Weirdass Random Crazy Thought of the Day

| 42 Comments

There should be three more Star Wars movies. And in them, the Sith should begin to revive, twenty or thirty or more years after the battle of Endor... and the core of the Sith should be one of the Jedi Solo children or Ben Skywalker, rebelling against their parents and the world they grew up in.

The saga has been made generational, and to complete the circle, there should be sacrifice of the next generation to preserve the greater good.

It'll never happen in a billion years, but it'd be a good series. Especially since that one we wouldn't be able to predict each new event because we know how it ends.

It'd be even better if someone other than Lucas wrote and directed it, of course.

42 Comments

You crazy, Burns. CRAZY. :)

Well, there is that post-NJO hypertrilogy in the works...

(Trilogy--three books. Hypertrilogy: Nine books in three trilogies.)

Didn't they figure out in the New Jedi Order series that there wasn't a light or dark side, just what individuals brought to the force with their own preconceptions?

I agree with the idea of someone other than Lucas writing something that takes place after the original trilogy though. Especially in video games. If I have to do that damn Hoth mission one more bloody time...

Dude! Shh!

They could be reading this right now...!

On the fourth day of Lucasmas I outlined the third trilogy for my fanfiction site and wrote the opening crawl for Episode VII. They'll "air" in May 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively. If you want I can come here and post reminders.

For whatever it's worth, I distinctly remember hearing somewhere when I was a kid (I was 10 when A New Hope came out) that the Star Wars saga spanned 9 stories and what we were seeing back then were the middle three.

From what I've been able to turn up in my researches, the "nine movies" idea came from Lucas's early ideas about how to plot out the series; the latter six movies would have covered the territory that ended up being covered by IV-VI after Lucas subsequently distilled the storylines down. The 9th movie would have ended with the death of the Emperor.

And yet, in some of the "ultimate timelines" that some of the real Star Wars continuity weenies have put out (you know, the ones you can download as several-hundred-page PDF files? I'd drop a link in, but I'm too tired to hunt right now. Google on "ultimate star wars timeline," you'll probably find one), I've also seen some speculation, based on some of Lucas's comments somewhere-or-other, of a potential third trilogy that does pretty much what Eric proposes here.

Of course, I doubt it will happen now, at least not for another ten years or so. Lucas has just spent several straight years banging out the prequel trilogy, I think the man wants a rest now. :)

The Six Episodes were Anakin's story. There's no way you can plug another 3 at the end and not make it look like an afterthought, considering the complete resolution at the end of ROTJ.

What we need now* is distinct and stand-alone Star Wars movies from different eras of the universe.

*Read: What I'd like to have.

What I'd like to have would be a time machine so I could go back and try to convince Lucas to not make any sequels.

What we need is to forget that episodes I and II ever existed, and forget enough bits of Episode III that we can fill in the blanks with much better bits that we can convince ourselves were how it actually was.

What we need is for people to let go of Star Wars. Honestly, it's okay, but where did this huge fanbase come from? I think it's more than fan culture than the movie being truly deserving, although I like the idea that a cult movie is one that has shocking moments, and thus the world can be safely divided into people who see past or ignore its faults and people who can't get past them.

It does explain the Rocky Horror fanbase.

Alexis: Not necessarily. The first six could be Anakin's story, the last six Luke's story, with them sharing the middle three. That would work.

Mind you, I'm more in line with Merus. Star Wars is done. Let's leave it where it is and not keep it going. Let's find new, more interesting universes to explore. It's not that Star Wars wasn't great. It was. But we know it already.

I want to see universes I don't know.

Gah. I truly hope not. My wish is that the IDEA of Star Wars movies dies off now. And that Star Trek lapses into a 15 year coma...

What I can't understand is why Lucas got it into his head that he could direct and write the prequels.

A New Hope, right? He directed it and wrote the screenplay. And, if we're honest with ourselves, it was pretty bad. Not a great movie by any means.

So apparently then he learned his lessons. He produced The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, but got somebody competent to write and direct - and it worked! They were great movies! Go Lucas!

So why O why did he fall back into the very same trap that made A New Hope bad? And do it for three movies? It just boggles my mind.

SeanH wrote:

What I can't understand is why Lucas got it into his head that he could direct and write the prequels. [...]So why O why did he fall back into the very same trap that made A New Hope bad?
Your assessment of the relative quality of IV, V and VI is diametrically opposed to, at least, mine. Neither do I dislike the prequels the way it seems most do.

For one thing, I disagree with this notion that the prequel story structure ought to have been modified so that Anakin turned during II and spent III hunting the Jedi down. That would have lost us too much of the sequences we now have which show what a great partnership Anakin and Obi-Wan were; the loss of which was, to us at my house, a huge component of the tragedy. I mean, you look at the teamwork between Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan in the opening of I, and you think, "Wow, how can it get any better than that?" ... and then the opening of III comes along -

Alexis wrote:
The Six Episodes were Anakin's story. There's no way you can plug another 3 at the end and not make it look like an afterthought, considering the complete resolution at the end of ROTJ.
Gotcha covered. Stay tuned.

Well, in my experience (which is by no means authoritative) my assessment of relative quality seems to be the dominant one, at least among those who self-identify as "Star Wars fans"... but, hey, de gustibus non est disputandum.

That any of you can continue bagging on Lucas after Episode 3 boggles my mind.

Go watch the original trilogy again instead of relying on your nostalgia. Cheesy moments? Check. Bits of clumsy acting? Sure. Awkward dialogue? Oh yeah.

And yet, the movies as a whole were good enough -- and fun enough -- that those missteps were overlooked and have now become classic moments.

The prequels have all been good, solid fun, and Sith is in a league of its own. (It may be better than Empire, IMO.) The younger generation is probably going to look back on these with the same rose-colored glasses that we wear when watching four through six.

Some fun continuity comments from a 7 year old kid who saw the new trilogy first: http://blogs.starwars.com/ghent/15

"Look... Obi-Wan is pretending he doesn't know R2-D2."

as C-3PO throws a Jawa body on the pile... "Do you think that R2-D2 started that fire with his jet rockets?"

"That any of you can continue bagging on Lucas after Episode 3 boggles my mind."

I have nothing to say but "Hold me like you did on the lake on Naboo". Oh, and "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"

There were some great lines in Sith. There were some great acting bits in Sith. Neither unfortunately, applied to our romantic leads. At least I know Nathalie Portman can act from other performances. Hayden Christiansen is on the other hand a bag full of suck.

Sith was the most unintentionally hilarious movie for me. It was like I and II a seriously mixed bag. And this was after Tom Stoppard punched up the dialogue. I wince internally at the steaming pile he must have been handed. Or they paid him and ignored him.

Hayden was great in Sith. Also recommend "Shattered Glass" for another fine performance by him. (Interestingly, his character there is also a golden boy who turns to evil. ;)

I blame the wince-worthy moments on Portman, really. Which is strange.

And, what, Vader isn't allowed to be upset? ;)

Go watch the original trilogy again instead of relying on your nostalgia.

Dude, I was born in 1987. Trust me, my cynicism developed long before I watched the original trilogy.

18 years is enough time for cynicism to develop? What, did you grow up in Eastern Europe? ;)

I wasn't pointing fingers at you (or anyone here, really), but rather at older fans who seem to apply a double standard.

The original three were hardly masterworks of cinema, I'll give you that. But they were good, and entertaining. They had some lame lines, but nothing as cringe-inducing as "The sand is hard but you are soft". And they were fairly straightforward. Episodes I and II were plainly terrible, and III was merely a mediocre action/adventure movie. Sith was also filled with irrelevant diversions that added nothing to the movie (like Yoda on Kashyyk, which was purely to get two characters who never met in the original in a scene together...that's the stuff of bad fanfiction). It also hinged on the Jedi Council being populated by morons.

I agree that it's time to let Star Wars go. Especially since there are much more interesting sci-fi universes out there, waiting to be discovered. Waiting to be discovered on September 30th, to be exact. Because Joss Whedon is master now.

To my mind the biggest thing that the original trilogy had and the 2nd trilogy didn't was Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher. The Han Solo character in particular added a balance to those films that is lacking in the second trilogy.

Ewan MacGregor does a great job of making you feel like you are seeing a younger, brasher version of Sir Alec Guiness's character, but when your non-jedi are Padme, Jar-Jar and droids it loses some of the "fun" feel of the originals. Jedi are kind of stick-in-the-mud characters, and I think a fair amount of the problems that good actors had with these characters has to do with that factor. When you have a bunch of characters striving to be passionless playing off of one another, with a director who is more interested in the digital effects it is hard to get much of a performance off.

Oh, and as far another trilogy, I just have this to say... "Let go, Eric, let go"

You misunderstand -- I'm speaking thematically, not fanboyishly.

We have a "first" act (quotated because it was produced second, of course), where the old, corrupt order is brought down by Evil, plunging the universe into darkness and oppression.

We have a "second" act where the forces of Light and Good struggle and manage to unseat the Evil oppression, though they have no structure to put in place in its stead at the end of Ep.VI.

Thematically, there should be a third act where the forces of Good have a structure that itself is built, which comes under attack from darkness, and either manages to hold or crumbles -- most likely the former being the result. This time, good has more than triumphed over evil, good has established itself and become strong in its own right, absent the corruption that plagued the Republic.

Since each of the first two acts involve the struggle of metaphoric sons rising to fight their fathers, the third act should also have a struggle where the son (or daughter) rises up. Good is forced to confront the reality of darkness within what they consider family -- as Obi Wan did with Anakin, and Luke did with Darth Vader. And should sacrifice come in the third act, as it did in the previous episodes, it leads instead to the light instead of the darkness.

I honestly think that would give the series a sense of completeness I think it currently lacks. And I think it would be cool.

I also don't think there's any chance in Hell of it, mind.

Well, I did understand you were looking at it thematically, but I chose to misinterpret, and frankly, even in someone else's hands, another trilogy would scare me.

I would rather someone bring closure to some of the good but cancelled TV series in my past, rather than this series which has steadily lost importance in my life as the decades have gone by.

I agree with this whole letting go of Star Wars and Star Trek. In fact, I'd like to see applied to other things. Like say, the whole "Hey, let's turn a comic series into a movie" idea. Fantastic Four is not looking very good at all, based on the previews.

And I don't know who is playing Dr. Doom, but he look absolutely dorky!

Personally, the reason I don't want to let go? The lightsabers.

I'm fully aware that Star Wars is not the only epic sci-fi story out there, and it sure as hell isn't the best one (I'm a huge Dune fan). But, to paraphrase Eric:

Dude.

Lightsabers.

Dude.

Nah, nah. See, now that the films are done, what we need... are re-makes. Not Lucas remakes. I'm talking completely different people.

Can you see it? Break the six films down and have different directors take parts of each. The Coppolas, Tarantino (oh god, Tarantino), Spielburg, Scorcese, Eastwood, Kevin Smith, M. Night Shamalamadingdong..

(apologies for any misspellings, as brain is fried.)

But seriously. Can you see it? As a film, artistically, it might be the worst thing ever. But it would be so god damned fun.

(And the re-casts? Come the fuck on! Comedy. Gold.)

...you know? That sounds pretty cool. But we have to let Tarantino take Ep. III if this happens.

Now I'm imagining Anakin slicing the children up to "Stuck in the Middle With You".

Hmm, of course, "Battle without Honor or Humanity" seems to fit the premise of that fight, though that music seems more fitting to a scene with the Jedi arriving for a council meeting.

Perhaps we could have Scorcese do all the Jabba the Hutt scenes...

I kind of get the idea that Kevin Smith might be too respectful of the material.

And let's add Peter Jackson to the list.

Dude. I would *so* pay top dollar for M. Night's version of Star Wars.

I'll do it.

Yeah. I'll do Star Wars. I'm not respectful of the material at all.

I'll use samples from the Manos dialogue track.

obviously you missed the point of the ending in return of the jedi, burns. There are no more sith. There are no more Jedi. Anakin united both sides of the force by mastering both. The series was finalized. END STORY.

Well, no. There are no more Sith, but there are Jedi. In particular, Luke and all those Force Ghosts. And the Expanded Universe stuff goes on to create a whole new Jedi order.

The Sith, on the other hand, have been exterminated before. In Star Wars, they never explain such things.

then that kind of defeats the prophecy then, doesn't it.

mmh. On the other hand Luke doesn't exactly qualify as Jedi either - he knows love and fear and anger. He knew his parents and his actual father (if only barely). Anakin has brought balance to the force by creating a son who is not extreme like the old jedi, nor extreme like the old sith, but who is comfortable with his emotions and uses his powers for awesome.

Also the Force Ghosts don't appear to appear to anyone but others attuned to the Force.

And, yes, Tarantino would be Teh Awesome Director for Star Wars.

Also also also: Did anyone else notice that you had the setup for the game Total Annihilation in there? droids v. clones, and all?

Vorn

Yup. Lucas has intriguingly reinterpreted the original trilogy to be not a clash of good and evil so much as a clash of passion and reason. Luke finds the balance that the Jedi and Sith failed to find. (And the Jedi's failure to offer that "middle way" is what leads Anakin to turn to the Dark Side.)

The Jedi "return" in Luke and Leia, it's true -- but they are a very different sort of Jedi. Luke does not train himself to "let go" of those he cares about -- but he stops short of doing whatever it takes to protect them. Passion, but within bounds.

In that way, the circle really is complete at the end of VI.

Shyamalan would have to do the "Luke, I am your father" bit. He's all about the surprise twists (and when I say "all about", I mean "It's all he knows")

I agree with John here - one only needs to watch the last lightsaber battle in VI to see this. Luke finally defeats Vader by turning his anger and wrath against him - anger that was brought on by Vader's suggestion that Leia could be turned to the dark side. It was anger brought on by love - two very strong passions. But when Vader is beaten - rememember the Emperor's appreciation for Luke's performance? - he calms down again, and remains in control of his emotions.

Luke is the balance, not Vader. All the same, it's clear he drew on some dark-side powers in VI, and it would be interesting to see that developed further. (Yes, I'm aware all sorts of this stuff happens in the EU books, and I don't care. I haven't read the books, and I don't think I intend to.)

Belatedly I am reminded by Eric's argument for a third Star Wars trilogy on dramatic, thematic grounds of my own similar twenty-year-old

argument.

There is a common misconception throughout most of the motion-picture viewing world (the filmmakers concerned included, most probably) that Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is part three of a trilogy. This fallacy is based on misleading, mainly circumstantial evidence: the fact that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, presenting an obvious but obviously incomplete unity of theme and action, were followed by The Voyage Home.

The theme in question is that of man's - or specifically, James T. Kirk's - eternal quest to cheat Death. The action is the activation of the Genesis Project.

The time travel journey of The Voyage Home is both literally and literarily a detour from the theme and the action of the story to that point. Granted, token bows are made by The Voyage Home to each of them. The trial at the end addresses Kirk's professional crisis, an aspect of the theme. The return of Spock's memory is an aspect of the action. But these two scenes could be transplanted from the end of The Voyage Home to the end of The Search for Spock without making any substantative change to the story of The Voyage Home which then would stand alone just fine (although you'd have to knock Spock on the head at the beginning to explain away the humorous or touching amnesia bits). The Voyage Home is not part three of a trilogy: it is a separate story, with patches at the end for the previous two film's theme and action, leaving them neither wrapped up nor tied off.

When it is seen that The Voyage Home is not part three of a trilogy, it can also be seen that a third episode is indeed called for.

In The Wrath of Khan Kirk finally faces Death head-on for the first time. In The Search for Spock Kirk conquers Death. In the universe where Star Trek is set, James T. Kirk has shown that death is a reversible condition.

Surely this must be the most important revelation in the history of the human race, as well as most or all of the other races in the Federation and out of it. Yet no one seems to take any notice of it besides Kirk's staff and Spock's family.

Eric, I know just how you feel.

Leave a comment

Logo: Sleeping Snarky

Recent Entries

By the way? The Soonrâ„¢ web services ending in 'r' stop dropping the 'e' before that r, the Bettrâ„¢.
The people who brought us Pirate Bay -- the very best in organized intellectual property theft -- have launched…
Charting a Course: Star Trek Online moving forward
It's been a while, yet again, and this time I have no good reason for it. It's not illness…
I suppose this means the U.S.S. Fort Kent needs to have natural lighting in the light panels
(All pictures are screenshots taken by me while in Star Trek Online. Click on the thumbnails to get full…