Star Wars Episode 7 Thread

[Namutree]

Anakin just needed to be more badass, as a Jedi and then a newly turned Sith. Hayden wasn't fit for this role

The first part is true, but it isn't Hayden's fault. George wanted a sympathetic villain rather than a cool bad ass villain. Can't say I blame him since there are plenty on this board who think it was the right call, and want it to be continued into episode 7. 

 

Here is what I think will be a villain you guys will like:

 

 

Give him that stupid sword and he's ready to go.

[Amentep]

I don't think the age of the kid Anakin was the problem, it was just terribly executed.  He should have been like that kid from Sixth Sense, who was sympathetic but also clearly a bit dark and dealing with some powerful issues.  The kid is a slave, but comes across as happy go lucky.  It was terrible.

 

But it is a problem; in that they have to - in many respects - delay his character development until the second film because there's only so much you can do with 10 year old, not the star of the movie Anakin.

[Zoraptor]

 

Compare that to what the prequels did. They took a universe with binary morality, and made it morally gray.

 

 

Not really. Anakin, the clearest example, wasn't grey. He was first and foremost an idiot, he was also immensely selfish. And in the end he made his own big D Decision which was very much a binary break, and stuck with it, no matter that there had been a few wobbles prior- in the movies, only really the sand people chop chop being one. The only morally grey part was the (very) subsidiary string of the separatists being manipulated rather than 'evil', and there we knew from the beginning that the Republic would become the Evil Empire, not the separatists.

 

There is a fundamental difference between prequel and original trilogy in terms of the situation of their storylines. In the PT you start off with the 'pure' power structures and people who get corrupted to the 'evil' stuff you see in the OT. For both the Republic itself and Anakin in particular there is some moral decay before hand but both have the critical decision point of no return ("I love democracy"/ Mace defenestration) where they switch from basically 'good' to basically 'bad', and they're both pretty clear in keeping with the morality of the setting in that repsect.

 

I actually quite like both AotC and RotS, but the writing and especially the Anakin/ Amidala stuff is excruciating. The only really good overall performance in that entire trilogy is probably McDiarmid, and he has the advantage of being able to alternately mug the camera like a pantomime villain ("where's Sidious?/ He's behind you!"/ "oh no he isn't"/etc) and chew scenery with relish. But while Lee, McGregor, Portman etc are all capable of good performances not even the ghost of Sir Larry Olivier himself could have made something like the Anakin/ Amidala picnic on Naboo anything other than cringeworthy, due to the horrendous dialogue.

 

Said it a million times, but the ideas in the prequel could have worked. He needed a good script editor and a good director who were not afraid to challenge him, but he picked yes men who didn't. One capable person who was willing to tell George that x was a load of bullasterisks when necessary and the prequels could have been immeasurably better.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

 

Anakin just needed to be more badass, as a Jedi and then a newly turned Sith. Hayden wasn't fit for this role

The first part is true, but it isn't Hayden's fault. George wanted a sympathetic villain rather than a cool bad ass villain. Can't say I blame him since there are plenty on this board who think it was the right call, and want it to be continued into episode 7. 

 

Here is what I think will be a villain you guys will like:

 

 

Give him that stupid sword and he's ready to go.

 

well, how 'bout the following:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIDlTGd7Y9U

 

 arguably The best sci-fi movie... evar.

 

is nothing wrong with a sympathetic villain, but they can't be handled same as the monster-under-the-bed.  is a problem chris avellone had with darth mush-mouth in kotor2. can't have a nameless and faceless evil that you then give a face and a voice to... and try to explain motivations. sauron works 'cause he is evil.  grendel works in lit 'cause he is a monster. 

 

frankenstein's monster, on the other hand, had very real and understandable motivations. is frankenstein's monster sucky 'cause we know why he hates dr. frankenstein or that the monster is kinda emo? 

 

we didn't like either anakin actor and the writing for the characters were clear not helping us appreciate the performances. then again, we didn't like luke much better. is any number o' times we wanted to reach through the screen and smack luke... same for young and younger anakin. 

 

we could list relative strengths and flaws o' star wars films, but hasn't that been done a trillion times by literally millions (billions) of fans? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 3, 2014 by Gromnir

[Namutree]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIDlTGd7Y9U

 

 arguably The best sci-fi movie... evar.

 

I've never seen Blade Runner. I will now though. That scene was awesome.

 

Then again Blade Runner I suspect is a very different universe than Starwars. I agree there is nothing wrong with anti-villains, but they don't belong in Starwars' silly universe.

[Gromnir]

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIDlTGd7Y9U

 

 arguably The best sci-fi movie... evar.

 

I've never seen Blade Runner. I will now though. That scene was awesome.

 

Then again Blade Runner I suspect is a very different universe than Starwars. I agree there is nothing wrong with anti-villains, but they don't belong in Starwars' silly universe.

 

you may have a point. the star wars universe is simple and the simple villains may fit it best. why is mr./ms. X a villain? 'cause he/she is evil, a monster or insane... or all three.  get much deeper may be causing problems. is tougher to have complex motivations when the universe seems to only allow polar morality. have a cackling evil wizard who takes a kinda perverse pleasure in watching folks squirm, and whose only apparent motivation is a lust for power works in star wars. have a literal black knight be the evil wizard's #1 henchman, a knight who will choke the life outta folks who disagree with him or fail, is okie dokie for star wars. such villains does seem ridiculous w/o the context o' star wars. 

 

then again, we thought kreia were a fantastic villain... right up until malachor v content. converse, we thought darth mush-mouth were terrible... voiced by a peanuts character and wearing a skull-motif kabuki mask? chris avellone tried to introduce grown-up morality into star wars, and while he didn't entire succeed, we believe his efforts suggest that something other than polar extremes and surface motivations is possible in star wars.  we ain't a fan o' star wars, but we suspect there is fans who can identify other examples o' more mature themes handled well by the respective writers/developers/directors/whatever... or maybe not.

 

side note: our favorite joinable npc from kotor were the grey jedi, for what that is worth.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 3, 2014 by Gromnir

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Give him that stupid sword and he's ready to go.

 

well, how 'bout the following:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIDlTGd7Y9U

 

 arguably The best sci-fi movie... evar.

 

is nothing wrong with a sympathetic villain, but they can't be handled same as the monster-under-the-bed.  is a problem chris avellone had with darth mush-mouth in kotor2. can't have a nameless and faceless evil that you then give a face and a voice to... and try to explain motivations. sauron works 'cause he is evil.  grendel works in lit 'cause he is a monster. 

 

frankenstein's monster, on the other hand, had very real and understandable motivations. is frankenstein's monster sucky 'cause we know why he hates dr. frankenstein or that the monster is kinda emo? 

 

we didn't like either anakin actor and the writing for the characters were clear not helping us appreciate the performances. then again, we didn't like luke much better. is any number o' times we wanted to reach through the screen and smack luke... same for young and younger anakin. 

 

we could list relative strengths and flaws o' star wars films, but hasn't that been done a trillion times by literally millions (billions) of fans? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Roy Batty's final understanding of the humanity Deckard lost elevated the film to something truly great, but the actual monologue was excessively melodramatic. Still my second favorite sci fi film though.

 

Its interesting that the only person that doesn't get this is Scott himself. His dumb insistence that Deckard is a replicant completely undoes the point of the film. Surprising considering how much better BR is than ****'s book.

 

Lucas was never as talented though. He is most adept at leeching and simplifying the ideas of others. Indiana Jones is a watered down version of Corto Maltese. The star wars universe is a hodgepodge of various influences. Judging by his later directorial career, he simply got lucky with the first SW film.

[Nonek]

 

 

Roy Batty's final understanding of the humanity Deckard lost elevated the film to something truly great, but the actual monologue was excessively melodramatic. Still my second favorite sci fi film though.

 

Its interesting that the only person that doesn't get this is Scott himself. His dumb insistence that Deckard is a replicant completely undoes the point of the film. Surprising considering how much better BR is than ****'s book.

 

Lucas was never as talented though. He is most adept at leeching and simplifying the ideas of others. Indiana Jones is a watered down version of Corto Maltese. The star wars universe is a hodgepodge of various influences. Judging by his later directorial career, he simply got lucky with the first SW film.

 

 

I'm not sure of its veracity, but I heard a rumour at some point that Mr Hauer ad libbed Mr Batty's final monologue.

 

Personally this is why i'm foolishly clinging to a little hope that Cyberpunk 2077 may be a little something more than its contemporaries, they cite Blade Runner as a prominent influence, and Mr Pondsmith certainly seems to embrace that genre.

[Gromnir]

 

 

Give him that stupid sword and he's ready to go.

 

well, how 'bout the following:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIDlTGd7Y9U

 

 arguably The best sci-fi movie... evar.

 

is nothing wrong with a sympathetic villain, but they can't be handled same as the monster-under-the-bed.  is a problem chris avellone had with darth mush-mouth in kotor2. can't have a nameless and faceless evil that you then give a face and a voice to... and try to explain motivations. sauron works 'cause he is evil.  grendel works in lit 'cause he is a monster. 

 

frankenstein's monster, on the other hand, had very real and understandable motivations. is frankenstein's monster sucky 'cause we know why he hates dr. frankenstein or that the monster is kinda emo? 

 

we didn't like either anakin actor and the writing for the characters were clear not helping us appreciate the performances. then again, we didn't like luke much better. is any number o' times we wanted to reach through the screen and smack luke... same for young and younger anakin. 

 

we could list relative strengths and flaws o' star wars films, but hasn't that been done a trillion times by literally millions (billions) of fans? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Roy Batty's final understanding of the humanity Deckard lost elevated the film to something truly great, but the actual monologue was excessively melodramatic.

 

yeah, well, up to the point o' the monologue, what you got is batty smacking deckard around like a cat playing with a mouse, so...

 

the speech itself is okie dokie in the context o' the film. the directing, on the other hand, were a bit excessive. am thinking we coulda' done without the dove flying away, but our point were about sympathetic villains rather than the delivery or the writing of the lines.

 

oh, and for noek, it is our recollection that hauer didn't so much ad-lib as edit.  the script were calling for roy to ramble on for a bit. hauer kinda distilled the wall-o'-text into something less cumbersome.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Meshugger]

I am not sure what you guys are talking about, but i wholeheartingly agree that Blade Runner is possibly one of the best Sci-Fi-movies ever.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

Roy Batty's final understanding of the humanity Deckard lost elevated the film to something truly great, but the actual monologue was excessively melodramatic. Still my second favorite sci fi film though.

 

Its interesting that the only person that doesn't get this is Scott himself. His dumb insistence that Deckard is a replicant completely undoes the point of the film. Surprising considering how much better BR is than ****'s book.

 

Lucas was never as talented though. He is most adept at leeching and simplifying the ideas of others. Indiana Jones is a watered down version of Corto Maltese. The star wars universe is a hodgepodge of various influences. Judging by his later directorial career, he simply got lucky with the first SW film.

 

 

I'm not sure of its veracity, but I heard a rumour at some point that Mr Hauer ad libbed Mr Batty's final monologue.

 

Personally this is why i'm foolishly clinging to a little hope that Cyberpunk 2077 may be a little something more than its contemporaries, they cite Blade Runner as a prominent influence, and Mr Pondsmith certainly seems to embrace that genre.

 

 

Gromnir is right, Hauer trimmed down the monologue to the final version and apparently Scott liked it so much he gave up on the version in the script. Something like that anyway.

....Incidentally, the scene with the dove has been modified in the final cut. Its no longer the jarring transition to a metal pipe and a clear sky, now the dove is flying between buildings into the permanent darkness of the rest of the film. Probably excessive as Gromnir says but much better than the original soul>heaven allegory. I mean, the allegory is still there but not glaringly so.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath regarding C2077. Whenever anyone cited BR as inspiration its inevitably the aesthetics that get a homage (copied without innovation in other words), which, while masterful are not the "heart and soul" of the film.

 

There are probably a few dozen films that try to look like Blade Runner instead of trying to be BR.

[TrashMan]

[TrashMan]

Edited December 4, 2014 by TrashMan

[TrashMan]

LOTR is a brilliant example! Both the Hobbit and LOTR are high fantasy stories with binary morality. If only the prequels had taken the same route as the LOTR. 

 

 

Tolken didn't take his world and go, "You know what? This story needs moral ambiguity and nuance; no more of this good vs evil nonsense; it's immature!" If he had done so the LOTR wouldn't have been nearly as good as it was. The story was expanded, but not contradicted (in any meaningful way). Smaug was evil. Sauron was evil. There was no attempt to make that universe something it could never be.

 

Compare that to what the prequels did. They took a universe with binary morality, and made it morally gray. Which of course meant adding in stupid events to try and justify it. Stupid events means stupid dialog. I don't how anyone could have taken the idea of Anakin falling to the dark side, while keeping him sympathetic, and made it work well. It can't be done.

 

LOTR made BIG changes compared to Hobbit. The tone, the intended audience - completely changed.

Yes, the villain was evil, but THAT isn't what made it great. such a narrow view at the complex issue is deeply flawed.

 

And no, it CAN work. As proven by many fantasy settings with moral nuance.

Such villans have been done before many times.

Case in point, for games - Loghain. Illusive Man (before he gone full retard). Irenicus.

 

 

 

No, it can't. It's already established that there is a binary morality in the force. The force (good), and the dark side (evil). Not to mention that the Starwars universe is just plain silly in a lot areas. It's not a good template for an in depth and nuanced story. We got that with the prequels; look how that turned out.

 

Again, false equalence. You attribute the failure of the prequrls to that one thing.

[Orogun01]

I'm beginning to think that the whole thing with the sword might have something to do with the fact that we can't complain that the sheriff is near.

[Enoch]

I'm beginning to think that the whole thing with the sword might have something to do with the fact that we can't complain that the sheriff is near.

 

"'Scuse me while I whip this out... with ineffective cross-guards"?

[Namutree]

 

And no, it CAN work. As proven by many fantasy settings with moral nuance.

Such villans have been done before many times.

 

 

In fantasy worlds without an established binary morality. Once again; you seem to discussing the idea of anti-villains in fantasy without taking into account that Starwars specifically has already established that it has binary morality. Not to mention that the Starwars universe is silly and unsuited for depth and nuance. 

 

 

EDIT: As for games; I've already established in my arguing with Sharp_one that video games and movies have different rules.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Namutree

[Valsuelm]

 

 

And no, it CAN work. As proven by many fantasy settings with moral nuance.

Such villans have been done before many times.

 

 

In fantasy worlds without an established binary morality. Once again; you seem to discussing the idea of anti-villains in fantasy without taking into account that Starwars specifically has already established that it has binary morality. Not to mention that the Starwars universe is silly and unsuited for depth and nuance. 

 

 

Here's the thing. Star Wars *never* established that. You apparently only saw that.

 

A couple cases in point off the top of my head:

 

1. Hans Solo. He's a smuggler, outlaw, and shoots Gredo first!

 

2. There are sympathetic characters within the empire. ie: at least one of the guys Darth kills.

 

3. And if you fast forward through the original trilogy Darth is indeed a complex and sympathetic character by the end of the Return of the Jedi.

 

Star Wars was never angels vs. demons. The whole 'lure of the darkside' is there from 'A New Hope', and that's a message and concept full of moral ambiguity and all sorts of shades of grey.

 

I think perhaps you're insisting these movies were meant for 10 year olds because you refuse to look at them from a point of view other than that of an average 10 year old. But really, even your average 10 year old can see some of the morale ambiguity.

 

You're generally usually far more astute Namu. Why you can only see black and white on this I'm not sure.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Valsuelm

[ManifestedISO]

Anyway, so the guy who invented the original lightsaber, John Dykstra, says of the new blade: "It's pretty cool." 

[HoonDing]

Han shot first?

[Blarghagh]

Han shot first?

 

Might as well close the thread now. This can only end in tears.

[Fighter]

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/B4EDWVKIEAE6ICH.mp4

[Luridis]

Personally, I love redlettermedia's reviews of the prequels. I think they're spot on and I'll distill all three reviews down to a single paragraph of commentary from the Revenge of the Sith review.

 

 

You see, the whole point of all this ****, or so I thought... is that Anakin Skywalker was a great and kind and noble Jedi knight that was tragically seduced by the dark side of the force and became Darth Vader. Instead, for whatever reason, Anakin is written as a bad apple from the start. And, even in this film his cloths are kinda dark, and his hair long and unkempt. He just seems like more of an a**hole (by the moment). But whoever is writing this **** suddenly realizes that they need to remind the audience that Anakin is still a good guy.

 

All of the other problems those films have aside, the nonsensical story we are told is simply not consistent with the character that was built as Luke's father in the first three films.

 

Episode I can be summarized as: Political crap no one cares about. A young Obi-wan who was not what we expected. Another Jedi who almost turned out to be an interesting character, if only the story had been written in such a way to allow that. The less said about the Roger Rabbit knock-off the better. And finally, a child character that is so completely unbelievable as to make me just dislike him at every opportunity. In fact, I do not recall feeling even the slightest sympathy for that character at any point during the movie.

 

Episode II: The backdrop is a war that makes no sense at all. The leading man a young, insolent and rebellious Jedi who apparently has as little control over his own impulsive behavior as he does his own hormones. How this punk managed to control the force when his own child failed again and again with as little as a bit of self-doubt is beyond my comprehension, or perhaps it is just nonsensical. A love story that is so hammy that it not only approaches, but achieves a completely unexpected level of comedy. Not only is it a forbidden love, but all of the leading lady's objections are, well... again nonsensical. If I didn't know otherwise, I would swear this script was written by a 12 year old. Romeo and Juliette, eat your heart out.

 

Episode III: Oh look, the ornery, impudent and obnoxious child finally gives in, but not to become a Sith. No, instead he turns downright Charles Manson, and it was every bit expected. Not because of the lore established in the first three movies, but because he was written as a ticking time bomb the whole way through. So much for the wisdom of the Jedi, personally I can't imagine anyone on the Jedi Council not having threatened to leave the order half way through Episode II due to his continued presence. But, I guess wisdom is only revealed in hindsight in Lucas' world.

 

If Anakin had been written true to the character laid out in episodes 4-6, then Episode III could have been one of the most well written tragedies ever to fall on the silver screen. Clearly the audience knew what Anakin was destined to become. But, that does not mean that it could not have been written much, so much, better than it was. If this character had been endeared to all of us through the prequels and then the circumstances of his turn presented as a complete shocker with absolutely no foreshadowing, the moment would have been a real tear-jerker and these movies long remembered. Instead, we got hastily written trash that is sadly all Lucas is likely to be remembered for in a hundred years.

 

Can Disney & JJ do better? I don't see why not, as I don't think it is possible for it to be done worse. If Episodes I-III were not rock bottom, I'd be very surprised.

[Luridis]

Just in case someone might not understand why I said, "with absolutely no foreshadowing." That is because his turn to the dark side needed to be a shocker-in-the-moment in order for it to have any emotional impact on us at all. Foreshadowing isn't necessary because the audience already knows the ultimate outcome: Anakin turns dark. The circumstances of that should have been carefully crafted to alleviate any suspicion of exactly when or how it would happen, while still providing the back-story to make it understandable and believable.

 

My reaction to his turn to the dark side was, "well there it is, finally." When it should have been, "No effing way that just happened! This is it! This is what screws him up so bad!"

[Luridis]

While I don't think Episodes 1, 2, and 3 were as good as they could have been (or as good as the original series), I did enjoy them for what they were rather than what I'd wanted them to be.

 

Most of the people who I know (anecdotal evidence and all that) who hated the "prequels" with the heat of a twin sun system were the type who put "Jedi" and "Sith" as their religion on census information and I really don't think that any movie would have lived up to their expectation; being enjoyable but highly flawed just made them a big kickball.

 

I hated them and Jedi/Sith is a quasi-religious-psionic system of belief and practice that is part of a fictional universe, not something I personally believe in or that I'd put down on a census. I had no expectation beyond that of more Star Wars of the same quality that was previously made. I mean, it would be silly to expect The Lord of the Rings trilogy of books to be of the same quality that The Hobbit was, right?

 

I went to see The Phantom Joke with three of my friends, I was 25 at the time. None of us said a word coming out of the theater, I think due to shock. When we got in my car I was the first to break the silence with, "What the f___ did we just watch?!" There we lots of sighs followed by, "I'm not sure." I do remember this: I had to stop at a gas station because I needed ADVIL. Rare it is that I watch something that is so bad that actually gives me a headache, but Episode I did just that.

 

I waited for reviews and declined to see the second movie at the theater, I didn't see the 3rd until it came out on regular TV. and only about 30% before I was fed up. It might has well have been teletubbies or some such.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Luridis