NEW STAR WARS TRILOGY MOTHERFUCKER

[otters~1]

The Incredibles was gritty. I cried.

[GamingWolf]

Unrealistic solution: Travel back in time to when media was as good as you thought it was even though older people just as bad about the media back then.

Realistic solution: Don't pay for it and wait for it to become free in a timely manner

GamingWolf solution: ELITISTS SHOULD DO SOMETHING MORE PRODUCTIVE

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

GamingWolf solution: ELITISTS SHOULD DO SOMETHING MORE PRODUCTIVE

I approve this suggestion. Our time is much better spent innovating than complaining about the crassness of the hoi polloi.

[unoriginal name]

Casino Royale will go down in my opinion as the third worst Bond movie, beaten only by Her Majestys Secret Service coming in at close second, and then Quantum of Solace taking the title.

First half of Her Majesty's Secret Service was boring and soupy but then they got to the mountain fortress and it was awesome fuck you

[xaelith]

Two of my favorite quotes of all-time:

"There are only two things in existence that are infinite - the universe, and stupidity...and I'm not so sure about the universe." ~Albert Einstein

"Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one, and they all stink." ~Mark Twain

Relating these quotes to this thread, here are my ass-, err...opinions.

1)There will always be an idiot in the film industry who will screw a great thing up. There will also always be a flock of idiots who will tout a pile of horse manure as the best thing ever, or a great piece of work as the aforementioned shit heap. I liked that "The Dark Knight" was more or less a "this is where it all begins" sort of story. I didn't like that they showed that Batman had a moment of doubt in his vigilantism career via Rachel whats-her-face. Every Batman I've seen previous to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Batman was solid in his resolve of the good he was doing in fighting crime. For me, it undermines the essence of Batman to see him even so much as considering not being the hero I grew up knowing him as. Others, of course, will argue that this same point adds an element of realism to his character by showing a more "human" side. To each their own.

2)More on topic, I agree with universezero that this new trilogy should not be a continuation of the previous trilogy/trilogies. Even assuming Lucas et. al were able to find suitable look-alikes to continue where the original series left off, I have no interest in watching three more Star Wars movies that are nothing more than the final chapters to the last six movies. Instead, I would like to see new stories that are based in the same reality. Meaning, there are RARE verbal tips of the hat to the original movies, light-sabers and use of the Force abounds, and group A is trying to kill/usurp/control group B because of reason X, but they are otherwise fresh and stand-alone storylines.

3)I also agree with scythe that they shouldn't just limit themselves to three. If they can keep people interested enough to add 20+ movies to the mythology, then why not? I understand that all things must eventually end, but isn't it a financial shot in the foot or worse to limit oneself to just three? Especially just because it's the new film fad? And here I thought Mr. Lucas liked money...

[squibbles]

2)More on topic, I agree with universezero that this new trilogy should not be a continuation of the previous trilogy/trilogies. Even assuming Lucas et. al were able to find suitable look-alikes to continue where the original series left off, I have no interest in watching three more Star Wars movies that are nothing more than the final chapters to the last six movies. Instead, I would like to see new stories that are based in the same reality. Meaning, there are RARE verbal tips of the hat to the original movies, light-sabers and use of the Force abounds, and group A is trying to kill/usurp/control group B because of reason X, but they are otherwise fresh and stand-alone storylines.

Well, as a bit of a starwars nerd, I have two things to point out to you, one good, one bad, both in response to that paragraph.

1) As far as Starwars cannon is concerned, the novels/games have the 100 years after the fall of the empire pretty well covered. What they don't have covered as well, is a far off future, say one to five thousand years ago. So in terms of material that there is to write, the script would be far richer in potential were it set in that latter period, which makes me think that it is quite likely that it will happen. So if that is the case, good news! New stories based in the same reality!

2) Luke reestablished the Jedi Order, having a new Jedi Acadamy built on Yavin 4 just four years after the Battle of Yavin (seen at the end of the movie). 126 years later, The New Sith Order (or One Sith) had become strong enough to reveal their existance, and direct an attack on the Jedi. Ultimately their founder, Darth Krayt died, however not before he reestablished the empire (which was destroyed), and after that both factions continued to grow.

This pretty much means that both the technologies and religeons of the past movies will very much be prevelant, and that there is a continuous power struggle between the two factions that is essentially never ending, so sorry, but odds are the movie will feature lightsabres/the force for, well, forever. It's kinda already been partially set in stone. No point cutting around it to make something new.

EDIT: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/10/ ... s-trilogy/

[SlappyMcGee]

it always struck me that, despite how much I liked the prequels, they were action films mixed with a pinch of philosophy, which would serve the new sith order era much better.

[otters~1]

Wasn't there a rumor circulating a few years ago that Lucas was making a new trilogy based on the books set about 15-30 years after Return of the Jedi? It struck me as a great idea at the time, because in many respects the plotlines from that era of books are much more interesting than the original plot, because they build off it.