# Sequal Star Wars Trilogy News!



## Paul_Klein (Jan 15, 2004)

This from theforce.net:

Rob tells us that the December 2003 issue of the British movie mag HOTDOG has just hit the stands here in the U.S. and found several cool Star Wars related things. In particular, on page 12, here's this possibly amazing passage:

    "No wonder Peter "Chewbacca" Mayhew is smiling. Not only has he been rescued from obscurity and given the chance to reprise his role as our Wookiee comrade for Episode III, but his contract also stipulates that he'd be required to appear in Episodes 7, 8, and 9.

    Yes folks, seems there are actual whispers at Lucasfilm that the 'sequel' trilogy might be in the works..."

    In addition, there's a cool spoiler page (though nothing new for TheForce.net regulars) with a great caricature of Hayden as Anakin/Vader. The cover "story" is a list of the "50 Coolest Movie Characters Ever". #22 is Boba Fett, #13 is Indiana Jones, and #3 is Darth Vader! There's also a "Brief History of Time" according to the movies. It begins with "A Long Time Ago". 

Please. Be. True. Of course, remember that the official word from Lucasfilm has been and is currently "no." We'll email them for a comment on the story and post any updates here.


Woah.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 15, 2004)

The thought of doing epsisodes 7-9 scares me, it really does.


----------



## ConnorSB (Jan 15, 2004)

Could Lucas live long enough to do 7-9? And what would they be about- there are already hundreds of post- origional trilogy books.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jan 15, 2004)




----------



## buzzard (Jan 15, 2004)

ConnorSB said:
			
		

> Could Lucas live long enough to do 7-9? And what would they be about- there are already hundreds of post- origional trilogy books.




Just to be evil, I have to say I hope not. 

buzzard


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 15, 2004)

ConnorSB said:
			
		

> Could Lucas live long enough to do 7-9? And what would they be about- there are already hundreds of post- origional trilogy books.




Well, I'd like to see Zahn's trilogy... but Harrison Ford's, what, sixty-one now?

-Hyp.


----------



## der_kluge (Jan 15, 2004)

I'm sure Hammil would jump at the chance, but Fisher and Ford would probably just decline it outright, unless they got megabucks to reprise those roles.  I know Harrison totally hates the Han Solo character.

And, if they did 7-9, for gods sake do them good like the middle 3, not crappy like the first 2 (or three [keepin' my fingers crossed]).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 15, 2004)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> I know Harrison totally hates the Han Solo character.




Really?

I remember Alec Guinness being very scathing of the films and the role, but I hadn't heard that about Ford.



> And, if they did 7-9, for gods sake do them good like the middle 3, not crappy like the first 2 (or three [keepin' my fingers crossed]).




If they were going to pick a storyline from the novels, I can again only point to Zahn.  Too many of the other stories have the Jedi Munchkin Patrol, and that would lead to more Episode I shenanigans.

Zahn, I think, did a really good job of writing a trilogy that captured the feeling of the Original Three.

-Hyp.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 15, 2004)

I think many of the novels (and I haven't read many) completely miss the point of the Star Wars universe, frankly, and have nothing of a proper Star Wars feel.  Likely if Lucas did anything, he's completely ignore any and all novels.

All Lucas needs to do, and if there's even a shred of truth in this, all I hope he does, is come up with a basic story, and then gives it back to Lawrance Kasdan or someone to actually write the screenplay, and someone else respectable to actual direct the movie.  He's a good ideas man, but he's lost touch with his own strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 15, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I think many of the novels (and I haven't read many) completely miss the point of the Star Wars universe, frankly, and have nothing of a proper Star Wars feel.




And that's why I haven't bought any that Zahn didn't write   I read a bunch of the earlier efforts (Kevin J Anderson, what are you _doing_?) as library books, and then stopped bothering...

-Hyp.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 15, 2004)

Zahn's trilogy is the only one I would consider watching.  I highly doubt though that Lucas would want to use someone else's work, especially seeing how adamant he seems to be about writing his own stuff.

I would guess we'd either see 7-9 take place a fair time ahead of 4-6, or focus on a different group of people and have the original crew do mostly cameos.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 15, 2004)

Though I'd doubt it that Lucas would take any of the books(I love all of them except a select few), I don't think Zahn's would work well just because of character ages...

However, Stackpole's X-Wing series(probably my favorite of the books) could be done without having to worry too much about characters. I'm quite happy with continuity after Jedi, though...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 15, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> However, Stackpole's X-Wing series(probably my favorite of the books) could be done without having to worry too much about characters.




Denis Lawson is 56...

-Hyp.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jan 15, 2004)

Actually, I found Zahn's book to be kinda stale and unimaginative. I would hope that if they did indeed to Episodes 7-9, it wouldn't be based off Zahn's books. 

However, if I had to choose between Zahn's writing and Lucas writing....I'd pick Zahn of course!  

But maybe having someone like Kasdan write would be better. Like Joshua suggested. Or maybe just some really good writer I'm not aware of....that's out there somewhere. And of course....don't let Lucas direct. Just produce.....heh heh. 

An interesting rumor I heard a while back was that 20th Century Fox was going to buy the 'franchise' rights from Lucas. With his go-ahead they were just going to make their own Star Wars films. Set in the Star Wars universe....their own choice of writers and directors. With this, perhaps we can see other eras and characters outside the Skywalkers explored. 

This could be good or bad. Good, if the studio puts together the right creative team and thus make a movie that us fans (that were disappointed with Ep. 1 & 2) would truly feel gave us more of what we wanted. Or Bad.....if they get people that are even worse than Lucas when it comes to directing and writing. Although I doubt that could happen.....the odds.....hmmmm.......

....but then again, Hollywood amazes me sometimes. Anyways, I never confirmed if this was true or not. But I think it would be cool. Give a chance for other creative teams to play in Lucas' Star Wars setting.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 15, 2004)

I could see Lucas doing the executive producer/story writer thing for it and handing the reigns to a different director.  Probably someone who he has worked with at ILM.

As much as I liked the Zahn books (Thrawn was great) I had problems with the last book.  I would not like to see them made into films.  I have no idea what 7-9 would be about as Star Wars 1-6 are about the rise, fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker.  For me, the story has been told.  But there is no way I would miss any additional films.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 15, 2004)

Since Mark Hammil would do it they could have the restoration of the Jedi order or something like that.   Or maybe it could be an Ewokcentric trilogy.  Wicket becomes a Jedi or something creative like that.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 15, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Or maybe it could be an Ewokcentric trilogy.  Wicket becomes a Jedi or something creative like that.




There's a special place in Hell for people like you.

-Hyp.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 15, 2004)

I've read all 5 of the Zahn books as well as a fair number of the others, including about half of the New Jedi Order.

I think that you could take elements of the Zahn books and they would make good novels. They did have the action, the character development, and this sense of scale that a lot of the others completely failed to capture. They did one thing wrong, though, in my opinion. Often times, for pages at a time, the characters would just sit around pontificating. It was as though he had nothing more to say, so the characters would just start talking about whatever struck their fancy for a while. I'm not saying that this sort of thing wouldn't happen in real life, but it certainly wasn't an element in either the prequels or the classic trilogy.

The other problem that I see is his second two-book series. I like where it ends up, but 



Spoiler



that whole scandal about how the bothans sold out a race, causing the empire to hunt them to exctinction was, in my opinion, not likely to have happened in the Star Wars universe. There was also the part where Luke was caught in what amounts to an overblown mousetrap in space.



Now, on to the New Jedi Order. Man, I really wanted to like these books. I really did, especially since Salvatore wrote the first one of the series and then 



Spoiler



proceeded to kill off a beloved wookie. The problem I see with this series is that half way through it they've killed off Anakin Solo, effectively destroyed Corruscant along with several other homeworlds of species that played major roles in the movies. In short, they changed so much that I'm not sure I still recognize it as Star Wars.


 I'll probably get around to reading the last half of the series, but based on the first half, I think its severely flawed and not really what I was looking for in the series.

Personally I feel that if they do VII, VIII, & IX, they should ditch NJO completely, take the Zahn books as canon, but leave it in the past since the actors are now way too old to be playing the characters as they appear in those novels, and then show what happens to the next generation of Skywalkers. I think there's a lot of story left to tell, but it will require some major adjustments to the expanded universe as it currently exists.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 15, 2004)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> An interesting rumor I heard a while back was that 20th Century Fox was going to buy the 'franchise' rights from Lucas. With his go-ahead they were just going to make their own Star Wars films. Set in the Star Wars universe....their own choice of writers and directors. With this, perhaps we can see other eras and characters outside the Skywalkers explored.
> 
> This could be good or bad. Good, if the studio puts together the right creative team and thus make a movie that us fans (that were disappointed with Ep. 1 & 2) would truly feel gave us more of what we wanted. Or Bad.....if they get people that are even worse than Lucas when it comes to directing and writing. Although I doubt that could happen.....the odds.....hmmmm.......




That is a scary thought. While the prequels so far have underwhelmed me, I would hate to see the studio execs put in charge. I really think Lucas needs to maintain some measure of control over his universe.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 15, 2004)

Whileit would be cool to see cinematic adaptations of Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy, don't forget those are some very long novels.

If someone were to try making a film adaptation of them, each one of them would have to be about 6 hours long.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 15, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Since Mark Hammil would do it they could have the restoration of the Jedi order or something like that.   Or maybe it could be an Ewokcentric trilogy.  Wicket becomes a Jedi or something creative like that.




You called?


----------



## Belen (Jan 15, 2004)

Lucas has been pretty emphatic that there will be NO sequel trilogy.  I do not expect to see it, and would dread it if they made something at the level of the prequel trilogy.

Besides, Lucas is such a control freak that he would never sell the franchise rights to anyone...maybe license them as a rate that would put someone out of business.....

Personally, I think someone can come up with a new space opera to wow people if they can find someone in Hollywood with a pair and half a brain.

Dave


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 15, 2004)

I agree, this rumor is just that, a rumor.  Lucas could change his mind, though, and decide he doesn't have enough money.  After all, he did license tons of books, animated series, comic books, etc.  Why not a TV show, or another movie series, or something?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 15, 2004)

A great plot would be that Luke, like his father, fails and falls to the dark side.  Then Wickett the Ewok Jedi must form a new order, based on the Ewok philosophy, and defeat the new Dark Lord.   An army of Ewok Jedi...man that would be too cool!


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 15, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> A great plot would be that Luke, like his father, fails and falls to the dark side.  Then Wickett the Ewok Jedi must form a new order, based on the Ewok philosophy, and defeat the new Dark Lord.   An army of Ewok Jedi...man that would be too cool!




Don't forget the gungans. You *MUST NOT* forget the gungans!


----------



## tburdett (Jan 17, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Don't forget the gungans. You *MUST NOT* forget the gungans!



I hate you all.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 17, 2004)

There has always been 9 parts of the story out there. Lucas's original idea was too big for a single movie so he broke it down into three sets of three and did the middle one (StarWars probably beeing the easiest and cheapest to pull off, he has stated he didn't do the old Republic ones due to technology restrictions at the time). If Lucas does it then it will most likely follow this original outline from the 70's he had. I'm pretty sure this is why for over a decade he clamped down pretty tight on letting people write books (there was a old Han Solo series of books at one time, then nothing but the comic after that for years). It wasn't till he decided he wasn't going to do the last three that he started letting all these novels be written. The novels mean nothing to Lucas but a source of revenue, I doubt if he has even read any of them. Now if he lets the rights go then it's anybodies guess (but the Zahn books would be a good bet). The biggest problem will be getting Harrison Ford to do it, he doesn't work cheap, not to mention he's really getting old (62 in July), this series wouldn't even start production till after the next movie is out in 2005. Would he want to devote 6 to 8 years of his life to another Star Wars trilogy?

As far as Harrison Ford not liking Han Solo, he was burnt out on him and was really pushing him to die in Jedi (well everybody looked burnt out in Jedi, exept Carrie Fisher who was drugged out). I don't think he hated the character, I just think he didn't want to play that character anymore.


----------



## takyris (Jan 17, 2004)

Ditto liking the Zahn books.  Felt like he captured the magic.

Anderson turned it into, well, I would have said a bad D&D novelization of the Star Wars universe, but that's insulting to *good* D&D novelizations...

Although I'll admit that some of Zahn's prose feels cold and less exciting than the swashbuckling stuff of a Star Wars movie -- it's the philosophy I love, not necessarily the prose itself, if that makes any sense.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 17, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> Ditto liking the Zahn books.




See, I knew you had taste.

I guess the Military SF thing is just an aberration 

-Hyp.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 17, 2004)

One minor complaint I do have about Zahn is the plot device he invented to prevent Luke from using his force powers to get out of jams.

Lizards that nullify the force?  C'mon!


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 17, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'll probably get around to reading the last half of the series, but based on the first half, I think its severely flawed and not really what I was looking for in the series.




Oh, but you were just getting to the really good parts.  Read them all through to the end, and everything...  Including the Prequel movies...  will make so much more sense.  The authors did a really good job tying everything together in the end.


----------



## Welverin (Jan 17, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I have no idea what 7-9 would be about as Star Wars 1-6 are about the rise, fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker.  For me, the story has been told.  But there is no way I would miss any additional films.




I agree with John on this one, what's there to do after RotJ?

The whole series is about the rise and fall of Palpatine, secondary to that is the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Ep1-3's  meta plot is the fall to the darkside of Anakin, Ep4-6's meta plot is a parallel of Ep1-3 except this time about Luke not falling to the darkside. RotJ ties all of that up, and there's really nothing else to cover.


----------



## fett527 (Jan 17, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> I agree with John on this one, what's there to do after RotJ?
> 
> The whole series is about the rise and fall of Palpatine, secondary to that is the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Ep1-3's  meta plot is the fall to the darkside of Anakin, Ep4-6's meta plot is a parallel of Ep1-3 except this time about Luke not falling to the darkside. RotJ ties all of that up, and there's really nothing else to cover.




Anakin Skywalker is the central story not Palpatine.

As for more movies, who says there can't be a new story?  Why does it have to do with the central ideas in 1-6?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 17, 2004)

Just because Lucas hasn't made it apparent where the story should go after the death of Anakin doesn't mean that he didn't have something in mind. I can't guarantee that it would be any good, especially after the prequels, but I would be interested in at least knowing the direction it was supposed to go.

In regards to the age of the original actors, I agree that 10 years ago would have been the right time to do any sequels using them. That means that if 7-9 are ever done they will either have to feature all new characters (which I don't think would fly) or mostly new characters and recast those unable to return. I think Mark Hamil and Carrie Fisher coul still pull it off, but I'm not so sure about Harrison Ford. Of course I keep thinking the same thing about Clint Eastwood and he keeps coming back despite his age, so maybe I'm just wrong.

_edit: Oh yeah, I agree that Anakin is the central character in episodes 1 - 6._


----------



## fett527 (Jan 18, 2004)

I agree that Lucas always had something in mind for 7-9 so there must be more to the story line.  In fact I know he had 9 movies in mind all the way to at least the early-mid 80s.  I have _Starlog_ from Septmeber 1981 (my sister got it for me because Fett is on the front and it had an article on Jeremy Bulloch) that has part 3 of a Q&A with Lucas and they talk about the *nine* movies throughout the article:


> _KOQ(Kerry O'Quinn): Do you have the whole nine-film series plotted?
> 
> GL: Yeah, but it's a long way from plot to the script.  I've just gone through that with Revenge of the Jedi..._




I of course had to include the reference to _Revenge of the Jedi_.  I just wanted to put forth that the way things have evolved that now the story could be only somewhat connected to the original characters and still be great films.  The _Star Wars_ universe has a life and following all its own separate from the original central characters.


----------



## Orius (Jan 18, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> The biggest problem will be getting Harrison Ford to do it, he doesn't work cheap, not to mention he's really getting old (62 in July), this series wouldn't even start production till after the next movie is out in 2005. Would he want to devote 6 to 8 years of his life to another Star Wars trilogy?




That's the biggest drawback to doing a sequel trilogy.  All the actors are getting too old.  I'm not sure he'd be able to do whatever story he had in mind for it in the first place.


----------



## Orius (Jan 18, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> One minor complaint I do have about Zahn is the plot device he invented to prevent Luke from using his force powers to get out of jams.
> 
> Lizards that nullify the force?  C'mon!




I disagree.  I think Zahn did a good job explaining why the ysalimiri had that ability, and they were integral enough to the overall plot to feel like more than just a plot device.


----------



## Orius (Jan 18, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> Anderson turned it into, well, I would have said a bad D&D novelization of the Star Wars universe, but that's insulting to *good* D&D novelizations...




Yeah, Anderson had some good ideas, but it's filled with a lot of crap.  Combine that with incompetant, dorky, and comical villains, it makes for painful reading.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 18, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> That's the biggest drawback to doing a sequel trilogy.  All the actors are getting too old.  I'm not sure he'd be able to do whatever story he had in mind for it in the first place.




Well, hey, we could just replace Harrison Ford with Ben Affleck.  He's done it before...

Ow!  What'd I say?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 18, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I think Zahn did a good job explaining why the ysalimiri had that ability, and they were integral enough to the overall plot to feel like more than just a plot device.




Yeah - if they'd _just_ been anti-Jedi fields, it wouldn't have worked as well... but their inclusion in the cloning process was cool.

-Hyp.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 18, 2004)

I wonder how much better the world would be if Lucas had tried to do Eps. 7-9 first, instead of 1-3.  He would have had several respected actors (and a few whose careers have been a little weak lately [but damn, the Joker was cool!]) around who _might_ have told him not to make stupid mistakes.

*sigh*  I shouldn't read Star Wars threads.  They just depress me.  I still stick to my 'Obi-wan is actually Darth Vader' theory.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 18, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I wonder how much better the world would be if Lucas had tried to do Eps. 7-9 first, instead of 1-3.  He would have had several respected actors (and a few whose careers have been a little weak lately [but damn, the Joker was cool!]) around who _might_ have told him not to make stupid mistakes.




Wait... the Joker as in Jack Nicholson?

I'm confused.

-Hyp.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 18, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Wait... the Joker as in Jack Nicholson?
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> -Hyp.



 Joker as in Mark Hamil's voice acting, methinks.


----------



## fett527 (Jan 18, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Wait... the Joker as in Jack Nicholson?
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> -Hyp.




OK Mr. Moderator.  Tell us your joking.  Mark Hamil has done the best voice for The Joker evar!!  He has done the voice in all of the Batman: The Animated Series and spinoffs (Justice League).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 18, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> OK Mr. Moderator.  Tell us your joking.




Well, no - I haven't actually seen any Batman Animated.

But it makes more sense now 

-Hyp.


----------



## takyris (Jan 18, 2004)

Yeah, for those of us who watch cartoons, Mark Hamill *is* the Joker.  Jack was decent at the time ("Bob... gun," still makes me chuckle), but really, it's all Mark now.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 18, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> Yeah, for those of us who watch cartoons, Mark Hamill *is* the Joker.  Jack was decent at the time ("Bob... gun," still makes me chuckle), but really, it's all Mark now.




Mark Hamill's been doing an awful lot of voice acting lately.  If you like anime, go watch _Castle in the Sky_, by Hayao Miyazaki (the same guy who made _Princess Mononoke_ and _Kiki's Delivery Service_).  Mark does the voice for Colonel Muska, the BBEG of the movie.

When I first saw the movie, I didn't recognize it as him, until near the end, when he goes a just little bit crazy...  All of a sudden I thought, "Hey, wait a minute! He sounds just like the Joker!  That must be Mark Hamill!"


----------



## Kilmore (Jan 18, 2004)

I think Mr. Lucas would probably be better off just coming up with something entirely new and fanstastic.  He came up with Star Wars, and he can do it again.  I really felt that he made some mis-steps with the latest couple of movies, but if it wasn't for him, Star Wars wouldn't have happened.  I can't argue with the man's vision, even if the follow up is somewhat flawed at times.  

It also makes sense from a financial point of view.  He's going to make money from Star Wars for the rest of his life.  If he can open up another source of cash flow (without losing it all), even better for him.

He did well with Indy Jones, too, didn't he?


----------



## WanderingMonster (Jan 19, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, hey, we could just replace Harrison Ford with Ben Affleck. He's done it before...
> 
> Ow! What'd I say?
> 
> -Hyp.



And Jennifer Lopez could stand in for Carrie Fisher.  

It'd be great!  Then they'd have TWO Death Stars in a single movie!


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 19, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, hey, we could just replace Harrison Ford with Ben Affleck. He's done it before...




By that logic you should be able to have Alec Baldwin stand in for Han Solo and everyone will believe he's the original actor for that role.



			
				wanderingmonster said:
			
		

> And Jennifer Lopez could stand in for Carrie Fisher.
> 
> It'd be great! Then they'd have TWO Death Stars in a single movie!




Burn!


----------



## jdavis (Jan 19, 2004)

Ben Affleck should play Jar Jar Binks jr and they should just digitally edit Jlo's butt onto Carrie Fisher. Heck they could get Sean Connery to wander around scenes adlibbing lines too , he could be Han Solo's dad. Throw in Mark Hamill talking in his Joker voice and you got my $6 for a ticket.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 19, 2004)

Kilmore said:
			
		

> I think Mr. Lucas would probably be better off just coming up with something entirely new and fanstastic.  He came up with Star Wars, and he can do it again.  I really felt that he made some mis-steps with the latest couple of movies, but if it wasn't for him, Star Wars wouldn't have happened.  I can't argue with the man's vision, even if the follow up is somewhat flawed at times.
> 
> It also makes sense from a financial point of view.  He's going to make money from Star Wars for the rest of his life.  If he can open up another source of cash flow (without losing it all), even better for him.
> 
> He did well with Indy Jones, too, didn't he?




George Lucas actually did try to create a new fantasy universe:  Willow.  Lucas wanted Willow to be a grand fantasy epic made up of three movies.  However, when Willow hit theaters, it barely made enough money to cover the costs of making it.  So instead, the sequels to Willow were released as novels rather than movies.

Sometimes, I wonder what the sequels to Willow might have been like if they had actually been made.  I liked Willow a lot, and would have liked to see some sequels.

Besides, I know for a fact that Madmartigan (Val Kilmer's character) inspired more than a few D&D characters.


----------



## Chain Lightning (Jan 19, 2004)

The problem with "Willow" is ....well, its Willow. That character has nothing admirable about it. Practically little character growth.

Now, if the movie centered more around Madmartigan, then I think it would've been much better. And who could resist Sorsha? She was a cool character too.

Anyways, I loved "Willow" when it first came out. Fantasy movies were so short in supply! But when it came out on video, and I started watching it with repeated viewings, it didn't hold up. Certain annoying scenes got even more annoying when I watch them. Ah heck....like I said, fantasy films are in such short supply....you take what you can get.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 19, 2004)

Chain Lightning said:
			
		

> And who could resist Sorsha?




Well, not Val Kilmer 

-Hyp.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 19, 2004)

Sith Lord Luke Skywalker - "You should not have come here, your force powers are no match for mine!  I am the son of Anakin Skywalker, heir to Darth Vader, and Lord of the SITH!!"

Jedi Wickett - "Yub, yub!"


----------



## JediSoth (Jan 20, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> George Lucas actually did try to create a new fantasy universe: Willow. Lucas wanted Willow to be a grand fantasy epic made up of three movies. However, when Willow hit theaters, it barely made enough money to cover the costs of making it. So instead, the sequels to Willow were released as novels rather than movies.
> 
> Sometimes, I wonder what the sequels to Willow might have been like if they had actually been made. I liked Willow a lot, and would have liked to see some sequels.
> 
> Besides, I know for a fact that Madmartigan (Val Kilmer's character) inspired more than a few D&D characters.



I read the first sequel novel to "Willow" and was very disappointed. I knew it was supposed to be  a sequel to "Willow," but I had to keep checking the cover for 3/4 of the book because nothing in it was familiar. It takes place something like 20 years after the movie and SO much has changed as to make it virtually unrecognizable.

JediSoth


----------



## Welverin (Jan 20, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Anakin Skywalker is the central story not Palpatine.




Except there's not much about him in ep4-6, though we do still see the fall of the empire (throught the eyes of the rebels) and the Empire and Palpatine are synonymous.



> As for more movies, who says there can't be a new story?  Why does it have to do with the central ideas in 1-6?




It doesn't, but if it doesn't then you're telling a different story and if Georges intent was to tell the stories of Anakin, Luke and Palpatine and accomplished that in the six movies he's made, what's the point of making more?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 20, 2004)

There isn't much about Darth Vader in the OT?


----------



## Welverin (Jan 20, 2004)

Not as the focus, sure he's there, but it's not like we're learning about about him or watching him develop in some significant manner.


----------



## fett527 (Jan 20, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Not as the focus, sure he's there, but it's not like we're learning about about him or watching him develop in some significant manner.




You are seeing his entire path of redemption throughout the movies.  EP 4 he is established as the monster of the universe, in EP 5 he trys to sway his only son to hte darkside only to rebuffed and start his path back to the light.  In EP 6 of course he redeems himself in the end.  I don't agree with you that this is not the focus.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 20, 2004)

fett527 said:
			
		

> I don't agree with you that this is not the focus.




I agree with your disagreement. Lucas has flat-out said that the redemption of Anakin Skywalker is the focus of 4-6.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 20, 2004)

I do believe that Anakin/Vader is one of the major characters in 4-6, however he is not the main character in any of them.  That goes to Luke, Han and Leia.  The story is Anakin's but 4-6 is about Luke's adventure as opposed to 1-3 where it is Anakin's adventure.  The story, in 4-6, revolves around and involves Vader but does not focus on him as much as it does the main characters.

The whole movie franchise is essentially the rise, fall and redemption (by his son) of Anakin Skywalker.  It is also about Palpatine's rise to power and the fall of the Jedi, which is essentially the ultimate revenge of the Sith.  So, the story is about Anakin but doesn't always include Anakin.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jan 21, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> The biggest problem will be getting Harrison Ford to do it, he doesn't work cheap, not to mention he's really getting old (62 in July),



Yeah, but all Lucas needs is his voice.  The rest can be cgi.  Ditto anyone else who's "too old" for episodes 7-9.


----------



## Templetroll (Jan 21, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> A great plot would be that Luke, like his father, fails and falls to the dark side.  Then Wickett the Ewok Jedi must form a new order, based on the Ewok philosophy, and defeat the new Dark Lord.   An army of Ewok Jedi...man that would be too cool!




and what made Luke fall was that he created something, like a ring...yeah!  a ring! and it held all the Jedi mind tricks like invisibility and all and Wickett the Ewok Jedi has to take it back to the sun Luke used to create it and toss it back in!  Wow, that would be so cool!

And afterwards they could restore the Empire that was lost soo long ago... ahhh.




What Lucas needs to do is find more movies made in the far east and mix the plots together so we don't have to suffer anymore medicloran foolishness.

A different thought occured to me - hmmm, medicloran... Matrix....  hmmmm......


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> And afterwards they could restore the Empire that was lost soo long ago... ahhh.




And have an Ewok party!

_Coatee cha tu goo - Yub nub! 
Coatee cha tu doo - Yahwah! 
Coatee cha tu too - Ya chaa!_

-Hyp.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 21, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I agree with your disagreement. Lucas has flat-out said that the redemption of Anakin Skywalker is the focus of 4-6.



Well that's nice.  Too bad it isn't remotely close to the truth.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 21, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Well that's nice.  Too bad it isn't remotely close to the truth.




Wait - I'm not sure who you're calling a liar, Whisperfoot or Lucas?

Are you saying "Lucas never said that", or "Anakin's redemption isn't the focus, regardless of what Lucas said"?

-Hyp.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 21, 2004)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> A different thought occured to me - hmmm, medicloran... Matrix.... hmmmm......





That is riduculous.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 21, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Wait - I'm not sure who you're calling a liar, Whisperfoot or Lucas?
> 
> Are you saying "Lucas never said that", or "Anakin's redemption isn't the focus, regardless of what Lucas said"?



The latter, most assuredly.  The focus of the original trilogy was Luke and his quest to overcome the evil of the Empire through becoming a Jedi.  A third grader could tell you that, regardless of Lucas' revisionism and current fetish for the character of Anakin.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 21, 2004)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> and what made Luke fall was that he created something, like a ring...yeah!  a ring! and it held all the Jedi mind tricks like invisibility and all and Wickett the Ewok Jedi has to take it back to the sun Luke used to create it and toss it back in!  Wow, that would be so cool!
> 
> And afterwards they could restore the Empire that was lost soo long ago... ahhh.



Considering half the original trilogy is a complete ripoff of LOTR (though mostly very well done), I see no need to encourage Lucas further in that regard.



			
				Templetroll said:
			
		

> What Lucas needs to do is find more movies made in the far east and mix the plots together so we don't have to suffer anymore medicloran foolishness.



The "midichlorian foolishness" appears to have largely been the exact _result_ of mixing plots from eastern films.  Note how the 3D "chart" measuring the level of midichlorians in Anakin's blood is an exact replica of the measuring device with which the scientist monitors Tetsuo in "Akira."


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 21, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The focus of the original trilogy was Luke and his quest to overcome the evil of the Empire through becoming a Jedi.



That was one part of the story, but not the whole story.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 21, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> That was one part of the story, but not the whole story.



I didn't claim it was the whole story (once again, a third grader could tell you there are other things going on), I simply recognized it as the primary focus of the first three films.


----------



## d4 (Jan 21, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I didn't claim it was the whole story (once again, a third grader could tell you there are other things going on), I simply recognized it as the primary focus of the first three films.



i actually agree with both of you. 

taken on their own, the OT is indeed focused primarily on Luke.

the entire saga, episodes 1-6 taken as a whole, is focused primarily on Anakin, IMO.

[edit: in other words, if you watch the OT _in the context of_ the prequels, you are watching Anakin's redemption, not Luke's adventure.]

[2nd edit: i think Darth Vader becomes a much more interesting character now that we know where he comes from...]

or, one could say _the Skywalkers_ are the focus -- that nets us Anakin, Luke, and Leia!


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 21, 2004)

d4 said:
			
		

> i actually agree with both of you.
> 
> taken on their own, the OT is indeed focused primarily on Luke.



Yup.



			
				d4 said:
			
		

> the entire saga, episodes 1-6 taken as a whole, is focused primarily on Anakin, IMO.



And this I don't disagree with.  Lucas is obviously using the prequels to paint a different overall picture than was originally intended.  It was the claim that "the focus of Episodes 4-6 is the redemption of Anakin" that is simply false.

Even considering the new context of the prequels, the originals still don't suddenly become about Anakin's redemption.  The second half of Return of the Jedi, sure.  But Episodes 4 and 5 aren't anymore about his redemption than Episodes 1 and 2 are.



			
				d4 said:
			
		

> [2nd edit: i think Darth Vader becomes a much more interesting character now that we know where he comes from...]



I disagree.  But Boba certainly is.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 21, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The latter, most assuredly.  The focus of the original trilogy was Luke and his quest to overcome the evil of the Empire through becoming a Jedi.  A third grader could tell you that, regardless of Lucas' revisionism and current fetish for the character of Anakin.




Well, lets face it, there was a fair amount of revisionism in the classic trilogy. Many people, including Lucas, have said that Leia was originally supposed to end up with Luke, not Han. This is one of the reasons Harrison Ford wanted Lucas to kill off Han. The only reason Leia was pencilled in as Luke's sister is because they needed some trigger to set Luke off in his final confrontation with Vader the the Emperor. It was convenient, so they went with it despite the fact that the first two movies were playing Luke and Han against each other for Leia's affections. Personally I think Luke did much better with the redhead, anyway.

As for what Lucas says the trilogy was about compared to what it really was about, well, there have been some works of literaure where the author debated the reviewers on the meaning of his or her work. According to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the message of Rime of the Ancient Mariner was not about loving all the things that God made and he wished that he would have never put that line in the poem (and for those of you who don't know any better, the Rime of the Ancient Mariner was a classic poetic epic long before it was an Iron Maiden song).

My honest belief is that the focus was intended by Lucas to be about Anakin's redemption, but what he achieves is the creation of a modern myth centered around the heroic journey. As we have seen, many things Lucas does end up a little different than he intends.

I wonder if episode II would be more interesting if someone did an unauthorized edit.... *shrug*


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 21, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Well, lets face it, there was a fair amount of revisionism in the classic trilogy.



Very true.  I just feel that stating what Lucas claims about the saga as a whole, or certain individual episodes in the alternate and current context of the whole without the appropriate disclaimer that the films constantly revise each other pushes a much superior story, that was literal canon for years and decades, under the rug.

I don't believe revisionism is inherently bad, for instance Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays reveals that "the notion of Vader being Luke's father first appeared in the second draft" of _The Empire Strikes Back_, not Star Wars.

In Star Wars Obi-Wan's tale of Vader killing Anakin was the literal truth.  And its interesting to watch this film with that perspective (its the perspective we all had for three years after all).

But ESB's revision that Vader was Luke's father greatly improved the story, so I accept it as a worthy addition of the saga.  However, if someone stated, "Lucas himself says that the focus of Star Wars is the first meeting of father and adult son" that would be incorrect without acknowledging that its a change implemented from ESB on.

I think its too bad that many people are so quick to just dismiss the original trilogy as "rough cuts" of this new saga, subject to revision, recutting, and subsequent dismissal.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 21, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I think its too bad that many people are so quick to just dismiss the original trilogy as "rough cuts" of this new saga, subject to revision, recutting, and subsequent dismissal.




Hey, maybe Lucas will decide that the prequels that we've seen so far were just rough cuts that are subject to revision. Think of it -- replace Jar Jar with C-3PO. Replace the scenes where Hayden Christen and Natalie Portman weren't bothering to act with shots where they were. Replace midichlorians with... well, anything. Replace pod racing with a kick butt space battle. Three or four revisions later and there might actually be good movies under all of that.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Jan 21, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> replace Jar Jar with C-3PO.



I'd rather keep Jar-Jar, thank you very much. I've never been fond of Professor Goldenrod.


----------



## Null Boundry (Jan 21, 2004)

Whisperfoot (and for those of you who don't know any better said:
			
		

> No offence your showing your age there, still Powerslave was my first Iron Maiden album so we can be old together.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 21, 2004)

I prefer to look at the saga as whole, as I always have - but I can separate the trilogies for the purposes of debate.

Since I was one month old when the first movie came out I can say that there was no 3 year period of me thinking that Vader literally killed Anakin.  I barely recall seeing Empire in the theater and I do remember seeing Jedi, when I was six.  

Whatever the plan was, whatever was in an original draft doesn't matter to me.  What does influence my opinion is what was actually on screen.  From the very beginning, Vader and Luke had a connection beyond the fact that Vader supposedly killed his father.  Foreshadowing is a wonderful tool and it is used subtly through the interactions of Vader and Obi-wan and their master/apprentice relationship.  This relates to Luke directly and is revealed in the trench run at the end of the first film.

You can slice up the narrative as simply being about Luke's adventure to defeat evil but I believe that is missing the heart of the films.  Star Wars is a special animal because it lends itself *very* well to serialization and additional stories.  This was done on purpose.  You could tell, without even having to know that Lucas was planning more films (or just by paying attention to the Episode VI tag in Jedi) that there was more the Luke saga which included Anakin, Obi-wan, Yoda and the Emperor.

In Star Wars: A New Hope, we meet The Hero (Luke) and his companions.  Darth Vader is X-factor at this point as we are lead to believe that Tarkin is the main villain of the saga where he really isn't (that would be Palpatine).  A New Hope is easily Luke's movie, and it has to be for the character to make any sense.  We Vader as an antagonist but know there is more to this character than we are being shown, because it is Luke's movie and it has to focus on him.

In Star Wars: The Empire Strike Back, we still see our hero and his companions but we are introduced to the mastermind, Palpatine, and see much more of Vader in action.  We are also introduced to Yoda, the last remaining creature alive who can teach one in the ways of the Jedi: the teacher figure to take over for the dead Obi-wan, who's role must be filled.  We learn that there is even more of a relation between Luke and Vader over the course of the film and then at the end it is brutally confirmed.  Here is where we see that Anakin has fallen and is continuing to fall.

Star Wars:  Return of the Jedi brings us the redemption and the completion of the cycle to which we are missing the rise of Anakin.  Leia is revealed as being much more than we thought she was in the fact that she is a Skywalker.  This lends itself well to further serialization as you could see Luke and Leia trying to fix what their father did (which is debatable).  We see Vader finally do the right thing and see a bit what he was like as Anakin in his love for his son.

So there is a good amount going on in all 3 films but it boils down to Anakin's redemption, which is spurred on by Luke and his belief in his father.  The only way this works is by Vader redeeming himself by killing Palpatine and becoming Anakin once more, which kills him - he sacrifices himself for his son and the greater good.  The redemption happens at the very end, but it is at the heart of the story.  A man's soul is saved and good wins the day.

No where in there is any material from the prequels.  There is something to be said for each movie in the original trilogy building on and making the previous film(s) better and more robust - which just happens to hold true for the prequels as well.

I think too many folks focus on what writers, producers and directors say should have or what originally was supposed to happen in plots.  I'm all for that but I find it's best to go on the actual product for purposes of debate concerning story.

So, Star Wars is many things.  It is the story of a hero defeating the ultimate evil.  It is a war story that focuses on a small group of people aiming for the same goal.  It is the story of 2 people finding each other amidst the chaos.  But it is ultimately about redemption which is the theme of all three.  Without redemption, Han doesn't come back to save Luke's bacon, Yoda doesn't train the one person who will reach Anakin, Lando doesn't blow up the second Death Star, Obi-wan doesn't help obsolve the biggest failing in his life and Anakin doesn't kill Palpatine.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 21, 2004)

The rabid hatred of Midichloreans blows my mind.  What is so terrible about that?  I know people who basicaly wrote off the rest of the flicks after that idea was put forth.  For the life of me I can't see how it's that much of a problem.  But I had fun watching EP I & II so maybe it's just me.


----------



## d4 (Jan 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I disagree.  But Boba certainly is.



i disagree.  i didn't like Boba in the OT, and i don't like him any better now.

now Jango... now there's someone cool.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And this I don't disagree with. Lucas is obviously using the prequels to paint a different overall picture than was originally intended. It was the claim that "the focus of Episodes 4-6 is the redemption of Anakin" that is simply false.
> 
> Even considering the new context of the prequels, the originals still don't suddenly become about Anakin's redemption. The second half of Return of the Jedi, sure. But Episodes 4 and 5 aren't anymore about his redemption than Episodes 1 and 2 are.



Well actually since the story of the prequels was created at the time of the making of Star Wars (this whole thing was outlined from the start, it's the detail work that is recent not the story line), it's hard to say he is painting a different picture than he intended to do witht he Prequels. The story is Anakin being redeamed by his son. The story is about the Skywalkers as a family, the fall of the father and his redemption by the son. The first trilogy was presented in a way to make you change your opinions about Darth Vader as you watched the movies. Which makes me wonder if the original outline for movies 7-9 would be about a third generation of Skywalker as he relates to the second generation (and the first, it's not like being dead takes a jedi out of the story here). The focus on Star Wars through Jedi is the story of Luke Skywalker reviving the Jedi and redeaming his father. It is the stroy of Anakin's redemption, through his son (it was Luke who redeamed him). The focus of 4 through 6 might not be always on Anakin Skywalker, but he is mentioned over and over again in all three (Obi Wan and Owen talk about him in Star Wars, the whole focus of Empire is Luke learning the truth, and Jedi is Luke redeaming his father and restoring the Jedi.) Luke is the focus of it all, Star Wars Luke's rise, Empire Luke learns the truth, Jedi Luke redeams his father, If you take all six movies together, it will be the fall of Anakin and the rise of his son Luke to redeam him. Just because it isn't the only thing on the screen and isn't spelled out doesn't mean that's not what it's all about, there is a half dozen stories being told in these movies but the one that ties them all together is the story of the Skywalker family. That's why the call it a underlying story, it's under all the other stuff, it's the backbone of all the movies, it's the continous thread through all six (or nine if they ever get made). 4-6 is the stroy of the one who redeams Anakin, it's what everything leads up to through three movies, that moment where Darth Vader chooses his son over the Emperor, it's the story of redemption as told through the eyes of the one who does the redeaming not the one who is redeamed, but it is still the same story.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Very true. I just feel that stating what Lucas claims about the saga as a whole, or certain individual episodes in the alternate and current context of the whole without the appropriate disclaimer that the films constantly revise each other pushes a much superior story, that was literal canon for years and decades, under the rug.
> 
> I don't believe revisionism is inherently bad, for instance Star Wars: The Annotated Screenplays reveals that "the notion of Vader being Luke's father first appeared in the second draft" of _The Empire Strikes Back_, not Star Wars.
> 
> ...



The orignal Star Wars was a huge gamble, there was nothing else like it out there(check out some of the mid-seventies science fiction out there, things hadn't changed all that much since the mid sixties), there were no plans for a sequel or a group of sequels. Lucas wrote a outline that was way too big for one movie so he cut it up and took one part of it (he was a big fan of the old pulp serials, thus the episode 4 bit), he wasn't worrying about ever making any of the other "episodes" from his outline, he was worried about not bombing with Star Wars. He wasn't a big name then, he had no pull, and if it wasn't for American Graffitti doing decent numbers then Star Wars probably would of never been made. If he flopped he was most likely done in the industry. There are a lot of things that were glossed over or not fleshed out in Star Wars because they didn't affect that movie and lot of things were thrown in just to give it that serial feel. You got to look at Star Wars as a stand alone movie first because that's how it was made to be. I'm sure that much of his outline wasn't fleshed out till after it was obvious he'd get to do more Star Wars movies, I'd love to see his original outline just to see how far the story has come as he filled out the details. As far as revisionist thinking on Lucas part, I first started hearing the story of Anakin Skywalker stuff around the time of Empire (after it was revealed he was Luke's father), obviously they didn't talk about any type of redemption because that would give away Jedi's storyline, but he was talking about the outline he had created and how it was about Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. He's not lying, Lucas has always stated and believed it was about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker, it seems stuff has come to light recently that reveals Lucas isn't the movie god everyone once believed him to be though so just because he believed it doesn't mean he got the message out all that well.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> The rabid hatred of Midichloreans blows my mind. What is so terrible about that? I know people who basicaly wrote off the rest of the flicks after that idea was put forth. For the life of me I can't see how it's that much of a problem. But I had fun watching EP I & II so maybe it's just me.



Midichloreans is the Planet Ziest of Star Wars. To say that the ability to use the force wasn't some kind of special power, it was basically a microscopic parasite was just so lame. It ruined the magic of the force, there was no magic, some people just were born with a viral infection. They make the force out to be some sort of quasi-religious thing then they hit you with "it's caused by a parasite".


----------



## demiurge1138 (Jan 22, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Midichloreans is the Planet Ziest of Star Wars. To say that the ability to use the force wasn't some kind of special power, it was basically a microscopic parasite was just so lame. It ruined the magic of the force, there was no magic, some people just were born with a viral infection. They make the force out to be some sort of quasi-religious thing then they hit you with "it's caused by a parasite".




Yes, but it's a parasite of great quasi-religious signifigance!

But seriously, the midichlorians are symptomatic of the "rationalization" of the prequel trilogy. Apparently, Lucas thought people were concerned with where the Force came from, so he omitted the spirituality and made it science. The way I see it, he tried (and failed) to add some more science fiction elements into what has always been a fantasy.

Demiurge out.

Note: I still liked Episode 2, and would really have loved Episode 1 had it not been a Star Wars movie.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 22, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Midichloreans is the *Planet Ziest* of Star Wars.




There's no such place.



			
				demiurge1138 said:
			
		

> Note: I still liked Episode 2, and would really have loved Episode 1 had it not been a Star Wars movie.




Heh.  But I bet you'd have complained about the lightsabers being a blatant SW ripoff 

-Hyp.


----------



## Orius (Jan 22, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> George Lucas actually did try to create a new fantasy universe:  Willow.  Lucas wanted Willow to be a grand fantasy epic made up of three movies.  However, when Willow hit theaters, it barely made enough money to cover the costs of making it.  So instead, the sequels to Willow were released as novels rather than movies.
> 
> Sometimes, I wonder what the sequels to Willow might have been like if they had actually been made.  I liked Willow a lot, and would have liked to see some sequels.
> 
> Besides, I know for a fact that Madmartigan (Val Kilmer's character) inspired more than a few D&D characters.




Willow was a fun movie.  Some of the effects are really cheesy by today's standards, true, but were're talking pre-CGI here.  So they had to rely a lot on blue screens, stop-motion, etc.  Madmartigan was a blast on screen, makes a good alternate inspiration for a fighter character.  And the wagon chase is a great variation on the "chase scene".

As for the sequels, there were some books published that took place in the same world, but 13 years later.  Unfortunatey, the storyline wasn't that great.  And even worse, 



Spoiler



Madmartigan and Sorsha get killed off at the beginning of the first book, so there's only Willow, Elora, and the brownies.


----------



## Orius (Jan 22, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> The rabid hatred of Midichloreans blows my mind.  What is so terrible about that?




The biggest problem with midichlorians is that is lessens the mystical aspect of the Force.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 22, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> As for the sequels, there were some books published that took place in the same world, but 13 years later.  Unfortunatey, the storyline wasn't that great.




I have vague memories of reading half of the first one.

Hadn't Willow changed his name and turned into some multiclassed Fighter/Assassin/Peck, or something?

-Hyp.


----------



## Orius (Jan 22, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> There are a lot of things that were glossed over or not fleshed out in Star Wars because they didn't affect that movie and lot of things were thrown in just to give it that serial feel. You got to look at Star Wars as a stand alone movie first because that's how it was made to be. I'm sure that much of his outline wasn't fleshed out till after it was obvious he'd get to do more Star Wars movies, I'd love to see his original outline just to see how far the story has come as he filled out the details.




I agree.  Take the complaints about the Trade Federation as the bad guys.  I don't see what the problem is.  Lucas wrote the novelization for the first Star Wars movie, and it starts with a short prologue about how the Old Republic was weakened from internal political corruption, allowing Palpatine to seize power.  That happens in TPM.   Look how Palpatine convinces Amidala to call for a no-confidence vote on Valorum, as a way of worming his way into office.  The current plight of Naboo helps him -- and may very well have been the plan all along.

Though TPM isn't perfect.  You got the midichlorians.  You got the Gungans (I think Lucas just miscalculated with them, if they were done a little differently, they might have been good).  You got too much kiddie stuff.  You got Anakin taking out the Trade Federation ship single handedly with a freak lucky shot.  But TPM is the beginning of the story, so it's not going to be as interesting as the rest.


----------



## Orius (Jan 22, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I have vague memories of reading half of the first one.
> 
> Hadn't Willow changed his name and turned into some multiclassed Fighter/Assassin/Peck, or something?




Yes, in the books, he goes by the name Thorn Drumheller, and he's become a powerful sorcerer.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

I was thinking about how Star Wars changed things so I went back and looked to see what was big before Star Wars came out, 1976 Logan's Run. Now Logan's Run is good, I enjoyed it but watch it back to back with Star Wars then consider that they came out less than a year apart (Logan's Run June 1976, Star Wars May 1977) Logan's Run had a budget of $9 million, Star Wars had a Budget of $11 million. Other movies around then, The Spy Who loved me with a budget of $14 million and  Close Encounters with a budget of $20 million (which came out in November of '77). Before Logan's Run the Planet of the Apes movies were the big thing going. The point is that you can draw a line in the sand at Star Wars and look how the whole genre changed, not only effects wise (which was a huge change) but there was just so much of a fantasy feel added to what was once pretty much *science-*fiction before.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

Orius said:
			
		

> I agree. Take the complaints about the Trade Federation as the bad guys. I don't see what the problem is. Lucas wrote the novelization for the first Star Wars movie, and it starts with a short prologue about how the Old Republic was weakened from internal political corruption, allowing Palpatine to seize power. That happens in TPM. Look how Palpatine convinces Amidala to call for a no-confidence vote on Valorum, as a way of worming his way into office. The current plight of Naboo helps him -- and may very well have been the plan all along.
> 
> Though TPM isn't perfect. You got the midichlorians. You got the Gungans (I think Lucas just miscalculated with them, if they were done a little differently, they might have been good). You got too much kiddie stuff. You got Anakin taking out the Trade Federation ship single handedly with a freak lucky shot. But TPM is the beginning of the story, so it's not going to be as interesting as the rest.



Star Wars was a big risk stand alone movie (it wasn't made to start a trilogy it was made to stand alone, sequels were just wishful thinking during production), Phantom Menace was a sure thing sequel (prequel). By Phantom Menace there was no cloud over Lucas head, there was no studio to please and no need to worry about his career (it's almost over now). What makes me wonder is whether the studio pressure on the original Star Wars didn't make it a better picture and how much better Phantom Menace could of been if Lucus had felt similar pressure (Phantom Menace was a no-brainer to become one of the biggest grossing movies ever, he could of intercut scenes from Howard the Duck and still made $300,000,000). I also wonder which parts of Phantom Menace are storyline from the original outline and which parts are stuff he came up with later. There are several moments in Phantom Menace that are as good as anything ever in Star Wars, and there are several moments of pure crap. I like the story of Phantom Menace, it's the details that I dislike. A good script could of been written from his story but instead he decided to write the script himself. Just like Endor was orignally supposed to be full of primative wookies and we got Ewoks, I wonder what the original plan for the Gungans was? Whatever it was it had to be better than how they turned out, how did the pod race turn into a cartoon? Every alien in the pod race looked like a digitized muppet show cast member instead of a hardened creature involved in a deadly race (and don't get me started on the announcer). Instead of rooting for Anakin anywhere in the movie I hoped he would die a painful death. And what can you say about Darth Maul exept what a waste of such a very interesting character, they could of done so much more with him (and so much less with Jar Jar). The idea behind the Trade federation was fine but the actual leaders of the trade federation came off looking and acting like comic relief more often than not. They were not presented as figures anyone would fear or respect in any way, they were just goofy. Midichlorians has already been mentioned (the shame of it was that that was a throw away line the movie didn't need, Midichlorians haven't been mentioned since). I think Lucas's biggest mistake was that he misjudged his target audience here. He made a movie that was so much for kids that it was hard for a adult to enjoy, the original Star Wars had a much broader appeal to it, it wasn't a adult movie or a kids movie or a guy movie, it was a everybody movie.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 22, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Whatever the plan was, whatever was in an original draft doesn't matter to me.  What does influence my opinion is what was actually on screen.  From the very beginning, Vader and Luke had a connection beyond the fact that Vader supposedly killed his father.



Luke and Vader had no connection whatsoever at the beginning of Star Wars.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> So there is a good amount going on in all 3 films but it boils down to Anakin's redemption, which is spurred on by Luke and his belief in his father.



Don't be silly.  That's like saying that LOTR all boils down to Gollum's lust for the Ring saving the world.  No, it was Frodo's _humanity_ and courage that saves the world.  Frodo spares Gollum, and Gollum's allowed existence causes the ring to be destroyed.

Vader's Gollum.  Nothing more.  He isn't the star, or the hero, or the main protagonist.  That's Luke.  Vader is the Gollum-like creature that Luke will become if he fails.  But Luke's humanity spares Vader, and by allowing Vader to live Vader does what Luke could not do directly and kills the Emperor.

That doesn't make it Vader/Gollum's story.  He's just the guy who pulled the source of evil power away from Luke/Frodo and chucked it off the edge, dying in the process (though Vader got to hang on long enough for Luke to take off the Witch King helmet and see that it was indeed Smeagol underneath all along.)

And why did he get to destroy the source of power?  Because the good of the true hero and focus of the story allowed him to live long enough to do it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Vader's Gollum.  Nothing more.  He isn't the star, or the hero, or the main protagonist.  That's Luke.  Vader is the Gollum-like creature that Luke will become if he fails.  But Luke's humanity spares Vader, and by allowing Vader to live Vader does what Luke could not do directly and kills the Emperor.




Kudos Kai Lord! I've seen Star Wars disected a billion ways to Christmas, but I've never seen this parrallel or critique put forth before. While I may happen to agree with John Crichton on the finished project approach, yours is certainly noteworthy and deserving further discussion.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 22, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Midichlorians has already been mentioned (the shame of it was that that was a throw away line the movie didn't need, Midichlorians haven't been mentioned since).




_I heard Yoda talk about midichlorians and I was wondering, what are midichlorians?_ 

Gah.  Grr.

-Hyp.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Luke and Vader had no connection whatsoever at the beginning of Star Wars.



Wrong.  Luke learned that Vader killed his father.  That is a connection.



			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Don't be silly. That's like saying that LOTR all boils down to Gollum's lust for the Ring saving the world. No, it was Frodo's _humanity_ and courage that saves the world. Frodo spares Gollum, and Gollum's allowed existence causes the ring to be destroyed.
> 
> Vader's Gollum. Nothing more. He isn't the star, or the hero, or the main protagonist. That's Luke. Vader is the Gollum-like creature that Luke will become if he fails. But Luke's humanity spares Vader, and by allowing Vader to live Vader does what Luke could not do directly and kills the Emperor.
> 
> ...



That is one way to look at it.  Interesting comparison.

Never did I say Vader was "the star, or the hero, or the main protagonist."  I know what a main character is and stated it plainly.  Bringing up what LotR is, is an interesting case, but we disagree there a bit.  LotR was about the ringbearers, all of them (Gollum included).  Just like Star Wars is about the Skywalkers, all of them.  Star Wars came down to that one moment at the end, when Vader was redeemed.  It was the resolution to the entire trilogy.  Luke's existance in the trilogy was to redeem his father.  Please don't confuse what I say is the heart of the story with who the main characters are.  I'm talking about the theme of the films, not simply what a 3rd grader would observe from one viewing.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 22, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Kudos Kai Lord! I've seen Star Wars disected a billion ways to Christmas, but I've never seen this parrallel or critique put forth before. While I may happen to agree with John Crichton on the finished project approach, yours is certainly noteworthy and deserving further discussion.



Thanks.  And don't think that was a rip on SW.  For the most part Lucas used the Tolkienisms in his story to great effect.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 22, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Wrong.  Luke learned that Vader killed his father.  That is a connection.



Which Luke didn't learn about "at the very beginning" of Star Wars.  It was an hour into the film.  



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> That is one way to look at it.  Interesting comparison.
> 
> Never did I say Vader was "the star, or the hero, or the main protagonist."  I know what a main character is and stated it plainly.  Bringing up what LotR is, is an interesting case, but we disagree there a bit.  LotR was about the ringbearers, all of them (Gollum included).  Just like Star Wars is about the Skywalkers, all of them.



Yes, we disagree.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> Star Wars came down to that one moment at the end, when Vader was redeemed.



And I believe the films (as in what you see on screen) are quite clear that it all comes down to that one moment at the end, when Luke throws away his lightsaber and says, "You failed, your Highness, I am a Jedi, like my father before me..."

Vader's redemption is just as much a by-product of Luke's perserverance as the celebrations on all the planets.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> It was the resolution to the entire trilogy.  Luke's existance in the trilogy was to redeem his father.  Please don't confuse what I say is the heart of the story with who the main characters are.  I'm talking about the theme of the films, not simply what a 3rd grader would observe from one viewing.



You stated earlier that you believe that redemption was the theme of the original trilogy, specifically the redemption of Anakin.  Which, as I said, is no different than saying that the theme of LOTR is giving in to lust for power (since that was what destroyed the BBEG after the hero reached the end of the journey), the same role played by Anakin's redemption.

I'm not saying you actually believe that about LOTR, just that its basically what you're saying for SW.

But you're just echoing what Lucas currently claims, so we can each enjoy the fact that we both agree with George, me with the George who created the originals and you with the George who created Jar Jar and farting camels.


----------



## fett527 (Jan 22, 2004)

Don't have much time, but John Crichton I loved your take and agree with it fully of course.

Kai Lord, I agree your comparison to LOTR is very interesting, but disagree with the core of your idea.

I apologize I don't have the time to say more right now.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And I believe the films (as in what you see on screen) are quite clear that it all comes down to that one moment at the end, when Luke throws away his lightsaber and says, "You failed, your Highness, I am a Jedi, like my father before me..."
> 
> Vader's redemption is just as much a by-product of Luke's perserverance as the celebrations on all the planets.



The line you give as proof of your point is the line that is proof of the point of the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Vader's redemption is what saved Luke from being destroyed. It's not a by-product, it was Luke's reason for being there (as stated by Luke on Endor). Luke is the primary hero and his stated goal throughout Jedi is to redeam his father. Empire revolves around Luke learning the truth and in Star Wars the two don't actually interact with each other except in starfighters, but Luke does start down the path of the Jedi with the same teacher as his father had.

As far as the LOTR comparison, is that the schizophrentic movie gollum or the villianous book one?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 22, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> As far as the LOTR comparison, is that the schizophrentic movie gollum or the villianous book one?




Neither. It would be the construct gollum. The one made of flesh that costs 10,500 gp + 780 XP to create.


----------



## jdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Neither. It would be the construct golum. The one made of flesh that costs 10,500 gp + 780 XP to create.



(need a rim shot there?  )

Darrin Drader, D20's version of Jay Leno, he'll be here all week, thanks and have a good night.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 23, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> The line you give as proof of your point is the line that is proof of the point of the redemption of Anakin Skywalker.



Nope.  Anakin wasn't redeemed when Luke said the line.  He was the villain.  Luke realized that he couldn't talk his father into converting, so he struck him down to save his sister.  But he refrained from killing him so his own soul wouldn't be consumed by darkness.

"...like my father before me," was said to honor the man Vader once was.

Luke said "You failed, your highness..." because the Emperor lost.  He lost having either Skywalker as a henchman and soon he'd be vaporized in the explosion of the Death Star.

That's why Luke was able to stand confident while completely defenseless.  He knew it was over for all of them, they'd all be dead, but he'd won.  Good won.  The bad guys would die and no one else would be corrupted (particularly himself or his sister.)

But it would be a bittersweet victory because Luke would lose his life and Vader his soul...until Vader took inspiration in the cries of his son and turned back at the last possible moment.  So it wasn't Vader's redemption that everything boiled down to or saved the day, it just made the victory extra sweet with cherry on top.



			
				jdavis said:
			
		

> Vader's redemption is what saved Luke from being destroyed.



Luke wasn't out to save himself "from being destroyed."  He was trying to restore freedom to the galaxy by becoming a Jedi and destroying the Empire.  Redeeming Vader was a personal thing, and a revelation of his enlightened character.

It was the final test in becoming a Jedi, and in stark contrast to his failure in the cave on Dagobah and Cloud City.  The cave and Bespin taught Luke that if you go looking for a fight, you become what you seek to destroy and won't be a Jedi.

He walked into the cave looking for a fight.  He approached Vader in the carbon freezing chamber looking for a fight (note who first ignited a lightsaber, it wasn't Vader.)  In Return of the Jedi, Luke had grown.  He had to face Vader again to become a Jedi according to Yoda, but he also couldn't do it with the intent to directly destroy.

Enter his quest to redeem the Sith Lord.  His only path to becoming a Jedi, and with great sentimental benefits.  And in his quest to redeem he finally discovered what it meant to be a Jedi, even when he couldn't convert his father.  And once he was a Jedi it was all over for the bad guys.  The residual benefit being Anakin's redemption anyway and Luke's survival.

Whew, I haven't had an in depth discussion about the original Star Wars trilogy in I don't know how long.  Thanks guys!    



			
				jdavis said:
			
		

> As far as the LOTR comparison, is that the schizophrentic movie gollum or the villianous book one?



The one where he's the corrupted version of the hero, is spared by the hero, and then destroys the source of evil power for the hero...


----------



## jdavis (Jan 23, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Nope. Anakin wasn't redeemed when Luke said the line. He was the villain. Luke realized that he couldn't talk his father into converting, so he struck him down to save his sister. But he refrained from killing him so his own soul wouldn't be consumed by darkness.
> 
> "...like my father before me," was said to honor the man Vader once was.
> 
> ...



 The line was said in front of his father pointing out the good man he was and could be again, it's got a lot of meaning, Vader's redemption was why he was there to start with (as he stated to coked up Leia in the ewok village). If Luke stated it was the reason behind his actions who am I to question him. 

Then again it really was Billy Dee Williams who saved the galaxy anyway. Luke's fight with the Vader and the Emperor was less important than Ewok mania running wild and even if Vader hadn't gotten the Emperor Lando would have, Jedi smedi it's all about Lando and Han beating the Empire with the help of annoying teddy bear creatures. 


> Whew, I haven't had an in depth discussion about the original Star Wars trilogy in I don't know how long. Thanks guys!



 My best friend for the last 20 years is a little overboard into Star Wars, the light switch in his bedroom is Darth Vader's head and he had Star Wars wallpaper till he left for college (actually I think his room at his parents house still has it up). He says all those Star Wars figures are for his kid but I know better (he's been collecting them since 1978). Needless to say I've had hundreds of the types of discusions (normally at 2am in a Denny's).



> The one where he's the corrupted version of the hero, is spared by the hero, and then destroys the source of evil power for the hero...



So Luke had been wearing Palpatine on a chain around his neck the whole time? and How did Vader bite Luke's finger off with that big mask on? Were the ewok's the repentant oathbreaking dead? And was Han really a king? How did Legolas and Gimli compare to Lando and Chewie? Was Saruman the equivilent of Jabba? man this could go on for a while maybe this needs it's own thread.


----------

