PDA

View Full Version : Are you happy that there are only will be 6 movies?



Grif
04-25-2003, 04:54 PM
I must say that I am glad that GL will only have 6 of them made. Don't get me wrong here because I will be a little sad when the credits roll in Episode 3 and I know that I will never see a new Star Wars movie again. But I think that if he made the third trilogy it just would not be nearly as good as if he stuck to the original plan of just six movies. What do you guys think?

Pendo
04-25-2003, 05:42 PM
I think ROTJ's ending is perfect, it couldn't be better, it ties up the whole story perfectly :). If an Episode VII comes along it would totaly destroy the perfect ending, and a whole new ending whould have to be created to tie up the whole Star Wars story. I am totaly made up that 6 is all there is will be :).

PENDO!

TheDarthVader
04-25-2003, 06:51 PM
I am happy with six. For a long time I have wondered about the rumored 9 movies. Six is good enough for me. I am a simple man, with simple wants...six is great.

Beast
04-25-2003, 07:09 PM
I am perfectly happy with only six movies. There is nowhere for the story to go, ROTJ is a perfect finale to a 6 part saga. I definatly don't want to see somthing like what's going on with NJO. That's a terrible storyline, even for the EU. It makes The Emperor and the Empire look like a nursing home community instead of the most powerful military force in the galaxy. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Deoxyribonucleic
04-25-2003, 07:37 PM
Six is good for me too. Yes, it will be sad to see the credits roll on the last movie knowing that there will never be another, but one can always speculate :evil:

If there were nine movies, the only thing I would consider something that could be good as the last 3 are the Zahn trilogy books made into movies. That way, since it is EV, we could take it or leave it at our will.

IMO, I truly believe that the story should end at Jedi!

LTBasker
04-25-2003, 07:43 PM
Yes and no. I'm happy because Lucas won't be able to pollute with CGI again, but I'm sad because now SW fan communities may become less and less, making it easier to lose contact with my friends. :(

Deoxyribonucleic
04-25-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by LTBasker
Yes and no. I'm happy because Lucas won't be able to pollute with CGI again, but I'm sad because now SW fan communities may become less and less, making it easier to lose contact with my friends. :(

Ok, I got it, so that we don't lose contact, because that is a sad thought....

first, after Ep3 has come and gone, I'm guessing we'll get about 2 years of figures from hasbro, ending just in time for the release of the ENTIRE sixology set on DVD. This gives us about 3 years to keep talking about star wars. THEN, GL will rerelease the six movies, say the first three in one year and the second 3 in the next year, so now we're still talking about star wars to 2010, then with the rereleases will come about another year's worth of star wars talk so 2011 and finally, he'll rerelease the dvd set of all six ONE LAST TIME and that will give us about another year to talk star wars so now we're looking at 2012. Then I give us another 5 years to completely talk all of it into oblivion and by that time it will be the 40th anniversary of Star Wars ANH so everything will get rereleased AGAIN!

:)


Serioulsy, it could happen this way!!

DarthBrandon
04-25-2003, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by LTBasker
Yes and no. I'm happy because Lucas won't be able to pollute with CGI again, but I'm sad because now SW fan communities may become less and less, making it easier to lose contact with my friends. :(

I hear you LTBasker, after it's all said and done, what will there be left to talk about.:D Who know's Peter Jackson might decide to do 7,8, and 9 with Lucas's permission and a good writer. If not I guess I'll just look at all the money I spent on toys that hardly get played with by my son and I and slap myself for being so childish.:D

PoggleTheGreater
04-25-2003, 08:10 PM
The story ends at ROTJ. Any sequels would be more of unnecessary extentions to the story than a continuation of it, like The Godfather Part III. It would be cool to see spin-off type movies, not continuing the main story, but exploring other stories in the SW universe. They wouldn't be Episode VII, ect., but would be independent from the saga. Something like the Ewok movies, but better.

stillakid
04-26-2003, 12:10 AM
Hmm, a rock and a hard place.

After talking with a friend some time ago, it came to my attention that the saga really isn't over with ROTJ. While it came to a nice sit-commy end and all, they do say over and over again that "once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Luke indeed began down that path regardless of his near-martyr-like decision at the end. If you take the warning very literally, Luke is doomed to repeat the sins of the father. It makes complete sense if you sit down and logically follow it through to conclusion.

The story would naturally take the course of Leia training and becoming a Jedi. Luke has always been the rash one only truly interested in his own selfish desires. Leia consistently displayed her commitment to the greater good even at the risk of her own life. So, while Luke led the new Republic, he would do it in a manner that would ultimately lead to it's destruction from within just as had happened before. Recognizing this, Leia would confront her brother. Just as Anakin had faced Obi Wan so many years ago secure in his belief that he was doing the right thing, Luke too would battle Leia even as she tried to open his eyes to the terrible truth that he had unwittingly succumbed to the dark path.

It would culminate with Leia becoming the Gandhi figure and allowing Luke to strike her down. Only with her death can Luke finally realize what he had become. Knowing that he can never be truly saved, he must take his own life in order to free the galaxy from the darkside forever.

Based on a lot of the crappy dialogue in AOTC, it looks like Lucas wants to inject some Shakespeare into the saga. The Third Trilogy is the perfect opportunity for it. Plus there are plenty of Jesus and religious comparisons to be milked as well as the usual cadre of mythological elements ripe for the taking.


However, I began this by saying a rock and a hard place. While the story potential is certainly there, it would take a good writer (like the help he had with the original trilogy) to pull it off. Based on his behavior with the Prequels, he'd more likely run the franchise into the ground and doom it to the "jumped the shark" graveyard of concepts.

To quote a phrase, "it's possible, however unlikely..." So, yes, it should just be put to bed as quickly as possible.

Exhaust Port
04-26-2003, 09:52 AM
I think the story can be considered wrapped up with 6 movies but it still leaves the possibility of a continuation as stillakid mentioned. So after 6 I'll be sad knowing that there won't be another SW to enjoy, ever. But I'll always have this hope that someday GL will get bored or perhaps have an urge to use some of the cutting edge movie technology of the future. What better genre or series to use movie technology with than SW.

bobafrett
04-26-2003, 11:25 AM
I think they should make three more prequels to show how the battle droids were constructed. It should revolve around a young Sio Bibble. JK!

Honestly, I'm happy with the six movies, though when I had heard the rumors some years ago that there would be nine movies all together, I thought I would be in a Star Wars haven. I'm also happy, because this collecting Star Wars toys and such, gets quite expensive, and I'm running out of room to store it all. Also with as much as I dislike Episode I, I'd be afraid that the next three might suck a big egg.

Beast
04-26-2003, 11:25 AM
I doubt the place will diminish much. We've talked about it before in various threads that the "fad" fans that are here because it's hot may fade away. But that the long time obsessed fans like myself and quite a few others will stay. And with the figure license extended til 2018, the books, the eventual DVD release, etc. there will be plenty to talk about. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Fulit
04-26-2003, 11:28 AM
Glad there will only be six. I say it over and over, there's no way I could collect 9 movies worth of toys.

keith koth
04-26-2003, 12:31 PM
Six is fine with me, but from where I stand SW is too big a "cash cow" to just walk away from. If GL does not continue with more movies, I'm sure someone else will. Maybe after GL "bites the dust" his children or other family members will sell off the rights to continue the saga.

However, I believe that any future films would not revolve around any of the major characters we have come to know and love. It would probably be some EU stuff that will do nothing more than a bunch of "name dropping" to connect itself with the "real" SW saga and the $$$ that is associated with it.

Who knows, maybe if they did produce some EU films they might be better than what we have seen so far.

Darth Jax
04-26-2003, 02:02 PM
the next set of movies will be star wars: the next generation. star wars EU can continue until writers finally tire of creating new enemies and heroes. while GL may not make another movie as his income begins to dwindle he'll license someone else to start anew.

Pendo
04-26-2003, 02:48 PM
I don't thin George will make any more movies, but maybe in a few years he'll begin to write a series of Star Wars novels. I'm not a big fan of the EU so when the movies finish there'll be no new stuff for me :(.

PENDO!

2-1B
04-27-2003, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
the saga really isn't over with ROTJ. While it came to a nice sit-commy end and all, they do say over and over again that "once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Luke indeed began down that path regardless of his near-martyr-like decision at the end. If you take the warning very literally, Luke is doomed to repeat the sins of the father. It makes complete sense if you sit down and logically follow it through to conclusion.

Sorry, I don't see the logic in this. :)

It's never shown to be fact, it's just that Obi-Wan and Yoda BELIEVED that it "will forever dominate your destiny." They were certainly proven wrong by the return of Anakin's true self ! That's what makes Luke so admirable to me in ROTJ, his dedication to saving his father who is believed dead by Obi-Wan.

Anakin started down that dark path, it didn't dominate his destiny forever. Were that the case, he would not have turned "back to the good side" and destroyed the emperor. He would not have allowed himself to feel the conflict within.

Han Solo was on a bit of a dark path of his own, one dominated by money and his own interests. He later made choices (story arc) which showed his concern for others and the greater good.

Lando was certainly on a dark path since he was willing to sell out his "friends" to the Empire yet he later works with Luke to benefit others.

You said Luke began down that dark path, yet I believe it is that very same "near-martyr-like decision" which reversed his path. One of the biggest themes I see in these movies is that we all have to make choices in life. We often make the wrong choices but does that mean we are forever doomed to follow the same course of action? Hardly!

Luke is not doomed to repeat anything, like you said it's a 'warning.' Just a warning because it's hard to turn from our old ways . . . but it's not an inevitability. The dark side is supposed to be quicker, easier, but not stronger. If it's not stronger (like Yoda says), then how can it doom someone to follow the same path for eternity?

Sorry, it just sounds too fatalistic to me once a person is on that dark path. :)

bobafrett
04-27-2003, 02:24 AM
Besides, Luke managed to save the ultimate bad guy on the dark side, his father back to "good" showing even further that the Darkside will not forever dominate his destiny.

Never mind, I just read that in Caesars post, except he said "Anakin", and since I'm tired I didn't catch it right away.

Jon
04-27-2003, 10:48 AM
I think in theory it would be very easy to make a VII, VIII & IX. There is plenty of story there. Either EU or something original. 20 years have passed since ROTJ and the opening of VII could very well just link the fact that over the past 20 years the Empire has completely fallen and a new Republic has been formed with Leia at the helm and Luke training new Jedi. A new threat of some kind can arise and there you go a new trilogy.

The biggest problem however is the actors. I think we all have to strong a hold on the fact that Mark Hamill is Luke, Carrie Fisher is Leia, Harrison Ford is Han, Billy Dee is Lando that it may be too hard of a sell to the fans to have new actors portray them. To do a story 20 years after ROTJ and keep the same actors requires it to be done right now, maybe even a few years ago.

Realistically, I believe these 6 are not the end. There is too much money to be made. Personally, I would not be terribly upset if they recast for 7, 8 & 9, as long as they did a very good job with it.

Pendo
04-27-2003, 11:24 AM
During the making of one of the Star Wars films, George Lucas asked Mark Hamill if, in about 30 to 40 years he will be in another George Lucas film being like a Merlin character handing down Escalibur. I can't get out my head that this will be another Star Wars film, the 'Merlin' type character is now Luke Skywalker doing a sort of Obi-Wan, handing down his knowledge of the Jedi to a younger generation.
I hope it won't be another Star Wars movie, six will be enough, and as Lucas says in the 'The Beginning' documentary talking about American Graffiti - "It is possible to destroy these things."

PENDO!

Beast
04-27-2003, 11:49 AM
Besides, Lucas already said that after EIII is over and done with, he wants to take some time off and ready the DVD's of the OT and then start making more movies like American Graffiti and THX-1138. Which I'm eagerly looking forward to. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

sith_killer_99
04-27-2003, 12:02 PM
If you're talking 6 vs 9, then yes I am pleased with just 6 movies, especially considering how long EPII was.:rolleyes:

However, I wouldn't have minded some sort of spin-off. A Fett movie would have been cool, before GL ruined the character for me.:(

I still wouldn't mind seeing some new, talanted, producer/director take a stab at a solo (no pun intended) Star Wars project.:eek:

It couldn't be any worse than the Christmas Special!:eek: :D ;) :( :cry: :crazed:

Deoxyribonucleic
04-27-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Jon

The biggest problem however is the actors. I think we all have to strong a hold on the fact that Mark Hamill is Luke, Carrie Fisher is Leia, Harrison Ford is Han, Billy Dee is Lando that it may be too hard of a sell to the fans to have new actors portray them.


I know I would not go see a Star Wars movie that has Han, Leia and Luke after ROTJ that did not use Harry, Carrie and Mark! I just couldn't do it. It's like watching MASH with a different actor portraying Hawkeye or Hotlips...just wouldn't work! :)

Pendo
04-27-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Deoxyribonucleic
I know I would not go see a Star Wars movie that has Han, Leia and Luke after ROTJ that did not use Harry, Carrie and Mark! I just couldn't do it. It's like watching MASH with a different actor portraying Hawkeye or Hotlips...just wouldn't work! :)

I 100% Agree :)

PENDO!

Kidhuman
04-27-2003, 01:51 PM
I am completely good on 6 movies. Anyhting else would not be good. They already ended the story on a good note. Leave it at that. ALl the Sith were killed off and Luke was the only Jedi left. They would just be getting into some unchartered waters and making a mockery of what we loved.

I also couldn't see any other people playing the characters we have looked at for so many years. Younger versions are okay because they are young. Too much time has past to do any of the EU that came right after ROTJ so that would just be crap if they got others to play these characters.

In the words of Paul McCartney....Let It Be.

stillakid
04-27-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
Sorry, I don't see the logic in this. :)

It's never shown to be fact, it's just that Obi-Wan and Yoda BELIEVED that it "will forever dominate your destiny." They were certainly proven wrong by the return of Anakin's true self ! That's what makes Luke so admirable to me in ROTJ, his dedication to saving his father who is believed dead by Obi-Wan.

Anakin started down that dark path, it didn't dominate his destiny forever. Were that the case, he would not have turned "back to the good side" and destroyed the emperor. He would not have allowed himself to feel the conflict within.

Han Solo was on a bit of a dark path of his own, one dominated by money and his own interests. He later made choices (story arc) which showed his concern for others and the greater good.

Lando was certainly on a dark path since he was willing to sell out his "friends" to the Empire yet he later works with Luke to benefit others.

You said Luke began down that dark path, yet I believe it is that very same "near-martyr-like decision" which reversed his path. One of the biggest themes I see in these movies is that we all have to make choices in life. We often make the wrong choices but does that mean we are forever doomed to follow the same course of action? Hardly!

Luke is not doomed to repeat anything, like you said it's a 'warning.' Just a warning because it's hard to turn from our old ways . . . but it's not an inevitability. The dark side is supposed to be quicker, easier, but not stronger. If it's not stronger (like Yoda says), then how can it doom someone to follow the same path for eternity?

Sorry, it just sounds too fatalistic to me once a person is on that dark path. :)

Just a quick note to let you know that I'm developing a response for this. Thanks for your patience. :)

Kidhuman
04-27-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Just a quick note to let you know that I'm developing a response for this. Thanks for your patience. :)

You made him think. We are in for it now:D :

stillakid
04-28-2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
It's never shown to be fact, it's just that Obi-Wan and Yoda BELIEVED that it "will forever dominate your destiny." They were certainly proven wrong by the return of Anakin's true self ! That's what makes Luke so admirable to me in ROTJ, his dedication to saving his father who is believed dead by Obi-Wan.
Let me start by saying that I see where you're coming from. This is exactly why I stated specifically that this entire line of reasoning depends upon how "literally" you take the line that it "will forever dominate your destiny."

Having said that, I'll begin the discussion with this: The Prequels introduced a new saga to us in which Yoda was replaced by a brand new character as the one and only teacher for Obi Wan Kenobi with nary a flinch from most Star Wars fans. While I will acknowledge that a little bit of "wiggle room" is necessary to allow this idea to work, in light of this very forgiving atmosphere among fans (regarding Qui Gon), this concept for Episodes 7-9 is at least as plausible if not more than altering previous continuity. :)



Originally posted by Caesar
Anakin started down that dark path, it didn't dominate his destiny forever. Were that the case, he would not have turned "back to the good side" and destroyed the emperor. He would not have allowed himself to feel the conflict within. I'm not entirely convinced anymore that Anakin did turn completely to the good side. To wax a little religiously for a moment and revisit the lessons of Jesus Christ, Buddha, and Gandhi, violence is not the answer. In fact, to be entirely technical about it, if Anakin/Vader did turn completely to the "good side," he would have gone down as a martyr before using violence to save his son and himself.

This is a problem that we mere humans must contend with regularly. Take Iraq for instance. What was the greater evil? Go into the country and use intensely lethal means to remove a similarly lethal entity? Or teach peace by example and don't invade. Sure, the "evil entity" gets to continue on, but I think that the hope and promise of people like JC, Buddha, and Gandhi was that given time, the ultimate power of good would indeed prevail even if it came down to the last man.


Originally posted by Caesar
Han Solo was on a bit of a dark path of his own, one dominated by money and his own interests. He later made choices (story arc) which showed his concern for others and the greater good.
True, but as I alluded to, I don't think that anyone is capable of turning completely "good" (save for the historical martyrs we know about). While it's very admirable for Solo, or anyone, to change for the better, it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't act in selfish or otherwise "non-good" ways.


Originally posted by Caesar
Lando was certainly on a dark path since he was willing to sell out his "friends" to the Empire yet he later works with Luke to benefit others.
True, but it's the same response as above.


Originally posted by Caesar
You said Luke began down that dark path, yet I believe it is that very same "near-martyr-like decision" which reversed his path. One of the biggest themes I see in these movies is that we all have to make choices in life. We often make the wrong choices but does that mean we are forever doomed to follow the same course of action? Hardly!
I agree, we are not doomed to continue our destructive ways or otherwise. But, I've found that once you allow yourself to do a "bad" thing, it becomes easier and easier to justify it later on. I think that this is the core of the idea behind the darkside "dominating" a person's existence. Luke allowed anger, fear, and despair to overtake him. And that was in A New Hope. That pattern continued in ESB and seemed to culminate in ROTJ. Also as I pointed out, Luke always acted out of selfish motivation. It was always about him and what he wanted. It's easier to see this when compared to someone like Leia who always worked for a cause greater than herself. If Luke really wanted to "save" his father, he wouldn't have compelled the man to use violence (the dark path) to save his life. No, instead, Luke would have gone the way of Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. and taught the ultimate lesson in the hope that Anakin would have recognized the sacrifice and followed suit.

This is the crux of the concept for Episode 7-9. Where Luke ultimately failed, Leia would work for the greater good and give her life for it. Luke would hopefully see this and see himself for what he became. Bleak ending? Perhaps, but ultimately a very rewarding ending.


Originally posted by Caesar
Luke is not doomed to repeat anything, like you said it's a 'warning.' Just a warning because it's hard to turn from our old ways . . . but it's not an inevitability. The dark side is supposed to be quicker, easier, but not stronger. If it's not stronger (like Yoda says), then how can it doom someone to follow the same path for eternity?
I think that the "stronger" definition was in the context of discussing "the Force." The Force is just an energy field that some people have learned to tap into. It's just a tool, just like a hammer, that you can use for good or bad. You can pound in a nail, or crack open someone's skull. Your choice. Same with the Force. So when Luke asks, "is the darkside stronger?" the natural answer is "no."

Is it quicker and easier? YES! Just as explained above, once you do something "bad," the door is opened. Justifying similar behavior becomes easier and easier. It's the apple in the Garden of Eden. Take one bite and now you know what you've been missing. Remember your "first time"? Can you imagine going completely celibate after that? Possible? Sure. Difficult? Probably.


Originally posted by Caesar
Sorry, it just sounds too fatalistic to me once a person is on that dark path. :)
It is fatalistic. That's the inherent danger to venturing down the darkpath. Just as you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't be just a little "bad." Or put another way, you're either ENTIRELY "good" or your not. Is it an impossible utopian standard that humans can never attain? Maybe. Maybe not. But that's the great thing about fiction and literature. It can give us a window into the fantasy and hopes that we all aspire to. So would it be depressing to see Leia get cut down by her brother? Then to see the horror well up in Luke as he realizes the truth about himself? Then, if that wasn't enough, to see Luke KILL HIMSELF?! :eek: You bet! Intrigue, drama, action, suspense, emotion. That's what movies are for! What a fitting end it would be to the Star Wars saga. Good prevails in the end. Isn't that what the story is all about? :)

scruffziller
04-28-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Besides, Lucas already said that after EIII is over and done with, he wants to take some time off and ready the DVD's of the OT and then start making more movies like American Graffiti and THX-1138. Which I'm eagerly looking forward to. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Yea but he has said alot of things in the past that were contridictory. He also said one time he was not going to make the prequels. Give GL a few years. I want to see another trilogy with the original cast.

TheDarthVader
04-28-2003, 11:01 PM
Good point. There just might be another trilogy in the future. I can live with six. I would live with nine too. (As long as the sequels were well written.)

RussUAE
04-29-2003, 06:21 AM
I wouldn't be keen on any sequels, unless so far in the furture that practically none of the classsic or prequel characters were in them.

That said, maybe a few side movies would be cool. For example a Jango Fett film etc.

scruffziller
04-29-2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by RussUAE


That said, maybe a few side movies would be cool. For example a Jango Fett film etc.

We already had them and they were pretty gawdawful for most people and they were actually done by Lucas and friends. The Ewok movies and the Christmas Special. The proper term for "side movie" is spinoff.:)

2-1B
04-29-2003, 12:42 PM
originally posted by stillakid
The Prequels introduced a new saga to us in which Yoda was replaced by a brand new character as the one and only teacher for Obi Wan Kenobi with nary a flinch from most Star Wars fans. While I will acknowledge that a little bit of "wiggle room" is necessary to allow this idea to work, in light of this very forgiving atmosphere among fans (regarding Qui Gon), this concept for Episodes 7-9 is at least as plausible if not more than altering previous continuity. 

(Well, I think many fans did indeed “flinch” but then realized that Qui-Gon was one of Obi-Wan’s teacher, not the one and only ;) but anyway . . . )

Oh, it’s certainly plausible that Luke could later go over to the darkside and fail; I only take issue with the inevitability of it. :)
Honestly, what do Qui-Gon, the midichlorians, etc. have to do with this? I don’t see the comparison. Those elements have to do with the alleged ‘established continuity’ while this does not.
Obi-Wan believed that Anakin was truly dead. It was a very realistic and well founded assumption on his part, but as ROTJ shows, Obi-Wan was wrong. The same goes for Yoda and this business of the dark side dominating one’s destiny forever. It has dominated the destiny of every prior person who embraced it. So it is most likely that if one turns to the dark side, that person will continue down that path. It’s just not an absolute guarantee. :)


originally posted by stillakid
I'm not entirely convinced anymore that Anakin did turn completely to the good side. To wax a little religiously for a moment and revisit the lessons of Jesus Christ, Buddha, and Gandhi, violence is not the answer. In fact, to be entirely technical about it, if Anakin/Vader did turn completely to the "good side," he would have gone down as a martyr before using violence to save his son and himself.

I can’t agree with that.
Many people of those religious backgrounds recognize the right of self-defense. I can’t speak for anybody else but if a dirty, crusty, old man is force-shocking one of my loved ones to death, I will not stand by and martyr my own family.
Anakin did not fight his own impending death. Had he allowed his son to die there, he would have been continuing in service to the Emperor.

What about the Rebel Alliance? At that same moment, they were launching a pre-emptive strike against the Death Star. They (according to Mon Mothma) seemed anxious because the Emperor was there. If they could take out the head with the Death Star, the war would be won.  The Rebels are the “good guys” and they are trying to kill the Emperor. So then how could Anakin not be a “good guy” for doing that WHILE his son was in immediate danger? :confused:
Leia shot how many stormtroopers? :confused:
Chewie?
Han?
They all killed people in battle, are they not “good” ?


originally posted by stillakid
This is a problem that we mere humans must contend with regularly. Take Iraq for instance. What was the greater evil? Go into the country and use intensely lethal means to remove a similarly lethal entity? Or teach peace by example and don't invade. Sure, the "evil entity" gets to continue on, but I think that the hope and promise of people like JC, Buddha, and Gandhi was that given time, the ultimate power of good would indeed prevail even if it came down to the last man.

I’m not touching the Iraq issue. :D

I don’t really understand the point of this . . .
Should the Rebellion have laid down their arms? :confused:
Were they supposed to let the Empire run over millions of people?
You now have to evaluate the motives and intentions of the entire Rebel Alliance and determine if they were acting justly in their defiance of the Empire.


originally posted by stillakid
True, but as I alluded to, I don't think that anyone is capable of turning completely "good" (save for the historical martyrs we know about). While it's very admirable for Solo, or anyone, to change for the better, it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't act in selfish or otherwise "non-good" ways.

I totally agree. In real life, we don’t live in a vacuum of total goodness. I’m sure you and I (well, I KNOW I do :D ) make mistakes, but overall I think we are “good people” just like our heroes in the SW saga. :)


originally posted by stillakid
I agree, we are not doomed to continue our destructive ways or otherwise. But, I've found that once you allow yourself to do a "bad" thing, it becomes easier and easier to justify it later on. I think that this is the core of the idea behind the darkside "dominating" a person's existence.

Yes, I agree exactly. One is likely to continue down that path, I’m just saying that it is not 100% inevitable that Luke (especially) would go down that path.


originally posted by stillakid
Also as I pointed out, Luke always acted out of selfish motivation.


WHAT ?!?!?! :eek:
How so ?
You are the first person I’ve EVER heard describe Luke as always selfish . . .


originally posted by stillakid
It was always about him and what he wanted.


No way !!!!!!!!!!!

Why didn’t he run off with Han after the escape from the Death Star ? :confused:
He had already gotten his wish of leaving the homestead, think of how many adventures and money he could have experienced with Han and Chewie !
When Han asked Luke to go with them, why did Luke tell Han “you see what they’re up against. How can you turn your back on them?” Han told him an attack on that Death Star was suicide, why would a selfish Luke put himself at risk like that? :confused:

No, I do not believe he did all of that solely out of revenge for the deaths of Owen, Beru, and Obi-Wan. He believed in a greater good and put his life on the line for it. That’s hardly selfish.

In ESB, it might be described as selfish for him to leave Dagobah early to try a rescue of Han and the others. Personally, I would classify it as Luke just being foolish and premature. He WANTED to do the right thing, to save his friends, he was just unwise and naïve in how he did it. It does not invalidate his intentions. :)

If wanting his father turned from the dark side in ROTJ is selfish, then I guess Luke is guilty there. ;)


originally posted by stillakid
It's easier to see this when compared to someone like Leia who always worked for a cause greater than herself.

However, was she doing the right thing by using violence ? ;)


originally posted by stillakid
If Luke really wanted to "save" his father, he wouldn't have compelled the man to use violence (the dark path) to save his life. No, instead, Luke would have gone the way of Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. and taught the ultimate lesson in the hope that Anakin would have recognized the sacrifice and followed suit.

But Luke DID try that lesson. He SURRENDERED on Endor and did not put up a fight. He put himself totally at the mercy of Vader, even if it meant getting killed while unarmed (they took his lightsaber).
It wasn’t Luke who compelled Vader to use violence, it was the Emperor (and Vader as well) who compelled Luke to use violence. Luke gave into that temptation and wielded his lightsaber. Yet when he could have given Vader a death blow, he held back and again gave up his lightsaber. Luke was certainly willing to die at the hands of the Emperor. Vader/Anakin most certainly DID learn that ultimate lesson from Luke and that’s why he saved his son.


originally posted by stillakid
This is the crux of the concept for Episode 7-9. Where Luke ultimately failed, Leia would work for the greater good and give her life for it. Luke would hopefully see this and see himself for what he became. Bleak ending? Perhaps, but ultimately a very rewarding ending.

The way ROTJ stands, Luke already learned that lesson. I talked about it earlier, when Luke looks at his own mechanical hand after knocking Vader down. He ALREADY saw himself for what he COULD become, and that is why he threw down his lightsaber and would then rather die than kill his father and “take his place at my side. :evil: “


originally posted by stillakid
It is fatalistic. That's the inherent danger to venturing down the darkpath.

Yet you said earlier that “I agree, we are not doomed to continue our destructive ways or otherwise” . . . so then it can’t be fatalistic, can it? ;)
However, I totally agree with you about the inherent dangers of venturing down the dark path. :)

I only raised my initial questions because of the opinion that ROTJ isn’t the end and that if you use logic you will come to the conclusion that it isn’t over.
Well, logically speaking, to me it IS over since Luke returns from the brink of self-destruction and wins over his father in the end. The Emperor is gone, the galaxy is free to begin anew. Personally (to answer the question of this thread :D ) that’s why I’m happy with only 6 movies. Without question, there are still countless dangers involved post-Palpatine, but within the fictional storyline I don’t think anything could be a greater danger than the Sith/Empire. The EU apparently goes into further
”adventures of the week” and that’s partly why I don’t follow it. The idea of a cloned emperor is just goofy to me because it TOTALLY mitigates the sacrifice of Anakin in destroying the Emperor. It’s a fun scenario for movie sequels like Friday the 13th, but in the Star Wars EU I just think it’s a joke. :rolleyes:


originally posted by stillakid
Just as you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't be just a little "bad." Or put another way, you're either ENTIRELY "good" or your not.

I do not like that comparison because pregnancy is an either/or scenario while the goodness of people is on such a vast scale. Of course you can be “just a little bad.”
Sorry, I just don’t believe that we live in a black and white existence. I believe most people live in a gray area with the majority striving toward the white . . . it doesn’t mean they are “bad.”


originally posted by stillakid
Is it an impossible utopian standard that humans can never attain? Maybe. Maybe not. But that's the great thing about fiction and literature. It can give us a window into the fantasy and hopes that we all aspire to.

Agreed. :)


originally posted by stillakid
So would it be depressing to see Leia get cut down by her brother? Then to see the horror well up in Luke as he realizes the truth about himself? :eek:Then, if that wasn't enough, to see Luke KILL HIMSELF?! :eek: You bet! Intrigue, drama, action, suspense, emotion. That's what movies are for! What a fitting end it would be to the Star Wars saga. Good prevails in the end. Isn't that what the story is all about? 

The way it stands now, good does prevail in the end. And yes, that is what the story is all about ! ! ! :crazed:

RussUAE
04-30-2003, 04:25 AM
I reckon spin offs could work just fine. OK, they haven't before with the Ewok movies, and as for the Chrsitmas special....

But done properly a spin off movie could be fine, as long as the whole star wars crew were behind it and it wasn't being made as a TV movie.

stillakid
04-30-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
(Well, I think many fans did indeed “flinch” but then realized that Qui-Gon was one of Obi-Wan’s teacher, not the one and only ;) but anyway . . . )
That's exactly my point. [Some] Star Wars fans may have flinched, but had the capacity to rationalize the new logic enough that it made at least enough sense for them to not give it another thought. In the same vein, this concept for a post-trilogy may cause a bit of a hiccup (as it did to me then, as it is to you now), but given the forgiving nature of Star Wars fans regarding the Qui Gon issue, I reasoned that this would fall into the same ballpark. :)


Originally posted by Caesar
(Oh, it’s certainly plausible that Luke could later go over to the darkside and fail; I only take issue with the inevitability of it. :)
OK, maybe I'll give a bit on the inevitable part. ;) But the story idea doesn't implode with that. It's still a possibility for Luke to venture down this path, although watering it down like that degrades the climax at the end of Episode IX.


Originally posted by Caesar
(Honestly, what do Qui-Gon, the midichlorians, etc. have to do with this? I don’t see the comparison.
As you shouldn't. ;) See above. I only brought Qui Gon up as an illustration as to the forgiving nature of Star Wars fans in regards to "hard to swallow" plot points.



Originally posted by Caesar
Obi-Wan believed that Anakin was truly dead. It was a very realistic and well founded assumption on his part, but as ROTJ shows, Obi-Wan was wrong.
Yes.


Originally posted by Caesar
The same goes for Yoda and this business of the dark side dominating one’s destiny forever. It has dominated the destiny of every prior person who embraced it. So it is most likely that if one turns to the dark side, that person will continue down that path. It’s just not an absolute guarantee. :)
Maybe, but in the Star Wars lore, we have no precedent to draw upon. We have only the words of a Jedi Master to refer to (forever will it dominate your destiny) and the example of the Sith we've seen (Maul, Dooku, Palpatine, and Anakin). While someone might later on decide to head down the path of good, just as an alcoholic struggles daily, the "reformed" Sith will have an internal battle as those easily justifiable decisions before suddenly are off-limits. So is it a guarantee? No. Is it the more likely scenario? Yes, I think so. For the guys in Star Wars and for us in the real world. Once you start down that dark path, reversing that kind of behavior pattern will be extremely difficult if not impossible.




Originally posted by Caesar
I can’t agree with that.
Many people of those religious backgrounds recognize the right of self-defense. I can’t speak for anybody else but if a dirty, crusty, old man is force-shocking one of my loved ones to death, I will not stand by and martyr my own family.
I'll disagree with your disageeing. ;) While "many people" with religious backgrounds may agree with you, they'd be wrong. The lesson taught by historical gentlemen like Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King is to turn the other cheek. Self-defense isn't part of the package. As stated before, the belief (hope?) is that through example, the lesson of ultimate peace and forgiveness will spread enough to eventually overtake any evil that exists. As a philosophy it sounds good, but because "religious folk" tend to impress their own amendments into the teachings, it'll probably just remain an untested theory until the end of time.



Originally posted by Caesar
Anakin did not fight his own impending death. Had he allowed his son to die there, he would have been continuing in service to the Emperor.
No. Not at all. In fact, it's just the opposite. Look at it this way: When Luke is writhing on the floor, screaming out "Father, help me!", what he's really saying is "Father, kill Palpatine and take your place at my side!" Sound familiar? Maybe Luke did have the greater good in mind (get rid of Palpatine so he can't continue being a maniacal slug), but the end doesn't justify the means when talking about good vs. evil. Killing is killing, no matter the reason.


Originally posted by Caesar
What about the Rebel Alliance? At that same moment, they were launching a pre-emptive strike against the Death Star. They (according to Mon Mothma) seemed anxious because the Emperor was there. If they could take out the head with the Death Star, the war would be won.  The Rebels are the “good guys” and they are trying to kill the Emperor. So then how could Anakin not be a “good guy” for doing that WHILE his son was in immediate danger? :confused:
Right. This is the point exactly. The universe is NOT safe still. Violence begets violence. Killing the "bad guy" seems like the right thing to do for the greater good, but that isn't the lesson of most religions that Lucas chose to borrow from and it certainly isn't the lesson that Yoda was trying to impart to Luke on Dagobah. Granted, it does seem to be illogical (let the bad guy live for the greater good?!!??) but in the big picture, it is not.

"Help them you could, but you would destroy all for which they have fought and suffered."

Originally posted by Caesar
Leia shot how many stormtroopers? :confused:
Chewie?
Han?
They all killed people in battle, are they not “good” ?
They think so. But again, relative to the teachings of the "martyrs," no, that is not the way to go. Yoda himself is in that camp while at the same time recognizes the ultimate truth which he himself can't follow. The "theory" of non-violence is just too difficult a concept for even him to practice. But he tries to save Luke from that fate before it's too late to turn back. If he can justify killing one person for the greater good, where does it stop? If you've seen the film Swordfish, this point is central to the plot. How many lives are worth sacrificing for the greater good? Travolta's character believes that it is limitless. One, one hundred, a thousand. Whatever it takes. This is counter to the teachings of Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, and Yoda.





Originally posted by Caesar
I don’t really understand the point of this . . .
Yes you do, but it's a pretty uncomfortable option isn't it...that's why it has never been enacted as a widespread philosophy among humanity...

Originally posted by Caesar
Should the Rebellion have laid down their arms? :confused:Yes, if they followed the difficult, yet "good" path.

Originally posted by Caesar
Were they supposed to let the Empire run over millions of people?Yes.

Originally posted by Caesar
You now have to evaluate the motives and intentions of the entire Rebel Alliance and determine if they were acting justly in their defiance of the Empire. Just as regular people like you and me would make that choice to defend ourselves with violence, they too have made the choice. All I'm saying is that this isn't a justifiable choice as taught by the martyrs and Yoda.





Originally posted by Caesar
I totally agree. In real life, we don’t live in a vacuum of total goodness. I’m sure you and I (well, I KNOW I do :D ) make mistakes, but overall I think we are “good people” just like our heroes in the SW saga. :) Yes, we all do our best. But we are not living up to the (very difficult) utopian-like non-violent standard that has been suggested by the martyrs and Yoda. :)




Originally posted by Caesar
Yes, I agree exactly. One is likely to continue down that path, I’m just saying that it is not 100% inevitable that Luke (especially) would go down that path.
No, not inevitable, but more likely than not. Once you start making those "easy" decisions, it gets easier and easier. Once you start down that darkpath, forever will it dominate your destiny.




Originally posted by Caesar
WHAT ?!?!?! :eek:
How so ?
You are the first person I’ve EVER heard describe Luke as always selfish . . .
It might not be the last. :) It's all over the saga. Every decision he makes is for him. To satisfy his need for adventure and excitement. Yes, even his run down the Death Star trench was his chance to prove that he could "bullseye a womprat" and "thread the needle." Everything about Luke was about satisfying his own wishes and concerns.

Leia was completely the opposite. She would gladly die if it meant advancing the cause. Not for her glory, but for the greater good.



Originally posted by Caesar
Why didn’t he run off with Han after the escape from the Death Star ? :confused: Why would he? He wasn't that enamored with Han at that point to compel him to run off. Especially when he's got the girl there and his best friend that he hasn't seen in a long time.


Originally posted by Caesar
He had already gotten his wish of leaving the homestead, think of how many adventures and money he could have experienced with Han and Chewie !
His dreams of adventure were a bit more specific than that, I think. But regardless of my opinion, as I said, he had the girl there and his best friend. Why leave to live an uncertain life with somebody he hardly knows?


Originally posted by Caesar
When Han asked Luke to go with them, why did Luke tell Han “you see what they’re up against. How can you turn your back on them?” Han told him an attack on that Death Star was suicide, why would a selfish Luke put himself at risk like that? :confused:
Adventure does not preclude a bit of risk. If he wanted a boring "safe" life, he could have stayed on Tatooine.


Originally posted by Caesar
No, I do not believe he did all of that solely out of revenge for the deaths of Owen, Beru, and Obi-Wan. He believed in a greater good and put his life on the line for it. That’s hardly selfish.
He allowed his uncle to keep him there. As many people on this planet are, he desired a greater more adventurous life, but was fearful of actually striking out to do it. He used Owen as the excuse. Those deaths erased that option for him leaving him with nothing. So you're right, he did nothing out of revenge for those deaths. He nary gave them a second thought.

However, what he believed in was finding adventure and excitement. Just as Yoda says in the movie. It wasn't a greater good he was trying to fight for. That was just a vehicle already in motion that he used to experience what he desired. If it wasn't a rebellion, then he would have found something else. Podracing maybe. NASCAR. Skeet shooting. Galaxy Olympics. Whatever. It was about Luke finding a more interesting life than the one he had on Tatooine. He just happened to jump on a train that was bigger than he ever imagined. A great story has ordinary people (Luke) caught up in extraordinary circumstances (galactic struggle). (Well, he was ordinary until the Midichlorian fiasco, but that's a different discussion. ;) )


Originally posted by Caesar
In ESB, it might be described as selfish for him to leave Dagobah early to try a rescue of Han and the others. Personally, I would classify it as Luke just being foolish and premature. He WANTED to do the right thing, to save his friends, he was just unwise and naïve in how he did it. It does not invalidate his intentions. :)
Of course not. Everything you say above I agree with. However, what Yoda was trying to say was that rushing to fight Vader at that point in the training would unnecessarily place Luke in a situation in which he was not yet emotional ready to deal with. As such, he would likely be tempted to take that easy path which leads to the darkside. While his cause was indeed noble, the potential result would indeed wipe out everything he had trained for and all that his friends fought for would be for naught.
If wanting his father turned from the dark side in ROTJ is selfish, then I guess Luke is guilty there. ;)




Originally posted by Caesar
However, was she doing the right thing by using violence ? ;) No, not relative to the teachings of Yoda and the martyrs. But, were the saga to continue in the manner I've suggested, it's a lesson she would come to learn and strive to live up to. Like everyone else, she was looking to the short term and believed that evil could be erradicated by using violence. To her, the ends justified the means even if that meant playing the same game as the bad guys.





Originally posted by Caesar
But Luke DID try that lesson. He SURRENDERED on Endor and did not put up a fight. He put himself totally at the mercy of Vader, even if it meant getting killed while unarmed (they took his lightsaber).
Well, he tried. But ultimately failed when he picked up his saber after being goaded by Palpatine. I can't help but recall BACK TO THE FUTURE when the bullies say to Marty, "What, are you chicken!?" Luke too, couldn't behave himself.

But anyway, while the plan to give himself up may have begun with the best intentions in mind, in the end all it wound up being (in a plot element point of view) was a Trojan Horse method of getting in the castle. The bad guys were just dumb enough to bring his weapon in with them.



Originally posted by Caesar
It wasn’t Luke who compelled Vader to use violence, it was the Emperor (and Vader as well) who compelled Luke to use violence.
They ALL compelled one another to use violence.

First Palpatine to Luke: "Strike me down with all your hate!"

Then Vader to Luke: "If you will not be turned, then perhaps she will."

Then Luke to Vader: "Help me father!"


Originally posted by Caesar
Luke gave into that temptation and wielded his lightsaber. Yet when he could have given Vader a death blow, he held back and again gave up his lightsaber. Luke was certainly willing to die at the hands of the Emperor. Vader/Anakin most certainly DID learn that ultimate lesson from Luke and that’s why he saved his son.
Not so willing to die at the hands of the Emperor or else he wouldn't have cried out "Save me, father!" Luke followed in Palpatine's path and coerced Vader/Anakin into using violence to an end. Anakin may have appeared to be "saved," but he wasn't really. He just followed the whims of a new "master" who happened to be his own son.




Originally posted by Caesar
The way ROTJ stands, Luke already learned that lesson. I talked about it earlier, when Luke looks at his own mechanical hand after knocking Vader down. He ALREADY saw himself for what he COULD become, and that is why he threw down his lightsaber and would then rather die than kill his father and “take his place at my side. :evil: “
Yeah, Luke had alot of false starts. When he gave up on the gantry, but then failed when he picked up the saber. Again when he threw away the saber, but then cried out for help. He may have thought about martyring himself, but time after time he couldn't bring himself to do it for one reason or another.



Originally posted by Caesar
Yet you said earlier that “I agree, we are not doomed to continue our destructive ways or otherwise” . . . so then it can’t be fatalistic, can it? ;)
However, I totally agree with you about the inherent dangers of venturing down the dark path. :)
I guess it depends on your definition of fatalistic. While using violence to get rid of a bad guy may seem like the "good" thing to do in the short term, in the long term it just propogates the problems.


Originally posted by Caesar
I only raised my initial questions because of the opinion that ROTJ isn’t the end and that if you use logic you will come to the conclusion that it isn’t over.
Yes, I still believe that.



Originally posted by Caesar
Well, logically speaking, to me it IS over since Luke returns from the brink of self-destruction and wins over his father in the end. The Emperor is gone, the galaxy is free to begin anew.
Luke wins over his father but at the price of his soul. The Emperor was destroyed, but Luke used the same method to seduce Anakin to his side. Once you start down the darkpath...


Originally posted by Caesar
Personally (to answer the question of this thread :D ) that’s why I’m happy with only 6 movies. Without question, there are still countless dangers involved post-Palpatine, but within the fictional storyline I don’t think anything could be a greater danger than the Sith/Empire. The EU apparently goes into further
”adventures of the week” and that’s partly why I don’t follow it. The idea of a cloned emperor is just goofy to me because it TOTALLY mitigates the sacrifice of Anakin in destroying the Emperor. It’s a fun scenario for movie sequels like Friday the 13th, but in the Star Wars EU I just think it’s a joke. :rolleyes:

I agree. What made the original trilogy so enjoyable is that it doesn't rely on hokey sci fi conventions as the primary motivation. The characters are the main draw. Which is why this new concept for the post-trilogy is so interesting to me. No cloned anybody. It's all about the heroes and their very human flaws. That's what great storytelling is about. :)

TheDarthVader
04-30-2003, 05:40 PM
Something from ROTJ struck me today when I was watching it. Yoda instructs Luke to "pass on what you have learned." Why would GL even put this in? Hmmmm...interesting. Maybe we will see three more movies afterall! Who knows? ;)

chrisc
05-01-2003, 02:31 PM
The thrawn trilogy would be perfect for the next three movies that will probably never come out. Even though the empire lost at Endor they still have a ***** load of ships and troops and alot of good leaders who still wage war for almost another fifteen years until Admiral Pellaeon surrenders. Theres alot that can be put on new films. I'm afraid that after E3 Star Wars will slowly DIE!

TheDarthVader
05-19-2003, 03:09 PM
Peter Jackson...3 more movies...Peter Jackson...3 more movies
Do you know that it took 15 months of filming for Peter Jackson to do all three Lord of the Rings movies?? Peter Jackson...3 more movies...Peter Jackson
Let him do it, Lucas!!

PoggleTheGreater
05-19-2003, 03:15 PM
Peter Jackson is probably what is wrong with LOTR. If there were a better director on the job, these probably would've been truly great films, in my opinion.

Pendo
05-19-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by PoggleTheGreater
Peter Jackson is probably what is wrong with LOTR. If there were a better director on the job, these probably would've been truly great films, in my opinion.

You mean you don't already think they are truly great films?

PENDO!

PoggleTheGreater
05-19-2003, 05:48 PM
Although they contain great elements, I consider them overall to be good films. I don't like the way the stories in the films are structured, I think it's caused by lack of directorial vision and talent. I started a thread discussing these issues a few months ago: http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18110

stillakid
05-19-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by TheDarthVader
Something from ROTJ struck me today when I was watching it. Yoda instructs Luke to "pass on what you have learned." Why would GL even put this in? Hmmmm...interesting. Maybe we will see three more movies afterall! Who knows? ;)

Uh, yeah, he was talking about Luke passing his knowledge onto Leia. How could that not have been clear? :confused:

stillakid
05-19-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by PoggleTheGreater
Although they contain great elements, I consider them overall to be good films. I don't like the way the stories in the films are structured, I think it's caused by lack of directorial vision and talent. I started a thread discussing these issues a few months ago: http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18110

I agree completely. :)

TheDarthVader
05-20-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Uh, yeah, he was talking about Luke passing his knowledge onto Leia. How could that not have been clear? :confused:

LOL! You think that in the big Star Wars Galaxy Leia will be the only one who is force sensitive? I doubt that. Others will come forward now that the Emperor is dead to train as jedi.

stillakid
05-20-2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by TheDarthVader
LOL! You think that in the big Star Wars Galaxy Leia will be the only one who is force sensitive? I doubt that. Others will come forward now that the Emperor is dead to train as jedi.

Uh, you asked who George (Yoda) could have been referring to in the ESB when Yoda says there is another. AMAZINGLY at the end of ESB, Luke is able to "contact" Leia through telepathy or something. Then it just so happens that in the very next film, it turns out in a very gentle and touching scene, Leia is told that she "has that power too." Crazy, huh? The road was paved right to Leia's door. I truly am puzzled that anyone could find any room for "interpretation" in such an obviously clear plot sequence. :confused:

But, hey, if I hear any alternate ideas as to who Yoda could possibly have been referring to, I'd be more than happy to hear them. What other primary (established) characters could George have been referring to?

Dar Basra
05-20-2003, 10:22 PM
I think what TheDarthVader meant was that Luke would "pass on" his knowledge to MORE than just Leia, as in Luke should re-establish the jedi order. He should pass on the knowledge to all generically, not just Leia specifically.

Frankly, it might be said that the overall arch of the stories, beginning with Phantom Menace and continuing through Return of the Jedi, does in fact call for an additional three movies to cover the restoration of a New Republic and Jedi Order. And of course, Gl's original vision planned those additional 3 movies. However, it can also be said the the arch of the stories isn't about the republic in general, but more specifically the life and death of "the one who will bring balance to the force" - Anakin Darth Vader, and therefore, with his death in RotJ, the circle is now complete, and no further movies would be needed.

That said, I think one reason so many people will be satisfied with 6 instead of 9, is the fact that the entire series of movies began to degrade in quality with the introduction of the Ewoks, and never fully recovered. Had the initial magic of Star Wars, and the resounding success of Empire Strikes Back, been maintained throughout the series, you can bet that we'd be clamoring for as many more as GL could make.

TheDarthVader
05-20-2003, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Dar Basra
I think what TheDarthVader meant was that Luke would "pass on" his knowledge to MORE than just Leia, as in Luke should re-establish the jedi order. He should pass on the knowledge to all generically, not just Leia specifically.

That said, I think one reason so many people will be satisfied with 6 instead of 9, is the fact that the entire series of movies began to degrade in quality with the introduction of the Ewoks, and never fully recovered. Had the initial magic of Star Wars, and the resounding success of Empire Strikes Back, been maintained throughout the series, you can bet that we'd be clamoring for as many more as GL could make.

Yes, 100% correct (thanks). That is exactly what I meant. Surely there will be others born force sensitive. (Just like Anakin was born strong in the force (out of the blue)). I believe THIS is clear. That others, not JUST luke and leia, will have force abilities. Thus, those aliens/humans MUST be trained by...hmmm...(I wonder) could it be Luke Skywalker? Yes, he's the only jedi left!!!!

I agree 100% on the issue of the ewoks. Lucas should have left it as a Wookie planet (Kashyyyk). As it was, he created a mockery, as we watch powerful stormtroopers beaten by little furbies.

stillakid
05-21-2003, 12:22 AM
Thank you both for that clarification. And I agree completely with your evaluation of the situation, Dar Basra. Entirely! I too believe that the original purpose of the saga was broader, but the Prequels are turning it into a soap opera about the Skywalker family. Had Lucas kept the original focus, then the final three films would make sense (to continue the tale of rebuilding the Republic). Also, you are 100% correct that the quality level of the storytelling appeared to slip at ROTJ. Though, in my opinion, not as shaky as either of the Prequels, clearly the style became more cartoony signaling "look" that we would later see in TPM. Given that, you're right that for the saga to continue in that manner would only (likely) continue it down the wrong path. However, if a miracle occurred and Lucas (or somebody knocked some sense into him) somehow remembered how "he" made the first two, then applied that to the last three, then I'd be first in line to see them! :) Heck, I'd even be a total geek, take time off from work, and stand in line for a few weeks. :D

(And TheDarthVader, next time, instead of LOL at me, maybe you could be the one to explain exactly what you mean instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you. Accurate communication goes a long way. Just a thought. ;) )

mini-rock
05-21-2003, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by TheDarthVader
Yes, 100% correct (thanks). That is exactly what I meant. Surely there will be others born force sensitive. (Just like Anakin was born strong in the force (out of the blue)). I believe THIS is clear. That others, not JUST luke and leia, will have force abilities. Thus, those aliens/humans MUST be trained by...hmmm...(I wonder) could it be Luke Skywalker? Yes, he's the only jedi left!!!!

I agree 100% on the issue of the ewoks. Lucas should have left it as a Wookie planet (Kashyyyk). As it was, he created a mockery, as we watch powerful stormtroopers beaten by little furbies.


I totally believe there were other "force sensitive's" even during the rule of the Empire, and Luke being the only Jedi left would train them. 100% agree.

UGH! Don't even get me started on the Ewoks beating the mighty (LOL!) Empire. What a joke. This was a point I was trying to make in another thread about GL handing his movie over to a crackpot director (Marquand), and having another crackpot help write the screenplay (Kasdan) instead of just sticking with GL's story for ROTJ. ROTJ and ESB are the kind of crap that happens when GL collaborate's with these kind of people, who probably smoked a little to much, and still living in the '70s. Thank the maker GL has full control over the prequels.

While I'd like to see 3 more films that are timed after ROTJ, the downside I see is that we have the already superior prequels, and there is no doubt that if GL had full control of another 3 SW films that they would be just as good or better, that the OT first created in the '70s (and completely outdated) would be that much worse. GL keeps improving with every story he tells, and it's too bad he didn't have full creative control of ESB and ROTJ, but now that he will go back and do some alterations of the OT for the AE's we can most definitly expect far better films than what we first saw in the theaters back in the day. Sure they won't be as good as the prequels, but that's ok b/c not much is.

IMHO :)

TheDarthVader
05-21-2003, 01:54 PM
Stilla, I thought I was accurate the first time. I still believe that there is a possibilty that when Yoda said, "Pass on what you have learned", that he knew more aliens/humans who were force sensitive would come forward to train as jedi under luke. But hey, no one knows 100%, without a doubt, that Lucas meant just Leia. I am sure he thought of Leia, but I also believe Lucas thought of the other aliens/humans who would join the jedi order so that it could be restored.

stillakid
05-22-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by TheDarthVader
Stilla, I thought I was accurate the first time. I still believe that there is a possibilty that when Yoda said, "Pass on what you have learned", that he knew more aliens/humans who were force sensitive would come forward to train as jedi under luke. But hey, no one knows 100%, without a doubt, that Lucas meant just Leia. I am sure he thought of Leia, but I also believe Lucas thought of the other aliens/humans who would join the jedi order so that it could be restored.

True! :) It is possible that Lucas planned someone else to be Luke's protege when Lawrence Kasdan was writing the screenplay in 1978-79. But that would A) go against storytelling convention that you don't introduce a major new player in ACT III, and B) would imply that Episode's 7-9 were on the calendar somewhere. In regards to A, it's possible seeing that Lucas has gone against convention in the Prequels and B, his story now is that 7-9 were never really part of the plan. So, like you said, who's to say? :)

But specifically, when Kasdan wrote the ESB screenplay, whether it was an accidental coincidence or not, it only makes sense that he was referring to Leia, with the understanding that once the Empire was vanquished, Luke would be the new Jedi Headmaster in a post ROTJ galaxy.

Jayspawn
06-04-2003, 11:14 AM
I'm happy with there only being 6 movies. I think the story will have been told and that we can speculate in our minds what happens after (I think we do that anyways).

It'll be great to have all 6 Star Wars DVDs on my shelf (someday).

chrisc
09-29-2003, 09:58 AM
You do have to realize that the films are about the redemption of darth vader

JEDIpartner
09-29-2003, 10:32 AM
I'm quite happy that there are only going to be six films total. Perhaps there may be other tie-ins with television. If not, there are all of the great books that have and probably will continue to come out long after Episode III. We also have the games and toys that will allow us to "make" our own movies for years to come.

stillakid
09-29-2003, 01:19 PM
You do have to realize that the films are about the redemption of darth vader


Well, now they more or less are. When George began this project, it had a broader scope of the downfall, rebellion, and rebuilding of the Republic. The focus changed in there somewhere, so yeah, 7-9 wouldn't make much sense anymore.

billfremore
09-29-2003, 02:32 PM
It's like watching MASH with a different actor portraying Hawkeye or Hotlips...just wouldn't work! :)

You mean like seeing Donald Sutherland playing Hawkeye instead of Alan Alda?

billfremore
09-29-2003, 02:57 PM
You said:



I'll disagree with your disageeing. ;) While "many people" with religious backgrounds may agree with you, they'd be wrong. The lesson taught by historical gentlemen like Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King is to turn the other cheek. Self-defense isn't part of the package. As stated before, the belief (hope?) is that through example, the lesson of ultimate peace and forgiveness will spread enough to eventually overtake any evil that exists. As a philosophy it sounds good, but because "religious folk" tend to impress their own amendments into the teachings, it'll probably just remain an untested theory until the end of time.

No. Not at all. In fact, it's just the opposite. Look at it this way: When Luke is writhing on the floor, screaming out "Father, help me!", what he's really saying is "Father, kill Palpatine and take your place at my side!" Sound familiar? Maybe Luke did have the greater good in mind (get rid of Palpatine so he can't continue being a maniacal slug), but the end doesn't justify the means when talking about good vs. evil. Killing is killing, no matter the reason.

Right. This is the point exactly. The universe is NOT safe still. Violence begets violence. Killing the "bad guy" seems like the right thing to do for the greater good, but that isn't the lesson of most religions that Lucas chose to borrow from and it certainly isn't the lesson that Yoda was trying to impart to Luke on Dagobah. Granted, it does seem to be illogical (let the bad guy live for the greater good?!!??) but in the big picture, it is not.

"Help them you could, but you would destroy all for which they have fought and suffered."

They think so. But again, relative to the teachings of the "martyrs," no, that is not the way to go. Yoda himself is in that camp while at the same time recognizes the ultimate truth which he himself can't follow. The "theory" of non-violence is just too difficult a concept for even him to practice. But he tries to save Luke from that fate before it's too late to turn back. If he can justify killing one person for the greater good, where does it stop? If you've seen the film Swordfish, this point is central to the plot. How many lives are worth sacrificing for the greater good? Travolta's character believes that it is limitless. One, one hundred, a thousand. Whatever it takes. This is counter to the teachings of Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, and Yoda.

Yes you do, but it's a pretty uncomfortable option isn't it...that's why it has never been enacted as a widespread philosophy among humanity...
Yes, if they followed the difficult, yet "good" path.
Yes.
Just as regular people like you and me would make that choice to defend ourselves with violence, they too have made the choice. All I'm saying is that this isn't a justifiable choice as taught by the martyrs and Yoda.

Yes, we all do our best. But we are not living up to the (very difficult) utopian-like non-violent standard that has been suggested by the martyrs and Yoda. :)

No, not relative to the teachings of Yoda and the martyrs. But, were the saga to continue in the manner I've suggested, it's a lesson she would come to learn and strive to live up to. Like everyone else, she was looking to the short term and believed that evil could be erradicated by using violence. To her, the ends justified the means even if that meant playing the same game as the bad guys.

They ALL compelled one another to use violence.

First Palpatine to Luke: "Strike me down with all your hate!"

Then Vader to Luke: "If you will not be turned, then perhaps she will."

Then Luke to Vader: "Help me father!"

Not so willing to die at the hands of the Emperor or else he wouldn't have cried out "Save me, father!" Luke followed in Palpatine's path and coerced Vader/Anakin into using violence to an end. Anakin may have appeared to be "saved," but he wasn't really. He just followed the whims of a new "master" who happened to be his own son.


Non-violence. Sounds like a pretty exciting Star Wars movie doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I don't know about you but I would rather watch a Star Wars movie with swordfights and space battles.

If I want to watch the non-violence that Ghandi preached, I'll watch the movie Ghandi.

jjreason
09-29-2003, 05:18 PM
Im happy with 6. Personally, Im going to feel a lot of relief once I have a complete (at least complete enough for my liking) set of "new" Star Wars toys that I can do with as I please.

Is that a stupid reason for not wanting any more movies? Not for me. It was the toys that led me into this back in 78, so they're my first focus. The whole chase for toys I've involved myself in for the past 8 years has been exhausting in every way. My wife, my wallet and I will all be happy when the last wave of figures has been released and finds it's way into my collection. I'm excited about Ep III, but I would roll my eyes at the announcement of another trilogy.

stillakid
09-29-2003, 05:18 PM
You said:



Non-violence. Sounds like a pretty exciting Star Wars movie doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I don't know about you but I would rather watch a Star Wars movie with swordfights and space battles.

If I want to watch the non-violence that Ghandi preached, I'll watch the movie Ghandi.

Uh, I think you missed the point. It's not like the entire trilogy would be non-violent. That "dogma" really only comes up in the end, when Luke would confront Leia. She refuses to fight, he strikes her down and only with her death, does he finally "wake up" to what he's become. If you want wall to wall fighting for no apparent reason, the new Rogue Squadron for Gamecube will be out soon. For a story with purpose and layers of subtlety, head for the movies (well, some of them anyway. ;) )

billfremore
09-30-2003, 04:54 PM
Uh, I think you missed the point. It's not like the entire trilogy would be non-violent. That "dogma" really only comes up in the end, when Luke would confront Leia. She refuses to fight, he strikes her down and only with her death, does he finally "wake up" to what he's become. If you want wall to wall fighting for no apparent reason, the new Rogue Squadron for Gamecube will be out soon. For a story with purpose and layers of subtlety, head for the movies (well, some of them anyway. ;) )

I think you missed my point. What I was trying to say was what you're suggesting would be a pretty boring movie and with an ending like that (Leia being killed by Luke and Luke comitting suicide) would be a pretty big downer ending.

Now before you criticize my desire for a happy ending, I do enjoy movies that have, for lack of a better term, "unhappy endings" but I do not think that the Star Wars saga should end like that.

And I never said I wanted wall-to-wall fighting for no reason. I just suggested that a non-violent approach to an action-oriented, homage to a 30's style serial, movie sounds really, really boring.

But you are right about your last line though :)

stillakid
09-30-2003, 06:08 PM
I think you missed my point. What I was trying to say was what you're suggesting would be a pretty boring movie and with an ending like that (Leia being killed by Luke and Luke comitting suicide) would be a pretty big downer ending.

Now before you criticize my desire for a happy ending, I do enjoy movies that have, for lack of a better term, "unhappy endings" but I do not think that the Star Wars saga should end like that.

And I never said I wanted wall-to-wall fighting for no reason. I just suggested that a non-violent approach to an action-oriented, homage to a 30's style serial, movie sounds really, really boring.

But you are right about your last line though :)


Well, the movie itself wouldn't have to be boring. Not sure why you'd think it would have to be that way.

But, honestly, I do understand what you're saying about the ending being "non-Star Wars." You're right, not only does it not "feel" very StarWarsy, but that kind of blunt (and potentially depressing) ending doesn't usually sit well with mass drone audiences. But, aside from taking the saga into really goofy "sci fi" directions (with clone emperors and such), this is really one of the only true paths this story can take and still be honest with itself. Like you say, it does seem to conflict with the genre, but taking the story in this direction would be very interesting (if done right) and it could still be laden with all the hip production design and flashy action that belongs in this sprawling tale.

Jaff
09-30-2003, 09:50 PM
Yes. I think after the standard of prequel films the franchise can keep going downhill. 6 films is enough.

stillakid
09-30-2003, 10:36 PM
I have a question. In your (whoever is reading this) opinion, which "series" of films has managed to last the longest before heading south? Alien, Predator, Star Trek, stuff like that. I'm not sure if the Ernest movies count as a "series" but what the heck. Maybe this should be in it's own thread.

billfremore
09-30-2003, 11:56 PM
Well, the movie itself wouldn't have to be boring. Not sure why you'd think it would have to be that way.

But, honestly, I do understand what you're saying about the ending being "non-Star Wars." You're right, not only does it not "feel" very StarWarsy, but that kind of blunt (and potentially depressing) ending doesn't usually sit well with mass drone audiences. But, aside from taking the saga into really goofy "sci fi" directions (with clone emperors and such), this is really one of the only true paths this story can take and still be honest with itself. Like you say, it does seem to conflict with the genre, but taking the story in this direction would be very interesting (if done right) and it could still be laden with all the hip production design and flashy action that belongs in this sprawling tale.

Mass drone audience?
I occasionally resemble that remark :D

As for your other question, I think the James Bond series had a pretty good long run before the Timothy Dalton movies.

Exhaust Port
10-01-2003, 12:13 AM
I have a question. In your (whoever is reading this) opinion, which "series" of films has managed to last the longest before heading south? Alien, Predator, Star Trek, stuff like that. I'm not sure if the Ernest movies count as a "series" but what the heck. Maybe this should be in it's own thread.
Star Wars = unknown (the prequal hasn't been as strong but I wouldn't call it Tanking)
Aliens = Tanked after 2
Predator = Tanked after 1
Star Trek = Tanked after 4 (yes there have been some good movies after V but that was the watershed)
Batman = Tanked after 0
Matrix = Tanked after 1
Superman = Tanked after 3
Indiana Jones = never Tanked
Back to the Future = never Tanked
Harry Potter = hasn't Tanked (yet?)

Exhaust Port
10-01-2003, 12:17 AM
Maybe this should be in it's own thread.
Good idea! I made a new thread.

Pendo
10-21-2003, 08:10 AM
OH NO!!!! Please no! Rumors are starting about a new trilogy :cry:! I don't want one!

http://movieclub.msn.co.uk/movies/news/news.asp?nid=4842

PENDO!

stillakid
10-21-2003, 09:00 AM
Rumors are starting about a new trilogy[/B]


Because the Prequels have been going so well? :rolleyes: I can see it now...clone emperors, magic force crystals, and more kiddie friendly aliens than you can shake a stick at.

Deoxyribonucleic
10-21-2003, 11:28 AM
I plead the 5th on this one...damned if I say something, damned if I don't!

If GL makes 'em, I'm going to look the other way and pretend that he's really NOT making them

;)

billfremore
10-21-2003, 11:56 AM
Because the Prequels have been going so well? :rolleyes: I can see it now...clone emperors, magic force crystals, and more kiddie friendly aliens than you can shake a stick at.

And billions of dollars in revenue. :D

Yeah who'd want that? :stupid:

jjreason
10-23-2003, 06:30 PM
In for a penny, in for a pound. I've loved Star Wars for nearly my entire life. If more movies are made, I'll be in there watching them on opening day. no doubt. I will have to reassess how important collecting the toys is to me after this trilogy ends however, it's starting to feel like I need to move on.