-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Wars: In Production [Rumors/SPOILERS for All Films Past, Present, & Future]
- Thread starter inm8num2
- Start date
i think he just doesn't give a shit. i mean he is probably going to his grave without publicly stating "what went wrong" but i think he genuinely felt he had a story to tell, technology had reached a point that could allow him to do so, so he did.
but i do think a lot reasons why he let go of the reins has to do with noticing that it was time for a different direction, besides just being too old and rich to care anymore
freethought
Member
Hah, okay then. At least you've abandoned the position that you're reading is supported by the text. That's some form of progress I guess.
brandonh83
Banned
No I haven't. I just don't really have anything else to add. No progress here.
freethought
Member
Surely whichever part of the film supports your theory directly contradicts mine. Just for my own sick curiosity, which part is it?
brandonh83
Banned
I feel like I've already explained my position thoroughly. If you're not satisfied with that, I suppose it's perfectly fine to disagree.
Leland Chee had been the "keeper of the holocron" going back to the 90's prior to this. But that was just trying to organize all the endless material coming out into a coherent database. He wasn't involved in early story decisions and plotting like he is now. He, Pablo Hidalgo, and a few others basically are filling the void George Lucas filled. Long time Lucasfilm personalities to those who have been following the franchise.
They are the go to guys to determine canon and the universe and the like. As well as a lot of story material. We know the premise of Rebels, the new novels, and the he Marvel comics came out of the story group. Recent reports state the stand alone film premises likely came from the story group as well.
I don't think it's either one. Good or bad, the prequels were the story he wanted to tell and he got to do that on his own terms. I think that's all he's ever really cared about. He's never held up Star Wars as some masterpiece, but outside of Empire, he's never had anything critical to say about them either. The meaningful measurement for him is how closely the movies are to the story he wanted to tell.
freethought
Member
I feel like I've already explained my position thoroughly. If you're not satisfied with that, I suppose it's perfectly fine to disagree.
Oh yeah, you've explained your position fine, I totally understand it. I guess I was just waiting for you to post the bit where any of it was actually featured in any of the movies.
Here's a question. In Attack of the Clones when Anakin returns to Tattooine he finds Shmi and C-3PO had been living on the Lars family farm for years with Owen and Beru. So how come Owen Lars didn't recognise C-3PO. Considering he ended up raising Anakin Skywalker's son despite only having met him once, you'd figure he'd have a pretty good memory of the droid Anakin built, his mother owned (even though she was a slave) and then Anakin basically stole (despite you being a struggling moisture farmer who needs all the droids he can get and whose operation still doesn't seem to be properly up and running 30 years later, mind you that's what you get for trying to farm moisture on the desert planet, i'm setting my moisture farm up on the jungle planet).
Owen and Beru certainly seemed to remember Anakin well enough considering how brief their encounter really was.
Also, how come Artoo never flew? I'm guessing he realised he had too strict an adherence to his own functionality and had chosen to adopt a more ascetic lifestyle. He does touch upon this briefly with Threepio.
And how come Leia remembers her mother but Luke doesn't? They were both there when she died. Leia was right though, she was very sad. Terminally so apparently.
Plus, what was up with Lobot? Was he a robot, a droid, some dude who had a computer grafted to his head and his vocal cords ripped out? Like, why not just give that guy the ability to speak, or is he expected to relay all commands through gestures and pointing? Artoo as well for that matter. Why not just let him speak English? At first I figured he was just always accompanied by a translator droid a la Star Wars ("this is my counterpart, Artoo Detoo"), but then he gets summoned for an audience with the Queen in The Phantom Menace and nope, no translator. Nobody even tries to talk to him, which is weird if you think about it. Like, I'll call this droid for an audience but I don't want to hear shit he has to say despite him being a fully sentient being with the capacity for language and communication who just saw three of his friends die. I'll just thank him like a pet and send him on his way.
edit: Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeev. I was wondering how long it would take for the new EU to get as stupid as the old EU.
brandonh83
Banned
You're going off on subjects that have nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. All I stated was that I believe that after Qui-Gon died and communicated with Obi-Wan and Yoda between the PT and OT that that's why they have different, more spiritual philosophies of the Force instead of being so stoic and by the book with Midichlorians and shit. That's literally it. I thought the Jedi in the PT were too stubborn and arrogant (which is what helped lead to Palpatine being able to manipulate them) and Qui-Gon had those same concerns in The Phantom Menace. He was very rebellious and frequently argued with the council because he didn't see eye-to-eye with them about everything.
I don't think it's coincidence that most people seemed to like Qui-Gon because he closely fit the image of the Jedi Order that people had all along-- and he's the one that learns to pass on through the Force after death, something he obviously teaches Yoda and Obi-Wan. This is completely supported by the movies. Lucas shows Qui-Gon meditate before death just like Obi-Wan does before Vader kills him. This is not up for debate. That's all I'm talking about here, is how it makes sense, at least to me, how and why Obi-Wan and Yoda are a bit more spiritual, resonate, and humble with the Force than they or the other Jedi (besides Qui-Gon) were in the prequels.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
The prequels are stupid.
I'd like to say that Artoo's thrusters eventually just broke down, but it's not like droids can't be repaired. Chalk it up again to the prequels being stupid.
I would think that Leia's remembering Breha Organa, Bail Organa's wife, from her time on Alderaan, but according to the same Wookieepedia entry where I learned her first name, she died on Alderaan, so that would lead me to believe that she's referring to her natural mother, whom of course Leia only "knew" as a newborn infant. So, again, the prequels are stupid.
Lobot -- you're putting too much thought into a character with just a few scenes in one movie.
Artoo -- well, whenever he's in astromech-in-a-starfighter mode, there's a text translator. Also he's the "Groot" of the Star Wars universe. He can understand everyone but his vocbulistics is limited.
freethought
Member
This is true.
This is also true.
Yeah Luke specifically asks about her 'real mother'.
Okay, brandon's post, let's see if he mentions anything that actually occur within the films this time:
Okay, so Qui Gonn was definitely at odds with the Council, that definitely happened. Was that why though? Obi Wan hinted that it was because Qui Gonn didnt listen to the council, which kind of makes him seem like the arrogant one. But it has been a long time since I watched TPM and I honestly can't remember.
Eh, he meditates at one point during the fight while separated from his opponent by a laser barrier yeah, but when he gets killed he seems super surprised, in a lot of pain and not particularly meditative or at peace. Contrasted with Obi Wans death (the whole point of which is that it is a willing sacrifice) it couldn't be more different.
You are right that Qui Gonn is the one who teaches Obi Wan and Yoda the force ghost trick, but considering this is literally a 10 second piece of throwaway dialogue that doesn't even spell out it's Qui Gonn or that he's a force ghost which occurs right at the end of the third movie and certainly contains no substantive information regarding anything you're talking about, I 'd say your claim that your reading being 'completely supported' is as laughable this time as it was every other time you've said it.
Rather than spout some nonsense then mention a scene where they're 'obviously' talking about the thing you're talking about, how about you relate your stance directly to an action of the character or a line of dialogue.
For instance: I think your claim that Obi Wan sees the error of the Jedi way is erroneous, I believe in his conflict with Anakin, when all subterfuges have been revealed, he still thinks the Jedi way is the true way and that it should be preserved. I believe this is shown in the following dialogue:
Anakin Skywalker: From my point of view the Jedi are evil
Obi Wan: Then you truly are lost
Or:
"For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times... before the Empire."
To me it sounds like he's blaming the Empire for the darkness, not a failure of the Jedi, he still retains affection and loyalty to this order. At least that's what I took from the scene in Star Wars where the old Jedi Knight talks fondly of the good old days while he tries to recruit a young lad into the order he seems so dedicated to.
Maybe I'm reaching though, who knows.
Oh, and only the first line of my last post was really directed at you, the rest were just general questions regarding the absolute lack of continuity between the films as well as just poking some holes in things which are kind of stupid if you think about them too long.
brandonh83
Banned
You're warping this into such a way that I can't possibly argue with, like with the whole "well yes despite you being right about Qui-Gon teaching them the Force ghost trick, it was different in this scene than in that scene" and such. Again, you're free to think whatever, but what I'm saying is absolutely supported by the movies. Whether it's well-written, along with whether or not it was executed firmly is an entirely different ballgame, but the intentions are blatantly obvious. It was set up in the first episode and was followed through at the end of the third episode. You are obviously entitled to the right of not liking it, but I'm not making anything up.
edit: as for Qui-Gon's death, it was more of a preparation, just in case sort of thing. He didn't know for sure that he was going to die, but he did seem very battle worn by that point and he no longer had Obi-Wan's help. During Obi-Wan's death, he made the decision to die at Vader's hand so that he could guide Luke through the Force. That's why Qui-Gon was in more of a shock.
edit: as for Qui-Gon's death, it was more of a preparation, just in case sort of thing. He didn't know for sure that he was going to die, but he did seem very battle worn by that point and he no longer had Obi-Wan's help. During Obi-Wan's death, he made the decision to die at Vader's hand so that he could guide Luke through the Force. That's why Qui-Gon was in more of a shock.
freethought
Member
See your arguments are so twisted in their logic you can't even accurately quote me. What the hell is this? Here's what I said:
You seriously don't understand this sentence fragment? Remember the scene? Is Qui Gonn in the scene? Is the name Qui Gonn spoken in the scene (honestly I could be wrong on this point, I only remember Yoda saying 'an old friend')? Is there a force ghost in the scene? Does anyone say force ghost'. So yeah, the scene doesn't even spell out any of that, we the audience infer it. There's just enough information in the dialogue for us to do that.
Yet your inferences are frankly astounding, apparently Qui Gonn's force ghost is there to teach them about how foolish their reliance on midichlorians are (despite being the only Jedi to ever bring them up) and how they should relax the restrictions on attachments or their strict adherence to Jedi Code. All of that from two or three lines of dialogue which mention none of those things.
edit: Actually, I think Obi Wan might say Qui Gonn's name in that scene, okay. If that's the case then the movie definitely tells us that it is Qui Gonn. My bad.
double edit: vvvv My position: Midichlorians are stupid and George Lucas has practically written them out of existence due to adverse negative reaction from fans.
Brandon's: Lucas had no intention of including midichorians in the other prequels and the whole thing is a very very subtle thread in some some tragic epic tale of the Jedi and their strict adherence to ancient dogma and science leading to their downfall, despite the fact that the only Jedi who doesn't strictly adhere to this dogma became literally the most evil person in the galaxy.
brandonh83
Banned
I was referencing this:
I understood your sentence fragment perfectly fine. I'm not an idiot or mentally challenged. You should probably calm down. We're talking about Star Wars.
And I'll say it one more time and let it be done: what I inferred from Qui-Gon being against the ways of the council, and him being the one who communicates to the remaining Jedi, possibly for the first time ever, that he gives Yoda and Obi-Wan new knowledge of the Force. I don't see that this is unreasonable. The Jedi were stubborn in ways such as not allowing them to have romantic relationships and seemingly restricted Anakin from visiting his mother now and then. These are very much inhuman traits that the order demonstrated in the prequels, and Qui-Gon didn't seem to agree very much with any of it as he was debating the whole age thing as he presented Anakin to them.
I don't feel that just because the movies don't outright say this stuff that there's no basis for an argument or conversation. I think there's a lot of things that can at least be reasonably concluded from everything we know about the Jedi and the characters and their beliefs. I don't have any real interest in keeping this debate going with you, and I mean no offense and I don't talk about this shit to rile anyone up. I'm just throwing in my two cents. You obviously hate the fuck out of these movies and that's fine, but I don't feel like this is much of a civilized conversation. And again I have no interest in that. We should part ways about the topic. And talk about Episode VII!
brandonh83
Banned
Yeah, I'm all for just talking about Episode VII, especially as that's sorta of the topic. My bad. I think.
freethought
Member
So you're problem was that I took two scenes which you said were exactly the same;
and demonstrated that they were not at all similar. And that's warping things into a way you can't argue against? As in warping it back into something approaching reality?
brandonh83
Banned
So there's a rumor that the Ewok village is being burned? Where did that come from?
freethought
Member
brandonh83
Banned
Not a bad one either, I lol'd
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Chee & Hidalgo are mostly like fact-checkers more than anything. Think of them as like the Okudas of Star Wars (if you're familiar w/ Star Trek, you know what that comparison means) Kinberg/Kasdan/Abrams/Filoni seem to be the actual "braintrust" of the Story Group so far as creating storylines goes, although I'm sure Chee & Hidalgo pitch in ideas as well, because it's not like they can't.
It's not all that much different than what appears to be going on over at Marvel, with Feige & the 4 or 5 other executives you could probably describe a "e-list cronies" if you felt like being uncharitable about it.
Came from someone misinterpreting where that pre-production painting was set. We saw the painting that particular rumor was based off of - combined with the knowledge there was art/a photo of Vader's burnt mask, they just jumped to the easy assumption that these guys were on endor burning Ewoks and getting Vader's mask.
Turns out whatever village they're ACTUALLY burning is likely the same planet (still not-tattooine so far. Maybe Corellia?) Rey is on at the beginning of the movie.
brandonh83
Banned
Interesting. Man, if Kylo is a real asshole I really hope they give him a better role than Darth Maul. But then again that was like, what role? Then again Abrams is very much known for being obsessed with great villains so I think he'll do it justice.
30 years of wishful thinking.
brandonh83
Banned
I personally wouldn't complain. I also heard a rumor that Kylo Ren Force-drops a mountain on Otoh Gunga.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
He had jack shit to do with Howard the Duck beyond cutting the check to Huyck.
If you wanted to cite a failure-as-early-warning, you should cite the one he cited on the set of Phantom Menace: More American Graffiti.
"The Secret History" is attempting to counter percieved bias with more bias in the opposite direction, which does a disservice to the amount of legitimate facts contained inside. The fact that most of those facts seem to be collected with the express purpose of trying to, whenever possible, minimize Lucas' contributions to Star Wars doesn't make it "The Truth" any more than Lucas' shifting interviews and rambling commentaries make those stories "the Truth."
Star Wars is maybe the single most heavily documented film series of the past 40 years. You could get a better picture of how shit actually went down during the making of those movies without touching EITHER "the Secret History" OR any of Lucas' biographies.
freethought
Member
^^^^What about Willow?
Someone post that comic page of the Endor holocaust.
Of course that's bullshit, everyone knows a singularity formed at the heart of the DSII reactor and most of the debris was sucked through. No-one knows where it all ended up but what we know for sure is Vader's indestructible right glove ended up on Mon Calamari I believe, until the emperors three eyed son Trioculus found it (don't worry, he wasn't actually Nthe emperors three eyed son, that would be ridiculous. no the emperor's real three eyed son was a hideous freak called Triclops). But don't worry because it turns out that at his wedding to Leia they replaced the bride with a robot duplicate and she took out Trioculus with her laser eyes. I can't remember what happened to Triclops.
Problems?
Someone post that comic page of the Endor holocaust.
Of course that's bullshit, everyone knows a singularity formed at the heart of the DSII reactor and most of the debris was sucked through. No-one knows where it all ended up but what we know for sure is Vader's indestructible right glove ended up on Mon Calamari I believe, until the emperors three eyed son Trioculus found it (don't worry, he wasn't actually Nthe emperors three eyed son, that would be ridiculous. no the emperor's real three eyed son was a hideous freak called Triclops). But don't worry because it turns out that at his wedding to Leia they replaced the bride with a robot duplicate and she took out Trioculus with her laser eyes. I can't remember what happened to Triclops.
Problems?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Came after both More American Graffiti and Howard the Duck. Was also not as terrible a movie as either of those two.
Oh god, I remember these books too well.
People are blaming Lucas for Howard the Duck in here?!? I guess it is safe to call Spielberg a hack for Transformers then if we are blaming Lucas for films he didn't have anything to do with on the script or direction.
There are plenty of examples of Lucas's tendencies that were on full display in the prequels but claiming Howard the Duck is one is lazy and wrong.
If you let go of the nostalgia and warm memories you can see them on full display in Jabba's palace scenes in Jedi. The endless amount of little silly puppet creatures like the cackling Salacious Crumb. And especially a cutaway to a scene just to see a frog creature loudly belch. The origins of Jar-Jar humor were very much there.
There are plenty of examples of Lucas's tendencies that were on full display in the prequels but claiming Howard the Duck is one is lazy and wrong.
If you let go of the nostalgia and warm memories you can see them on full display in Jabba's palace scenes in Jedi. The endless amount of little silly puppet creatures like the cackling Salacious Crumb. And especially a cutaway to a scene just to see a frog creature loudly belch. The origins of Jar-Jar humor were very much there.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Well, they DID read The Secret History...
But: to be fair, Spielberg did help shape the story on Transformers, so using that movie isn't maybe the best comparison.
freethought
Member
I've never seen More American Graffiti but it's hard to imagine a worse film than Willow. Fortunately we don't have to because as you say, Howard the Duck is right there, implied beastiality and all.
You've got a point, though why you'd go after Jabba's palace instead of the whole Ewok village mess is a puzzler (low hanging fruit I guess), but even looking at Jabba's Palace, there were hints sure, but the original theatrical cut is a masterpiece compared to the SE version featuring Jedi fucking Rocks. So he obviously still had a long way to fall, even then. I mean, if I were to criticise Jabba's Palace for anything, it would probably be that it's basically a shameless retread of the Cantina, but that's just me.
Plus, Salacious Crumb is awesome and isn't the frog thing an SE edition? It's outside right?
Well Tranformers 2-4 then.
Really? No one goes around calling Willow great but I haven't seen anyone despise it to the level of you before. Willow isn't a particularly good film but it's a serviceable little 80's fairy tale movie. I'd argue it ironically gets the tone of The Hobbit better than PJ's own Hobbit movies ever did.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
But again - he had jack shit to do with Howard the Duck, so it shouldn't even be on the table.
It had its moments. Not many. But it did have them.
Cross-Section
Member
Fairly possible that it could be this village from one of the leaked pic sets:
The buildings and vaporator seem to correspond with the vague shapes we saw in that landing ramp shot in the teaser.
freethought
Member
It's a shitty movie that basically just takes Star Wars and rips out anything original and inventive about it. Talk about the monomyth all you want, but Willow is practically beat for beat the OT, the characters all have direct analogues, really the only difference is the princess starts off evil instead of just dismissive. Oh, and no Chewie I guess. There is a Lando though, except he's ginger.
But no, I can't say I despise it, it was just a bit of word play really.
So which is more unrealistic; the refrigerator scene in Crystal Skull or that Littlefoot manages to keep hold of that leaf for the entire time.
shira
Member
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's The Hobbit, though. The Hobbit and part of Fellowship. it's not really Star Wars at all.
Most criticisms of the movie point directly to the fact that Lucas/Dolman/Howard didn't even try to mask how nakedly they were ripping off Tolkien.
A lot of people gave the movie a bit of a break BECAUSE they figured it was as close to a live-action Hobbit as they were ever gonna get.
Yeah, it is very much a homage to The Hobbit, takes far more from Tolkien than Star Wars.
The only reason you can compare Willow's storyline to Star Wars is The Hobbit generally fits in with the heroes journey story structure that Star Wars uses as well.
freethought
Member
Okay, so I think the guy wearing a skull mask is a direct analogue for Vader. I think Mad Martigan is Han Solo, the old sorceress is Ben Kenobi and Willow is of course Luke. He's frustrated with his lot in life and wants more, he thirsts for adventure.
The arrival of the baby in the village is a parallel to the arrival of the droids at the farm. The attack on the village is a parallel to the attack on Lukes farm, and both force the hero to begin his journey.
Willow's attempts to learn magic from an old mentor parallel Lukes attempts to learn the ways of the force from an old mentor.
The bad guys hunting for the baby is a parallel to the Empire hunting down the plans for the death star.
The scene at the end when they show up at the castle and get turned into pigs is basically the rebels arriving at Endor to discover the shields still up and they're being jammed.
I mean, there's so much more. Willow's constant failure to turn the old woman back into an old woman parallel Lukes failure with the cave or the x wing, the love story between Mad and the Princess has a very Han and Leia vibe to it, the weird comic relief double act (droid or brownie), Mad's relationship with the old woman mirrors Han and Ben's interactions.
Now do the same for the Hobbit.
edit: Really, 'short person goes on adventure' is how far you'd have to reduce Willow to make the story in any way similar to The Hobbit.
The arrival of the baby in the village is a parallel to the arrival of the droids at the farm. The attack on the village is a parallel to the attack on Lukes farm, and both force the hero to begin his journey.
Willow's attempts to learn magic from an old mentor parallel Lukes attempts to learn the ways of the force from an old mentor.
The bad guys hunting for the baby is a parallel to the Empire hunting down the plans for the death star.
The scene at the end when they show up at the castle and get turned into pigs is basically the rebels arriving at Endor to discover the shields still up and they're being jammed.
I mean, there's so much more. Willow's constant failure to turn the old woman back into an old woman parallel Lukes failure with the cave or the x wing, the love story between Mad and the Princess has a very Han and Leia vibe to it, the weird comic relief double act (droid or brownie), Mad's relationship with the old woman mirrors Han and Ben's interactions.
Now do the same for the Hobbit.
edit: Really, 'short person goes on adventure' is how far you'd have to reduce Willow to make the story in any way similar to The Hobbit.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying he wasn't famous at all. I'm saying that until relatively recently his work has had a bigger place in pop culture than him as a person. That Star Wars is so huge and so influential on pop culture from the 80s on leaves a lot of room for this to not be a contradiction.
I'd also argue that Spielberg tends to get the credit in mainstream culture for Indiana Jones far more than Lucas does. Specifically, people have never gone to see films just because Lucas made them in the way that they will for Spielberg or Cameron. Lucas making a new thing unrelated to Star Wars would never do (and never did) what Avatar did (especially if it were as dull in core concept as Avatar is).
Bobby Roberts
Banned
No, I get where you're coming from and what you're saying. Just letting you know that Willow has always had roots in Tolkien much more strongly than it ever had in Star Wars. You're finding analogues in Star Wars because you're looking at Star Wars. But if you looked at Hobbit/Fellowship just as discerningly you'd probably start to match things up 1 to 1 there as well.
It's not just a "short person goes on an adventure" thing, although it IS that, too.
I'm not disagreeing with you that Willow isn't hugely derivative. I'm disagreeing on which piece of fiction it's more derivative of.
CreepingFear
Member
Val Kilmer was very Han Solo-like, the read headed woman was Leia, the evil villain was a female Palpy, the old lady wizard was a female Obi Wan, the henchman with the skull mask was Vader, and Willow was a combination of Luke and a living R2-D2 with magical powers.
freethought
Member
You don't even need to use Avatar. even more Star Wars couldn't unseat Titanic. Never thought about that. Lucas' name was all over Indy marketing though. But your point stands, people far more readily associate it with Spielberg.