ST Why the ST is Likely to Work Better as a Trilogy than the Others

I'm not sure that the criteria for 'main villain' will be that they have a "back story"... or that the henchman won't. I'd agree that the main antagonist tends to get more overall focus, but Vader's brief mention by Obi-Wan is just that i.e. brief. It neither gives Vader depth or motive, but instead is used simply to explain the death of Luke's father (at that stage in proceedings we didn't know they are one and the same - not sure if even Lucas knew).

Also, if the 'castle' was the Death Star then surely Tarkin must be the 'warlock' given that the princess is being sprung from his castle.

That can easily be applied to the OT... be it Tarkin, Boba Fett or Jabba the Hutt. Tarkin killed off in the first film... Boba and Jabba under-utilised. What about General Veers?

 

Regardless, this will be a fun movie enjoyed by all!

 

Idealism, Internets? I expected better from you.

 

I'm an idealist, not a murderer....of thread topics?

 

Believe me, in that matter, your hands are clean. It must fall to others to explain exactly what, if anything, the question of "who the main villain in ANH was" has to do with the question of "why the ST will, or will not, work better as a trilogy than the PT or the OT."

 

It is sad that all threads turn into EU bashing/gushing.

 

No; it is the will of the force.

 

I do think this trilogy arguably has more freedom than the others do in the stories it can tell, but that freedom might make it a more difficult project. To strike the right balance of new and old, of maintaining themes while exploring bigger possibilities, will be a challenge. And it will permeate everything; Why does it matter to some people so much that Tattooine shows up? Because it's sort of a symbol for the whole saga, more specifically for the Skywalkers.. But others voice their disdain at returning to such a place because we've been there so many times, and we know the GFFA is so much larger. Or even more to the point, do we really want another Skywalker Hero's Journey? Other recent stories that follow the formula, like Harry Potter, rely on wonder, on the audience looking through Harry's eyes at a world unfamiliar and special. The OT could do this because it was an unfamiliar world. The PT could do this because there was mystery built into the concept, and because the pre Imperial GFFA was so different. Will the ST be able to do this? I believe so, but it's by no means guaranteed.

 

["Darth PJ, post: 51148009, member: 1379299"]

I'm not sure that the criteria for 'main villain' will be that they have a "back story"... or that the henchman won't. I'd agree that the main antagonist tends to get more overall focus, but Vader's brief mention by Obi-Wan is just that i.e. brief. It neither gives Vader depth or motive, but instead is used simply to explain the death of Luke's father (at that stage in proceedings we didn't know they are one and the same - not sure if even Lucas knew).

Also, if the 'castle' was the Death Star then surely Tarkin must be the 'warlock' given that the princess is being sprung from his castle.

 

With regard to this de-railing villain talk, maybe you guys could ask the mods to re-open the following threads as it would appear they are the correct place for that chat
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/anh-villain.14641931/
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/tarkins-authority-over-vader-in-anh.31215176/

They were the only ones I found on a quick search. Just an idea.

 

Yes all this discussion of ANH is much too nostalgic for my tastes.

 

That can easily be answered by following the progression of the thread. To wit, part of the discussion of how the ST can work better as a trilogy is the debate on the necessity for consistency of "main villains", which T R felt made the OT work well as a trilogy and the PT not. It's not a tangent, it's a sub-discussion. Why must others explain it, when all the info is right in this thread?

 

So someone conjures up a VERY tenuous connection to the point of the thread, and that somehow justifes eating up four or five pages with it?

Uh-uh. Not buying it. Sorry, but it's a reach to say that hours upon hours of trying to prove whether Tarkin or Vader was the main villain in ANH really contributes all that much to the discussion. It's just yet another instance of haggling over non-issues. You can CALL this comedy a sub-discussion as much as you like, but frankly, it's taken up so much of this thread that IT has become the discussion, and the main point of the thread the sub-discussion. And it needs to stop.

 

not sure it took hours to type it, let alone read it. I think it contributed more to the discussion than posting multiple complaints does.

 

I agree that too much time was spent focused on that part of it, but to say it was "conjured up" is just ridiculously false. If Tarkin is the main villain of ANH, it illustrates clearly that trilogy cohesion (the topic of the thread) doesn't require the same main villain throughout. If Vader is, then that point is weakened. It's about as tenuous to the topic as the trash compactor scene is tenuous to the plot of ANH. Yes, too much time shouldn't be spent on it, I agree, but don't act like was just conjured up out of nowhere.

But anyway, moving on...

T R , I think as long as there is a common villain pulling the strings in the ST (as opposed to what one might call a "main villain") I see no reason it can't work beautifully as a cohesive trilogy.

 

What kind of villain would make a good "string-puller" I wonder?

 

I suppose that with his record, any later villain using the same techniques is bound to look like a poor copy - so one might as well go for the real thing

 

I suppose speculation on this question ought be done in another thread, or else risk being banned.

 

Sooo...here is why I believe that the ST will work better as a trilogy than the others.

The ST seems more likely to be constructed as a single story, which didn't happen with either the OT or PT. The OT production was taken one film at a time, with no guarantee that the next hypothetical movie would get made. With the PT, George Lucas wrote the story one film at a time, and didn't really plan ahead. The scripts were mostly first draft material completed mere weeks before filming - George didn't have time to weave deep thematic links between the films. Also, George didn't have to answer to anyone; he was unfireable. This is not the case with the ST production staff.

Even if the unthinkable worst case scenario comes to pass, and VII doesn't make its budget back, VIII and IX will still be produced. Sunk costs = Disney will keep trying to recoup their investment. Therefore, any storyline setups in VII will be guaranteed the opportunity for follow up in VIII and IX, so the production staff don't have to worry about wasting screentime on plot points which may or may not be developed in future movies that may or may not get made.

Pablo Hidalgo's talk of 'story group,' Kinberg consulting on Rebels and VII, Kadsan writing both VII and a spinoff, and the talk of there actually being an integrated plan for the future of Star Wars on the large and small screens are unprecedented developments in the Star Wars universe. We might be looking at a new golden age of Star Wars. As long LFL get the tone of the movies right, I believe that we're in for a great trilogy.

 

The ST has the benefit of being CAPABLE of being a brand new story (with original cast, or not) that we've never seen or read before. Part of me would love to see something new about Star Wars that isn't based on something already out there. The PT couldn't do this, obviously.

The danger is in the fact that you have a small base of people that will absolutely mess the bed if it changes/goes against/etc. established canon.

The ST has the potential to be a lot of great things. On the other hand, there are die-hard EU fans that will be upset if it's not close enough to what they've already read.

ETA: Not that I don't appreciate the merits behind bringing your favorite story to the screen. The ST MAY not be the best place to break some new ground...at the same time, there's so much potential for EU (old a new) to reach people via an easily-to-consume medium.

 

I agree. I'm very excited about the Story Group and collaborative process moving forward. Lot's of reasons to be optimistic.

As for the ST, we want to distinguish between the ST working better as a narrative vs. the ST's acceptance in pop culture and criticism. Some people seemed to be conflating the two.

I agree that the ST has more freedom and foresight to develop a tripartite narrative than the other two. One would assume this freedom is a good thing, but having written under tight constraints before, sometimes they actually assist in the creative process. For example, whether one picks a sonnet form or crime story, there are certain constraints or rules you want to follow, or work through. This context actually helps to generate content, rather than restricting it. Still, in this context, the story team will be able to work under constraints and conventions of a triadic structure, which should help the overall narrative be more free of oddities (inconsistencies). Then again, weren't some of the oddities of the OT generative in ESB? We might not have had the Vader revelation had the OT been more planned out; but maybe.

Foresight is usually a good thing though (for the ST, too, hopefully).

But I also think the ST has plenty of potential built in constraints, as others have said, which may or may not be utilized. Lots of fans want to know about the prophecy, Chosen One, if the Sith can return and how, whether the Jedi Order will be different from the PT, what the big 3 will be like, how the Republic will look. I assume the writers will consider most of these elements, but they may also decline working with them much. Writers are often more practical than responsible; if one of these constraints seems to burden the new story, they could simply be ignored or unmentioned. So I guess that also is a freedom for the ST: they can ignore the past or barely mention certain things as long as they don't radically alter the established world.