|
Joe Don Baker posted:Why on Earth would you want an imitation Han Solo in a Star Wars movie? Because the real Han Solo is old now? Not that it matters anyway.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
DFu4ever posted:It may be true to an extent, but I agree that he wouldn't do it. He is pretty upfront about his directing being pretty mediocre at best, and I doubt he'd want to leave a negative mark on his favorite thing unless he was positive he could do it well. Now if they made a live action TV series and he got the chance to direct an episode or just be in an episode, the dude would probably jump on that in an instant. That's why a Star Wars anthology series would be perfect. You could easily attract talented directors and screenwriters and wouldn't be tied down by canon. In other news, AICN posted this as a news story: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59411 It's some insane fan trying to prove that Brad Bird and Damon Lindelof are working on the new Star Wars movies and already told people! Kinda, without really telling anyone... A choice qoute: AICN posted:Another factor is that Mark Hamill was born on September 25th of 1951. I'm guessing that since this story will probably have Luke as the Obi-Wan type of mentor as many around the world are suggesting, that it was a cute little Lindelofian trick to throw people by having the fake title be of a year so close to both Luke Skywalker's birthday and the implication of a possible movie connection to the Washington D.C. UFO fly-over. Lindelof and Disney figured it would be a better ruse to switch the year of this fictitious film from 1951 to 1952, so as to steer speculation towards the UFO fly-by concept.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
This is so disappointing, I wish this never happened 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:I think what really got me even back in 97 was the Pepsi cans and Taco Bell wrappers labeled as "Collector's Edition" packaging. Literally selling garbage to people and telling them to keep it because it has Yoda on it. That was happening way before 97 and the prequels. I've been washing my dog with the same Honey I Shrunk the Kids/Ghostbusters 2 double feature soda cup since 89. I really doubt people will buy into that poo poo again. That was all done to capitalize on that story everyone heard about where "didn't some mom or something sell/throw out/donate her sons old starwars crap and it ended up being worth thousands of dollars and like she totally coulda payed for college with it or something!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 09:52
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Nobody in Hollywood loves Star Wars more than Smith. He'd push his own kid in front of a moving car for the chance to do it. Kevin Smith also really, really loves comic books/superheroes, yet he's turned down multiple offers to direct superhero films because he doesn't think he's a good enough director and been very open about that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Trump posted:That's why a Star Wars anthology series would be perfect. You could easily attract talented directors and screenwriters and wouldn't be tied down by canon. And if you add up 5 and 2 from 1952, it equals 7! SEVEN. AS IN EPISODE SEVEN EVERYBODY HELLOOOOOOOO??!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Kevin Smith is a writer of horrible dialogue and a terrible director. He's a morbidly obese manchild, with questionable views on women. Basically he's perfect to take over from Jorge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Kevin is retiring from filmmaking, or at least say so. He also knows that he can't direct action worth a poo poo, and therefore would pass on the chance. I am sure he'd ask to be in it though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Star Wars Kid has to be in his late 20s by now. I think it's finally his time to shine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I firmly believe that Kevin Smith will direct a Star Wars film within the next 10 years. 40 parsecs? At the same time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Kevin Smith is a writer of horrible dialogue and a terrible director. He's a morbidly obese manchild, with questionable views on women. Exactly!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I disagree with SMG in that I believe that the Jedi were essentially ineffectual liberals as early as TESB. After all, Yoda does effectively tell Luke to abandon all emotional bias and let his friends die, but it is acting on emotion that allows Luke to receive the knowledge that destroys the Emperor and his Empire. And it is the synthesis of Light and Dark, yin and yang, that Luke completes at the end of ROTJ. Of course, this isn't spelled out to us so nobody countenances the theory seriously. After all, the wise old mentor archetype could never be manipulative or outright wrong, right? You're assigning beliefs about the Force to Lucas that he does not have. The Dark Side is a cancer, not a part of a greater whole. It holds no wisdom or valid positions whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Anybody else read, "The Empire Triumphant:Race, Religion and Rebellion in the Star Wars Universe" By Kevin J. Wetmore Jr.? I read it first about sometime in 2007 when everyone was going on about 30 years since A New Hope. As for the Force, as discussed in the book, the way The Force was portrayed in the first trilogy it had a heavy dose of Eastern Religion to it, especially I'd say Taoism because of the duality between Light and Dark. Even the Prequels reinforce this notion with "Bringing balance to The Force," two Sith, tons of Jedi, a lot of Jedi are gonna die and this retroactively can be applied to A New Hope, when Obi Wan sacrifices himself bringing it back to two Sith and Jedi. I haven't read much of the EU, but I enjoyed the Thrawn works and pretty much anything by Zahn and the Dark Horse comics, isn't it possible to just take the good from it and leave the bad, its not an all or nothing kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 09:27
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Anybody else read, "The Empire Triumphant:Race, Religion and Rebellion in the Star Wars Universe" By Kevin J. Wetmore Jr.? I read it first about sometime in 2007 when everyone was going on about 30 years since A New Hope. Like Captain Oblivious said above, I believe Lucas has stated that 'Bringing balance to the Force' means destroying the Sith. It's not a 'balance between Light and Dark' thing, it's that the Light Side of the Force is good, and the Dark Side of the Force is a corruption that the galaxy is better off without. Not particularly nuanced, but that's supposedly the intention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
One way to interpret it is that there is only the Force, and there are those who pervert it by using it for evil. A transcendent, all-powerful, universal energy, uniting all things in spirit, from which those attuned to it can draw great power, but wholly passive. It seems to have a benevolent will of its own, but it only guides those who listen to it, rather than imposing that will upon the universe. Han was right in that nothing mystical controls his destiny (unless he allows it to, like the Jedi). The unfortunate but necessary consequence - the dark side - of the passivity of the Force is that its power can be abused and made to contravene itself. So there you have it. Quasi-Taoist fantasy theodicy in space.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 12:47
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:Like Captain Oblivious said above, I believe Lucas has stated that 'Bringing balance to the Force' means destroying the Sith. It's not a 'balance between Light and Dark' thing, it's that the Light Side of the Force is good, and the Dark Side of the Force is a corruption that the galaxy is better off without. Not particularly nuanced, but that's supposedly the intention. The problem with this is throughout the prequels they keep talking about how Anakin is prophesied as the one who will bring balance to the force. At the time of this revelation, it's pretty clear that the Light side was dominant and in no need of balancing. Everyone seemed confused about the prophecy except Yoda, who considered Anakin dangerous (but ended up feeding Anakin's anger by rejecting him constantly). It makes sense then that the prophecy meant that Anakin would balance the force. He helps commit genocide and cuts the Light side to just a hand full. If the prophecy is simply destroying the sith, it makes no sense for the Jedi council to be confused by the prophecy and reject Anakin, or for Yoda to consider him dangerous. It's actually one of the better constructed parts of the prequels, unless balance truly means destruction of the Sith. Then it makes no loving sense and once again writes the Jedi council as complete loving idiots. Otherwise, it makes sense for Yoda to reject him while Obi-Wan and Qui-Gonn, who didn't understand the prophecy, would be so pushed to train him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 13:01
|
|
|
Anakin fulfilled the prophecy when he destroyed the last two Sith, leaving only one Jedi behind, who had received the teachings without being corrupted by the decadence of the Order (which Anakin previously also destroyed).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 13:04
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Anakin fulfilled the prophecy when he destroyed the last two Sith, leaving only one Jedi behind, who had received the teachings without being corrupted by the decadence of the Order (which Anakin previously also destroyed). Yeah, let's not forget that one of the Jedi's favorite sayings is that the "Only the Sith deal in absolutes". By making such a generalized and absolute statement, the Jedi are also on the same side of that coin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 13:08
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Yeah, let's not forget that one of the Jedi's favorite sayings is that the "Only the Sith deal in absolutes". By making such a generalized and absolute statement, the Jedi are also on the same side of that coin. Indeed. More generally, the Jedi at the time of the prequels were dogmatic, aggressive, and arrogant, willfully serving the temporal politics of the Republic as their first duty. They had lost sight of their teachings, and although they weren't going around killing babies or cackling about how awesome hate is, they nevertheless used the Force mainly for things other than pursuing the harmony that the Force leads them to, and that's of the dark side. RLM made a very nice point of how Obi-Wan and Yoda made diametrically opposed philosophical assertions in the prequels and the originals, but I think a better filmmaker might have more clearly expressed that the whole point was that they returned to the right path in penitence after the experience of escaping the purges made them realize the error of their ways. Or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 13:22
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:The problem with this is throughout the prequels they keep talking about how Anakin is prophesied as the one who will bring balance to the force. At the time of this revelation, it's pretty clear that the Light side was dominant and in no need of balancing. Everyone seemed confused about the prophecy except Yoda, who considered Anakin dangerous (but ended up feeding Anakin's anger by rejecting him constantly). I'm pretty sure the prophecy was fulfilled when Anakin killed the last two Sith (Sidious and himself) and leaving only the Light Side of the Force represented, thus 'bringing balance to the force', like Bongo Bill wrote above. Your point about the Jedi Council is interesting, but can't that be easily explained by them simply not knowing that 'bringing balance to the Force' meant destroying the Sith? The prophecy as heard never does explicitly say that. For all we know, whoever made the prophecy simply said that a Chosen One would bring balance to the Force, and nothing more in terms of specifying what that actually meant. It would hardly be the first fictional prophecy to be somewhat vague. Young Freud posted:Yeah, let's not forget that one of the Jedi's favorite sayings is that the "Only the Sith deal in absolutes". By making such a generalized and absolute statement, the Jedi are also on the same side of that coin. I'm not sure that the irony of that statement was meant to be intentional. It could just as easily be bad writing, and I've often heard it mocked as such. Has there ever been an official statement on whether it being hypocritical was in fact the point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 13:26
|
|
|
I think it's important to note that the term "Light Side" is never used in any of the movies. The idea that the Force is like a coin with two sides (and thus, two sides that can be balanced) is an expanded universe thing. Honestly the reading of the Jedi in the prequels as decadent or wayward has never really made sense to me. Pretty much all their misgivings end up having been right all along. Training Anakin really was a bad idea, and it turns out love and attachment really does lead to the dark side. Iprazochrome fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Nov 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 13:49
|
|
|
It may be worth noting that you can have darkness without light, but not vice versa. The Jedi Order wrongly conflated love with attachment; even a lay interest in the generalized eastern mysticism that inspired the Force is sufficient to identify the fallacy in that assumption. Just another way they strayed from their own teachings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
Anakin was trained by Qui Gon and Obi Want in the order despite their bosses' misgivings because it was an attempt at tragic irony. Revenge of the Sith was supposed to be a tragedy. You know: Anakin embracing the Dark Side to save Padme which, in fact, led to the opposite end result. I'm not saying that it's clever or anything, but it sure made sense to me. EDIT: balance = no dark side. George used poor words.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Matthew Vaughn may be directing this movie: http://collider.com/star-wars-episode-7-matthew-vaughn/208715/ The name doesn't jump off the page, but he has quietly put together a stellar film resume: X-Men First Class, Kick-rear end, Stardust, and Layer Cake. If this news is true, it is officially time to get excited.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:Like Captain Oblivious said above, I believe Lucas has stated that 'Bringing balance to the Force' means destroying the Sith. It's not a 'balance between Light and Dark' thing, it's that the Light Side of the Force is good, and the Dark Side of the Force is a corruption that the galaxy is better off without. Not particularly nuanced, but that's supposedly the intention. What folks don't realize is that this necessarily means Yoda is wrong and therefore not a true representative of the light side. It's is only further underlined by the prequels making the jedi a bunch of well-meaning but dangerous incompetents. Going after his friends and being emotional makes Luke more light-sided, not less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What folks don't realize is that this necessarily means Yoda is wrong and therefore not a true representative of the light side. It's is only further underlined by the prequels making the jedi a bunch of well-meaning but dangerous incompetents. Not it didn't. He got maimed and almost died, one of his friends got kidnapped, and he learned who Vader really was which made it much, much harder for him to go after him the next time they met. Yoda was right that Luke's emotions got him into trouble. His final victory in Jedi is when he realizes what his emotions led to and decides to reject them. At the end of Jedi he'd rather die than give into hate or fear. All Yoda was wrong about was whether or not Anakin could be redeemed. Both Obi Wan and Yoda proceeded from the assumption that killing Vader was the only way, which is why they hid the truth from Luke. EDIT: I just realized something, both Empire and Jedi's end sequences have Luke basically attempting suicide in order to avoid becoming his father. No idea what that means, but it's interesting. Iprazochrome fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Nov 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:What folks don't realize is that this necessarily means Yoda is wrong and therefore not a true representative of the light side. It's is only further underlined by the prequels making the jedi a bunch of well-meaning but dangerous incompetents. Embracing the Eastern thought that infuses the films themselves, Luke is sort of a force Buddha who embraces the middle path between Yoda's asceticism (Yoda's home on the forest/swamp planet and general appearance is reminiscent of Siddartha Gautama beneath the Bodhi tree as an emaciated ascetic, before he achieved enlightenemnt) and the Emperor's decadent embrace. When Luke overcomes the Emperor, he doesn't embrace Yoda's pacifism and disconnection from the material world. His response mirrors of that Conan the Cimmerian in Robert E. Howard's Queen of the Black Coast: He shrugged his shoulders. "I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content." He can still be a heroic figure who is just without abandoning his attachments to the world. He is a pulp Buddha, embracing a pulp middle path between the Emperor's materialism and Yoda's spiritualism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 00:25
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:You're assigning beliefs about the Force to Lucas that he does not have. The Dark Side is a cancer, not a part of a greater whole. It holds no wisdom or valid positions whatsoever. Which is the better position, focusing entirely on external clarifications by Lucas, or following through with the analogies set up by the films themselves? We see the Dark Side linked with emotion. We know that it is an analogy for yin, which is an essential but darker, more irrational half of the natural world and of human nature within the principles of Taoism. The movie is set up to make us believe that the Dark Side, good or evil, is an inherent part of the nature of the Force. Lucas's words are external to the film, and if we consider them at all, we must consider them as secondary when talking about the film, surely! And we see Luke rejecting the advice and directives of Yoda, that he must not confront Vader at Bespin, that he must kill Vader on the second Death Star, and the first gives him the truth, and the truth is what allows him to find a third way, where he does not follow Yoda's path of denying his family and friends in the name of his path, nor does he follow the Emperor's path of giving in to one's desires continuously, but rather synthesizes the two- he acknowledges both parts of his father and then calls upon his father for aid. He refuses to give into rage. He refuses to cut himself off from his father. And this is what leads to victory, and it seems to have been the only path to victory. But even if we accept that the Dark Side is evil/Light Side is good, then the basic point of Yoda being wrong still stands, as SMG pointed out. Bolian Blues posted:Not it didn't. He got maimed and almost died, one of his friends got kidnapped, and he learned who Vader really was which made it much, much harder for him to go after him the next time they met. Yoda was right that Luke's emotions got him into trouble. His final victory in Jedi is when he realizes what his emotions led to and decides to reject them. At the end of Jedi he'd rather die than give into hate or fear. Hate, fear, and anger are not the whole of human emotion. Han would have been shipped off to Jabba regardless. And knowing his father is what gives him victory in the end. Empire, meanwhile, does have Luke rejecting his father and choosing death first, but I fail to see how you get that from Jedi. His speech before throwing away his lightsaber is "I am a Jedi, like my father before me." He accepts Vader as his father at this point, which is why he calls out to him. Had he really been suicidal, he wouldn't have done so. Yoda's plan also sucked. Think about it. He preps Luke to kill Vader, and then what? If it had gone through, then Luke would have just been electrocuted by the Emperor, and then what? There's nothing to fill the void after the Emperor dies of old age in whenever. What the Jedi stood for is then extinct in the universe.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Bolian Blues posted:Not it didn't. He got maimed and almost died, one of his friends got kidnapped, and he learned who Vader really was which made it much, much harder for him to go after him the next time they met. Yoda was right that Luke's emotions got him into trouble. His final victory in Jedi is when he realizes what his emotions led to and decides to reject them. At the end of Jedi he'd rather die than give into hate or fear. Luke isn't rejecting emotions though, he's embracing the emotion of love, which is something Yoda and the other Jedi couldn't/wouldn't do, which is what made it so easy for them to coldly decide that killing Vader was the only option. One of the big points in the prequels is that the Jedi are wrong because they are too detached, which leads to Anakin's emotional issues being inadequately addressed. Yoda, despite apparently learning about embracing the "living Force" from Qui-Gon, still doesn't make the final leap into shattering the Jedi's old philosophy like Luke does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
I'd be surprised is J.J. Abrams didn't get involved in the new films in some way. Spielberg has a boner for him and J.J. single handedly made Star Trek cool again
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:I'd be surprised is J.J. Abrams didn't get involved in the new films in some way. Spielberg has a boner for him and J.J. single handedly made Star Trek cool again Paramount won't let him do that. They like having him as their Star Trek guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
The mentor figure being wrong is so common I don't understand why there isn't some sort of "defying the mentor" or "finding the third way" in Campbell's monomyth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
CJSwiss posted:Luke isn't rejecting emotions though, he's embracing the emotion of love, which is something Yoda and the other Jedi couldn't/wouldn't do, which is what made it so easy for them to coldly decide that killing Vader was the only option. Yes. This is an important point that binds the two trilogies together. Love was something that the Jedi forbid, but it ultimately led to their downfall. It also gives further explanation about how a character becomes one with the force. This is from the original screenplay of Episode III: quote:YODA It would have been nice if some of this had stayed in the movie. One of the clumsiest moments of Episode III is when Yoda tells Obi-Wan how to communicate with the dead completely out of the blue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Murder McMurderson posted:It would have been nice if some of this had stayed in the movie. One of the clumsiest moments of Episode III is when Yoda tells Obi-Wan how to communicate with the dead completely out of the blue. It really couldn't have been more obvious that Lucas wanted Qui-Gon to return in some way, and Neeson said no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. Entertainment Weekly is reporting that Harrison Ford is open to the idea of return as Han Solo. [URL] http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/11/05/star-wars-sequel-harrison-ford-han-solo-exclusive/[/URL] Rhyno fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Nov 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Is he going to be laying in a bed with a gun by his side, ala Heston in the Planet of the Apes remake?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Holy poo poo. Entertainment Weekly is reporting that Harrison Ford is open to the idea of return as Han Solo. I think the more pressing question is whether he's open to doing a sequel to The Conversation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
Given that it had come out that Lucas had laid out the Episode VII stuff for Hamill and Fisher months ago, I think it's somewhat likely that all three principles were in before this was even announced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 05:49
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Holy poo poo. Entertainment Weekly is reporting that Harrison Ford is open to the idea of return as Han Solo. They wrote an entire article around a quote from "one highly placed source." That's not very convincing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
General Dog posted:I think the more pressing question is whether he's open to doing a sequel to The Conversation. Ha, I've wondered the same thing for the past six or seven years now, ever since I first watched "The Conversation" and was blown away. The real question is getting Gene Hackman, considering his age and his retirement from acting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 06:02
|
|