StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ralin wrote:

Galvatron wrote: Put it past them? They're already replacing David Prowse for Rogue One,

Did he decline the role or is Lucas's ban on him still in effect?

Well, Lucas isn't in charge of the company anymore though it still bears his name, so theoretically Disney could do whatever they want. But they do seem to be letting things remain pretty much as they were at Lucasfilm before the move (apart of course from producing Rebels, licensing new comics and books, and the new trilogy and side movies). So that probably does play a part, apart from all the health problems that Tanner went into, which are probably a greater issue than the ban. They had to hire an extra to do Chewbacca during action sequences because Peter Mayhew just can't run around all that much anymore, and Vader using a cane just wouldn't be kosher.

A little old Jewish guy on a cane playing Darth Vader?! Sounds like a job for Mel Brooks.

Everybody knows Spaceballs 2 is just a joke... or is it?!

Elheru Aran wrote:Everybody knows Spaceballs 2 is just a joke... or is it?!

Hopefully

Disney should have made Thrawn the new villain for the Star Wars Sequels.

Too close to the old EU.

Besides, I actually find Kylo Ren an interesting villain, though I suppose you could have had him play the C'baoth to Thrawn taking the place of Snoke.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Too close to the old EU.

Besides, I actually find Kylo Ren an interesting villain, though I suppose you could have had him play the C'baoth to Thrawn taking the place of Snoke.

Thrawn as the villian would have made the movies felt very different from the OT and the PT. It would have avoided the problem of trying to reset the universe by having a new resistance against a powerful empire.

A Thrawn villain that slowly chip away pieces of the Republic Fleet and military one movie with a small fleet at a time would be really great.

ray245 wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Too close to the old EU.

Besides, I actually find Kylo Ren an interesting villain, though I suppose you could have had him play the C'baoth to Thrawn taking the place of Snoke.

Thrawn as the villian would have made the movies felt very different from the OT and the PT. It would have avoided the problem of trying to reset the universe by having a new resistance against a powerful empire.

A Thrawn villain that slowly chip away pieces of the Republic Fleet and military one movie with a small fleet at a time would be really great.

It only wouldn't be a rehash of the OT and PT because it would to some extent effectively be a rehash of the Thrawn Trilogy.

Except that it would be an even more obvious reuse of the Empire as villains, thirty years after the OT.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

ray245 wrote:
A Thrawn villain that slowly chip away pieces of the Republic Fleet and military one movie with a small fleet at a time would be really great.

It only wouldn't be a rehash of the OT and PT because it would to some extent effectively be a rehash of the Thrawn Trilogy.

Except that it would be an even more obvious reuse of the Empire as villains, thirty years after the OT.

A faction that shares the name of the Empire but none of their resources is better than one which doesn't share their name but the same kind of power disparity the Empire has over the protagonist.

And you don't even have to make Thrawn's origin the same. He could be a very junior officer when the Empire was defeated at Endor, and it took him decades before he managed to climb his way up in the Imperial remnant. The spirit of Thrawn is more useful in creating new interesting stories that are different from the OT than one that relies on the new order with a wannabe Sith and Death Star 3.


And it would have avoided the problem of making Anakin's sacrifice feel in vain as there is no need for new Dark siders to pose a threat to the Jedi.

ray245 wrote:And it would have avoided the problem of making Anakin's sacrifice feel in vain as there is no need for new Dark siders to pose a threat to the Jedi.

That was always going to be a problem in any sequel. The old EU was even worse.

ray245 wrote: A faction that shares the name of the Empire but none of their resources is better than one which doesn't share their name but the same kind of power disparity the Empire has over the protagonist.

And you don't even have to make Thrawn's origin the same. He could be a very junior officer when the Empire was defeated at Endor, and it took him decades before he managed to climb his way up in the Imperial remnant. The spirit of Thrawn is more useful in creating new interesting stories that are different from the OT than one that relies on the new order with a wannabe Sith and Death Star 3.

And it would have avoided the problem of making Anakin's sacrifice feel in vain as there is no need for new Dark siders to pose a threat to the Jedi.

Except for the fact that there is a need. Did you forget the fact that Thrawn needed an alliance with Joruus C'baoth in the books as well as Ysalimiri? As much as people talk about Thrawn, they forget that the climactic battle in the final book was against C'baoth. I would take Kylo Ren over him.

Without other Force users, Jedi are extremely hard to counter. This is consistently true throughout all of the Star Wars canon and legends, including all of Timothy Zahn's books. Vision of the Future and Survivor's Quest were actually closer to what you want, in which Luke and Mara take on a number of non-Force using enemies. In those cases, even though they are hampered by a lack of support of any kind, they still aren't threatened to the same degree as against a fellow Force user. The former case is also one in which Luke went off and was out of the picture for the main conflict, so as to avoid him solving the problem on his own.

Galvatron wrote:That was always going to be a problem in any sequel. The old EU was even worse.

Indeed. At least Palpatine is still dead.

Galvatron wrote:

ray245 wrote:And it would have avoided the problem of making Anakin's sacrifice feel in vain as there is no need for new Dark siders to pose a threat to the Jedi.

That was always going to be a problem in any sequel. The old EU was even worse.

I don't get this complaint.

No, it doesn't make Anakin's sacrifice in vain because it didn't stop all Dark Sider users everywhere for all time. Any more than fighting Hitler was in vain because other dictators have existed since. History doesn't stop. I don't feel that that renders all achievement meaningless.

In any case, the Sith are evidently gone.

Kylo Ren is actually an interesting sort of deconstruction of the Sith/Dark Jedi.

And in any case, Light Side vs. Dark Side is kind of a central theme of Star Wars. And audiences would expect lightsaber duels. And even old EU Thrawn had Force using lackies.

The Romulan Republic wrote:No, it doesn't make Anakin's sacrifice in vain because it didn't stop all Dark Sider users everywhere for all time. Any more than fighting Hitler was in vain because other dictators have existed since. History doesn't stop. I don't feel that that renders all achievement meaningless.

I wouldn't disagree if we were talking about the real world, but we're not. This article pretty effectively explains the downside of continuing an epic saga like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings past its "happily ever after" ending:

From “A New Hope” to no hope at all: “Star Wars,” Tolkien and the sinister and depressing reality of expanded universes

I don't know. Thanks to Anakin, the galaxy got what, two decades of peace from the tyranny of the Empire and the Dark Side? How many billions were able to enjoy two decades of peace, who would otherwise have suffered and died?

That seems a pretty big win.

And the circular epic can work. The Wheel of Time series is pretty much built on that premise.

And as for Tolkien, LotR was always part of a larger universe, which saw many victories, and many defeats.

Galvatron wrote:

ray245 wrote:And it would have avoided the problem of making Anakin's sacrifice feel in vain as there is no need for new Dark siders to pose a threat to the Jedi.

That was always going to be a problem in any sequel. The old EU was even worse.

I never said the old EU was any better. There are ways to make Anakin's sacrifice feels not in vain, by avoiding more Darksiders appearing and destroying the Jedi again and again.

Except for the fact that there is a need. Did you forget the fact that Thrawn needed an alliance with Joruus C'baoth in the books as well as Ysalimiri? As much as people talk about Thrawn, they forget that the climactic battle in the final book was against C'baoth. I would take Kylo Ren over him.

I never said the books should be followed to a nail.

Without other Force users, Jedi are extremely hard to counter. This is consistently true throughout all of the Star Wars canon and legends, including all of Timothy Zahn's books. Vision of the Future and Survivor's Quest were actually closer to what you want, in which Luke and Mara take on a number of non-Force using enemies. In those cases, even though they are hampered by a lack of support of any kind, they still aren't threatened to the same degree as against a fellow Force user. The former case is also one in which Luke went off and was out of the picture for the main conflict, so as to avoid him solving the problem on his own.

They can still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers, as shown in the movies. Or you could have Thrawn exploit a Jedi schism with both Jedi factions remaining in the light.

I don't get this complaint.

No, it doesn't make Anakin's sacrifice in vain because it didn't stop all Dark Sider users everywhere for all time. Any more than fighting Hitler was in vain because other dictators have existed since. History doesn't stop. I don't feel that that renders all achievement meaningless.

In any case, the Sith are evidently gone.

Kylo Ren is actually an interesting sort of deconstruction of the Sith/Dark Jedi.

No, but the enemies aren't the same in history. Fighting new Darksiders is like the modern world fighting a new Neo-Nazi Empire. And Star Wars is supposed to be a story, not a real life history book.

I don't know. Thanks to Anakin, the galaxy got what, two decades of peace from the tyranny of the Empire and the Dark Side? How many billions were able to enjoy two decades of peace, who would otherwise have suffered and died?

That seems a pretty big win.

And the circular epic can work. The Wheel of Time series is pretty much built on that premise.

And as for Tolkien, LotR was always part of a larger universe, which saw many victories, and many defeats.

Have you read both the old EU and the new EU? The old EU keep creating new wars to fight to the extent that the authors have to admit that they screwed up with Anakin bringing the force back into balance.

The New EU did not even result in the Empire being defeated, but simply reached a stalemate after some intense fighting. So in both universe, Vader's death did not bring peace or liberation to anyone.

ray245 wrote:The New EU did not even result in the Empire being defeated, but simply reached a stalemate after some intense fighting. So in both universe, Vader's death did not bring peace or liberation to anyone.

Hence, the sequel problem.

Galvatron wrote:

ray245 wrote:The New EU did not even result in the Empire being defeated, but simply reached a stalemate after some intense fighting. So in both universe, Vader's death did not bring peace or liberation to anyone.

Hence, the sequel problem.

It depends on how you go about doing it. If your goal is to make more of the same kind of movies, then there isn't any point to making them in the first place.

You can write good sequels to Star Wars, you just need to take some creative risk. The Yuzzhan Vong was a great idea, even if it was executed badly.

ray245 wrote:It depends on how you go about doing it. If your goal is to make more of the same kind of movies, then there isn't any point to making them in the first place.

Sure there's a point; People like Star Wars and want another one.

Not to mention it makes them a fuckton of money.

Gandalf wrote:

ray245 wrote:It depends on how you go about doing it. If your goal is to make more of the same kind of movies, then there isn't any point to making them in the first place.

Sure there's a point; People like Star Wars and want another one.

You don't have to retell the exact same story in a sequel.

ray245 wrote:

Gandalf wrote:

ray245 wrote:It depends on how you go about doing it. If your goal is to make more of the same kind of movies, then there isn't any point to making them in the first place.

Sure there's a point; People like Star Wars and want another one.

You don't have to retell the exact same story in a sequel.

That all depends on the objective of the film. Star Wars is a commercial franchise, nothing more. Its purpose is to make money for its owners. If people keep turning up in droves to see the same Star Wars story done repeatedly, then why should they stop?

ray245 wrote: It depends on how you go about doing it. If your goal is to make more of the same kind of movies, then there isn't any point to making them in the first place.

You can write good sequels to Star Wars, you just need to take some creative risk. The Yuzzhan Vong was a great idea, even if it was executed badly.

How was that a good idea? There were people on this site who argued that it meant the Empire had the moral high ground against the Rebel Alliance, and they actually had something of a point.

The Yuuzhan Vong were an alien invasion of an entire galaxy. When you state it in those obvious terms it is just as stupid as it sounds. I would take Kylo Ren over them any day.

ray245 wrote:No, but the enemies aren't the same in history. Fighting new Darksiders is like the modern world fighting a new Neo-Nazi Empire. And Star Wars is supposed to be a story, not a real life history book.

The Dark Side is one of the fundamental forms of evil in Star Wars. Why would it ever just disappear? Having the Dark Side survive fits the setting in a way the Yuuzhan Vong do not. Anakin was about destroying the Bane line as they were sufficiently powerful to be destabilizing.

Gandalf wrote:That all depends on the objective of the film. Star Wars is a commercial franchise, nothing more. Its purpose is to make money for its owners. If people keep turning up in droves to see the same Star Wars story done repeatedly, then why should they stop?

Judging by the money the Prequels made, you can still a very different story and still make tons of money. The brand-name alone is enough to generate a decent profit. It's a franchise that could afford to experiment a lot more.

A retelling limits the overall scope of the franchise. The prequels despite their flaws offered writers a massive room to play around and expand the overall scope of the Star Wars universe. Currently, what we are getting instead are spin-off that doesn't really expand the scope of the overall universe. How much new stuff can a Han Solo movie add to the franchise?

How was that a good idea? There were people on this site who argued that it meant the Empire had the moral high ground against the Rebel Alliance, and they actually had something of a point.

The Yuuzhan Vong were an alien invasion of an entire galaxy. When you state it in those obvious terms it is just as stupid as it sounds. I would take Kylo Ren over them any day.

I don't agree with the minute details about the Vong and how they executed the overall story. But the idea of a new threat that is radically different from the kind of fights the Jedi and the Galaxy is used to makes things feel interesting, and the sacrifice of the protagonist worth it to a degree. They managed to free the Galaxy from tyranny and enjoyed peace for decades. War came to them to no fault of their own is a good idea from a story-telling perspective.

The Dark Side is one of the fundamental forms of evil in Star Wars. Why would it ever just disappear? Having the Dark Side survive fits the setting in a way the Yuuzhan Vong do not. Anakin was about destroying the Bane line as they were sufficiently powerful to be destabilizing.

The Dark side was nearly destroyed and went underground for nearly a 1,000 years. Is it too hard to ask the writers to wait 500 years before we see a resurgent dark side? It cheapens the actions of the protagonist if the Dark Side will always come back ever few years for the sake of !MORE DRAMA.

I strongly value the idea of letting the protagonists enjoyed the fruits of their labor in any story. It makes their sacrifice feels more important and allows me to cherish the journey they went through. I think what made Star Wars grow decades after ROTJ was because ROTJ offered a definitive ending to the series.

It adds to the epic nature of the story, as opposed to a franchise that has a new Star Wars sequel out every year. It's why people would compare Star Wars to LOTR.

If there is a new conflict, make the threat different from the past threats. Just like seeing yet another story about Aragon fighting more Orcs is boring, seeing Luke and co fight the new Darksiders and their empire is boring to me.

ray245 wrote:I strongly value the idea of letting the protagonists enjoyed the fruits of their labor in any story. It makes their sacrifice feels more important and allows me to cherish the journey they went through. I think what made Star Wars grow decades after ROTJ was because ROTJ offered a definitive ending to the series.

Is that not what we got? From what I can tell, the galaxy enjoyed an era of uninterrupted peace since the Battle of Jakku. I'd say that allowed the protagonists to enjoy the fruits of their labor far more than the old EU did.

ray245 wrote:If there is a new conflict, make the threat different from the past threats. Just like seeing yet another story about Aragon fighting more Orcs is boring, seeing Luke and co fight the new Darksiders and their empire is boring to me.

Well, even George Lucas said that the Star Wars story is really "The Tragedy of Darth Vader." Any meaningful sequel should involve a continuation of the Skywalker family saga and therefore be heavily influenced by Vader's legacy, which is obviously why they made Kylo Ren a disciple of his Sith Lord grandfather.

A full-scale invasion from an extragalactic Force-immune alien species isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it shouldn't be the focus of the story. It would make a decent enough backdrop though, just like the Clone Wars and Galactic Civil War were.

Fanboy seems more correct at least based on what I saw in the movie. The Knights of Ren seem like dark side cult but not a new name for the Sith, after all even in the new canon not all darksiders are Sith.