




Generally speaking, everything SW tends to be this way; it's an endless repetition of what we've seen in the movies, exaggerated to the nth degree. All jedi wear robes because Obi Wan wore robes (maybe Obi Wan wore them because he lived in a desert?), all dark siders are called Darth, wield red lightsabers and shoot lightning, but perhaps Vader had a lightsaber because he was a fallen Jedi, it was red because it fits better his character, and lightning was just one of the powers the Emperor had and not everyone who's reached sith level 3 learns.

I know, every one of these examples has it reason in the canon and whatnot. The point is, it didn’t have to be that way, and instead of recycling the same ideas and concepts ad nauseam, they could have come with new ones. I dislike most of the EU because they try to tie with the existing material in a very superficial way, like a hypothetical Indiana Jones expanded universe were all archeologists wore fedoras. Jones' hat was cool, like lightsabers are cool, but when you abuse those elements they start becoming a caricature of themselves - and those elements are not the core of what SW or Indiana Jones are about, and EU material tends to miss those entirely.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> Disney is one of the best corporations to work for? Have you spoken with an actual Disney employee?



Many, yes.


> As for Clone Wars: The Animated movie and first 2 seasons were the best thing to come out of the whole prequel debacle. Even the music was better (am I the only one that got tired of the chorus? "Chor-US Chor-uuhhhhs. Chorus-chorus-chorus-chorus. CHOR-AAAHHHSSSS.  CHOR-usssssss).



The prequel music was great.  The fourth Indiana Jones movie was where I thought Williams was really phoning it in.


> I find it fun to watch the segments with Finelli (or whatever his name is--remember, I'm horrible with names). It seems like every time he says "And this was a brilliant idea from George," what he is really saying is "I'm sorry. I know this was dumb. Lucas forced it on us. I'm really, really sorry. It's not my fault."



But they mostly made those "dumb" ideas work.  Mostly what he's saying is, "that sounds really hard to do," and then they do it.


Someone said:


> Generally speaking, everything SW tends to be this way; it's an endless repetition of what we've seen in the movies, exaggerated to the nth degree. All jedi wear robes because Obi Wan wore robes (maybe Obi Wan wore them because he lived in a desert?), all dark siders are called Darth, wield red lightsabers and shoot lightning, but perhaps Vader had a lightsaber because he was a fallen Jedi, it was red because it fits better his character, and lightning was just one of the powers the Emperor had and not everyone who's reached sith level 3 learns.
> 
> I know, every one of these examples has it reason in the canon and whatnot. The point is, it didn’t have to be that way, and instead of recycling the same ideas and concepts ad nauseam, they could have come with new ones. I dislike most of the EU because they try to tie with the existing material in a very superficial way, like a hypothetical Indiana Jones expanded universe were all archeologists wore fedoras. Jones' hat was cool, like lightsabers are cool, but when you abuse those elements they start becoming a caricature of themselves - and those elements are not the core of what SW or Indiana Jones are about, and EU material tends to miss those entirely.



Amen, brother.  This right here is my biggest single complaint with the EU.  It's shallow, superficial, it _looks_ like Star Wars, but somehow feels all wrong.


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 2, 2012)

Okay,

From reading around the web and every announcement I can find, it seems that what Lucasfilm has said about the sequel trilogy is as follows:

1. It is a new story, not an adaptation of an EU material.

2. The EU is not going to be completely discarded, and the continuity/canon people at LFL have been in consultation for several months now about the planned story to avoid any particularly bad contradictions in the sequel trilogy.

3. Some retcons and "from a certain point of view" retellings of established facts will almost certainly be needed, like were with the prequels, but the big major plot events over time of the EU will be followed (The Republic was re-established, Luke re-founds the Jedi Order and takes on apprentices, Han & Leia got married and had kids with Leia being a leader of the Republic for a while before becoming a Jedi herself, the Empire finally surrendered outright and became a tiny little rump state on the edge of the Galaxy, Luke got married, had a son, got widowed, Chewbacca died, ect.)  All these big changes to the setting over the years had to be approved by George Lucas personally, and supposedly it doesn't contradict any of the really big continuity points in the story outlines that the sequel trilogy is working with.  Heck, if they could keep Splinter of the Minds Eye from being completely non-canon, they can do some big work-arounds.  

Based on this, there is a lot of chatter that it may be set after the Fate of the Jedi novels (the most recent novel series).  Since that would mean it would be set several decades after the films, they wouldn't even have to re-cast (unless an actor refused to come back for another film).

In one sense, this is the best of both worlds, the EU is preserved (more or less), but for those who choose to ignore it, you don't have to be an EU fanatic and just understand that it's been a few decades and some things have changed, but what you'll need to know will be entirely within the film.  I personally figure they may throw in passing references to some EU events as little easter eggs, akin to when Anakin and Obi-Wan chattered in Episode II about their past adventures together.  

From a business perspective, maintaining the integrity of the EU is probably best for Disney/Lucasfilm.  Saying that the huge, highly profitable mass of novels, comics, references ect. are now completely void (and thus much less appealing) is probably less profitable than not discarding them outright.

Also, from the end of the Fate of the Jedi novels, until the Star Wars: Legacy comics we have a roughly 85 year period of continuity the EU really hasn't touched, from about 40 years after the films until about 130 years after the original trilogy.  Plenty of room to work in a new trilogy and everything relating to it.


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 2, 2012)

Also, in what may have been a quiet set-up for a new trilogy, the EU novel Crucible was announced a few months back, set at the end of the main body of the EU, and billed as the final adventure of Luke, Han and Leia.

So, in retrospect it could tying up the established EU to put a stopping point where material related to the new trilogy starts?


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 2, 2012)

wingsandsword said:


> Also, in what may have been a quiet set-up for a new trilogy, the EU novel Crucible was announced a few months back, set at the end of the main body of the EU, and billed as the final adventure of Luke, Han and Leia.
> 
> So, in retrospect it could tying up the established EU to put a stopping point where material related to the new trilogy starts?



I guess that depends on how long Lucas has been planning this sale.


----------



## wingsandsword (Nov 2, 2012)

Hobo said:


> I guess that depends on how long Lucas has been planning this sale.




Apparently a sequel trilogy has been in some level of planning since at least last year: http://www.eonline.com/news/359185/...her-about-new-trilogy-before-big-announcement

Mark Hamil and Carrie Fisher were secretly told about the plans last year.  Whether or not they are going to have a role is unknown, but they apparently knew about a sequel trilogy first, directly from Lucas.  He also told them that he wasn't making the movies personally, they would be done by Kathleen Kennedy (the new President of Lucasfilm).

The more I look at the novel and overall EU schedule, it looks like they were setting up for this.  As I said, they just ended the Fate of the Jedi novel series, with no big follow-on other than a single standalone novel with Han, Luke and Leia, billed as a big last hurrah.

Since 1999, the EU has had some kind of big novel series pushing later and later into the timeline.  The Hand of Thrawn novels, followed by the long-running New Jedi Order series, which lead right into the Dark Nest Crisis series, followed by the Legacy of the Force series, and finally into Fate of the Jedi.

I'd actually noticed a week or so ago, right before the announcement, that there hadn't been a big followup to Fate of the Jedi, no new series announced or planned for the first time in at least 13 years, which made me kind of curious and was wondering when the announcement of something new would be, but I never would have expected this.

So yeah, this seems to have been in planning stages for at least a year, and apparently the continuity/canon keepers at Lucasfilm have been in consultation for "months" over it, and the last big EU novel before the sequel era was announced in July.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 2, 2012)

Good analysis of the probabilities.  That's good news for you, who want C-canon to be retained as much as possible.

I'm still hopeful that the movies push out far enough ahead in time that it's a moot point.  Then again, my preferred "homebrew" Star Wars is set several hundred years after _Jedi_ so I can have time to wash away _any_ detail, either in G-canon, T-canon, or C-canon, that I don't like, and assume for simplicity's sake that most of the rest of it is intact unless otherwise specifically called out.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 2, 2012)

As an aside and just for the heckuvit fun, here's a blog post I wrote a little over two years ago for what _my_ ideal Star Wars setting post Jedi would look like.  At the time, I hadn't yet seen the Mandalorean episodes on Clone Wars, so those details would obviously need a few changes to align it with the T-canon.


> A little over four years ago, I was revisiting the idea of Star Wars and roleplaying (I had probably just gone through an episode of playing Knights of the Old Republic (KOTOR), but I don't remember that clearly.) One of the things that impressed me about KOTOR was that it managed to feel almost exactly like the Star Wars that we all know and love, yet was removed from it in the timeline by close to 4,000 years, and obviously very few of the details were the same; just the feel, the tone, and the broad strokes.
> 
> Rather than backwards, I'd like to go forwards in time, by a significant amount. I had said at that point 500 years, but I'd rather go even further; 1,000 years. Just to give me plenty of time to wipe away any E.U. stuff that I don't want, yet far enough that I don't have to explain it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 2, 2012)

What are C-canon, T-canon, and G-canon?


----------



## jonesy (Nov 2, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> What are C-canon, T-canon, and G-canon?



Star Wars continuity has been separated into five different canon.

G has the six films and adaptations of the films to other forms (like novels).
T adds Clone Wars.
C is the established part of the Expanded Universe.
S includes EU stuff that has a lot of discrepancies.
N is totally non-canon.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 3, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Star Wars continuity has been separated into five different canon.
> 
> G has the six films and adaptations of the films to other forms (like novels).
> T adds Clone Wars.
> ...




Thanks.  Do the letters themselves mean anything, or are they just random?


----------



## jonesy (Nov 3, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Thanks.  Do the letters themselves mean anything, or are they just random?



They are for George Lucas, Television, Continuity, Secondary and Non. Yes, C-Canon is 'Continuity Canon'.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 3, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Thanks.  Do the letters themselves mean anything, or are they just random?



They're also heirarchical.  G-canon is the top level of canon.  T-canon is just below it.  C-canon is the EU, and can be trumped by anything in G-canon or T-canon.

Below C-canon is really stuff that's not worth considering canon at all, IMO.

G is for George (Lucas)
T is for TV.
C is for continuity canon, which is the majority of the EU stuff; novels, comics, video games, etc.
S is for secondary canon, or "barely" canon.  Stuff that's considered non-canonical, but non-contradicting elements are still OK.  A lot of this is older stuff from before canon was being organized and tracked, like the old Marvel comics line, or Splinter in the Mind's Eye.
N is for Not canon at all.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 3, 2012)

To which canon does the Star Wars Holiday Special belong?  That was George Lucas, but was also TV, right?


----------



## Someone (Nov 3, 2012)

That has an entire letter for itself: I

It's not clear if it stands for "ignominous" or "ignored"


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 4, 2012)

Someone said:


> That has an entire letter for itself: I
> 
> It's not clear if it stands for "ignominous" or "ignored"



It is also the perfect example of Lucas choosing to ignore something that he approved earlier.
If Lucas can choose to ignore any aspect of GFFA that he wants, so can we.


----------



## Orius (Nov 4, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> To which canon does the Star Wars Holiday Special belong?  That was George Lucas, but was also TV, right?




It's probably not even on the scale at all given how much Lucas hates it.


----------



## Stormonu (Nov 4, 2012)

I'm more than nervous about this merger.  I love the animated Clone Wars cartoon and find the Prequels* tolerable, but this looks like a marriage made in hell - Disney wants the money (greed) and Lucas is getting tired of overseeing Star Wars (apathy).  I'm uneasy in the feeling we'll see it start turning out junk stories just to roll along the money machine.



* if you think the Prequels are bad, Star Wars has the biggest plot hole of them all - why the hell did the Princess go to Yavin if she suspected the Falcon was being tracked?  I'd have told Solo to go to Dantooine or some other outer rim near-abandoned planet, paid him there and then taken another ship and Artoo (and Luke) to the rebel base - especially with his mercenary attitude.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 4, 2012)

Bad decisions and plot holes aren't at all the same thing.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 4, 2012)

Stormonu said:


> I'm more than nervous about this merger.  I love the animated Clone Wars cartoon and find the Prequels* tolerable, but this looks like a marriage made in hell - Disney wants the money (greed) and Lucas is getting tired of overseeing Star Wars (apathy).  I'm uneasy in the feeling we'll see it start turning out junk stories just to roll along the money machine.
> 
> 
> 
> * if you think the Prequels are bad, Star Wars has the biggest plot hole of them all - why the hell did the Princess go to Yavin if she suspected the Falcon was being tracked?  I'd have told Solo to go to Dantooine or some other outer rim near-abandoned planet, paid him there and then taken another ship and Artoo (and Luke) to the rebel base - especially with his mercenary attitude.




greed, apathy,... just add corruption and you have the beginning of Batman Beyond.


*why go direct to Yavin? So that no other planet suffers the fate of being blown up? And because they know the ship is being tracked, and the Falcon is much faster in hyperspace than the DeathStar, they'll have time to form a plan, and they know that the Deathstar will be there, instead of who-knows-where three weeks later, when they have a better plan? Or worse, when they don't have a better plan. No, the only plot hole there is why didn't the deathstar blow up the planet Yavin and thereby all the moons (as seen in HISHE).


----------



## billd91 (Nov 4, 2012)

Bad gateway error double-post grrr


----------



## billd91 (Nov 4, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> *why go direct to Yavin? So that no other planet suffers the fate of being blown up? And because they know the ship is being tracked, and the Falcon is much faster in hyperspace than the DeathStar, they'll have time to form a plan, and they know that the Deathstar will be there, instead of who-knows-where three weeks later, when they have a better plan? Or worse, when they don't have a better plan. No, the only plot hole there is why didn't the deathstar blow up the planet Yavin and thereby all the moons (as seen in HISHE).




Could the Death Star's weapons, as conceived at the time the movie was written, blow up a gas giant?


----------



## jonesy (Nov 4, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Could the Death Star's weapons, as conceived at the time the movie was written, blow up a gas giant?



I don't know about whether they thought about it at the time the movie was written, but what has been said afterwards is that either it could not, or if it could then the destruction of the gas giant would have destroyed or seriously damaged the Death Star itself.

Edit: which brings to mind a follow up question: why did they have to arrive from an angle that had it blocking their view?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 4, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Could the Death Star's weapons, as conceived at the time the movie was written, blow up a gas giant?




If it couldn't, it might have ignited it as a minor star, which would be bad for the orbiting moons and anyone on them.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Nov 4, 2012)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> I feel a great disturbance in the force.
> 
> My initial reaction was that the announcement had to be a fake.  Color me stunned.




That was my first reaction as well.  A friend of mine posted it on her facebook page - I saw the headline and thought for sure it was some joke, a la The Onion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 4, 2012)

I predict that the next Death Star will have two enormous semicircular sensor dishes on top of it...


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 5, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> It is also the perfect example of Lucas choosing to ignore something that he approved earlier.
> If Lucas can choose to ignore any aspect of GFFA that he wants, so can we.



Lucas is well-known for saying that he doesn't even read EU books or comics, and doesn't know (or care too much) what their content is, though.  For whatever that's worth.  One of the frequent comments from Filoni on the Clone Wars is that he has to fight with Lucas in development for episodes frequently to get him to accept minor details of canon that already exist.  Watching his commentary on the Death Watch and Mandalorean stuff was especially intriguing, because Lucas had always had his own idea of what Mandalorean supercommandos, from way back when they were introduced in the early development stages of _Empire_, and Filoni took the side of decades of C-canon stuff on Boba Fett that had been developed--thousands and thousands of pages of it in novels, comics and elsewhere.  To use one example.  There was a similar (although smaller) discussion on the reintroduction of Darth Maul into the Clone Wars, and the implicit backstory for him created with the introduction of Savage Opress.

Then again, as someone earlier said, he doesn't even shy away from contradicting his own movies, changing them, and whatnot.  Despite the myth that he's built up over the years, he totally has not had a long-running story planned from the very beginning.  As late as the second draft of the _Empire Strikes Back_ script, Darth Vader and Annakin Skywalker were still two separate characters who both made appearances (Annakin as an Obiwanesque force ghost--Vader as, well as Vader.)  Luke and Leia weren't initially intended to be brother/sister either, until as Lucas was going into the making of _Jedi_ he realized that his cast and crew (not to mention himself and his family; his impending divorce no doubt played a role here too) were too fatigued to consider an ongoing series, and he needed to start tying up loose ends and plan on ending the arc after three movies.  Instead of the 12 that he had envisioned at one point just a few years earlier.  Making Luke and Leia twins neatly tied up several loose ends without having to introduce a lot of new material to cover it.

Folks who worked with him on the prequels have pretty much the same story; Lucas went into each of those with a very, _very_ vague notion of what the story arc might be, and a few ideas kicking around on the back burner that he'd had for action set-pieces or cool scenes that he wanted to work in somehow, and from that they had to craft the story more or less from scratch.

Keeping the continuity straight for the EU is a Herculanean task already, when even the G-canon alone isn't consistent, or predictably stable.  I 100% agree that there's no reason to feel bound to it for an RPG setting, and frankly, LucasArts should probably demote a lot of current C-canon stuff to S-canon, and make the C-canon corpus much smaller, tighter, and much less restrictive.

Of course, like I said earlier, my preference is rather than to ignore or invalidate canon, which tends to annoy some of the fans of the canon, I just prefer to remove myself far enough from the immediate sources of the canon that it's a moot point.


----------



## Someone (Nov 5, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Then again, as someone earlier said, he doesn't even shy away from contradicting his own movies, changing them, and whatnot.




Just look at the changes on Vader's status from A new hope to Empire. In the first movie, he doesn't look that he's too high in the empire's hierarchy; it's evident that Tarkin is the one in command. Other personnel aren't even afraid of insulting him (force choking ensues), and he's at the front lines in positions of high personal risk - if Han had shoot Vader instead of, for some reason, the wingman at his right (or his left, I can't remember now) he'd be gone. 

On the other hand in Empire he's suddendly in command of the entire Imperial fleet, can summarily execute and promote admirals and nobody objects when he orders flagships into densely populated asteroid fields.

I'm sure there must be a perfectly detailed rationalization of these changes somewhere that it's now "he was a popular character, it's natural that his role was increased in the sequels", but I don't care too much about it. It's not evident from watching the movies.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 5, 2012)

Yeah, but Tarkin isn't an Admiral, he's a Grand Moff!  

It could have been interpreted many different ways, but Tarkin and Vader seem to be more like parralel equals who happen to be hanging out on Tarkin's turf, so Vader defers to him in the disposition of his own people--like that guy with the disturbing lack of faith, for instance.  Without even having to invent details behind the scenes, you put Tarkin in charge of the whole Death Star project, and a major player in Imperial politics, and Vader's fleet in Empire is his own fleet.  That would have given the Empire and almost feudal approach to it, if it had gone that way--with both of them having their own little empires within the Empire, and no chain of command that included both of them together at any point before the Emperor himself.  And actually, nothing much in the movies themselves would contradict that, even now.

It doesn't really explain why Vader is on the Death Star during the time of Star Wars itself, though.  No theory is ever perfect.  Sometimes, I find the "what ifs" of Star Wars at least as interesting as the "what is."  If George Lucas hadn't been an insecure writer who felt buoyed by the gloss of academia that applying Campbelling mythos and all that to the stories gave it, he might have stayed with his original intention of having the series be a more swashbucklery Flash Gordon-esque story... and we might have had a greatly different tone to the Star Wars saga than we have today.

And while I have to be careful of complaining too much, since _Empire_ is by far my favorite movie of the series, I also have to admit that much of what it introduced into the series were the roots of the eventual diminishment of it, too, and that I might have liked the result even more if the original vision had been adhered to more closely.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 5, 2012)

> Yeah, but Tarkin isn't an Admiral, he's a Grand Moff!




Ha-haaa!  The Empire had a Moff in top!


----------



## jonesy (Nov 5, 2012)

Tarkin being played by Victor Frankenstein/Van Helsing, and having Vader (the 'monster') working with him was an interesting allusion. Which I feel has mostly been ruined by having everything and their uncle explained to death in the background material.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 6, 2012)

I always kinda figured Vader was outside of the chain of command, and more like the Emperor's personal representative to Tarkin on the Death Star.  He gets put in charge of the hunt for Skywalker, which is why he's in charge of a fleet in ESB (note: a small fleet, not the entire fleet, even if it does include the SSD), but reverts to his role as the Emperor's pet flunky in RotJ.


----------



## pogre (Nov 6, 2012)

I can make only one guarantee about the new Star Wars film: The public will be delighted and hardcore Star Wars fans will be enraged.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 6, 2012)

pogre said:


> and hardcore Star Wars fans will be enraged.




Not if it's good.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 6, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Not if it's good.



Call me cynical, but I'm not sure. I recall some hardcore Trekkies had issues with J. J. Abrams more-or-less wonderful Star Trek reboot.

Anyway... I'm happy Disney now owns Star Wars. They can can through an enormous amount of money and talent at the franchise, and have every reason to do so.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2012)

> I recall some hardcore Trekkies had issues with J. J. Abrams more-or-less wonderful Star Trek reboot.




I'm one.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 7, 2012)

That would be because it sucked.
Abrams actually wanted to do a Star Wars movie, but since that wasn't available, he tortured Trek to make it into something it wasn't. Worst of all, he used Kurtzman and Orzi as screenwriters.
Hopefully, we well never see anything that abominable again.


----------



## Orius (Nov 7, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Despite the myth that he's built up over the years, he totally has not had a long-running story planned from the very beginning.




Yeah, it's pretty obvious that Lucas was making things up as he went along.  I know he had that whole idea for 12 movies somewhere around the making of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, but by Return of the Jedi the reality of making all those films sunk in.  So things got shortened and simplified such as making Leia Luke's long-lost sister.

As for the prequels, it's hard to know just how much Lucas had thought out from the start, but the novelization for Star Wars does briefly mention Palpatine's rise to power and the Jedi novelization mentions how Vader was badly burned by lava during his confrontation with Obi-Wan, and that was supposedly taken from a line in one of the scripts that later got cut.  So those were probably ideas Lucas had had for a while, as well as Palpatine being responsible for tempting Anakin to the dark side.  



Mallus said:


> Call me cynical, but I'm not sure. I recall some hardcore Trekkies had issues with J. J. Abrams more-or-less wonderful Star Trek reboot.




I think it was kind of "meh" myself.  Another bland Trek villain, about half the classic crew came off as shallow imitations of the original characters that just magnified some of their known quirks (and Kirk was the worst offender here), and there's the whole matter of 



Spoiler



Vulcan getting blown up


 as well as the implication that 



Spoiler



Romulus will suffer a similar fate


 in the prime universe.  On the upside, Spock and Uhura were handled well in the film, and to a lesser extent McCoy.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 7, 2012)

I'll speak for those who really enjoyed the new Star Trek movie, and am a very long time fan of TOS, TNG, etc.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 7, 2012)

Fast Learner said:


> I'll speak for those who really enjoyed the new Star Trek movie, and am a very long time fan of TOS, TNG, etc.




You and me both. I thought it was a good alternate universe reboot of the classic. My main quibbles are: 
1) I wanted a Gary Mitchell character right away
2) I wanted a little more of a nod to classic Trek style with the starship interior

Otherwise, a fine romp of a movie.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 7, 2012)

I want to be able to see what the ships look like.
I want to be able to see the interiors without lens flares hitting me in the face at all angles.
I want a good story (not yet another failed rehash of Trek2).
I do not want soap-opera over emoting or whiny emo.
I want more than one character done properly.
Yelling does not equal drama.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 7, 2012)

I very much enjoyed the Star Trek movie.  For me, it was the best Star Trek I've seen in years.  A_ lot_ of years.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 7, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> That would be because it sucked.
> Abrams actually wanted to do a Star Wars movie, but since that wasn't available, he tortured Trek to make it into something it wasn't. Worst of all, he used Kurtzman and Orzi as screenwriters.
> Hopefully, we well never see anything that abominable again.



q.e.d. 

It's impossible to please certain 'hardcore fans'. I clearly recall the comments a friend of mine offered after watching the first 'Lord of the Rings' movie. It wasn't pretty.

Back on topic, I'm quite optimistic about Disney's new Star Wars movies. There's a very good chance they'll be better than Episode 1-3.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 7, 2012)

Mallus said:


> They can can through an enormous amount of money and talent



Fascinating Freudian slip, or simple typo?

Either way, the images make me laugh.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 7, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> That would be because it sucked.
> Abrams actually wanted to do a Star Wars movie, but since that wasn't available, he tortured Trek to make it into something it wasn't. Worst of all, he used Kurtzman and Orzi as screenwriters.
> Hopefully, we well never see anything that abominable again.



lolwut?!  The new Star Trek movie was the best thing that ever happened to the franchise, which was at a low point after years of decline.

That said, it didn't even have to be that good to be better than most of the rest of the Trek material out there.  We had a few decent movies--II, IV and VI, and you could probably make a decent highlight reel from all the various TV series that would fill a blu-ray disc or two.  The bar there was pretty low, and the popularity and appeal of Star Trek was at such an all-time low that they could hardly fail to exceed it no matter what they did.


----------



## GrayLinnorm (Nov 13, 2012)

Do you think we'll finally get an official video release of _The Star Wars Holiday Special?_


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 13, 2012)

Zulma510 said:


> I think this is great news for Star Wars.<deleted links>




Reported


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 14, 2012)

Hobo said:


> lolwut?!  The new Star Trek movie was the best thing that ever happened to the franchise, which was at a low point after years of decline.
> 
> That said, it didn't even have to be that good to be better than most of the rest of the Trek material out there.  We had a few decent movies--II, IV and VI, and you could probably make a decent highlight reel from all the various TV series that would fill a blu-ray disc or two.  The bar there was pretty low, and the popularity and appeal of Star Trek was at such an all-time low that they could hardly fail to exceed it no matter what they did.




Trek2 is still not only the best of the Trek movies, but probably one of the flat out best scifi (ish) movies. Trek3 was OK, but a bit of a letdown from 2 (but still better than general fandom holds). Trek4 may be a popular one, but I consider it pretty weak. Trek 6 was pretty good. The Next Gen movies were pretty low. Now, while Voyager, DS9, and Enterprise were all pretty mediocre, they were at least consistent (mostly) or someone coherent. Abrams Trek was trying to both praise and defaecate on the existing franchise. It was an incoherent emo mess. It may have popular appeal with the teeners, tweeners, and 20-somethings, but was it good star trek? No. Not even close.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 14, 2012)

Jhaelen said:


> Back on topic, I'm quite optimistic about Disney's new Star Wars movies. There's a very good chance they'll be better than Episode 1-3.




SyFy routinely makes better movies than Episodes 1-3.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 14, 2012)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> SyFy routinely makes better movies than Episodes 1-3.




wow...


----------



## Someone (Nov 16, 2012)

Is this some kind of joke? These days I can't discriminate between reality and parody. I blame the internet.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 16, 2012)

Someone said:


> Is this some kind of joke? These days I can't discriminate between reality and parody. I blame the internet.




It's a tabloid gossip-rag; I wouldn't put too much stock in anything it says.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 16, 2012)

Luke travels back in time to keep his father from turning evil, but Obi-Wan turns evil instead and still burns Anakin, so we have Anakin in a white version of the Vader outfit. And then we return to the present day, but now Luke is evil because he was trained by Darth Kenobi. So we need Marc Hamill to grow a goatee.


----------



## Fast Learner (Nov 16, 2012)

Which would cover the famous scar the _Star Wars_-era car accident, neatly solving that continuity issue.


----------

