Jump to content

UNCONFIRMED Star Wars news


Recommended Posts

Right, see, the titles have a pattern in each trilogy:

 

Movie 1/3: Vague foreshadowing that's meaningless out of context

Movie 2/3: Some group gonna fight!

Movie 3/3: Triumph of the Winners!

 

...so "The Ancient Fear" fits, even if it's fake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 660
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No. No. That's not true. That's impossible.

We all have limits to our suspension of disbelief. Even you, Justus, would balk eventually at something. Don't get haughty and brag how you'll just "let SW7 unfold as whatever it has to be." Storytell

What about Tank's notes? That is the most important question here.

Posted Images

How much relation do working titles usually have to finished product titles? Wasn't ROTJ "Blue Harvest" in production? TAF may be at least descriptive of the plot!

I could be very wrong or slightly wrong, I'm kinda certain I'm not 100% right but I don't think Blue Harvest was a working title. I think it was used when they sent out the film to theaters in an attempt to avoid theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing with the title themes...

 

e7: The Ancient Fear

e8: ???

e9: Renaissance* of the Force

 

??? Something, Mandalorians /or Hutts ???

*or Resonance

 

Afterthought: Played with "exodus" and "violates" and "condemns" as the verbs for e8 but couldn't decide on the who/what.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be very wrong or slightly wrong, I'm kinda certain I'm not 100% right but I don't think Blue Harvest was a working title. I think it was used when they sent out the film to theaters in an attempt to avoid theft.

Driver is right. "Blue Harvest" is what was used while the movie was filming. It was a failed attempt to keep the media and fans from showing up and getting glimpses of what was happening.

 

It was never an early title for the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the title "An Ancient Fear". Even if this isn't the real title, I like the premise that it creates. The primary reason I enjoyed the KOTOR games so much was that you were discovering an ancient race...an ancient evil. I loved the path of discovery your character was on. I would enjoy E7 if it followed a similar path.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the films will be good, I have hope. I also have no firm must sees considering they are doing whatever they want. I'm cool with that because they came right out and said it instead of beating around the bush or trying to walk a line for favoritism.

 

---

 

With that said, whether the below happens or not, it could be fun to...

 

See the Hutts and their legion of underworlders be the overall baddies of the sequel trilogy, with whoever Ming the Merciless is then be a dude they put in place/rediscover & unleash / partner with.

 

This approach, the underworld, is like a reverse of the OT where the rebels, the few "the underworld" rose up. Harkens back to the PT too, which then displays the saga as a rollercoaster of change/struggle. It also allows familiar Star Wars concepts of class/government to be touched on without a focus on in-yo-face political struggles like the PT.

 

---

 

But like I said, pretty much good for anything other than a Skywalker or Solo turning evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hutts as primary villains? They're just criminals. It'd be like making a film of Superman fighting street thugs.

Criminal Kingpins have been power/shadow brokers IRL like forever. There are conspiracies over political changes due to influence. This is an established and much more credible villain archetype in literature than street thugs. Not sure why you went straight to the Artful Dodger or Corner Dealer instead of the obvious reference of The Godfather / Scarface.

 

Afterthought:

 

And Superman originally was just a super version of a man, the island lifting / space walking God-Man that he is now is argubaly the problem with the character for modern audiences. In addition his job as a beat reporter fueled his adventures, uncovering corruption usually in government/big business that was squeezing the "little guy". So... just going on your base premise: A Superman film where he fought thugs could actually work if built from the ground up and not focusing on the God-Man from Krypton who weeps for these poor misguided humans who only need a light to show them the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Criminal Kingpins have been power/shadow brokers IRL like forever. There are conspiracies over political changes due to influence. This is an established and much more credible villain archetype in literature than street thugs. Not sure why you went straight to the Artful Dodger or Corner Dealer instead of the obvious reference of The Godfather / Scarface.

Well, for one thing, I'm not sure that's historically accurate. What do you think organized crime has been involved in at the geopolitical level? The Kennedy assassination? For another, doesn't your approach just turn it into another prequel trilogy? Substitute Hutts for Sith just recreates films full of high-level conspiracy and back-room dealing and plotting with occasional action set pieces. Do we want a rehash of the prequels' plodding politics?

 

Besides, are the Hutts all bad, really? I mean, that's just lazy - all Hutts are gangsters? All Corellians are smugglers? All Klingons are drunken warriors? Let's not embrace such simplistic views! I thought the EU was dead.

 

Afterthought:

And Superman originally was just a super version of a man, the island lifting / space walking God-Man that he is now is argubaly the problem with the character for modern audiences. In addition his job as a beat reporter fueled his adventures, uncovering corruption usually in government/big business that was squeezing the "little guy". So... just going on your base premise: A Superman film where he fought thugs could actually work if built from the ground up and not focusing on the God-Man from Krypton who weeps for these poor misguided humans who only need a light to show them the way.

That wouldn't be the Superman people expect or want, though. May as well call him something else - like the Question. Batman started out using a gun. If a filmmaker went back to that original premise, no one would consider that character to be Batman now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a nitpicking book that mocked a Next Gen Klingon character for having the job of lab tech or something like that. "A Klingon lab tech? Are you serious! They're warriors!" When it was pointed out that to have a functioning high tech society they would need all jobs from janitor to school teachers, the author admitted it hadn't been a fair criticism. So yeah no real race could possibly be all one thing/mindset

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the blanket term The Hutts, true, but what about my time here (well over a decade now) that would suggest I would write it to be or believe all Hutts are the same? That's absurd. In addition even if I was an unknown, turning the phrase as such should not automatically equate to, well essentially, racism... even if only applied to an outlook in fiction.

 

You, pav, have also advocated for changing so many things about characters and yet you shut down the idea of returning a character (eg. Superman) to an form similar to an earlier iteration. Maybe you operate on another level of genius, but I just can't see the consistency in your rationale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Torch. I'm not accusing you of racism. I just think you're borrowing too much from the EU - the dead one. I know you didn't create the idea of Hutt gangsters. I just don't think reviving that dead element is particularly creative. If you think a criminal organization could function as a sufficiently challenging villain for the protagonists, well, you may be right, depending on the protagonists and their abilities. I just don't think making the antagonists Hutts is necessary. That's retreading Jabba and inflating him to more importance than the films really gave him. Only in the EU were Hutts or other criminal organizations of any real threat to peace or governance. Further, my impression of your scenario is that it is just a vision of the first act of ROTJ stretched out to a complete film. I'd be interested in hearing more details from your scenario though. Your one sentence blurb was too short to really inspire an epic view for me. I apologize for slighting you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, based on the movies, we know The Hutts are gangsters and Jabba is one of them. And Gardulla and the really effeminate one from TCW. That doesn't have to mean Hutt is their actual race. Maybe HUTT is the Star Wars version of MAFIA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pav, I totally get you weren't able to read my mind and see how spectacular all my ideas are in there. No worries.

 

I just responded as such to prod you into further explaining whether or not you truly meant something like "You think all Hutts are the same? You're lazy and racist, dude." Which is how I read it. But perhaps that's more on me. And I do see the irony there considering you were prodding me to explain my idea.

 

Like I said, no worries. :-)

 

Afterthought: Driver, the term Hutt being a "profession" rather than a race is intriguing. I like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hutt as title rather than species. I like it. Certainly is preferable to the idea that everyone was saying "Name the Species" - Han the Human, Chewbacca the Wookiee, Jabba the Hutt, Greedo the Rodian. Though it doesn't explain Captain Panaka's line in TPM "The Hutts are gangsters!" since that would be like saying "the Mafia Dons are gangsters!" now. Well, duh! Still, anything to improve on the EU! The old EU fans will come around eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...