Attached Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4339023.stm

Such a statement by Lucas tends to indicate that the previous SW episodes were targeted at children.

"The film is much more dark, more emotional. It's much more of a tragedy."

Actually, the original trilogy was sold as a film for children according to George Lucas in several different documentaries. That's why studios were relunctant to back the project and a lot of it had to be done independently. I can see the logic in that it's a lot of cartoon violence with no blood and the good guy wins.

It just strikes me as a bit odd to change the overall tone of the story in this way. Kind of like having an episode of "Scooby Doo Where are You?" suddenly turn into "Friday the 13th" part way through. Odd also to finish the series on such a down note. Almost makes it look like evil triumphs at the end.....even though this film is technically a prequel.

Targeting them at children is also a good way to sell toys and merchandise. Once Lucas got such massive chunks of Hasbro and Galoob (20% of one and a third of the other?), he starting making long advertisements in lieu of movies. Ho-hum. I refuse to pay $10 to watch somebody's ad for a stupid boring repetitive video game. Just drop the brat and the robots down some black hole and go back to story-telling without worrying about shooting enough video of the race sequences or designing characters which will look good molded in plastic. Carolly

but evil does triumph in the end. Or at least, it better, or those remakes of the first three are gonna really interesting. SOmewhere among all the stored stuff I still have the original TIme magazine where the story structure for all nine episodes was described for the first time in public. I was rather disappointed that he chose not to make the 7th to 9th sequence. Of course, that would sorta screw up the continuity of all the novels and graphic novels, and assorted miscellany that has already been done. Hmmm. Star Wars and Poser -- both at 6, in the same year. And star trek canceled. Damn. The end of the world has arrived...

They need to downgrade their FX in part 3 so that it matches the FX used in part 4.

"Odd also to finish the series on such a down note" Who sez is finished? George stated openly when Episode 4 was released he planned fer 9 movies in the series. 3 more to come 8-)

uh 3? star wars has 6 "old" and 2 "new" and 1 "new WIP" that makes 9 :S

there are only 3 old (4,5 &6)
2 new (1&2)
1 WIP (3)

that is only 6?????

Message edited on: 03/12/2005 00:24

There is only 6, a problem with making episodes 7 8 and 9 is getting harrison ford to be in them, though they could just kill off han solo.

Anyone who did not see the need for episode 3 to be a tragedy is not paying attention. For the series to finish properly, we must witness the death of the Queen, the orphaning of her twin children, and the climax of the film must be the moment of choice in which Anakin Skywalker becomes fully evil.

Personally, I hope Lucas does not turn away from the horror of these moments and does not inject 'artificial relief' into them.

The series is already ruined for me, however, by the redemption of Vadar at the end of Episode 6. That was not just. Shakespere would not have allowed it, nor Akira Kurasawa.

::::: Opera :::::

Message edited on: 03/12/2005 01:36

That's it, Opera... I'm not quite so sure that the redemption was wrong, but it did weaken the ending. On the other hand, if you're aiming for kids, can you get away with condemning the hero's father to eternal damnation? I don't think Lucas is good at dealing with evil. It's a weakness of his, just like Peter Jackson's battle sequencies, and Speilberg's blatant audience manipulation. But telling a dramatic story, in any medium, is about playing with the audience's emotions, and what Speilberg does works. And Peter Jackson doesn't ruin his films with badly-done battles. But George Lucas is trying to make a tragedy. And I doubt the man responsible for Ewoks and Jar-Jar Binks can pull it off.

Oh, getting blue and glowy and standing in heaven with Yoda just turned my stomach. Deathbed redemptions are so trite and so illogical... and having second thought at the end of one's life doesn't make up for vaporizing entire planets just to make a point. Shock and Awe? :ptui!: If I were God (he-he-heh!) anybody who detroyed the gardens of my world would be damned, anybody who cheated an artist would pay eternally, and anybody who thought that I was gullible enough to accept a deathbed conversion would get converted all right... probably into an amphibian (there are too many fibbers and not enough frogs). Carolly

The redemption was necessary. Good always falls asleep (like Yoda says) and loses its vigilance. there are clearly two sides: the good guys, and the bad ones. But none is complete as a human being. We have light and shadow. And therefore the one who was to balance all had to live and undergo both good and bad. He turns to the dark side because of the fact that he cannot and will not live as an emotional castrate, like the rest of the jedi are. He wants to live fully. And therefore he has a huge weak spot in his wife and children. Be shure Dooku will still play a dirty role somewhere. The only thing I hate in Starwars are those Disney-like moments of something funny after a tense scene. Apart from that, it is an initiation. Anakin Skywalker is the chosen one, the redeemer because he's the only one who really sees life from both sides. btw: thanks for the link!

He turns to the dark side because of the fact that he cannot and will not live as an emotional castrate, like the rest of the jedi are<<

Interesting, but I reserve response until I see the characterization of "The Choice". Perhaps you have read a treatment or novelization or have fore-knowlege of Ankan's motivation at the end of Episode 3. I have not. If I were to speculate, I would guess that his choice to turn to the dark side will be tipped by the death of the Queen; the world "taking somethng away" from a spoiled person.

Right now, all I see is a petulant disgruntled 'rebel' and I don't "get" his cause. He basically selfishly just "wants" what he wants: Queen Amidala and to be out from under the strictures of being a Knight. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but in the paradigm of the Star Wars world, his choice destroys others.

I don't buy into the idea that 'the good' are emotionally castrated. What you see in a master of good is one who lives his emotions, but does not thrash the world with them. For a way left-field example, and one that subsumes the theme of "I didn't choose to become a Queen (jedi) and I am full of life and dearly desire freedom, yet I freely accept my responsibility," see the Audrey Hepburn film "Roman Holiday." It is not a happy fate, admittedly. Vadar finds no middle path...and takes his bitterness and rage out on planets and millions.

::::: Opera :::::

Message edited on: 03/12/2005 03:31

Antonia >>But George Lucas is trying to make a tragedy. And I doubt the man responsible for Ewoks and Jar-Jar Binks can pull it off.<< Very well put. Lucas took from Shakespere and Kurasawa, but not enough; he did not/does not have the strength of character at this time to take from them the soul of an artist who is true to tragedy. Some might say the Ewoks, Jar-Jar (etc.) and the redmeption were pandering for general approval, money, child audience and action figure sales...but I don't accept that. It is something in Lucas. [I also have another theory, having to do with our culture being infected with a distored sense of the Judeo-Christian ethic of forgiveness.] There is one possible way out. Episode 3 could be made as a true unblinking tragedy, and some day Lucas could refilm the ending of Episode 6, realizing his error. He would still be rich. He would elevate the entire series. ::::: Opera :::::

Opera stated "[I also have another theory, having to do with our culture being infected with a distored sense of the Judeo-Christian ethic of forgiveness.]" I've yet to experience our culture (I'm assuming you mean Western / North American etc...) being infected with any such ethic... Our culture seems rampant with "An eye for an eye" (biblical) and a "You deserved whatever you got" sort of mentality that denotes more of a disregard for forgiveness than anything else. Society today seems more selfish & self centered than ever before, when one cares most for oneself then where does forgiveness come into play? Operaguy, I'd love to see our culture in such a light as you do... I am a christian and love my fellow men & women but sadly I just don't see much forgiveness in the world. Wow, it's late... must be when I start rambling like this!!! G

Well, it's an off-topic topic, so we can range here and there. general disclaimer: My views are intense, and cannot always be fully defended here, because of inappropriateness. I will explain my idea, simply and straight out, but will not argue, attack or be part of a any personal affronts. ghelmer, I am poles opposite of you...an atheist who believes there is far too much forgiveness and not enough rational justice. "An eye for an eye" is often misunderstood. The concept 'an eye for an eye' was the Old Testament's supposed moderation and IMPROVEMENT over the otherwise barbaric "a head for a stolen piece of bread." In otherwords, unjust over-punishment was to be ameliorated by God's word to: equal justice. But in the New Testament, this was pushed to the opposite inbalance, and has spawned "a term in jail and chance at a new life even if you raped and killed." So, this illustrates my point. People today do not think 'an eye for an eye' means 'even justice. thank goodness for it so we don't stone people who show up late for work.' No. They think it is brutal, unfair, inhumane and fascist. That's because of the unfortunate influence of the application of the sermon on the mount: Too much forgivness. I argue that believing "even justice" is sick, while "unbalanced justice" is virtuous, is highly irrational and immoral. Vadar deserved justice. He got "a miracle" of forgiveness. Not only was there not much upset fan and press reaction to this, but it was happily absorbed into the culture as an extension of the forgivness ethos. I would argue that there is an echo of this in the way the massive energy associated with the destruction of the World Trade Center is focused almost entirely on sadness and grief for the dead victims and their families, while rage and steely resolve to take an eye for that eye is often considered inappropriate. ::::: Opera :::::

So, what was the story structure for 7-9? And why has Lucas decided not to make them?

Personally, I was glad to see Vadar redeemed.

That little incident added a certain element of hope to the story.

All of us would like to be forgiven.

Or at least, we should be be made self-aware of the fact that we have all done things for which we need to be forgiven.

Under a system of totally unbending law, no one would be spared punishment. No one. One doesn't have to be a Jeffery Dahmer, a Hitler, or a Ted Bundy to have done wrong to others in one's lifetime.

"Personally, I was glad to see Vadar redeemed. That little incident added a certain element of hope to the story. All of us would like to be forgiven." It seems that whenever one mentions redemption it usually only pertains to the Dahmers, Hitlers & Bundy level of criminals or worse celebrities & politicians. I totally agree with you XENOPHONZ, we all need forgiveness for the littlest things too... redemption for big and little things helps us to change our behaviour so we won't still be Vaders or Bundys or grouchy not a morning person etc.... And Opera, I can totally understand why you feel the way you do, I felt the same way for most of my life. Later all! G

Uhm, just to chime in, if Amidalla is killed off in ep3 then lucas is going against the grain of the story from the original 3 films. Being a long time star wars fan, i've had many conversations with tons of people about the what-ifs and general outlined ideas of people thinking this is what's gonna happen. In ROTJ when luke asked Leia about her mother, she had vague impressions of her, she was extremely sad and died when leia was very young. That alone eludes to the idea that amidalla lived long enough to see anakin become vader. Vader also didn't know he had a daughter until he got it from luke's thoughts. which means he had probably already become vader before the twins were born. he knew about luke, obviously, because of the last name. but leia took on her adopted name of Organa, being the daughter of Bale Organa - king/leader of Alderan. So, its logical to follow the concept that anakin becomes vader prior to the birth of the twins and that is when amidalla goes into hiding with her daughter, and marries bale organa, or at least poses as his wife (since she is secretly married to anakin). So I really doubt that it's amidalla's death that turns anakin evil. Unless he's somehow lead to believe that she's dead, possibly by sideous. But everybody can speculate all they want, no one will know what lucas does with the story, or how well he does it, for about another 2 months. There was for quite a while, the rumor, theory that palpatine was the clone of darth sideous, placed in the republic on purpose, but that was shot down by lucas long before ep2 was released. just another example of rumors and speculations that hold no water to the final film products. And, the 3rd trilogy that supposedly will never be, is suppose to deal with leia and han's children. the original cast of the first trilogy are at a good age now to make a film centering around the 3rd generation of skywalkers, and after ROTJ they were all signed on to do a 4th film but lucas never followed through with it. I've never heard harrison ford state that he wouldn't do another SW film, but its possible he doesn't want to. However, i think lucas could persuade him into it, considering it was lucas that built the foundation of ford's career. killing him off would not fit in with the story line, (they already killed chewbacca). But lucas i'm sure could easily come up with 3 new films if he wanted to. He just doesn't want to. he named all of the solo children, and he approves or disapproves all of the "expanded universe" novels written. Actually, most of the novels are outlined and then assigned to authors by lucasarts. not all but most. I did however recently hear that the ideas for a tv series are floating around lucasarts. how that pans out, or what time period it would fall into, who knows at this point. E.D.

well, considering the 1st(4th) starts on such a 'down note', it's imperative that the 3rd would have to get worse just to have the continuity 'continue'. I've known this since they announced the '1st' 3.
I sorta thought they were 'family' pics, but I guess the director/originator may have 'matured' some. What our kids see nowadays compared to what kids in the mid-70's (I was just starting college when they came out), the kids today (gad, that makes me sound old..;) are a bit more jaded..we'll see when the movie comes out.

ExistentialDisorder, that is WAY more facts than I have! My idea that the death of the Quenn would be the trigger was more or less a blind shot, whereas you have facts! The point remains...Lucas states that the climax of EP3 is a descent into Hell where Anakin makes a deal with Satan. He makes this choice. Justice and reason necessitate that the soul who makes such a choice garner the appropriate consequence, and it is an insult to ask anyone to believe in the miraculous redemption of such. ::::: Opera ::::: [P.S. I wonder if Satan will be personified. God, the agent of forgiveness at the end of Episode 6 is not. All we know of "God" in Star Wars is "The Force."]

WTF???? Chewie dead??? Who? When? Where How??? I do recall hearin' Ford say he din' wanna do Solo no more, but he'd do a 'nother Jones movie @ the drop of a hat. But whatever...there's been 5 actors fer Anikin/ Vader, & 2 fer Obi Wan...if he's needed in 7-9, I'm sure a lil' creative casting (mebbe even CG; lookit Yoda & Jabba fer recasting) will get 'im there.

If they killed off chewbacca then it would be easier to kill off han solo, too. The films don`t have to have the same stories as the books.

Fans keep digging too far into things that aren't supposed to be dug into.

Lucas wrote the story as a tribute to the old Buck Rogers type cliff hagers they used to show at the movies when he was a kid.
Big scores, big stories, Good fighting evil, and it continued each week like a T.V. show.
That's really all there is to it. It's sort of a cartoon type plot. You're not suppose to think a lot...Just enjoy the ride.

Vader's turn to evil, then later back again to being good is a great way to capture the audience because it happens to us in everyday life. In real life we try to be good. But we get stepped on so much that we turn evil out of necessity. Only to pay the price down the road for that decision. And ultimately repent for our deeds in the end.
How many elderly do not repent on their death beds?
It's a wonderful dramatization of true life.

-ScottA

Message edited on: 03/12/2005 20:41

Chewie was killed off in the books that have been coming out for some years that concern the 'New Republic.' Some of the early ones were good, but they rapidly became really, really dark and depressing. Lucas supposedly had said he would never make the third trilogy and implied the books could be considered 'canon' but has gone back on that now, from what I hear.

The books are not canon, dammit. If the books are canon, then I have to accept "Splinter of the Mind's Eye."

I went to see "Robots" today. As I was purchasing my ticket, I was amused to see the following sign taped to the glass of the ticket booth: "To all those wanting to see the trailer for Star Wars Episode 3, there will be no refunds after the trailer is shown and the movie "Robots" begins." ::::: Opera :::::

Using a CG Harrison Ford while he is still alive and against his wishes would be opening a hellacious lawsuit. An actor's ability to get a job, any job, would be compromised once their digital likeness and body language was in the can. How could an artist still have the right to turn down porn flicks, snuff movies, crass ads, political treatises, etc., if a studio had the mesh and the money to create a film directly opposing the actor's wishes? Even paying them for the unapproved usage wouldn't be enough if they could never work again... if they were reduced to a commodity and that further reduced and cheapened? Besides the lawsuit and the public turn-off, any serious actor would flee the business rather than face ruination of his image. How could he show his face in a restaurant? How could he get a marketing deal? Plastic surgery and a new ID isn't the answer for everyone! Carolly

"...while rage and steely resolve to take an eye for that eye is often considered inappropriate." We must read different history books. Human beings have never seemed to lack the steely reslove to kill each other, nor the assorted mullahs, prophets and others to lead the charge.

lmckenzie, do you equate the resolve to rectify an attack on one's person or nation with a proactive policy of initiating agression? ::::: Opera :::::

I only suggest that steely eyed rage and resolve too often tend to get out of hand and blind one's perspective. There was plenty of rage and resolve present at Baghram and Abu Gahrib but by all accounts the targets had little if anything to do with the enemy at hand. Even if they did, beating people to death, according to those who should know, is not an effective technique for gathering reliable intelligence. Rage doesn't make you good warrior, just a brutal one. Don't get mad, get even.

Vader's turn to evil, then later back again to being good is a great way to capture the audience because it happens to us in everyday life. In real life we try to be good. But we get stepped on so much that we turn evil out of necessity. Only to pay the price down the road for that decision. And ultimately repent for our deeds in the end.
How many elderly do not repent on their death beds?
It's a wonderful dramatization of true life.

Sort of like the real-life stories that one hears about from time-to-time of the convicted rapist who risks his own life to save a drowning child........or of the convicted murderer who rescues several people from a burning building.

Such things happen. And such are the inconsistencies of that desolate and raging wilderness known as human nature.

I see, your are referring to a particular incident or incidents of the US military going too far. No quarrel with objecting to that.

I am making a much broader statetment of principle about the ethos of forgivenss blunting justice.

::::: Opera :::::

Message edited on: 03/13/2005 12:31

WARNING: Potential spoiler post...about the trailer only.... In the trailer there are no images relating to the death of the Queen...you see her very briefly once or twice. It is mostly about Anakin being deliberately sent in to spy on the thinking of those who will eventually become "The Empire". Samuel L. Jackson's character warns against it. Lot's of sword-play, including, possibly (trailer editing can be deceiving) Anakin vs. Yoda. The very last image of the trailer is......Darth Vadar. ::::: Opera :::::

"Using a CG Harrison Ford while he is still alive and against his wishes would be opening a hellacious lawsuit." Good point, I never lookd @ it that way :-(

IM a die hard fan boy I cant wait to see this final episode :-)

Operaguy they wouldn`t show the death of a character in the trailer, the part with yoda and mace windu (samuel l jackson) looks like they are fighting in the same place but not fighting each other.

You are probably right, probably not Yoda vs Anakin, but on 60-Minutes tonight the piece on Lucas and the film showed that there is a big and intense fight between ObiWan and Anakin. Lucas also stated difinitively: "No Episode Seven." ::::: Opera ::::

Lucas also stated difinitively: "No Episode Seven." Lucas also said in '97 or was it '99 that the Special Edition of EP4-EP6 are now exactly as he wanted them and that he never will touch them again ... ... he did! ... The DVD collection is full of touchups ... so you never know if there will be a EP7-EP9 ... you never know ;) Greets Chris I'm a hard Fan Boy too ... counting days untill May

Attached Link: http://www.beliefnet.com/features/quiz/index.html

I've been to beliefnet previously...during debate over Gibson's Passion of the Christ. I looked at some of the quizzes they had then...the questions themsleves do not 'work' for me...in many cases the answer I would give is not included in the multiple choice. An interesting 'syntax' issue, I really mean to say: "my convictions are atheistic" instead of "I am an atheist" because atheism says absolutely nothing about what I "am" or what I consider true...only that my metaphysics and epistemology do not include God. I didn't understand your Quaker/Evangelical statement. ::::: Opera :::::

"in many cases the answer I would give is not included in the multiple choice." - Yep, you're forced to choose whatever's closest. "because atheism says absolutely nothing about what I "am" or what I consider true...only that my metaphysics and epistemology do not include God." - uh, OK. At the risk of badly misrepresenting one or both, my impression is that a Quaker would see mercy as the ultimate route to justice while the Evangelicals seem to prefer wielding the fiery sword of justice first and worry about mercy later. Simply my admittedly biased view. As I said, I'm an Aggie, even if beliefnet says I'm a "Liberal Protestant," but that's cool too :-) Of course, I'm also a devout Trekkie which probably makes me an infidel in this thread.