Star Wars Discussion Thread

3,182,735 Views | 30705 Replies | Last: 26 min ago by TCTTS
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
double aught said:

Quote:

It's like how Breaking Bad ended great, but they keep watering down the legacy with endless Saul seasons
Really? I think it's one of the best shows on TV.

And it would still be a great show even if you had never seen a single episode of breaking bad.
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am aware I'm in the minority with this one.

The first 2 seasons were good, but since then it's just dragged on past it's expiration date. Essentially, Saul is a show that just explains the backstory of all the set-dressing in BB.

It's like how Ridley Scott explored who the Space Jockey was. The Space Jockey was just set-dressing. It's unnecessary, and it takes away from what came before.

This dynamic is also why Rogue One (and Solo) were unnecessary. Rebels stealing the plans was just set-dressing for the main OT story.

It's just lore in movie form. It's not a true story. Leave the lore to Wookieepedia.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Man, I could not disagree more re: Saul. I honestly don't even think about Breaking Bad when I'm watching it, it's that well rendered and that engaging. That, and I'm so incredibly invested in Kim's and Nacho's stories, in particular - two characters we don't know the fates of - that it feels totally like it's own separate thing to me. It's easily still one of the top three shows on TV.

As for Rogue One, what is your definition of "necessary"? What makes one movie "necessary" and another not?
Gangnam Style
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.polygon.com/star-wars-celebration/2019/4/16/18410525/star-wars-galaxys-edge-lightsabers

This is going to be freaking awesome. The rumored $150 is very reasonable.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Render said:

C@LAg said:

I am just tired of Star wars movies period.

They lost the thread and I still think it will be hard to fix with Ep IX.

if they are really doing the Old Republic, I would prefer that it was done as a TV series a la Game of Thrones. 13 episode seasons. $100/MM budget (cheaper than a movie.

Would be awesome.

Sure D&D do not want to dive into that again, but I can dream of such a thing.

I wish they'd stop making movies, too. The SW story concluded nicely with ROTJ. You don't need anything else.

It's like how Breaking Bad ended great, but they keep watering down the legacy with endless Saul seasons.

But since they're going to make movies regardless, I want them to go far into the future. I do not want Old Republic movies. That territory has already been explored. I want something remarkable and new, set in the distant future of SW.

As much as I hated his movie, Rian Johnson seems like the only one at Disney who would have the guts to do something completely new.

Everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion, and the mileage of this franchise of course various from person to person. If the Skywalker story was continuing past Episode IX, for instance, I'd be wishing they'd stop making movies too. But given that Lucasfilm is starting completely fresh next decade, this "no more movies" sentiment comes across a bit like wishing for something you've never heard of to stop existing, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We have NO CLUE what's coming next. Who's to say there aren't myriad movie-worthy stories left in this universe? In fact, it seems to me they've barely scratched the surface in terms of the potential and vast history to draw from. What if the Benioff & Weiss trilogy - in movie form - turns out to be better than even the OT trilogy? But because you're tired of this latest iteration of Skywalker movies, they should just stop altogether? That seems short sided to me.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gangnam Style said:

https://www.polygon.com/star-wars-celebration/2019/4/16/18410525/star-wars-galaxys-edge-lightsabers

This is going to be freaking awesome. The rumored $150 is very reasonable.


Damn those look awesome.
djmeen95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Oh yeah, it's on.
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Gangnam Style said:

https://www.polygon.com/star-wars-celebration/2019/4/16/18410525/star-wars-galaxys-edge-lightsabers

This is going to be freaking awesome. The rumored $150 is very reasonable.
Hmmmmmm ... I have an envelope in my safe marked Disney, money set aside for future trips to Disney World. It just so happens that we're going in November. I may just come home with one of these.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Flashdiaz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"The blueprint of where we ended up has kind of been in the works"

Reminds me of peewee's "I meant to do that"
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree it's a quality show. My problem with it started with the pace. Kinda like how Bladerunner is too slow. I appreciate the craftsmanship, but it's ultimately too boring.

Then when it brought in the cartel brothers and Gus, it made me stop watching. Not out of hate, I just lost interest.

I don't care how Gus built the laundry lab or how the cartel brothers were part of the NM drug turf spats, etc. It felt unnecessary, and ruined the mystique of the BB criminal underworld. It'd be like exploring the town origins of Twin Peaks.
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

As for Rogue One, what is your definition of "necessary"? What makes one movie "necessary" and another not?
It depends on the context.

The prequels exploring the backstory of SW is necessary, because they tie directly into overarching OT story.

In contrast, R1 is just an ancillary story of an already small story that we already know the end of (DS goes boom). Now, if R1 had a fun plot and fun characters it would diminish the effects of us knowing how it all ends, but it doesn't. So it's got nothing.

Ancillary stories have to be fun to make up for being ultimately unnecessary, and they can't be about characters we already know. Solo was more fun than R1, but we don't need the backstory of Han.

It's like how exploring the childhood backstory of Indiana Jones would be unnecessary, because that's not the point of the character. The point of the Indy character is escapism. You want to be Indy, because he sleeps with women and kills people. You don't care who he "is". Same with Han.

Meanwhile, it is necessary to explore Vito's backstory in The Godfather Part II, because its a different kind of movie. It's a different context.

So wrapping up, exploring the backstory a dead alien and how it ties to humanity's origins in a sequel to a small budget 70s horror movie is dumb and unnecessary. It's missing the big picture. The point of Alien was the strangeness and scariness of the Alien.

And exploring how Rebels got the plans is dumb and unnecessary, because the DS was just a MacGuffin. It's missing the big picture. R1 is about how Rebels got the MacGuffin to the MacGuffin.
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTT said:

We have NO CLUE what's coming next. Who's to say there aren't myriad movie-worthy stories left in this universe? In fact, it seems to me they've barely scratched the surface in terms of the potential and vast history to draw from. What if the Benioff & Weiss trilogy - in movie form - turns out to be better than even the OT trilogy? But because you're tired of this latest iteration of Skywalker movies, they should just stop altogether? That seems short sided to me.
SW may seem like it has a vast sea potential, but it doesn't.

The EU tried to expand the universe, and 99% of it sucked. Partly because of poor writing and partly because it didn't "feel" like SW, but rather like "generic space adventure". And the stuff that did work was directly tied to the OT, in the use of OT aesthetics and characters, and/or in the use of its plot devices (good vs evil, super weapons, lightsaber duels, etc). It's just the same things rearranged.

The crux is that SW is reliant on a very specific era of its history to capture its unique feeling.
In that way, SW is like LOTR and GOT. It's an epic-type of story. And no one does sequels to epics, because it doesn't work.

Did Tolkien write a sequel to LOTR? Nope.
Does Martin have a sequel series planned for GOT? Nope.
And why not? Because it doesn't work.
(Put another way, it'd be like trying to do an extended universe for Back To The Future.)

Meanwhile, Star Trek is an example of a true utilitarian series. You can plug an infinite amount of different stories into that series and it'll work.

SW has already achieved its full potential. Let something else have a chance to shine.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

SW may seem like it has a vast sea potential, but it doesn't.
It's nice to know that you've already seen a future where talented filmmakers with a clean slate - as opposed to sh*tty EU novelists, tied to very specific events - have taken a stab at this franchise and failed. Guess we should just pack it up!

Quote:

The EU tried to expand the universe, and 99% of it sucked. Partly because of poor writing and partly because it didn't "feel" like SW, but rather like "generic space adventure". And the stuff that did work was directly tied to the OT, in the use of OT aesthetics and characters, and/or in the use of its plot devices (good vs evil, super weapons, lightsaber duels, etc). It's just the same things rearranged.
Neither of the new trilogies coming next decade are tied to the OT. One is likely going to be set thousands of years prior and the other is going to be set in a completely different part of the galaxy, with completely new characters. They can literally do almost anything they want.

Quote:

The crux is that SW is reliant on a very specific era of its history to capture its unique feeling.
And you know this... how? Because of all the other cinematic attempts that have attempted stories set in other eras or parts of the galaxy in the Star Wars franchise? Oh, wait... there haven't been any others.

Quote:

In that way, SW is like LOTR and GOT. It's an epic-type of story. And no one does sequels to epics, because it doesn't work.

Did Tolkien write a sequel to LOTR? Nope.
Does Martin have a sequel series planned for GOT? Nope.
And why not? Because it doesn't work.
So because it hasn't worked means it can never work. Got it.

Quote:

SW has already achieved its full potential.
Again, you can't possibly know this. To make such a statement with such definitiveness is laughable.

Quote:

Let something else have a chance to shine.
You realize that's now how the industry works, right? Star Wars doesn't get replaced with some original blockbuster franchise. They'll just find another piece of IP to exploit - likely one lesser in quality and notoriety - or fill the gap with more superhero movies.

Also, you have to take into consideration the fact that, with the streaming revolution upon us, the landscape is about to change drastically. Marvel is paving the way, in that - just today - Kevin Feige underlined how the Marvel series featured on Disney+ are going to be just as crucial to the overall franchise as the movies are. We're about to enter an age when movies and television blend together like never before. Eight-episode television arcs will lead to and directly affect the biggest theatrical releases, and vice versa. We're going to see a level of coordinated story-telling like never before, and if you don't think Star Wars is going to be right on the heals of Marvel in that regard, you're mistaken. More importantly, if you don't think Star Wars can thrive in this new landscape, you're going to be in for a very big surprise.

While I agree that there CAN be too much Star Wars - it doesn't have quite the ability to be as ubiquitous as Marvel does - we can't possibly know what Star Wars can and can't yet be in terms of capitalizing on various time periods and shades of tone. Again, if you're basing its potential off of sh*tty EU books, I don't know what else to tell you.

Overall, it just bugs me when people turn their grumpiness into "facts," and that's exactly what you're doing here. If you don't like Star Wars, fine. If you don't want to see anymore Star Wars, also fine. But don't say it doesn't have potential simply because you want it to be over. That's disingenuous and incredibly transparent.
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

the other is going to be set in a completely different part of the galaxy, with completely new characters. They can literally do almost anything they want.

I just wanted to jump on real quick to say that the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy for over a thousand years. Pretty much no matter where you go people are going to know about the Jedi, know about the Empire, and depending on the time frame, about the death star, rebellion, etc.

I know they can have different, new characters and all that. I would bet that we, at the very least, get something with at least a little familiarity.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Render said:

TCTTS said:

As for Rogue One, what is your definition of "necessary"? What makes one movie "necessary" and another not?
It depends on the context.

The prequels exploring the backstory of SW is necessary, because they tie directly into overarching OT story.

In contrast, R1 is just an ancillary story of an already small story that we already know the end of (DS goes boom). Now, if R1 had a fun plot and fun characters it would diminish the effects of us knowing how it all ends, but it doesn't. So it's got nothing.

Ancillary stories have to be fun to make up for being ultimately unnecessary, and they can't be about characters we already know. Solo was more fun than R1, but we don't need the backstory of Han.

It's like how exploring the childhood backstory of Indiana Jones would be unnecessary, because that's not the point of the character. The point of the Indy character is escapism. You want to be Indy, because he sleeps with women and kills people. You don't care who he "is". Same with Han.

Meanwhile, it is necessary to explore Vito's backstory in The Godfather Part II, because its a different kind of movie. It's a different context.

So wrapping up, exploring the backstory a dead alien and how it ties to humanity's origins in a sequel to a small budget 70s horror movie is dumb and unnecessary. It's missing the big picture. The point of Alien was the strangeness and scariness of the Alien.

And exploring how Rebels got the plans is dumb and unnecessary, because the DS was just a MacGuffin. It's missing the big picture. R1 is about how Rebels got the MacGuffin to the MacGuffin.


This is basically what all your arguments come down to; "the big picture." And I ask, why are only stories that tell "the big picture" the only stories worth being told in your eyes?

For instance, was Solo "necessary"? No. But it was a hell of a lot of fun, and a movie that most of TexAgs now seems to really enjoy. So what's the problem? I had more fun with Solo than I did with The Last Jedi, but according to you, The Last Jedi - because it's part of "the big picture" - is the only one of the two that should exist, which could not be further from the truth.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Of course. No one is saying those things aren't going to be in it. But for all we know, a story WITH those elements, but WITHOUT Skywalkers - and new, compelling characters and situations in their place - could end up being a hell of ride, and maybe we even end up liking it more than what's come before.
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have no problem with any of it. Just nit picking a little.
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:


They can literally do almost anything they want.
You really think audiences want to go to a Star Wars movie where there is no shooting, no bad guys, and no lightsaber duels? If you don't do those things, it's not Star Wars.

I am aware it's too profitable and they can't leave it alone and they have to try something. But at the end of the day, it's just gonna be the same things rearranged.

It's like trying to do an extended universe for Back To The Future.

SW has already achieved its full potential. Let something else have a chance to shine.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What in the world are you talking about? Please show me where I even remotely alluded to those things not being in it. Until then, don't put words in my mouth in attempt to make an incredibly misguided point.

Also, the Back to the Future parallel you keep trying to make is dumb and not at all analogous.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm sure people said Batman had reached its full potential when Chris Nolan announced he was doing Batman Begins.
Body By Fisher
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brian Earl Spilner said:

I'm sure people said Batman had reached its full potential when Chris Nolan announced he was doing Batman Begins.
"Full potential" isn't exactly what most people were thinking after the Batman & Robin nippled armor film.
MuckRaker96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:

I'm sure people said Batman had reached its full potential when Chris Nolan announced he was doing Batman Begins.
Chris Nolan had the impossible task of trying to surpass this.

double aught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Your rules are weird, man.
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:


This is basically what all your arguments come down to; "the big picture." And I ask, why are only stories that tell "the big picture" the only stories worth being told in your eyes?

For instance, was Solo "necessary"? No. But it was a hell of a lot of fun, and a movie that most of TexAgs now seems to really enjoy. So what's the problem? I had more fun with Solo than I did with The Last Jedi, but according to you, The Last Jedi - because it's part of "the big picture" - is the only one of the two that should exist, which could not be further from the truth.
I'm pointing out absurdity when I posit "It's just lore in movie form. It's not a true story", and that R1 is about "How the Rebels got the MacGuffin to the MacGuffin".

Think about that for a second. The MacGuffin to the MacGuffin.
Really? The MacGuffin is already a relatively minor thing in a story, but for a company to double down on it like that? It's absurd and ridiculous, and tells me a committee came up with this movie.

Because why reintroduce the Death Star?
Why not just have the story take place in a completely different part of the galaxy?
Why bring back Han Solo?
Why not have a new unique character?
Oh, I know why.
Because having the movie take place in familiar OT settings means more merch sales.

These are not movies. They're corporate products in the worst way.

And you know what, despite all that absurd and tasteless pursuit of cash, I would be relatively okay with it all if they were fun movies. Because again, since they're not giving us important backstory, they need to make up for that by being fun.

Let me repeat that: I'm fine with tasteless, pointless, ancillary stories, as long as they're fun. But imo, R1 and Solo weren't fun. If others like them, fine.

One last thing - when the stories aren't fun and even end up failing, setting them in old settings takes away from what came before. My previous points about Saul and Alien are examples of this.

And in the case of SW, I don't need to know that the Rebels were boring, joyless, miserable people, and I don't need to know how Han got his last name and that he had a romance with some chick who works for f***ing Darth Maul a guy who got cut in half and fell 1200ft down into a plasma reactor. (Those Maul toys ain't gonna sell themselves.) It craps on the legacy of what came before, kinda like what the prequels did.

There was a period, a very brief period of time, when Star Wars was just a series of well-liked blockbusters. And now, it's not special anymore. Now it's just another manufactured Hollywood product.
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Also, the Back to the Future parallel you keep trying to make is dumb and not at all analogous.
You have apparently missed the point I was making. SW is in the same place as GOT, LOTR, and Back To The Future. You can't do anything with it. Its story has been told. These are static, linear-type stories.

If you try to do new things, it will either 1) Not feel like SW, or 2) be a rearrangement of what came before.

I know this because 1) SW and those other stories all share the same rigid, epic-style story patterns, and 2) I've read pretty much everything with the old EU; the tropes have been exhausted; I know the limits of this universe.

Quote:

What in the world are you talking about? Please show me where I even remotely alluded to those things not being in it. Until then, don't put words in my mouth in attempt to make an incredibly misguided point.
I could say the same thing to you. I did not try to put words in your mouth to try and trap you. I am not that kind of poster. If I misunderstood the point you were making, fine. My mistake. But don't accuse me of something I did not purposefully do.
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:

I'm sure people said Batman had reached its full potential when Chris Nolan announced he was doing Batman Begins.
Batman is a utilitarian series like Star Trek. You can do different things with that series and it will work. But with things like LOTR, GOT, Back To The Future, and SW - you can't. They are linear stories.
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

In contrast, R1 is just an ancillary story of an already small story that we already know the end of (DS goes boom). Now, if R1 had a fun plot and fun characters it would diminish the effects of us knowing how it all ends, but it doesn't. So it's got nothing.

stopped reading after this.

Everyone gets an opinion but I think yours is definitely in the minority. R1 was/is cinematic greatness. It's not perfect, but it's not that far from being it. Just about every non-fanboy, SW fan I know places it in high esteem below ESB and somewhere on par with ANH or slightly below.
Flashdiaz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So you're on a 800+ page thread about Star Wars to only argue that the story is a tired Hollywood product... where's that Big Bang Theory thread so I can go in there and tirelessly argue that the show sucks because I don't enjoy it and everyone needs to know why.
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Of course. No one is saying those things aren't going to be in it. But for all we know, a story WITH those elements, but WITHOUT Skywalkers - and new, compelling characters and situations in their place - could end up being a hell of ride, and maybe we even end up liking it more than what's come before.
This is exactly my point. What you want has already been done in the EU - stories with those elements but WITHOUT Skywalkers, and with new characters and situations. But the "new" stories and situations weren't actually new. Because they can't be. Because if they were truly different, then it wouldn't feel like SW.

Therefore, it was (and is) the same stories over and over...

The Old Republic: Evil Empire led by Sith vs Underdog Old Republic led by Jedi.
The Mandalorian Wars: Evil Empire led by Boba Fetts vs Underdog Old Republic led by Jedi.
Darth Revan and Malak: Evil Empire (with superweapon) led by Sith vs Underdog Old Republic led by Jedi.
Prequels: Evil Force led by Sith vs Underdog Old Republic led by Jedi. Prequels are something creative and different, but do not feel like SW.
OT: Evil Empire led by Sith vs Underdog Rebellion led by Jedi.
Thrawn: Underdog Evil Empire vs New Republic led by Jedi. Part of the 1% that was truly original. But still beholden to OT aesthetics, characters, and tropes.
Dark Empire: Evil Empire led by Sith vs Underdog New Republic led by Jedi.
Yuuzhan Vong: Evil Empire vs Underdog New Republic led by Jedi. YV are something creative and different, but do not feel like SW.
Darth Krayt Empire: Evil Empire led by Sith vs Underdog New Republic led by Jedi.
Episode 7-9: Evil Empire led by Sith vs Underdog New Republic led by Jedi.

You can't have stories of exploration, or of non-combat, or diplomacy, or discovery. You have to have people fighting with lightsabers, you have to have people shooting at each other, and you have to have underdogs fighting an evil force. If you don't have those things, it's too smart for SW and it won't feel like SW. It is one of the major reasons why it is a limited series.
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Flashdiaz said:

So you're on a 800+ page thread about Star Wars to only argue that the story is a tired Hollywood product... where's that Big Bang Theory thread so I can go in there and tirelessly argue that the show sucks because I don't enjoy it and everyone needs to know why.
TC asked me to expand on my opinion, so I did.
Render
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Urban Ag said:

Quote:

In contrast, R1 is just an ancillary story of an already small story that we already know the end of (DS goes boom). Now, if R1 had a fun plot and fun characters it would diminish the effects of us knowing how it all ends, but it doesn't. So it's got nothing.

stopped reading after this.

Everyone gets an opinion but I think yours is definitely in the minority. R1 was/is cinematic greatness. It's not perfect, but it's not that far from being it. Just about every non-fanboy, SW fan I know places it in high esteem below ESB and somewhere on par with ANH or slightly below.
Yeah, that movie sure does have some great character arcs that compares to ESB.

Y'know, like the kung-fo man who's a badass throughout the entire movie and then completes his character arc of being a badass by dying in the end.

Or his partner, who's also a badass throughout the entire movie, but who learns to have faith, and then moments later stops killing stormtroopers. So I guess the movie is being progressive by being anti-faith, because he stopped being an effective fighter when he had faith. But then he too completes his character arc by dying moments later.

Or Jyn Erso, who has the character arc of being a badass throughout the entire movie, and then completes her character arc of being a badass by being a badass. But then she dies in the end because its gritty. Because y'know, that's how adult movies do it, and I can finally take SW seriously now because its so gritty.

Or y'know, the great plot - where you have a small scale spy heist film haphazardly crammed together with a big loud war movie. Or great moments like Darth Vader hacking people to death with a lightsaber like a horror movie villain. His restrained intro in IV was crap compared to that epicness!!1!

(I actually do like the cinematography and space action.)
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Render said:

TCTTS said:

Of course. No one is saying those things aren't going to be in it. But for all we know, a story WITH those elements, but WITHOUT Skywalkers - and new, compelling characters and situations in their place - could end up being a hell of ride, and maybe we even end up liking it more than what's come before.
This is exactly my point. What you want has already been done in the EU - stories with those elements but WITHOUT Skywalkers, and with new characters and situations. But the "new" stories and situations weren't new. Because they can't be. Because if they were truly different, then it won't feel like SW.

Therefore, it was (and is) the same stories over and over...

The Old Republic: Evil Empire led by Sith vs Underdog Old Republic led by Jedi.
The Mandalorian Wars: Evil Empire led by Boba Fetts vs Underdog Old Republic led by Jedi.
Darth Revan and Malak: Evil Empire (with superweapon) led by Sith vs Underdog Old Republic led by Jedi.
Prequels: Evil Force led by Sith vs Underdog Old Republic led by Jedi. Prequels are something creative and different, but do not feel like SW.
OT: Evil Empire led by Sith vs Underdog Rebellion led by Jedi.
Thrawn: Underdog Evil Empire vs New Republic led by Jedi. Part of the 1% that was truly original. But still beholden to OT aesthetics, characters, and tropes.
Dark Empire: Evil Empire led by Sith vs Underdog New Republic led by Jedi.
Yuuzhan Vong: Evil Empire vs Underdog New Republic led by Jedi. YV are something creative and different, but do not feel like SW.
Darth Krayt Empire: Evil Empire led by Sith vs Underdog New Republic led by Jedi.
Episode 7-9: Evil Empire led by Sith vs Underdog New Republic led by Jedi.

You can't have stories of exploration, or of non-combat, or diplomacy, or discovery. You have to have people fighting with lightsabers, you have to have people shooting at each other, and you have to have underdogs fighting an evil force. If you don't have those things, it's too smart for SW and it won't feel like SW. It is one of the major reasons why it is a limited series.

At their core, movies are nothing more than empathy machines. And you're out of your mind if you think we can't feel empathy for - and thus be invested in - another set of characters in this galaxy; one with Sith and Jedi and lightsabers and blasters, etc.

Beyond that, why does Star Wars HAVE to be giant-evil-Empire vs underdog-good-guys? Because that's all that's been attempted in the past, by second-rate novelists? Do you understand how circular that logic is?

"Star Wars can't be anything other than what's it's been, even though it's never tried to be anything else, thus it can't be something it's not."

That's one of THE weirdest arguments I've ever heard.

What if the next trilogy features Sith and Jedi and lightsabers and blasters, etc., but somehow flips the basic conceit you laid out above - in some fun and inventive way - and DOES still feel like Star Wars? How do you know it won't feel like Star Wars if it's never been attempted before?

It just drives me up a wall when people speak in absolutes like this; when they can't see beyond their limited perspective, or think that because something has always been a certain way, it can't ever be something else... simply because they can't imagine it. It's like claiming there's no way cheese pizza can be made better - and if anyone tried, it wouldn't be pizza anymore - but then someone comes along and puts pepperoni on a pizza for the first time. Metaphorically speaking, how do you know someone isn't going to come along and "pepperoni" the franchise - or supreme that sh*t - and make it even better, or at least as equally fun and entertaining?

Body By Fisher
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd like to see a weekly sitcom centering around the goofball interactions of the bartenders and regular customers at the Mos Eisley cantina.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Would watch that in a heartbeat.

And the cantina/show itself is called... "Shots First."

Page 814 of 878
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.