ST The nuances / ingredients that make a Star Wars film

The Wilhelm Scream!

 

If the dialogue is not a little corny, a bit clunky, it's not Star Wars. Arndt should be able to write this stuff, but he ought not be able to say it.

 

Then name it something other than 'Star Wars' - Maybe, "Battlestar Galactica" or "Star Blazers" or what not - If they intend to do a full fledged 'reboot' (Hey, we can even make Han Solo a GIRL!) I want a LOT of advanced warning so I can completely avoid it...

 

Spielberg was right. Star Wars' naivete, innocence is what attracts people to it. It's really a reflection of George Lucas.

The minute Star Wars becomes 'cool' it will lose all it's luster.

 

No more Sith please...

 

The word "Sith" was never mentioned, but the Sith concept - two powerful dark siders, a master and an apprentice, clandestinely running the galaxy, scheming against each other and trying to corrupt promising young Force users - is at the core of the trilogy. Forget the Imperial military, it's the Sith who are the real threat.

I agree when it comes to the EU - there's no need to upstage the films when there are so many other potential villains.

However, when it comes to the ST, we need a threat that logically builds on the storyline of Episodes I-VI. If it's not the Sith, then the only other way you could go would be an external enemy the Sith/Empire were keeping at bay (as was hinted with the Yuuzhan Vong in the EU).

 

Really big government, as long as it's in the background, like in the OT.

 

You're dreaming. There will be sith, guaranteed. If you don't want them I'm preparing you for the disappointment.

 

Hello, Jabba. It's been a long time.

In terms of a Star Wars movie (but not EP 7 specifically), I think you could get rid of most of that. I've long regreted that 1978's Splinter of the Mind's Eye and/or Brian Daley's Han Solo novels from the late 1970s were never used as the basis for Star Wars films. I'd certainly regard such movies as SW films, and they have only the following in common:

Droids in general
FTL interplanetary space travel
Really big government
Mixing of human and mostly humanoid intelligent species

For that matter, ESB (outside of Chewbacca and the ugnauts) is almost entirely human.

Further, I can imagine the ST having a weak and ineffective Senate. ("Hey, remember the bad old days when we had a strong galactic government? Remember what it did to Alderaan? Let's not go there again.")

Thus I'm left with droids, FLT travel, and John Williams's title theme as the only essentials on your list. I'd go so far as to say that John Williams would be the single most important ingredient, since I regard his music as the single most important element of the magic of Star Wars.

 

I'm wide awake. The return of the Sith would make Anakin's sacrifice pointless.





- The oppression of the Sith will never return!
- Only now, at the end, do you understand.
/LM

 

1. good story
2. likeable characters
3. deep emotions
4. space battles
5. epic adventures
6. lightsabers and blasters

 

While I can see where you're coming from, that didn't stop the EU, and I suspect it won't stop the ST people much.

And I would characterize "lightsaber duels" as one of the fundamental elements under discussion (or a lightsaber duel, at least - ROTS probably overdid it with five), so if not the Sith, then with who?

 

The Little Nuances that make a Star Wars Film

 

Jedi who struggle with their dark side?
Old, forgotten, former Jedi who have abandoned the ways of the Force but will use their lightsabers when they deem it necessary?
Extremely tough warriors with no ability to use the Force but still able to hold their own against Jedi (bounty hunters, pirates, cyborgs)?
We'll see.

I'm not saying that the Sith will definitely not happen, though. Anakin did bring balance to the Force by significantly diminishing the power of the dark side, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that the Sith will try to retake control of the galaxy.
I sincerely hope, though, that it won't just be a case of history repeating itself. There should be a real point to the existence of this trilogy. It should expand the saga by adding something significant of its own.





- He is like my brother. I cannot do it!
- You cannot escape your destiny.
/LM

 

yes it has!

Agreed about Splinter of the Mind's Eye. The first EU novel I ever read and the only one I ever really respected. A little bit off the reservation in terms of Force mythology. But I'd far rather have that in the canon than midichlorians.

 

Agreed. And Anakin's sacrifice was not pointless. He did destroy the Sith, bringing balance to the force. ...Until they rise again. Nothing lasts forever.

 

10. Style HEAVILY borrowed from historical films like westerns, noire, Kurosawa.
9. Storyline and characters taken from Jungian Archetypes and epic lore
8. Some side plots are key to help build each individual character.
7. Dialogue that rarely wonders. Lines revolve around the task at hand.
6. Only one major clear and real threat that drives the plot with a MINOR Jedi plot line.
5. Escape from this, rescue him/her, blow that thing up. Its usually that simple.
4. Only 3 planets: one for each act.
3. Made for the love of story telling and not special effects.
2. Wit, Humor, Drama equally balanced.
1. Totally disregard the prequels when calculating the building blocks for a Star

 

I think one of the most important things they need to remember is KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

The original trilogy (espically ESB) was very well written but also simple. Evil Empire (with Dark Side users) vs Good Rebels (with Light Side users). A main character becoming the "super powered hero". It was clear who was the villian, who was the good guy and the two sides came into conflict. The PT lost this simplicity and suffered for it. The Jedi weren't the good guys anymore (at least not int he same way - they didn't want Anakin trained which put them at odds with the main character and audience etc....), the main bad guy was running the government the good guys supported, villians were killed off constantly forcing others to be introduced etc... The main hero was turning evil but for good reasons.... It didn't have the straight forward plot and themes that the OT did, which made it harder to follow and the characters harder to connect too.

The ST doesn't need and shouldn't have multi. layers of story happening all at the same time, its too much (not just for Star Wars, for most movies. Its why Dark Knight Rises suffered, way too many things going on). They need firmly established good guys and bad guys, a conflict between them, some individual conflicts for the main characters, and thats it.

 

One thing's for sure: each of the previous trilogies ultimately came down to a climactic moment in which the main character was confronted with having to make a moral choice: to kill or not kill someone who was unarmed and already beaten. The decision each character made determined their fates from then onward: Anakin killed his helpless opponent and began to charge headlong down the path of ruination; Luke refused to kill his helpless opponent and salvaged his soul - furthermore, he inspired Anakin to intervene to prevent someone else from killing a helpless victim.

I can't possibly state that they'd do another variation on this theme for the third trilogy, but I think I could make a case that it's definitely a fundamental building block of, if not a Star Wars movie per se, then that of the arc of a Star Wars trilogy overall: a character, at first young, innocent, and untested, must enter the world and discover that life can be monstrous; he must take wounds, suffer losses, acquire scars - the necessary lessons of life for an individual; the test at the climactic moment is how this character chooses to answer life back - he has an opponent prostrate before him, someone that he has a legitimate reason to hate, and the scars to justify it - and no one would question him if he chose to kill this opponent. The entire galaxy's convinced this opponent is a mortal threat. There's even a man right there, the highest authority in the land, telling you to do it. When everyone around you tells you that to commit murder against an unarmed and helpless victim is correct, when even the scars on your body insist it to you loudly, who do you trust to help you decide if that's so?

You trust your instincts, not authority. Anakin refused to listen to his instincts and instead listened to authority, and Dooku died; his scars he considered but a thing to be avenged. Luke chose to refuse authority and listen to his instincts instead; his scars he considered a lesson, a warning of what the consequences would be if he chose wrongly; Vader lived, and became inspired to himself look to his instincts over authority, and to directly intervene against authority to spare another's life; Sidious died, but Luke lived.

This probably could be considered a building block theme; but don't ask me to guess who the characters involved would be, or what consequences would be at stake.

 

Pfluegermeister - thats a good point and tie between the two trilogies.

The moment came at different points in both. It was Lukes final decision while it came earlier in Anakin's.

It would be interesting to put that moment right up front, and then have the character deal with the consequences for the better part of 3 movies.

 

A lot of good info in that thread

 

Ah, the iconic and legendary Wilhelm Scream.... It's a MUST!!