Speculation Episode 7 Do's and Don'ts!

DO use the EU characters of Ben Skywalker, Jaina Solo, and Mara Jade Skywalker
DO use Luke Skywalker as the wise Grand Master of the New Jedi Order (like a Yoda figure).
DO come up with an original story that isn't a repeat of the previous six.
DO ignore the EU if it constrains the story in any major way.
DO cherry pick concepts from other sources like the EU.

DON'T use the EU's fall of the New Republic, the Second Galactic Civil War, or the Galactic Federation of Free Alliances.
DON'T use the Lost Tribe of the Sith.
DON'T use the One Sith.
DON'T use the Sith without explaining their return.
DON'T use Jason Solo's fall to the Dark Side.

 

Not the script though. That's what matters.

 

Fortunately he's overseeing it as well. I don't mind that other people write the screenplay, but George has to at least be there to say if a character would say X our Y.

 

Don't make it average like phantom menace
You're free to DO anything else

 

Exactly. He is fine with story outlines. Then turning it over. Then later on reviewing the close-to-final product.

 

Don't be like Home Alone Three which had a new actor playing the home alone boy.

Do dive deeper into serious dark plot twists.

 

DO: Keep true to the heart of SW, particularly the OT.
DON'T: Cave in to quick money making ideas by appealing to the unsophisticated teen crowd of today (Twilight, et al)

 

DO: show things from the PT and the OT while also showing new things. Each SW movie has to be a whole new creation.

 

_ _ _ _

Well, I think the first paragraph of my original post, for those who read it, adequately conveyed my feelings about the fact that Disney isn't the best bet, as it were, to produce a darker ST. The second paragraph was me hoping, against the odds, that we might get something gritty, dark and good. I think I made myself clear really.

 

Anybody who thinks there's a chance that these movies are all of a sudden *not* going to be family films primarily directed at 10-14-years olds, unlike the existing ones, is fooling themselves.

That said: Disney has produced plenty of violent films; just look at the Tarantino films, or "Apocalypto," or the "Hellraiser" sequels.

 

_ _ _ _

I didn't say that I thought they would not be films directed primarily at kids. Read, re-read and re-read my original post. I was hoping against hope.

 

Darker themes have nothing to do with gore and more to do with a less childish comedic feel. No one said anything about gore/blood/gratuitous violence nor would I expect nudity or a barrage of foul language. "Darker" can be done with intelligence and class and can still be appealing to six-ten year olds.

 

The "battle droids" in the prequels were beyond non threatening and were given silly lines to make them even more unrealistic. If a droid army is to be a threat to the galaxy then make them a threat not some pre-school toy story joke - I felt they were modeled after the Three Stooges. Seriously.

The "love story" was beyond bleached and watered down- rated PG films in the 1970's and 1980's would be rated X by today's standards, or at least the standards Lucas adhered to in order to make the prequel films "family friendly". Lets just say it completely lacked any realistic passion- something kids can handle (we're not talking sex scenes/nudity here). You can see the handcuffs on Natalie Portman in every scene. She's by far a better actress than Lucas let her be in the three films. Everything was forced, contrived.

In the prequels the good guy vs. bad guy story line lacked nuance, it was moral absolutism at it's worst. Anakin's transition to Vader lacked depth - most people perceive this as an acting problem with hayden christensen but that's only a part of the problem- his hands were tied as was the case with the love story. Frankly, the writing made him look like a weak child making irrational decisions based in immature emotions. Thats not the way anyone envisioned Vader was "created". Hadens acting simply reflected this approach. He had the feel of a whinny little boy. I can only assume this is more of a philosophical stance Lucas has, his view of people who chose "the dark side" in life. That they're weak, pathetic even. Anakins transition to Vader should have been more realistic, darker with more nuance. Kids can handle it. We get these little emotional outbursts from him, he then kills some beasts that killed his mother then all of the sudden to save Padme he joins the dark side and starts killing younglings and has thoughts of taking over the galaxy. When the entire prequel series is concerning the creation of Vader one would think, well, it would be a darker series. Again, the general reaction to the almost total lack of realism is taken out on christensen for not having any acting skills when the fact of the matter is he played the part exactly as Lucas wanted. Having seen him in other films this is the exact role he plays in other films as well. The troubled immature boy with emotional problems. "Life As A House" comes to mind. So in the end Vader was just a troubled little boy with emotional problems and was tricked into the dark side. That approach to the creation of Vader totally lacked realistic agency and Lucas took that approach in order to appeal to kids. "We can't go around bringing up deeper moral questions in the minds of children...no way...lets keep it simple". I hope Disney changes that as far as the good vs evil aspect of the coming films but not likely.

Moving on... I'll just say the word Jar Jar and you should understand and agree that character was cheesy and had a negative impact on the feel of the overall first film. Attack of the clones and phantom menace could have been morphed into one film if Lucas wanted to have a happy fun feel for the first film. The Darth Maul character was one sided and killed off too soon. There should have been much more time developing that character and more time focusing on he and Palpatines relationship/world. Some evil looking guy with spikes on his head all of the sudden appears with blood lust in his eyes and there's no reason given other than he's evil and part of the dark side. The Clone War cartoons (directed to children) did more to shed light on Maul and the dark side.

So it's not gore blood and sex people want to see when they say they want a darker feel it's just people don't want to see the three stooges with light sabers. Revenge of the sith had somewhat of a darker feel but it was constrained by Lucas's overall approach to making the films. By that point he had already committed to an extremely flawed approach and he took a ton of criticism - his last middle finger directed to us was handing the rights over to Disney. Here's to hoping Disney knows how to make PG or PG-13 films without treating the entire audience like children

 

Good Post lots of effort!!!!!!

 

"Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite."

I'm making fun of myself with the above quote (from American Psycho). I'm the Patrick Bateman of Star Wars in this thread MUST HAVE BLOODY DEATH KILL! MAKE DARK STAR WARS NOW!!

 

DO show the Millennium Falcon
DO show X wings, Y wings, Tie Fighters, Star Destroyers, and new ships
DO have dialogue for people over 6 years old

DO NOT show "chrome plated" ships
DO NOT go crazy with CGI just because you can
DO NOT look or feel anything like the PT

 

Let me add another Don't in the same vein

Don't- Use Star Wars movies as a launching pad for your terrible so called music artists of the month...Disney

 

DO make another holiday special (for Disney Channel!)

DON'T make a Star Wars Babies show

 

Don't: Keep copying entire history of replies so that they eventually just show a single letter per line and take up pages of the thread.

Do: Paraphrase or summarize the post you wish to address - people interested in a specific argument are quite capable of going back and doing a little reading.

 

That's what bonniegrrl's blog on starwars.com is for! /sarcasm

 

I think you're missing a lot of the point of the Prequels. The battle droids, even the super-battle-droids, are not meant to be threatening, per se. It works on a subtle metaphorical level; the battle droids are almost literally "puppets". Where they are tactically useful is only in great numbers, but they are still puppets on strings. And where there are puppets, there is a puppet master.

The clone army is supposed to be threatening. The meek and mild Senator Palpatine is supposed to be threatening, in a phantom sort of way.

So in this spirit, and on topic with this thread I say:

DO: make heavy use of metaphor
DON'T: dumb it down for fans who have a distaste for metaphor