Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Apparently, casting has begun for the live-action Star Wars TV series. Personally, I think the Clone Wars animated show is complete shit and I'm glad to hear that they're working on something that sounds halfway decent.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/03/09/star-wars-live-action-tv-series-casting-has-begun/#comments

In case you're too lazy to click, here's part of the article:

"Set between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, the show has been described by Lucas as “Deadwood meets The Sopranos in space”. Told from the perspective of minor characters from the Star Wars galaxy (rumored to be a family in the underworld), the darker, grittier, more character-based story might also feature appearances and cameos from several major Star Wars characters, but not the heavy like Darth Vader.And now that the show has entered the casting stage, I’m sure we’ll start to learn more about the story and the characters."

I'm not sure if I am feeling glad. The Clone Wars didn't give me a lot of confidence in this series.

...what's deadwood about? i dunno that show...

I feel both apprehensive and excited about this... hm. it certainly sounds interesting, like its not going to be too kiddie for a change...

swearing, drinking, whores and violence, gotta love it

darker and grittier... than what? The Clone Wars? That's not encouraging because it couldn't be more retarded than that.

Though I DO hope to see Vader around! I DO hope to see senator Organa! I DO hope to see Chewbacca or Han Solo.
But I DO hope they stick to the cameo's and appearances and do not take over the show like Anakin & Obi-Wan in The Clone Wars. Why do I want them in it? Because it's star wars and they should at least give some foothold in the star wars universe because I don't expect to see many (if any) lightsabre or use of the force. If you include Vader in one or two episodes it would give him more presence and power and it would give the show something extra

I don't want any movie characters in this series. Let them come up with something original...

something original? For some reason I'm doubting you ever saw a Clone Wars episode

Yeah, I dont like the looks of this at all.

In defense of the show, we actually know very little about it.

And that's because it isn't KOTOR, Nactous.

Originally posted by Jovan
something original? For some reason I'm doubting you ever saw a Clone Wars episode

I did, hence my post.

thus you should know by now they won't come up with something original or if, once in a blue moon, they do they'll professional screw it up in such a way pornstars would become jealous!

That's my fear. And I hate them ruining SW by creating a larger abundance of crap...

and to think they would solve this mess by simply casting me ...

Originally posted by queeq
I'm not sure if I am feeling glad. The Clone Wars didn't give me a lot of confidence in this series.

Has Lucas ever inspired confidence in anything? Yet fandom endures.

In any case, the Clone Wars cartoon will be create for recruiting a whole new generation of fans.

Originally posted by Ordo
Has Lucas ever inspired confidence in anything? Yet fandom endures.

Well... yes. He did in 1977, he did in 1980... a little less in 1983. Even the touch ups on the trilogy in the 90s were nice. And he did again instill some confidence with ROTS.... But that took two movies to get going... and now it's back to mediocre crap.

Perhaps things will improve?

I like how fans of Star Wars HATE the creator of the saga they love so much. Interesting dynamic...

double

Originally posted by Captain REX
In defense of the show, we actually know very little about it.

And that's because it isn't KOTOR, Nactous.

Lulz, way to miss that.

As for hating Lucas, I personally don't. I disagree with some of his creative decisions, but mainly because he is directing his creation towards the younger generation. I'm an adult, so I can't appreciate the cute cuddliness of Ewoks or the 'comical' humor of Jar Jar.

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
I like how fans of Star Wars HATE the creator of the saga they love so much. Interesting dynamic...

I don't hate him. I'm just surprised at the crap he approves these days.

Yeah, I agree with you there, from time to time. Some of the things that Star Wars puts forward are... less than living up to expectations. But as a whole I enjoy the mythos, no matter what they add.

...

Except the Vong.

Originally posted by queeq
I don't hate him. I'm just surprised at the crap he approves these days.

Well yeah I don't disagree, I've been disappointed many times by the man's decisions. I'm just saying though that it seems like a very large percentage of Star Wars fans loathe the man that gave them Star Wars in the first place.

There's a documentary coming out called "The People vs. George Lucas" that's actually kind of about that (it's supposed to come out this year I think), trailer: http://www.themovieblog.com/2009/02/the-people-vs-george-lucas-documentary-trailer-online

Well, some people take things too personal.

Links looks good, I'd like to see that. Was that Bruckheimer in there?

Originally posted by queeq
I don't hate him. I'm just surprised at the crap he approves these days.

lulz.

also, someone mentioned to me that mace windu had been confirmed to appear in the show. yes, i did see episode 3, but i can't help but wonder if it's true. anyone know if he is or isn't?

Originally posted by Captain REX
Lulz, way to miss that.

As for hating Lucas, I personally don't. I disagree with some of his creative decisions, but mainly because he is directing his creation towards the younger generation. I'm an adult, so I can't appreciate the cute cuddliness of Ewoks or the 'comical' humor of Jar Jar.

...depends. how young is the generation? because my own generation is pretty young, and I hate Jar Jar. He's just too annoying for my taste.

The cuddliness is okay though.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Lulz, way to miss that.

As for hating Lucas, I personally don't. I disagree with some of his creative decisions, but mainly because he is directing his creation towards the younger generation. I'm an adult, so I can't appreciate the cute cuddliness of Ewoks or the 'comical' humor of Jar Jar.

you leave the Ewoks out of this. they fought and died to help complete strangers. they deserve RESPECT DAMMIT!

I think the EU has been the best its ever been, but nonetheless it STILL has a lot of crap.

As to Lucas personally, I liked the PT better than the OT, but he didn't address any of his flaws. I think he has developed such a childish caricature of his own work that he is incapable of seeing past fart jokes, flat characters, and adults whining like children. He has the potential to make better work now than he did, but also worse (maybe just because there is more of it). He thinks he's making all these kid friendly movies, but he's so stuck in his ways he doesn't recognize how children's entertainment has changed and how real thought and quality are appreciated as much by children as they are adults (look at any Pixar movie these days (Nemo, Wall-E, etc)).

I'd take Jar Jar over the Ewoks any day...ANY day. At least when Jar jar kills something, the mechanics of the death are sensical.

ROTJ is the worst movie of Star Wars by a lightyear and a half.

Originally posted by Ordo
ROTJ is the worst movie of Star Wars by a lightyear and a half.

take that back. for the love of all that is good and holy, take that back.

truth cannot be denied

nobody appreciates cuddly teddy bears beating walking white-shelled humans anymore.

Its all annoying frog-fish-amphibian thing shooting robots with a gun accidentally hooked to his darned foot.

*shakes head* where has the world come to...

Originally posted by Ordo
truth cannot be denied

even if you don't like the ewoks, the duel between luke and vader is one of the best parts of the original trilogy.

calling it the worst when we had to sit through achingly bad parts in all three movies of the PT is silly, imo.

I agree. The VAder/Luke(and Palpy) scenes in ROTJ are highlights in the saga. Highlights in a way TPM and AOTC did not have them.

If there is a worst film, it is AOTC. It had its moments of greatness, but overall, the other five films surpass it.

Sure, we had Ewoks, but we had the space battle over Endor and Luke confronting the Dark Lords.

Originally posted by Captain REX
If there is a worst film, it is AOTC. It had its moments of greatness, but overall, the other five films surpass it.

Sure, we had Ewoks, but we had the space battle over Endor and Luke confronting the Dark Lords.

AOTC. *shakes head* I'm having a hard time deciding if its the lines or the actors. But since the actors did okay in TPM and ROTS...

Originally posted by Captain REX
If there is a worst film, it is AOTC. It had its moments of greatness, but overall, the other five films surpass it.

Sure, we had Ewoks, but we had the space battle over Endor and Luke confronting the Dark Lords.

and the whole jabba sequence at the start. or do people not like that?

Originally posted by Raoul
even if you don't like the ewoks, the duel between luke and vader is one of the best parts of the original trilogy.

calling it the worst when we had to sit through achingly bad parts in all three movies of the PT is silly, imo.

So? If the movie had been those 15 minutes, it would have been awesome. It wasn't.

I'm not expressing your opinion, I'm expressing mine. Sorry, I think most of ROTJ is ACHINGLY bad. I dont think one good sequence makes a movie great. Likewise I dont think one bad sequence makes a movie bad. It is by far my least favorite and I rarely watch it, though it did have some really great music.

Originally posted by queeq
I agree. The VAder/Luke(and Palpy) scenes in ROTJ are highlights in the saga. Highlights in a way TPM and AOTC did not have them.

I don't. There was no more cohesive and artistic sequence in the entire saga than Kamino. The intensity and the camerawork of the Battle of Geonosis is only surpassed by the Death Star Run imo. Its the best done battle in the entire Saga. I like those scenes. A scene does not make a good movie.

Moments of character intensity? The scene on Tatooine where Anakin and Padme are talking outside the Lars homestead and then he takes off into the sunset to Duel of the Fates is very competitive with Luke returning to the homestead in ANH and Luke lashing at Vader out of the darkness in ROTJ. All three scenes are very comparable, and the music phenomenally paired in all.

Originally posted by Captain REX
If there is a worst film, it is AOTC. It had its moments of greatness, but overall, the other five films surpass it.

Sure, we had Ewoks, but we had the space battle over Endor and Luke confronting the Dark Lords.

The battle over Endor was junk. Lucas couldn't get his mouth around the sFX on that sequence. Even in the edited version there are still only like 5 ships. If you want a space battle, look to TPM or ANH. Coruscant could have been "THE space battle" in ROTS, but the exposition was about getting to a ship, not fighting your way there.

AOTC is my favorite movie in the saga. I wont argue that its the best film, but its my favorite. If you want to talk about the best Star Wars FILM, ANH stands absolutely alone.

Originally posted by Ordo
I don't. There was no more cohesive and artistic sequence in the entire saga than Kamino. The intensity and the camerawork of the Battle of Geonosis is only surpassed by the Death Star Run imo. Its the best done battle in the entire Saga. I like those scenes. A scene does not make a good movie.


True and that's just it with the Geonosis battle: it's just a very well made action scene. But that's it. It's emotionless, pretty pictures, good editing but it doesn't really take us anywhere. As the whole of AOTC does: it lasts well over two hours and takes us nowhere. The Vader/Luke/Palpy scenes are a) emotionally excellent b) it's a well done ending of a saga, ergo it concludes Luke's journey satisfactorily. (Han's and Leia's on the other hand are quite off, I agree there). So in balance, ROTJ outweighs AOTC by a long shot, since SW2 excells at being obsolete.



Originally posted by Ordo
Moments of character intensity? The scene on Tatooine where Anakin and Padme are talking outside the Lars homestead and then he takes off into the sunset to Duel of the Fates is very competitive with Luke returning to the homestead in ANH and Luke lashing at Vader out of the darkness in ROTJ. All three scenes are very comparable, and the music phenomenally paired in all.

Come on, the acting is terrible in those scenes. And the emotional motivation for the characters is deplorable: how on earth (or on Tatooine for that matter) can a clever, sharp and driven woman like Padme go for such a whiny, sadistic, arrogant brat? That scene is all wrong... all wrong.

Originally posted by Ordo
So? If the movie had been those 15 minutes, it would have been awesome. It wasn't.

I'm not expressing your opinion, I'm expressing mine. Sorry, I think most of ROTJ is ACHINGLY bad. I dont think one good sequence makes a movie great. Likewise I dont think one bad sequence makes a movie bad. It is by far my least favorite and I rarely watch it, though it did have some really great music.

the luke/vader thing was just an example. there's the jabba's palace scenes. the skiff scenes. the yoda scenes. the scene between luke and leia in the ewok village. the bike chase. han smacking that guy over the rail with the backpack. the ewok smacking himself in the face with the bola. luke's scenes with vader and the emperor. thats more than 15 mins on its own, the duel is only the last part of that.

you don't like ROTJ, i can understand that. a lot of people don't. calling it the worst part in the saga though?

also, agree on the music. it is awesome at times.

Originally posted by queeq
Come on, the acting is terrible in those scenes. And the emotional motivation for the characters is deplorable: how on earth (or on Tatooine for that matter) can a clever, sharp and driven woman like Padme go for such a whiny, sadistic, arrogant brat? That scene is all wrong... all wrong.

yeah, i agree with you there. 100%

I believe the better the FX the lousier Lucas's work gets... In the original trilogy he had to work around the technical impossibilities, meaning he had to write himself out of trouble. Now he just puts his guys of ILM at work and they have to fix things with flashy FX and thus he doesn't take the trouble anymore to work on scenes that have a purpose. (Imo every scene needs a purpose or it's useless.)

I tend to agree. I think limitations makes the work better, more creative, more focused on the things that really count.

Tend to agree? He started his downfall already in 1997 with the SE. I'm not refering to Han shooting first but for instance to the unnecessary entrence of Luke and the rest to Mos Eisley: bad CGI.
It took them till the DVD release to clean that up to a more respectable level.

Yeah, well, tend... because I don't understand where the innovative filmmaker that Lucas once was has gone. It's hard to understand. People like Spielberg have developed themselves well, someone like Coppola also made his best work in the 70s. But Lucas ONLY worked in the 70s until the PT. And it's well.... you saw it.

Yeah, I'm not feeling you there, Ordo. AOTC had beautiful, beautiful imagery to share with the audience... but overall, I dunno. It really just does not sit right with me.

Also, the space battle from TPM over the space battle from ROTJ? I think not. I'm not saying it was shit, but I definitely did not enjoy it as much as ROTJ.

Anyways, just to keep things on topic, I hope that the live action show goes much more with the OT feel of things.

Yes. Nothing castrates a series more than enforced nostalgia by an aging fan base. I'll be bold here and hope he makes something GOOD...and it better have a REAL Mando in it. Sometimes I think Lucas intentionally is sabotaging Clone Wars to force fans to the Live action series. "Oooooo, this is so much better!" *dies*

<>

As to space battles. Naboo didn't have the emotional intensity of the Saga riding on it, but the artistry, the cinematography, the sound mixing....god its so beautiful. Even the pilots are better. The inescapable beauty that was the Death Star run is recaptured only there. (This is one reason I support the Special Editions, those added scened in the Death Star run perfect perfection).

As to AOTC, I understand why people don't like it. Maybe because its the one film that made me a fan, i dunno. The imagery plays heavily on me, but I also think its the deepest film in the saga, and that really resonates with me.

It's not about Mando. We need a decent story and some relevant character development. Maybe he shoul hire J.J. Abrams to make it. At least he understands what it's all about. Seeing the Star Trek trailer I might even consider becoming a Star Trek fan... can't believe I said that.

Generally I don't believe GL had a downfall, he just made the movies he wanted to for the prequel trilogy even if they did not go down well with the hardcore fans.
Having said this, I enjoy The Clone Wars series and movie a little more than the prequels which are mired in their own hype and offer very little that engages the seeming majority of the fans today as the originals did in their time.

Originally posted by queeq
Seeing the Star Trek trailer I might even consider becoming a Star Trek fan... can't believe I said that.

I feel the same way.

Star Wars has never had great character development. It would be refreshing if it had some.

Originally posted by Ordo
Yes. Nothing castrates a series more than enforced nostalgia by an aging fan base.

I didn't mean for the sake of nostalgia (though it would be on my part), but since it will be covering the gap between Episode III and Episode IV, it would make more sense if the series progressed away from the style of the PT and moved into the OT. It obviously will never look or quite feel like the OT, but it should be the thing that transfers us into that era.

As long as it's any good.

Gah I wrote a long post to Rex and it got deleted.

Yes, it shoudl transfer, but a real achivement would be to transfer us from the moral relativism of the PT to the moral absolutism of the OT.

Though how you do this successfuly, I dunno, since moral absolutism is always wrong

But good for a movie.

This is being MADE? Why...? How....? Just so Lucas can get himself some more money... pfft.

If it is a bit darker and Deadwood-like, however, sounds good.

Originally posted by queeq
It's not about Mando. We need a decent story and some relevant character development. Maybe he shoul hire J.J. Abrams to make it. At least he understands what it's all about. Seeing the Star Trek trailer I might even consider becoming a Star Trek fan... can't believe I said that.

Same here, I feel like I'm betraying myself!

Originally posted by Ordo
Gah I wrote a long post to Rex and it got deleted.

Yes, it shoudl transfer, but a real achivement would be to transfer us from the moral relativism of the PT to the moral absolutism of the OT.

Though how you do this successfuly, I dunno, since moral absolutism is always wrong

Moral absolutism serves its purpose for Star Wars, though. Especially as far as the Force is concerned, where we have the Light Side and the Dark Side. Any venture towards the Dark Side results in falling to it, and any trek back the other way (in the films) is rare and nearly unheard of, making Anakin's redemption and sacrifice so much greater. Introducing moral gray to that just seems to lessen Anakin's return, as EU is doing with what Ush has called the 'Revolving Door policy,' where characters of little importance have flip-flopped from Ligh to Dark to Light again.

However, straying away from the Jedi, moral gray could be a little more acceptable in the Star Wars universe if we're talking clonetroopers or bounty hunters or politicians, etc.

Personally, I enjoy clearly defined sides to things like Star Wars. I always root for characters who are obviously good-natured to not do terrible things that would compromise their morality.

The greater the sacrifice. I agree, Rex.

Well, personally I approach Star Wars from more of the non-Jedi side. I guess that why I see more relatavism. But I'm also a pretty big canon boy, I dont read a lot of EU (which is proably why I still think it can be good material lol).

I understand the revolving door, but there already are some moments when Vader gets over his dissociative disorder and seems to share sympathy for Luke or hesitation about Sidious.

I dunno. Whats interesting is that Han is portrayed as a morally relative character in Star Wars, but then loses that when we get to ESB. Now that I think of it, it bears further analysis on my part. Guess I'm watching the OT this weekend lol.

Regardless, I think moral relativism is more convincing than absolutism. The "revolving" door thing is annoying, but it results from a conflict between Lucas' light-dark absolutism and a lot of the EU's relativism. Lucas presents it as a doorway, which character on one side or the other. However, Lucas always presents this as dichotomous (the split light on Luke's face during his duel with Vader in ROTJ). One action makes you darkside. It does make the personal choice greater, but it also seems to eliminate the need for the force as a morality. If our character is determined by choice, the force has no role and is simply an ability, a reflection of ourselves.

The EU has added the revolving door, where there are transition states. To compromise, you get characters popping in one side and going out the other, flipping back and forth through this unstable transition state. This is annoying (I agree) and why I dont look at it that way.

Instead, everyone is in the revolving door all the time, you can never exit to one side or the other. This is more of a Potentium/Living Force view, but its not really canon, though I do find it applicable to the films in many, but not all, respects. I just find morally ambiguous character more entertaining, more applicable to my life...which makes their triumphs or failure more applicable to my life.

<><><>

Though speaking of the Qui-Gon's "Living Force"... THAT would be cool to have in the show, an old Jedi Master who adhered to that view. Perhaps he could converted to Yoda's absolutism "do or do not, there is no try."

Star Wars is simply an absolutist story, that's how it is. The whole point with han- totally boring as he has sadly become by ROTJ, one of that film's flaws- is that he really IS a good guy, he's just trying to deny it throughout ANH, and is trying to get comfy as one in ESB.

There are so m any other franchises that are relativst, I am happy to have Star Wars as the one where good and evil are very clear concepts.

The Living Force is just about instincts and being sensitive to others; all Jedi can do that, QGJ just ran with it furhter. There was no moral implication to it, and QGJ was seeing things in the same absolustist terms as everyone else. His methods differed, is all.

I disagree that Star Wars is absolutist. There are characters like Lando (who, like Han is a "good guy" then a "bad guy" then a "good guy" again. Padme' openly questions the War in ROTS and Anakin blindly believes in it. As to Han, he IS a scoundrel, he just falls in love and that makes him a better person. He doesn't know how to cope with love. He's not a closet "good guy."

Unfortuantely for Lucas, relativism is realism and he fails to present an airtight portraytal of his ideas because he portrays them in a semi-realistic medium.

Please stop saying "Thats how it is." We've been discussing people's opinions here.

Even with Lando and Han are reputedly low-life scoundrels, they aren't bad people. They are good guys at heart, even if they do less-than-legal things. Lando sells out to Vader because he doesn't want stormtroopers destroying the lifestyle of the people of Cloud City, but when Vader 'alters the deal' and the occupation is basically permanent, he joins our heroes in their fight against the Empire because dealing with them (the bad guys) doesn't work.

Sure, Padme questions the war, but we the viewer know that the war is being manipulated by Sidious, who is Palpatine, who is evil incarnate. She's obviously not promoting some ill motive in saying that the war might be wrong or that they might be on the wrong side.

Originally posted by Ordo
As to Han, he IS a scoundrel, he just falls in love and that makes him a better person.

I'd say he was a good guy, but it is almost impossible to prove this without throwing some EU stuff up. *cough*saving Chewy*cough*

No no... he IS a good guy. The fact that he doesn't act like one, like Lando, adds contrast and therefore character to these guys. These are basic storytelling concepts. Whoever argues that Han is not a good guy, just doens't get it. And yes, in the words of Ush, THAT'S HOW IT IS!

You don't need EU to know that Han Solo is a good guy, Nac.

Originally posted by Ordo
I disagree that Star Wars is absolutist. There are characters like Lando (who, like Han is a "good guy" then a "bad guy" then a "good guy" again. Padme' openly questions the War in ROTS and Anakin blindly believes in it. As to Han, he IS a scoundrel, he just falls in love and that makes him a better person. He doesn't know how to cope with love. He's not a closet "good guy."

Unfortuantely for Lucas, relativism is realism and he fails to present an airtight portraytal of his ideas because he portrays them in a semi-realistic medium.

Please stop saying "Thats how it is." We've been discussing people's opinions here.

It's definitely how it is when it is factual, which is how GL has declared Star Wars to be. Realism has bugger all to do with it.

Anyway, as queeq says, your position is simply poorly observed.

Originally posted by queeq
No no... he IS a good guy. The fact that he doesn't act like one, like Lando, adds contrast and therefore character to these guys. These are basic storytelling concepts. Whoever argues that Han is not a good guy, just doens't get it. And yes, in the words of Ush, THAT'S HOW IT IS!

I never argued he wasn't a good guy. I argued he started as ambivalent.

Han bailing on the Death Star Run is not an "Act." Its a decision. Han likely didn't think "Hey. Maybe if I run away it will freak the osik out of everyone and they'll all think I'm a jerk! He made a decision, he wasn't a good one. He's not a perfect character. That's why he's a character. From that point on, Han is a "good" guy.

Lucas is having second thoughts on his original portrayal of Han in this way, hence the editing of the "Han shot first" scene (is this considered EU now?). Everyone know good guys can't shoot first and Lucas' second guessing on this shows even more how Lucas used grey characters in the OT.

Originally posted by Captain REX
You don't need EU to know that Han Solo is a good guy, Nac.

Yes, but the character starts as ambivalent, just like Lando.

If GL was interested in making it clear that these are good guys, Chewie wouldn't have choked Lando to death lol. Chewie is presented as a 100% of the time.

Though, it is important to note that these are non-using characters.

Han and Lando both polarize to the "good" (I should say protagonists') side as the conflict when the Empire escalates. However, this to me is more about redemption. NO ONE like Han's character when he bails on the Death Star run. No one like Lando when he gives Han over to the Empire. The point is "grey" or "dark" actions are redeemable through choice. That is what the entire OT is about. Redemption. Some guys just take longer than others.

And if the force really is BLACK or WHITE, I'd be interested to know if Lucas considered Vader a Jedi when he redeemed himself. That would be a telling argument.

I don't think Han opting out of the Death Star run would be considered a grey action. And as I said, I'm sure if Lando didn't turn Han over, he'd be dead, and so would many others.

And I think Anakin's ghost at the end of ROTJ is a factor in what Vader is considered, post-redemption.

Originally posted by Captain REX
You don't need EU to know that Han Solo is a good guy, Nac.

No, but it does help the argument.

But it isn't relevant here...

Their actions may have been ambivalent, the guys were still good guys. Their little story arc is about getting to grips with it. Don't make more out of it than it is.

Originally posted by Captain REX
But it isn't relevant here...

Hey, this very well could be EU.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Originally posted by Nactous
Hey, this very well could be EU.

Right now it is not considered as such, hence why the EU is not discussed here, just as it is not discussed in the film forums.

Then how can we discuss it if we don't know where it fits.

We can: just use the info from the movies and the series. There is some room for speculation, but that's about it.

Originally posted by queeq
Their actions may have been ambivalent, the guys were still good guys. Their little story arc is about getting to grips with it. Don't make more out of it than it is.

No, the plot of the films is about discovering that they are good guys.

We know Lucas determines your goodness based on your actions. This is the entire premise of the vader story and redemption.

Both Han and Lando made some bad decisions. When we first meet them, we don’t know how to interpret their characters. Han just wants to swindle Skywalker and kenobi out of money, he's involved with shady characters, kills at his convenience, and is incredibly self serving. He doesn't believe in the force, outright dismissing it. Even look at his quotes! "What good is a reward if you ain't around to use it?" "Better her than me" etc etc.

He is not portrayed as a good guy until the end of the Film. He's "on the rebels side" but that doesn't make him a good guy, as Lucas clearly intended to show. Like Vader, he isn't a good guy until he redeems himself from his actions by coming back to aid in the destruction of the death star. From that point on, you he's loyalties and intentions are never doubted in the film. You trust him. You don’t before.

Lando is the same way, with Leia even giving voice to the audiences suspicion "I don't trust Lando!" You trust good guys and your friends, which Han points out he is, but Lando never reaches a friendship with the audience until he makes sacrifices for the characters we are attached too.

This is called character development; our perception of people changes over time. Yes, they both end up being good guys, but they are not immediately portrayed that way.

*sigh*

Sorry, dude. You just don't get it. Yes, it's called character development, but that doesn't mean they weren't already good guys. Again: they were good but still had to get to grips with it, in the sense that eventually tehy are faced with a choice, a fork in the road. The fact that they choose one way or the other proves they already were one or the other.

Being good isn't something you "come to grips with." Lucas consideres goodness to be a default state right? "Balance is lightside." We all start there, and bad choices bring us down. "Once you start down teh dark path...yadda yadda yadda..." (Which of course, Yoda was wrong as he always is.)

Making a bad choice doesn't mean you were good. It doesn't tell us anything about your former state. What is DOES tell us in Lucasland is that you are moving in the wrong direction. Lucas portrays both Han and Lando as bad characters for very brief periods of time. Aside from those brief instances, one apiece, each one has a grey area where you aren't sure if you can trust them or if they really are good guys. These sentiments are voiced in the dialogue of characters, in the acting, in the cinematography. Eventually, both prove their worth to the characters and to the audience and form that point on are portrayed as "good guys."

And if I "just don't get it," there are no reasons for you to continue this conversation. As we've seen, when it comes to Star Wars you're always right, "thats how it is," and I "just dont get it."

That statement by Lucas only counted for Anakin. It was not a concept for all characters.

This is a debate, and I can continue debatin it as long as I want. I don't get your hostility, dude.

No, it wasn't a concept for all characters. It was more than a character concept, it is Lucas' philosphy. It was repeated in the films.

Please, continue all you want. However, "You just dont get it" and "thats how it is" aren't ways to continue debates.

If you have a problem with my "attitude", please discuss it with me via pm.

Well, come up with some decent arguments. Ther "that's how it is" is based on how Lucas views these films (as simple good vs. bad films, light side is good, dark side is bad, no grey areas, balance=only light side etc). You add a lot of stuff of your own and from EU sources. Give us some decent arguments that cannot be contradicted with canon, clone wars or George Lucas and we'll believe ya.

I don't do EU. I watch Clone Wars. I've read the RC novels and played a good number of video games. I've skimmed a few comics. I dont really know EU.

All I've done in this thread is provide examples form the movies: dialogue, character reactions, plot points. I never once mentions EU sources on Han, Lando, etc. I dont KNOW any.

As far as I'm concerned, the movies are the holy grail of star wars. Nothin supercedes them. Thats what I use in my arguements.

I dont give a damn about Lucas. If his philosohy and opinons were so airtight, nothign in the films would contradict him. The FILMS are the grail, not Lucas. I appreciate his intentions as an artist. He failed to depict some of his goals.

You claim my argumetns are not "decent" because there are pieces of evidence that condradict them, yet you claim yours are fact, despite how many pieces of evidence I bring up to the contrary. That is a double standard.

You don't bring up any evidence. You say it's about grey areas. If tehre's one thing about SW: there are no grey areas. There is a transition with one character (i.e. Anakin about whom the whole saga evolves) and that kinda repeats itself with his son (the main character of the OT). In similar circumstances they take a different route. That's about it... all the other characters (good (i.e. all (soon to be) rebels are good, all imperials are bad) are in a way colourful contributors to this one story.

Maybe you should re-read this post:
Originally posted by Ordo
No, the plot of the films is about discovering that they are good guys.

We know Lucas determines your goodness based on your actions. This is the entire premise of the vader story and redemption.

Both Han and Lando made some bad decisions. When we first meet them, we don’t know how to interpret their characters. Han just wants to swindle Skywalker and kenobi out of money, he's involved with shady characters, kills at his convenience, and is incredibly self serving. He doesn't believe in the force, outright dismissing it. Even look at his quotes! "What good is a reward if you ain't around to use it?" "Better her than me" etc etc.

He is not portrayed as a good guy until the end of the Film. He's "on the rebels side" but that doesn't make him a good guy, as Lucas clearly intended to show. Like Vader, he isn't a good guy until he redeems himself from his actions by coming back to aid in the destruction of the death star. From that point on, you he's loyalties and intentions are never doubted in the film. You trust him. You don’t before.

Lando is the same way, with Leia even giving voice to the audiences suspicion "I don't trust Lando!" You trust good guys and your friends, which Han points out he is, but Lando never reaches a friendship with the audience until he makes sacrifices for the characters we are attached too.

This is called character development; our perception of people changes over time. Yes, they both end up being good guys, but they are not immediately portrayed that way.

You dont even read what I say and you religiously misconstrue my positions. I try my damndest not to do this to you. Please stop doing it to me.

Its not "about grey areas." GREY AREAS EXIST FOR THESE TWO CHARACTERS AT ONE POINT (EACH) IN THE SAGA.

Can I make my position more clear or would you like to continuously recite your ideology?

Well, if you knew something about storytelling and screenplay writing principles, you'd know your analysis doesn't work. It has nothing to do with grey areas but with character development - which I called coming to grips with their goodness.
Who is good and who is a baddie... there is no doubt of that anywhere in these films. The fact that they do one or two questionable thing along the road, doesn't demote their goodness or badness.

Needa seems like a reasonable chap, but he is a baddie, an Imperial baddie.

Just because you may like to bark for fun, that doesn't make you a creature in the grey area between dog and human. You're still human, doing a doglike thing.

There is doubt. We, like the characters in the films (namely Luke and Leia), express our doubts.

Needa may be resonable. He seems smart. But smart people can be evil. Its not his characteristics that matter, its his actions do. Needa never does anything (nor does any other Imperial) that makes us question whose side they are on. They are portrayed as bad. No protagonist, the audience, ever sympathises with any of them.

As to your misguided analogy, barking like a dog isn't like selling out your friends. Also along your lines: Is Vader spending 3.5 films just comming to terms with his goodness?

Lando paid the price, abandoned his fortune to redeem himself. In the end he was always a good guy who made a mistake.

There're only two protagonists in the entire saga: Anakin and Luke. Anakin even serves as antagonist in the OT.

Unfortunately, as far as canon is concerned, whether Lucas failed to portray his goals in the films, he is still on the level with the films as the 'holy grail' of Star Wars.

Meaning?

Originally posted by queeq
Lando paid the price, abandoned his fortune to redeem himself. In the end he was always a good guy who made a mistake.

Lando bore a burden, fought for the right things, and became a better person for it. An ambiguous character became a good guy.

And you haven't answered my question. Is Vader just "a good guy who made a mistake"?

Originally posted by queeq
There're only two protagonists in the entire saga: Anakin and Luke. Anakin even serves as antagonist in the OT. Leia? Han? Padme? KENOBI?

Two? Seriously...

Such ridiculous statements make this discussion very unrewarding.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Unfortunately, as far as canon is concerned, whether Lucas failed to portray his goals in the films, he is still on the level with the films as the 'holy grail' of Star Wars.

But when contradiction arises, which takes precedence?

And yes it is unfortunate.

About that antagonist thing: it's GL himself that said that once: it's the story of Anakin. Luke just scooped up a lot of attention in the OT but that too was actually a story about Anakin.

Leai Han and Lando are supporting characters. The story is and always will be about the Skywalker family. And it was Luke's story before the PT came out. As it stands now, Anakin is the main character, but he sure is not the protagonist of the OT. It gets a little muddled with the PT, since we have to consider it one story. And then it's Anakin as the main hero, putting people like Han, Leia and Lando as even more obscure side characters since they never really play a part in vader's life: they don't influence his life.

But as the OT was structured it follows closely the ideas of A Hero with a 1000 Faces.... and in the OT the hero was Luke and Vader his antagonist.

Well you need to keep your theories straight.

You are perfectly welcome to dismiss Lucas as retroactively forcing his own delusional ideas on the saga. Alternatively, you can adopt Rex's position that "he is still on the level with the films as the 'holy grail' of Star Wars." You have stated this. Lucas has stated that this is ANAKIN's story....his fall and his redemption through his son. Not vice-versa. Thus, using your other logic that there is only one protagonist per film, Luke is never a protagonist. We are simply rooting for Vader to redeem himself while he's out blowing up planets and killing babies.

You can't seperate the PT and OT if you adhere to Lucaslogic (TM). Lucas has said they are one story.

Personally, I think Lucas is on crack, but this is your conundrum not mine. You need to decide what you are adhering to and what you are not.

I also think its impossible to argue that protagonists like Anakin and Luke are the ONLY ones. Kenobi is certainly a protagonist in the PT as are Han/Leia in the OT. Why? They are shown in extended sequences by themselves. They have their own plotlines. Yoda isn't a protagonist because he's never really shown apart from Anakin/Kenobi/Luke. Likewise Chewy is neither shown apart from Han/Leia. (not on a frame by frame basis, but for extended periods of time).

Leia has Lots of time on the death star to herself and Han Leia have the enitre middle of ESB, all of Endor, and the start of ROTJ to themselves. Chock that all together....was there no protagonist for 1/3 of the OT? Same with Kenobi...doesnt meet anakin until halfway thoguht TPM, has all of Kamino and some Geonosis to himself, as well as Utapau, some Coruscant too.

Now, these guys aren't the central characters in the story, not the MAIN protagonist (Anakin, then Luke) but they are protagonists nonetheless...definitely above supporting characters, espesially given the nature of these films as a saga.

Oh I agree with Lucas' statement about SW being Anakin's story... but to understand how these stories came about, one cannot ignore the fact that once upon a time, before the dark time, before the PT, tehre was just the OT. It sure as heck wasn't Anakin's story then, because of the PT story there was nothing more than a vague idea. To structure ANH Lucas looked to Joseph Campbell's A Hero with a 1000 Faces. And lo and behold, Luke became that hero, that protagonist. This is a pure and absolute fact taht has stood like that from 1977 until 1998... It's only the PT that made it Anakin's story. So can one therefore say there's nothing protagonist-like about Luke, I think not. Since the movies have not really changed. One cannot be a protagonist for over 20 years and suddenly not by adding a few chapters and leaving the originals untouched.

In the same story structure from Joseph Campbell, all the other side characters are derived: the mentor (i.e. OB1), the pirate merchant (i.e. Han Solo), the Princess (i.e. Leia)... all these side characters aid, assist or whatever, the protagonist on his journey, they serve HIS story.

Now, you can go about launching all your personal ideas on it, we all know Lucas used Campbell, he tanked Campbell personally on TV for his book that finally helped him structure his SW story.

So sure, shoot your own personal theories where you contradict just about every screen writing expert in the world. I think your point doesn't stick.

Well, I'm sorry. You can't just ignore the last decade. Perhaps once-upon-a-time you are right, but your god, Lucas, has said you're wrong. Welcome to the world after the great schism. The prequels happened, like them or not, and Lucas has "revealed" how he always wanted to tell Star Wars. Campell is now just an adaptation of part of the story and his protagonist no longer bears the same relationship to Star Wars. You can't ignore the present.

If you think my positions are poodoo, I don't care. You're welcome to dislike them and I enjoy being forced to defend my conceptions of the films. I like being on here and I like DISCUSSING them. You will, however, never find me expressing that my interpretations are the only ones, something I feel you have done on multiple occasions.

I think your ideas are great. I enjoy listening to them, but I am of a different faith. I dont have that problem (which is why I can accept your ideas...though they ignore the last decade). I let the films speak for themselves and ignore the man behind the curtain.

The problem is, you selectively choose when to listen to and when to ignore Lucas when it suits you (and then chastise others when they do one or the other). You cant do that.

When a story is built on a protganist, that story structure still stands. Anakin has a purely antagonist role in the OT. I think that cannot be denied.

Lucas denied it.

I agree with you...

...but your logic is not self-sustaining. Your personal pposition is untenable. You just grew up seeing it portrayed one way and have retroactively enforced that view on the saga and refuse to accept Lucas' position that anakin is just a spoiled whiny baby in a big black robot suit, "coming to terms with his goodness" as you have so elequently put.

I really have nothign more to say on the matter.

lucas is a liar, imo... *shrugs*

He's not a liar....just senile and well...very delusional about the history and the evolution of his franchise.

Originally posted by Ordo
He's not a liar....just senile and well...very delusional about the history and the evolution of his franchise.

On that, i completely agree... i think it just leads to the lies...

I'm not even going to take up argument with your stance, Ordo. It isn't getting anywhere.

Anyways, I'm not actually sure what direction Lucas is going to go with this. A quote from a magazine last May points towards a film-noir style to the thing...

I haven't felt like I have been able to discern a direction for the show. It doesn't seem to take on any extreme characteristic, pushing in one direction. It seems to take middle grounds in all respects, except for that its animation. (Not the animation style, which i feel is also ambiguous and adirectional, but that the series in iteself is animated as opposed to live action).

Oh, I meant for the live-action show, going off of what Lucas has said about it so far.

Durh. Got my threads crossed.

Anyway. I think Lucas somtimes overglorifies doing something old in a new way. I dont know if I feel film noir would be a good direction.

Depends on how he tackles it, I suppose. Film noir can be very real and gritty, like L.A. Confidential. The Clone Wars are over by that point and there is relative peace under the Empire until the Rebellion springs up.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Depends on how he tackles it, I suppose. Film noir can be very real and gritty, like L.A. Confidential. The Clone Wars are over by that point and there is relative peace under the Empire until the Rebellion springs up.

Well, all thats EU, and different sources have portrayed it different ways. We know the Rebellion is in full force by ANH.

Battlefront II portrays the Rebellion is immediately starting with assassinations on Naboo, etc. The Force Unleashed starts pretty soon after the clone wars (if not immedtiately I think) with the subjugation of Kashyyyk. The Rebellion is in full swing later in the game, when Leai is still relatively young, but old enough to be politically active.

I just bring these two up becasue especailly with TFU, Lucas had much more of a hand in them then other EU interpretations of this era.

I'd say realtive peace is improbable. What is he going to be filming, Star Trek? lol

Originally posted by Raoul
On that, i completely agree... i think it just leads to the lies...

Not so much lies, but changing his mind

Originally posted by queeq
Not so much lies, but changing his mind

either or... uhuh

Well.... it all depends on your point of view...

Isn't Star Wars Black and white?

That was alway the most out of place line in the saga.

Originally posted by queeq
Well.... it all depends on your point of view...

changing his mind and then saying it's ALWAYS what he says it is now, is lying to me...

Originally posted by Ordo
Isn't Star Wars Black and white?

That was alway the most out of place line in the saga.

Iwas the day OB1 justified himself being a liar. It's the day SW started going down the drain.

Coincedentally, that day coincides with ROTJ....

Maybe its not a coincidence.

Despite the fact I find that movie to be the worst of the saga, its is when Lucas started changing his views. Kenobi is correct in theory, but like his "only a Sith deals in abolustes" line, (what does that saw about you and your BLACK and WHITE conception of Star Wars? its a valid concept delivered in a very questionable justification. Kenobi was clearly drinking.

Oh yeah, I agree... Lucas has been shifting and yet persisting in the clear good vs. bad themes. I dunno, once he started make Jedi and Jedi religion more concrete, it kinda lost its flavour.

Thats because it ended up being something you didn't see it as....a major problem with fandom.

Thats why I just ignore the old man. I know he didn't intend for me to see his work the way I do and I appreciate his perspective as a creator, but he didn't execute hi s ideals flawlessly. Its the same way someone can say something innocent and make a dirty joke out of it. It wasn't their intent, but the subtext is clearly there for an alternate interpretation.

Jedi just kinda ended up as boring...

I can see that...

The point remians that, despite your personal feelings, if you accept Lucas as "The Word" you cant ignore/exclude the PT and his comments on it as canon.

Who says I do that?

Me. You tend to use your rules at your convinience.

That is just your perception.

Perceptions matter. if you're dismissing it, mine is just as valid as yours.

Listening to other people increases your awareness and would eliminate a great deal of our personal problems.

Besides, saying "Lucas's word is canon" and then griping about how the PT made things boring/wrong is a pretty blatant contradiction.

One which I see no value in discussing further.

Lucas word is not canon... the films, the novelisations, script and radioplays are canon. Lucas' views enlighten us on his intentions.

*facepalm*

And then there is Ordo.

Which I suppose is better than being a mental eunuch.

Is that an insult, my dear Ordo?

Originally posted by queeq
Lucas word is not canon... the films, the novelisations, script and radioplays are canon. Lucas' views enlighten us on his intentions.

mhmm

Wazzup?

Originally posted by queeq
Wazzup?

was just pondering whether i agree or not, is all...

Ah, well there's not much to agree or disagree. That's what canon is.

i just thought canon also included direct statements by lucas...

they guide us through the canon.

I didn't read the whole thread but I'm wondering what the latest is on this show?

Originally posted by queeq
they guide us through the canon.
arn't they canon on ambigious things? like as clarification

Like what?

Still no news on the live action show I'm afraid, snoop.

I have news on the new live action show and it is not good at all.

If you want to know the news send me a PM on here.

Why not in here?

I was hoping for Jedi's and stuff but now I know there's not going to be any I lost interest, well mostly.

I'll watch the pilot.

We all will and complain.

True that. I was exited of the idea of seeing lightsabers every episode for 20 minutes, now its guns and stuff its like...what's the point, I dislike Battlestar and all those others why would I be into this.

Seeing as the show is set after the Clone Wars and before the Battle of Yavin, I expected to maybe have a lightsaber show up every now and then for some runaway Jedi, but really it wouldn't make sense and it would just confuse the audience.

I didn't look into it that far lol.

You should have.

Well maybe I will. But probably not.

Which is prolly wiser.

Nah screw that.

Ah... so that's the attitude these days?

Pretty much lol.

Anybody else heard about more than one live action series too?

because nothing would be better than one flop...but TWO!