Disney acquires Lucasfilm; Episode VII proposed for 2015 · Star Wars: Episode I, II & III

dadudemon Senior Member

Ian McDiarmid might come back? Cool!

I had suspected he would have to show up, somehow, someway. The assumption was tainting the new force sensitives that Luke and co would go out to discover.

It's been done in the EU, already, though. Maybe they will go a different direction. I hope they do. If not, it would still be quite awesome to have Sids come back as a force ghost, taint a powerful force sensitive, and turn that person into the new Sith Lord. It has to happen, somehow. Didja guys think this would be about anything other than dark side vs. light side? It's not Star Wars without it.

Jeffery678 Restricted

Me wants Old Republic era stories to be depicted in films as well.

Oakley Sunglasses

quanchi112 Disney

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because it's rehashing and recycling a character that's been killed and finalized simply for the sake of fanservice. It's both an incredibly obvious grasp for dollars and a horrendous slap in the face to an awesome character from the originals. McDiarmid's even older now, his character has been dead for over 30 years, and the prequels have shown us what overexposure and fanservice can do. And given that the intense resentment for everything prequel is well established in popular culture now, that they would even consider something like this is indicative of just how little even a brand new company and team seems to care. There's also word that his ghost may be training a "secret apprentice" of some sort. Because that's new.
Maybe with the absolute pinnacle of brilliant writing and directing this could work, but in all likelihood, it won't. Hopefully this is all just a rumor, and if his ghost is in the film, hopefully it'll be a very short cameo, like in a vision or dream or something.

Well you are entitled to your own opinion. Mine is different and I'd welcome back my favorite Star Wars character back to the big screen.

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ian McDiarmid might come back? Cool!
I had suspected he would have to show up, somehow, someway. The assumption was tainting the new force sensitives that Luke and co would go out to discover.
It's been done in the EU, already, though. Maybe they will go a different direction. I hope they do. If not, it would still be quite awesome to have Sids come back as a force ghost, taint a powerful force sensitive, and turn that person into the new Sith Lord. It has to happen, somehow. Didja guys think this would be about anything other than dark side vs. light side? It's not Star Wars without it.

Why does it need to be a Sith Lord, though? Aside from not even not knowing what a Sith Lord is in the movies, can't it be like one of Luke's fallen students? Can't it be Luke himself? I didn't think the Dark Side was exclusive to the Sith. Whatever a Sith is.

focus4chumps Restricted

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because it's rehashing and recycling a character that's been killed and finalized simply for the sake of fanservice. It's both an incredibly obvious grasp for dollars and a horrendous slap in the face to an awesome character from the originals. McDiarmid's even older now, his character has been dead for over 30 years, and the prequels have shown us what overexposure and fanservice can do. And given that the intense resentment for everything prequel is well established in popular culture now, that they would even consider something like this is indicative of just how little even a brand new company and team seems to care. There's also word that his ghost may be training a "secret apprentice" of some sort. Because that's new.

^all this, plus:

Originally posted by focus4chumps

there has been nothing to illustrate that new skills or powers are aquired by deciding to become a sith

bringing back palpatine would be frikin stupid and a dead giveaway that there is no creativity involved with this project and it should be avoided like a bloated corpse.

dadudemon Senior Member

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Why does it need to be a Sith Lord, though?

It doesn't, but what Mace and Yoda said in Ep 1 makes me think it will probably be another Sith.

And also, because it looks like the rumor wagon says Ian will come back as a force ghost, looks like we may be getting more Sith.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Aside from not even not knowing what a Sith Lord is in the movies,

Huh? How do you figure this?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
can't it be like one of Luke's fallen students? Can't it be Luke himself?

Honestly, I don't want it to be either of those. But I would be perfectly happy if they decided to rehash the EU stuff. I want something new, though. Maybe a "second kind" of evil that is not Sith but still Dark Side? That could work...but it would be dangerous to try to do due to it being semi-new territory and definitely new territory for the films (don't want dark side "witches", mang...just no).

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Originally posted by dadudemon
It doesn't, but what Mace and Yoda said in Ep 1 makes me think it will probably be another Sith.
And also, because it looks like the rumor wagon says Ian will come back as a force ghost, looks like we may be getting more Sith.

We probably will, but what did Yoda and Mace say that translates to Sith resurgence many decades later?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Huh? How do you figure this?

Well, we're never actually told what a Sith is. We're told that certain people are Sith, but the movies never explain what a Sith is. Like, is everyone who falls to the Dark Side automatically a Sith? TPM says they were "extinct", which makes them sound like a species, but Maul and Palpatine are different species, and they're both Sith. So... what's a Sith? Not according to the EU or a fan, but from the movie's explanation, what's a Sith?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Honestly, I don't want it to be either of those. But I would be perfectly happy if they decided to rehash the EU stuff. I want something new, though. Maybe a "second kind" of evil that is not Sith but still Dark Side? That could work...but it would be dangerous to try to do due to it being semi-new territory and definitely new territory for the films (don't want dark side "witches", mang...just no).

This is why I'm un-enthused about the new movies. I have a feeling that after spending billions on this franchise, Disney are going to play it safe and avoid taking any risks. They'll just rehash old ideas and fill the sequels with endless references to the previous films.

ares834 Senior Member

Well, with rumors of Palpatine and Kenobi returning I am reminded of a quote from Mark Hamill about Lucas's abandoned sequel trilogy.

“I’ve heard that you’ve been hired to come back as Luke Skywalker in the last Star Wars film eighteen years from now. Is that true?” Hamill replied, “In something like 2004 or something, but you see he’s being very cagey, because it’s either going to be on another plane of existence or not the same character, and I can’t really tell you why without getting into sensitive material.”

I wonder if elements from that will be brought into the new trilogy. It makes sense considering they are supposedly building off of Lucas's notes and plans and we have two dead characters rumored to return.

queeq Chaos

Having seen ST INto Darkness with its endless amounts of references and plot ideas taken from all the series and movies, I have a little fear Abrams may be going into reference mode here. He did the same in Super 8... I think SW could do with a fresh take, not with a fanboy's rehash of old stuff.

Don't get me, wrong. I have a high opinion of Abrams, but his latest ST venture and Super 8 have me worried. They seem to be spelling out a pattern.

dadudemon Senior Member

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
We probably will, but what did Yoda and Mace say that translates to Sith resurgence many decades later?

You're not understanding my post. That is almost entirely my fault because I assume too liberally that everyone knows what I'm talking about:

"Mace Windu : There is no doubt. The mysterious warrior was a Sith.
Yoda : Always two there are....no more...no less. A master and an apprentice."

So if that's true (ignore everything EU), and it apparently held true in the films, then there must have been some sort of contingency plan that preserved the Sith after Vader's and Sidious' deaths. That's my reasoning and that's my logic. It is possible that Disney wishes to revisit that idea.

Before the events of Episode I (maybe?), Sidious killed Plagueis and made Maul the second in command. Then when Maul died, Dooku was the second in command. Then after Dooku's death, Sidious made Vader his second. Obviously, Sidious was working on making new seconds even before his currents were dead. And Vader held up the tradition of killing the master (teehee!) but brought balance back to the force by not picking up the "Sith Master" mantle...cause he ****ing died. crylaugh

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Well, we're never actually told what a Sith is. We're told that certain people are Sith, but the movies never explain what a Sith is. Like, is everyone who falls to the Dark Side automatically a Sith? TPM says they were "extinct", which makes them sound like a species, but Maul and Palpatine are different species, and they're both Sith. So... what's a Sith? Not according to the EU or a fan, but from the movie's explanation, what's a Sith?

I thought Han Solo and Episode III made it pretty clear and there should be no doubt what they are: it's a belief set/religion just like the "Jedi." It still requires you be a force sensitive to fully "realize", of course.

There are extinct religions in the world. The stuff the Ancient Egyptians believed and practiced, the Sumerians, Assyrians, and so forth.

So it is fully possible that the Sith became extinct but got a revival like lots of religions are doing these days in the real world (which is funny).

But, like I said, that was already done in 1-6. It amounts to the Sith revival and fall. We don't need another.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
This is why I'm un-enthused about the new movies. I have a feeling that after spending billions on this franchise, Disney are going to play it safe and avoid taking any risks. They'll just rehash old ideas and fill the sequels with endless references to the previous films.

After John Carter, you can bet that tiny white ass of yours that they will be playing it safe.

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're not understanding my post. That is almost entirely my fault because I assume too liberally that everyone knows what I'm talking about:
"Mace Windu : There is no doubt. The mysterious warrior was a Sith.
Yoda : Always two there are....no more...no less. A master and an apprentice."
So if that's true (ignore everything EU), and it apparently held true in the films, then there must have been some sort of contingency plan that preserved the Sith after Vader's and Sidious' deaths. That's my reasoning and that's my logic. It is possible that Disney wishes to revisit that idea.
Before the events of Episode I (maybe?), Sidious killed Plagueis and made Maul the second in command. Then when Maul died, Dooku was the second in command. Then after Dooku's death, Sidious made Vader his second. Obviously, Sidious was working on making new seconds even before his currents were dead. And Vader held up the tradition of killing the master (teehee!) but brought balance back to the force by not picking up the "Sith Master" mantle...cause he ****ing died. crylaugh

I can certainly see Disney making that up, but it will be them making it up (EU excluded). All we know from the films is that the master and apprentice died in RotJ, with no one left to continue the line. And if Lucas' "prophecy" bullshit maintains in to the sequels, then the Sith really are gone. I'm hoping they do that, I hate to see old ideas rehashed out of laziness/fanservice/desperation *cough*Death Star*cough*

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought Han Solo and Episode III made it pretty clear and there should be no doubt what they are: it's a belief set/religion just like the "Jedi." It still requires you be a force sensitive to fully "realize", of course.
There are extinct religions in the world. The stuff the Ancient Egyptians believed and practiced, the Sumerians, Assyrians, and so forth.
So it is fully possible that the Sith became extinct but got a revival like lots of religions are doing these days in the real world (which is funny).
But, like I said, that was already done in 1-6. It amounts to the Sith revival and fall. We don't need another.

Their religious aspect is obvious, but nothing else. The movies never tell us why they hate the Jedi and want revenge, why they're considered "extinct", or why there's "always two". We're told that they want revenge, that they were considered extinct, that there's always two. But we're never told why. Leaving these crucial details of the primary antagonists totally blank makes it really hard to understand and care about why the Sith are considered the antagonist. Throughout the films, the Jedi do and hint at doing some pretty vile and reprehensible things, that could easily be interpreted as the Jedi being villains. We know they're not supposed to be, but that's what the movies unwittingly make them come across as. So if they're supposed to be the good guys, then you have to establish the enemies as being the bad guys--something the films hardly do. We're never told the basic history or role of the Sith, much less their motivations. The films never give them a reason to care about what they're doing, and if the films don't care, why should I?

See this is problem with criticizing the prequels. You start on just one aspect, but the films are so interwoven in their flaws and shortcomings that it's almost impossible to discuss one without mentioning another.

Originally posted by dadudemon
After John Carter, you can bet that tiny white ass of yours that they will be playing it safe.

Damn it.

dadudemon Senior Member

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Their religious aspect is obvious, but nothing else. The movies never tell us why they hate the Jedi and want revenge,

lol, wut?

Cause the Jedi seem to be hell-bent on murdering their shit. And they don't seem to have gone extinct without help...based on how apeshit the Jedi seem about them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
why they're considered "extinct",

Because they seemed to not exist. Keyword, "seemed". It's possible they went all hipster on the Jedi and went underground.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
or why there's "always two".

That was never explained but I think George chose two so one would could act as a contingency plan. If he chose three, there would have been Christian outrage. If there was only 1, it would be 'all too easy' to defeat them quickly because there is not backup plan or arm of the master to do the master's bidding.

It's still a plothole.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Leaving these crucial details of the primary antagonists totally blank makes it really hard to understand and care about why the Sith are considered the antagonist.

I thought they were considered the antagonists because of the whole mass-murder, mass-murder orchestration, and megalomania.

My baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Throughout the films, the Jedi do and hint at doing some pretty vile and reprehensible things, that could easily be interpreted as the Jedi being villains.

Sounds like somebody watched Episode III. 313

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
We know they're not supposed to be, but that's what the movies unwittingly make them come across as.

I disagree: the Jedi fell due to their arrogance, "god-playing", and self-righteousness. They were definitely not perfect and I think GL did a decent job of showing us that. He certainly could have done much better, though.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
We're never told the basic history or role of the Sith, much less their motivations. The films never give them a reason to care about what they're doing, and if the films don't care, why should I?

Well, obviously I disagree. But the films didn't flesh out the history so third parties could do so in the EU so the Star Wars cash-cow could make money.

The Sith's motivations seem to destroy the Jedi, rule the shit out of everything, and bask in their own glory. That's probably why the Jedi don't like them too much.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
See this is problem with criticizing the prequels. You start on just one aspect, but the films are so interwoven in their flaws and shortcomings that it's almost impossible to discuss one without mentioning another.

Well, not really. This particular problem existed in the OT, as well. Why was a halfway destroyed Cyborg the second-hand man of the Emperor? Why didn't the Emperor have many many evil force sensitive people doing his bidding? Seems like that would be a much better way of enforcing his galactic rule, right? Why do we only get two evil peeps, in particular? How can it be possible to wipe out all the Jedi in a whole galaxy when it was clearly shown that it is not possible (wiping out all the Jedi and force-sensitives seems to be a goal from the OT...) and then the Emperor arrogantly assumes he succeeds...this one in particular bothered me regarding the Emperor, even as a kid (if even a kid knows how vast a galaxy is...what was GL thinking with the OT?). Here this Emperor dude is, a chess master of epic proportions, and has precognition. Yet he cannot find all the Jedi AND a boy gets the better of them. This is why you should not use precognition in a film: it starts to shit up everything.

Ushgarak Paladin

We're running off-topic here, folks. Let's focus on any news about the new film, thanks.

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Sorry, Ush.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol, wut?
Cause the Jedi seem to be hell-bent on murdering their shit. And they don't seem to have gone extinct without help...based on how apeshit the Jedi seem about them.

Yes, why? Why are they so antagonistic to one another? It's not enough to be Light must kill Dark and vice versa. These are supposed to be people with motivations. Outside being opposites to one another, why are they so hell bent on killing each other? If being opposites is the only reason, then that's my point. A superficial, skin-deep, childish reason may be enough for George. But it's not enough for me. I want a little more depth to my plot and characters.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because they seemed to not exist. Keyword, "seemed". It's possible they went all hipster on the Jedi and went underground.

But why? Why did they go underground? Why did the Jedi know about their existence? What is the Jedi's history with the Sith? Etc.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was never explained but I think George chose two so one would could act as a contingency plan. If he chose three, there would have been Christian outrage. If there was only 1, it would be 'all too easy' to defeat them quickly because there is not backup plan or arm of the master to do the master's bidding.

That may be George's reason for making it that number, but what was the in-movie explanation for that number? Why did the Sith choose to make it that number? And why does Yoda know about it? Etc.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's still a plothole.

Oh yeah.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought they were considered the antagonists because of the whole mass-murder, mass-murder orchestration, and megalomania.
My baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

Well if that's the case, why is Anakin supposed to be the good guy? He commits unrepentant mass murder and no one seems to care. Maybe the Jedi did something horrible to the Sith in the past to make them want revenge. Maybe the Jedi of old slaughtered millions of them or something, and the Sith are just looking for a little payback. If that's the case, then what did they do wrong? Over the course of the films, the only people we ever really see die are mindless clones, robots, and Jedi. The first two don't matter and if the Jedi are monsters who killed Sith just because their ideology was different then the Jedi would just be getting their rightful comeuppance. And on top of that the Sith are reorganizing the government in to something more efficient and less susceptible to corruption. A government and Jedi order that allows slavery to exist, takes young infants from their home to be indoctrinated in to a magical cult, and is so weak and unstable that "tens of thousands of solar systems" have no qualms about just up and leaving, might just not be worth preserving or protecting. Maybe the Sith were bent on making the galaxy a safer place, to prevent the kind of slaughter the Jedi perpetrated on them in the past from ever happening again. Maybe. But I don't actually know. I don't know what the truth is. The films never tell us anything. The Sith are bad because they're not the Jedi. The Jedi are good because they were good in the original films. That's a pretty shaky foundation to base the morality and structure of your entire trilogy on.

See that's what I'm talking about: in a movie that's supposed to be clear cut about the good and bad guys, the lines are pretty hazy between the two. Apparently there's an entire planet controlled by criminals and gangsters who run a slavery operation, and the Jedi do absolutely nothing over the course of the films to put a stop to it. I know you have an excuse for it, but the film doesn't. There is no stated reason why the Jedi can't come in and rescue the slaves. If they had just taken a moment off from settling border and tax disputes and instead gone and helped out the people most in need of them, especially their Chosen One's slave mom, it might have taken some of the weight off of Yoda's premonition of "grave danger." But they don't even lift a finger. In that sense, I don't blame Anakin for resenting Obi-Wan and the Jedi. How are you supposed to hold yourself to the ideals of Truth and Justice when they can't even be bothered to do something that most epitomizes those ideals: ending slavery. In the Republic or not, there's no stated reason that prevents the Jedi from coming in and saving the day.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sounds like somebody watched Episode III. 313

Soon enough. Gonna be marathoning through them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree: the Jedi fell due to their arrogance, "god-playing", and self-righteousness. They were definitely not perfect and I think GL did a decent job of showing us that. He certainly could have done much better, though.

They were much worse than that. But you see what I'm talking about? The Jedi are supposed to be the good guys, but they're not good. But they can't be the bad guys because that's what the Sith are supposed to be. If there was ever supposed to be a theme or symbolic nature to the films regarding an ambiguous morality, GL and friends utterly and totally mixed their messages. I think they may have been even more confused about these films than the audience is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, obviously I disagree. But the films didn't flesh out the history so third parties could do so in the EU so the Star Wars cash-cow could make money.
The Sith's motivations seem to destroy the Jedi, rule the shit out of everything, and bask in their own glory. That's probably why the Jedi don't like them too much.

You hit the nail on the head there. It's so mind bogglingly simplistic in its layout. It really feels like a young child wrote it: Sith are bad guys so they do bad guy things, Jedi are good guys and want to stop them. No history is given between them, the nature of their animosity never established. Yet it doesn't even take its own simplistic premise far enough. The timely music, dialogue, and original films' precedent all make it clear that the Jedi are supposed to be the good guys. But they're consistently shown behaving in a morally ambiguous way. I've already gone in to this up top, but even the good guys aren't good guys. And the bad guys are only bad guys because we're beat over the head in a overly simplistic way that they, well, just are. You got the black robes, red lightsabers, creepy voice, and talk about hate and anger. But none of that is inherently evil or reprehensible. If they're the bad guys, show us them being bad guys. Ditto for the Jedi being the good guys. Those one-dimensional reasons may be enough for George. But they're not enough for me.

But instead they all just kind of fall flat. Motivations are blurry at best, and any emotional investment the audience is supposed to have for the Jedi's demise is lost by the Jedi's utter lack of a sympathetic nature. It's as if the movie doesn't care. And if it doesn't care, why should I?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, not really. This particular problem existed in the OT, as well. Why was a halfway destroyed Cyborg the second-hand man of the Emperor? Why didn't the Emperor have many many evil force sensitive people doing his bidding? Seems like that would be a much better way of enforcing his galactic rule, right? Why do we only get two evil peeps, in particular? How can it be possible to wipe out all the Jedi in a whole galaxy when it was clearly shown that it is not possible (wiping out all the Jedi and force-sensitives seems to be a goal from the OT...) and then the Emperor arrogantly assumes he succeeds...this one in particular bothered me regarding the Emperor, even as a kid (if even a kid knows how vast a galaxy is...what was GL thinking with the OT?). Here this Emperor dude is, a chess master of epic proportions, and has precognition. Yet he cannot find all the Jedi AND a boy gets the better of them. This is why you should not use precognition in a film: it starts to shit up everything.

No, logically, none of that makes sense. But I'm not really interested in the logical side of these films. It's the emotional side. All that ^ I wrote up above isn't about disliking the prequels because there are plot holes or inconsistencies (though they are numerous). It's about the near total lack of emotional investment from an audience perspective. These films just do not have the capacity to make me like any of the characters, or hate them, or feel sympathetic toward them, or their plight, or their sufferings, or their victories. I know you don't like him, but what Plinkett said at the end of the RotS review is the most important part of any of the reviews, it's the note that sums up the main problem with the prequels:

"You can pick them all apart on the technical failings, the plot inconsistencies, or the lousy dialogue, but generally speaking they fail to connect with people. And that was the main problem. It felt like someone came along and sucked all the excitement and emotion out of Star Wars. And then they left it in this vacuum of dull, sterile boringness. The original films had a richness to them, they felt more real. There's just so many moments and images that resonate in our collective memories. There's just too many to list. Moments that we remember because we were emotionally invested in what's happening... But really at its core, Star Wars was about the people. A vast array of characters, situations, and relationships. And most importantly we liked those people."

Ushgarak Paladin

Hey, just saying sorry first does not make it ok for you to blatantly ignore what I asked! You know better than that. Make a new thread if you want to talk that over.

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

I was typing that when you posted. Didn't see yours til after. Figured I'd add the apology retroactively than not at all.

dadudemon Senior Member

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hey, just saying sorry first does not make it ok for you to blatantly ignore what I asked! You know better than that. Make a new thread if you want to talk that over.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I was typing that when you posted. Didn't see yours til after. Figured I'd add the apology retroactively than not at all.

Ush, we did take it to PMs (yesterday and the day before). We know you don't want the threads shitted up with our PT and OT arguments. But I rofl'd. His post seemed funny the way he presented it.

Kickballjedi Senior Member

Originally posted by queeq
Having seen ST INto Darkness with its endless amounts of references and plot ideas taken from all the series and movies, I have a little fear Abrams may be going into reference mode here. He did the same in Super 8... I think SW could do with a fresh take, not with a fanboy's rehash of old stuff.
Don't get me, wrong. I have a high opinion of Abrams, but his latest ST venture and Super 8 have me worried. They seem to be spelling out a pattern.

Queeg, we agree again. Maybe Abrams thinks he is paying homage to these other sources somehow, but to a fan who knows the material, it's almost insulting. The "plot twists" in ST:ID were SMH head moments to me, I was like "You've got to be kidding, really?" I don't want to have that reaction in the new Star Wars movie.

Hearing that McDiarmid might be back did give me a plot idea. Write this trilogy completely from a Sith/Empire perspective. They are the underdogs now. Show how they plot and manipulate events to bring about a Star War against the New Republic, how they undermine it, how they try to bring the New Jedi Order over to their side by tricking Luke Skywalker and the Solo children. Just a thought.

DARTH POWER Senior Member

Originally posted by queeq
Having seen ST INto Darkness with its endless amounts of references and plot ideas taken from all the series and movies, I have a little fear Abrams may be going into reference mode here. He did the same in Super 8... I think SW could do with a fresh take, not with a fanboy's rehash of old stuff.
Don't get me, wrong. I have a high opinion of Abrams, but his latest ST venture and Super 8 have me worried. They seem to be spelling out a pattern.

Although I'd say Star Trek would be done differently. Being a reboot it's nice to have those references to the original movies/series Imo.

Will probably be different when making a sequel though.

Kickballjedi Senior Member

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Although I'd say Star Trek would be done differently. Being a reboot it's nice to have those references to the original movies/series Imo.
Will probably be different when making a sequel though.

DP, that's a good point, but didn't he have just that opportunity with Star Trek 2? He made the rebooted movie, the split timelines gave him a whole new universe to work with, he could have gone in any direction he wanted in the sequel. And what did he do? Used every reference from the original Star Trek 2 he could find. Same villain, same love interest, same no win scenario. Sure he put some slight twists on the known stories, but this story didn't head into new territory or surprise any existing fans.