shira
Member
Sound more like an extended teaser
Knowing JJ there will be a tonne of hints and misdirection
-
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
Sound more like an extended teaser
Knowing JJ there will be a tonne of hints and misdirection
graffix13
Member
Exactly! It is intentional. One of the underlying themes to the PT was that the Jedi Order had to change.
We are over a year away from the movie, it is going to be a teaser. And why would the teaser have misdirection? The Star Trek teasers didn't as far as I can recall. Nor did Super 8.
brandonh83
Banned
A lot of people have said that Qui-Gon was how they envisioned the Jedi before the prequels came out... well, that's exactly the point. He had a more natural connection to the Force than the other Jedi and didn't have a stick up his ass when it came to mechanical, by the book affair-- for example, Anakin's age.
So before Qui-Gon dies we see him meditation, presumably under the impression that he may be about to die and was attempting to make peace with the Force. This leads to his ability to become one with the Force, just like how Obi-Wan does when he dies (and look what Obi-Wan does right before he dies). There's no way none of this wasn't intentional.
Yoda and Obi-Wan along with the rest of the Jedi are more by the book in the prequels but when things go to shit and they discover that they can communicate with Qui-Gon, that's what changes them over the years and why they're able to successfully train Luke instead of fumbling like they did with Anakin. They were able to redeem their mistakes via Luke.
brandonh83
Banned
I think it could actually get better too. I love Abrams and think he's going to do great, but once the footing has been found I feel like Johnson could come in on Episode VIII and just own us all.
Even if it was intentional, it was boring and made for bad film.
brandonh83
Banned
You're 100% entitled to that. I didn't find it boring myself, I actually found that it made it all more interesting if anything. I, along with many were expecting the Jedi to be these perfect, all-powerful beings but as it turns out they were supremely flawed, which makes sense because if they weren't what we envisioned them to be, then why would they have failed so hard? There's definitely writing and acting problems, but I do like the idea/direction.
When it comes to the prequels I'm sort of in this middle ground. I mostly think positively of them, but I do understand and agree with many of the complaints. I had some of the same problems with the originals, but like the originals I mostly just enjoy them for their story and action. I also think the originals have bad dialogue and acting, it's just not quite as bad/pronounced as it is in the prequels. But when it comes to writing and acting I find that they're all problematic.
That's why I don't put the originals on some mighty pedestal that towers above the prequels. I find that they're all fun and mostly enjoyable, memorable movies, but they have their issues.
Bucket Mouse
Member
Any screenwriter who intentionally writes characters as flat and lifeless as those in the prequel trilogy either has contempt for their audience or is just plain incompetent.
A Mace Windu spin off film...sounds like a waste of everyone's time to me.
A Mace Windu spin off film...sounds like a waste of everyone's time to me.
You're extrapolating in ways that were never made clear in the movies beyond a final scene at the end of Episode III. They never even showed Yoda and Qui-Gon conversing....Yoda just announces that it happened. There are scenes in The Clone Wars that get into it more, but the Clone Wars series is not the movie series.
You're saying that all the clunky dialogue, bad acting, casting of Hayden Christensen etc. was intentional and relevant to the plot. I sincerely doubt this was premeditated, and even if it was, then it was a terrible mistake and not artistically in good taste. I'd prefer no prequel movies over prequel movies that lack heart.
The stark contrast between apparent quality of the PT vs OT has fractured the fan base and steered focus of media like video games away from the feel and quality of the OT towards the cheap, sterile feel of the PT. I'd rather that the PT never have been made at all so that we could have gotten more quality media and stories told in the OT era and with OT quality.
Agree 100%
Well.
I don t know about the film's goodness cos JJ had yet to make something I enjoy.
But the hype?
It s real. Palatable. Gorgeously outrageous. So I don t care at all how the movie Will end up to be. Until then it s hype every day.
WadiumArcadium
Member
I like Mace Windu but an entire film based around him? Can't really see it. I'm still hoping for an Obi-Wan spin-off.
Bucket Mouse
Member
For the record, there's nothing in the OT which necessitates the Jedi being part of a flawed organization which falls due to its members' incompetence. It's not hard to imagine a simple story where the Jedi - a powerful but relatively small band of Force sensitives - are overwhelmed by a focused and sustained campaign to wipe them out by the huge, galaxy-wide Empire.
...Say the Jedi did fall because of their incompetence though. On paper, that's actually a complex and interesting concept if executed well. If you're writing that story, though, you make everything explicit for the audience. Set up a contrast between clearly flawed Jedi and Obi Wan, for instance. Show clearly through fiery dialogue and combat how different ideologies and infighting broke up the organization and made them lose focus.
In George's films, Windu et al are always wisely opining that they don't trust Anakin...and yet they do nothing, or worse still, actively put him in compromising situations. Not exactly sympathetic protagonists when they get fucked up. There's no trace of dramatic irony to be gleaned from the screenplay because of the very fact that the Jedi are aware of the darkness that surrounds Anakin. If the Jedi didn't suspect a thing, if they all loved Anakin and proclaimed that they trusted him completely- wouldnt that be more tragic for the audience when he betrays them all?
...Say the Jedi did fall because of their incompetence though. On paper, that's actually a complex and interesting concept if executed well. If you're writing that story, though, you make everything explicit for the audience. Set up a contrast between clearly flawed Jedi and Obi Wan, for instance. Show clearly through fiery dialogue and combat how different ideologies and infighting broke up the organization and made them lose focus.
In George's films, Windu et al are always wisely opining that they don't trust Anakin...and yet they do nothing, or worse still, actively put him in compromising situations. Not exactly sympathetic protagonists when they get fucked up. There's no trace of dramatic irony to be gleaned from the screenplay because of the very fact that the Jedi are aware of the darkness that surrounds Anakin. If the Jedi didn't suspect a thing, if they all loved Anakin and proclaimed that they trusted him completely- wouldnt that be more tragic for the audience when he betrays them all?
FriendlyGoat
Member
Surely this is some sort of off-beat humor, otherwise it would be the weirdest choice of director.
Though who wouldn't want to see a Star Wars film aping the style of Terrence Malick. I can see it now: Mace Windu whispering Jedi philosophy over tranquil images of space and shots of droids and clones wading through the grassy hills of Naboo. They can call it The Thin Purple Line.
TheKaeptain
Banned
I'd watch that.
I think that does a disservice to the OT movies, really. They're not paragons of acting or script writing of course, but there are narrative arcs and iconic performances in those films that have resonated for a reason. And the prequels aren't necessarily deprived of these either (I can't think of a single meaningful sentence in any of the three movies lol, but I think Ewan does an excellent job at least embodying a young Obi-Wan, and I like McDiarmid's hammy work too).
You're right that all six movies have their issues on that front, but I don't think all of them being imperfect means their equal in their imperfections, if that makes sense.
graffix13
Member
And we're going to see another fan base fracture after these new movies (ST?) come out. You watch...there is going to be a base of fans that say "Well, I don't like what happened to ______" or "so and so would NEVER do that/become that" or whatever. They will claim the only true ST will be the Timothy Zahn novels, and the EU is the TRUE canon after the OT.
I'm not saying it's wrong, of course. I just think they should have went the safe route and gone 1000 years in the future with entirely new characters and no Skywalkers. You piss off a lot less people that way.
Then again, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't excited to see Luke and Han once again. However, whatever route they take it won't be the 'right' direction with a lot of the fan base.
BlueDogAnchorite
Member
I agree with you. I love all six Star Wars films, and both tv shows. From what I seen of the concept art for the new movie, it makes me excited since those looked fantastic. I can't wait to see the teaser trailer for this.
As for the Star Wars spinoff films. I'm down for a Mace Windu film. I think the prequels era are good for some good spinoff movies. The Clone Wars proved that for me at least.
For those of you ok with a Mace Windu film, what do you actually like about the character?
I mean, they got Samuel L Jackson, renowned for his emotion and intensity to play an emotionless, calm jedi who has a few dumb lines and a couple unremarkable fight scenes. Excluding EU material as I never read prequel era stuff, he seemed to be a completely generic jedi bringing nothing special to the table. There's really no notable character that I'd be less interested in exploring further (well, besides obvious stuff like Jar Jar).
Eh, I don't think it'll be that bad. I was a pretty fanatical OT EU fan, and as long as the new movies are able to capture the feel of that universe I don't really mind what direction they take the characters.
I mean, they got Samuel L Jackson, renowned for his emotion and intensity to play an emotionless, calm jedi who has a few dumb lines and a couple unremarkable fight scenes. Excluding EU material as I never read prequel era stuff, he seemed to be a completely generic jedi bringing nothing special to the table. There's really no notable character that I'd be less interested in exploring further (well, besides obvious stuff like Jar Jar).
Eh, I don't think it'll be that bad. I was a pretty fanatical OT EU fan, and as long as the new movies are able to capture the feel of that universe I don't really mind what direction they take the characters.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
The EU was something I could never be bothered with really, and I consider myself a pretty big SW fan.
bananafactory
Banned
Same here. No time for that shit!
A sequel to Return of the Jedi that sees the return of Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker, Harrison Ford as Han Solo, Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia, with the return of Chewie, Artoo, & Threepio as well has far more money making appeal than a movie 1000+ years in the future with no familiar characters. Nostalgia is powerful. That is why we are getting this version of Episode VII.
And the numbered saga has always been about the Skywalker family. I doubt that will change. Non-Skywalker centered stories is what the spin-offs are for.
TheKaeptain
Banned
It wouldn't be Star Wars without the Skywalkers. The vast majority doesn't give a shit about some sith or story no one but EU lovers read about.
Haloid1177
Banned
brandonh83
Banned
Nope. I even made it clear that I think the writing could have been better. All I was articulating was that it's intentional that the Jedi Order as a whole were very robotic. That's not in defense of the dialogue. You can have "robotic" characters with better dialogue and performances than what was present in the prequels.
Septimus Prime
Member
Mace Windu ruined lightsabers for me. It used to be very clear: blue is good, red is bad, and green is Luke Skywalker when his fate is ambiguous. These are cool because they cover the three primary colors of light. And then Mace shows up with purple. WTF.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I think it's 100% unintentional. We were meant to revere the Jedi in the OT, lament their fall as guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, and indeed hope for the Return of the Jedi...
...But we go back in time and discover they're dry, beuracratic, boring space cops?
I think it's far more likely Lucas just doesn't know how to write characters, let alone the subtle, mystical nature that an order of monks deserves. The Jedi are written the exact same as the politicians in the prequels: monotone, monologing boors. They just hold their hands in mudras and get Yoda to throw out pseudo philosophy now and then to make them "spiritual".
This directly mirrors that conversation a few pages back where someone argued that Anakin was "intended to be" petulant and whiny. So it turns out the Jedi were flawed beauracrats and Darth Vader wasn't so much a great man turned evil as he was a spineless puke? I find it unlikely that Lucas set out to do that on purpose given the setup of the OT revering both as great (in the case of Vader, formerly great.)
And if he was was consciously making a bold twist, none of it was telegraphed to the audience as intentional. The editing, the music, the dialogue... Nothing implies that the creators know they're making dry flawed Jedi or Anakin as a sleazeball.
It's more likely some fans just "explain away" Lucas' storytelling weakness.
This assumes that Lucas' intent is consistent, which it plainly isn't. That this was his intent in the OT (when it was first released) doesn't mean it still was when the PT was being made. His intent just towards the OT had already shifted a lot at that point.
Need I point out that he at one point clearly intended Luke and Leia to be a romantic pairing? I mean, come on.
And this is why you don't bother with authorial intent. It's fuzzy and full of lies.
In the end, the PT can be both badly made AND be about the fall of the Jedi already in progress for hundreds or thousands of years when we join the story, with them already no longer successful defenders of peace or justice in the galaxy. It's a valid interpretation of the story as laid out on film, and it's still a story let down by bad writing, story telling, and acting.
It was so unintentional that it was plainly obvious to a good many people!
George Lucas on Darth Vader:
"Ultimately, he's just a pathetic guy who's had a very sad life."
"...The same thing happened with Padmé in Episode I, when she had this very stilted dialogue as the Queen. And also with Hayden in Episode II. He said, "I don't want to be this whiny kid." I said, "Well, you are. You gotta be a whiny teenager." He said, "I want to be Darth Vader." I said, "You gotta be a petulant young Jedi. You're not going to be the guy you thought you'd be when you signed your contract." Hayden was grateful for this last movie, where he actually got to be Darth Vader."
I think Mace Windu could be reinvented as a jive-talkin' badass. It is Sammy Jackson after all.
Fuck it, just make a blaxploitation Mace Windu movie.
BlueDogAnchorite
Member
LegendofLex
Member
Our only actual window into what the Jedi Order was like before the OT are Jedi. Do you really think that, if the Jedi had basically become the galaxy's doormat over the thousand years of complacency that followed the disappearance of the Sith, that they'd actually have noticed? No--they'd still regard themselves as the "guardians of peace and justice." (Incidentally, that remark mirrors the way police forces/legislative enforcement bodies describe themselves. Coincidence?) The change would have taken place over generations. Newer generations would have taken the changes for granted; only older Jedi who have lived for hundreds of years would lament the changes (and indeed Yoda seems to have eschewed change in favor of an older way).
Obi-Wan's description suggests they've been in this role for a very long time--"over a thousand generations." That's a lot of time to take that kind of role for granted. Do you really think that it's not believable that the long period of complacency could drive a downfall plot where they've unwittingly become political pawns and are drawn into a war where they are scattered and then destroyed? (About half of that plot is there already--Obi-Wan comments on the Clone Wars and the Jedi's subsequent destruction at the rise of the Empire. All that's added is the "how.")
And what is the "how"? The "how" is that the government was being manipulated by a Sith Lord the entire time. This isn't exactly unforeseeable--Palpatine had to have found a way to install himself as the leader of the old order given that the Senate, which even in the OT was claimed to be a vestige of the Old Republic, still exists intact at the start of Ep4. And he had to have been able to do this under the Jedi's nose--otherwise the Jedi would not have tolerated his existence, being a Sith Lord and all. There's already a pretty convenient setup for a manipulation plot, even just from what we know in the OT.
block tower
Member
brandonh83
Banned
For some reason? Look at his damn clothes! 
I really hate Lucas at times.
That is no Han Solo. Han Solo is not a baby faced pretty boy.I watched "The Giver" tonight and for some reason the lead actor Brenton Thwaites reminded me of a very young handsome Han Solo. I started picturing him in the new movie, and then started pretending The Giver was the new Star Wars. Am I crazy?
I meant for Han/Leia's son obviously. Do we know for sure if they've cast their son in the new film? (I haven't been keeping up with the news till today.)
The roles were all cast, the movie wrapped filming a little while ago. They may or may not have a son. If it's anyone it's likely Adam Drivers character.
lol, what does Natalie Portman having to speak stilted dialogue have anything to do with her character?
Oh for some reason I thought they still had the bulk of the film to go. But yeah looking at the cast now Adam Driver is a sure bet, looks and probably 'personality' too.
So we still know basically nothing about Carrie Fisher in this film, right? My girlfriend and I were watching RotJ the night before last and she came up with a bizarre theory: What if Princess Leia is, in fact, the evil cyborg villain.
During RotJ, what sets Luke off so much and almost makes him turn is when Vader says, "Sister. Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from me. If you will not turn, perhaps she will." It would be very space opera in tone. The evil person being the hero's twin sister is right out of Days of Our Lives.
Considering that Leia is theoretically as powerful as Luke with regards to the Force, she could make a good villain. Plus, they could CGI the hell out of her to make a scary cyborg monster. "No, Daisy Ridley. I am your mother!"
During RotJ, what sets Luke off so much and almost makes him turn is when Vader says, "Sister. Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from me. If you will not turn, perhaps she will." It would be very space opera in tone. The evil person being the hero's twin sister is right out of Days of Our Lives.
Considering that Leia is theoretically as powerful as Luke with regards to the Force, she could make a good villain. Plus, they could CGI the hell out of her to make a scary cyborg monster. "No, Daisy Ridley. I am your mother!"
Making Star Wars reported on production art that had Leia in what looked like political attire arguing with three Hutts so I am doubting that she is the cyborg.
I have to think that JJ and co. must be well aware that Fisher would not be able to pull any of that off.