Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (USE SPOILER TAGS!)

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by JimboTHX1138

So what you're essentially asking is the old age question? Who shot first?

"I don’t know and I don’t care" -Harrison Ford

Leia gets married and has twins and May the 4th be with you always

[ariakon]

Strange how that article refers to the Matrix, which liberally cribbed from the Terminator, comic books, and anime as the creative high-point of science fiction movies over the last 25 years. I like the Matrix (a bit), but come now, let's be fair.Why is it Star Wars' fault that films cannot match the emotional and philosophical depth of the best literature? Literature is a genre of the mind in general, it is constructed on thought while films are sensation (generally speaking, of course). There can be thought-driven movies and spectacle-laden books, yet to expect one medium to parallel the other is unfair? Would I love for Dune and Foundation to receive thoughtful, faithful translations? Yes. But a two-hour movie simply cannot explore the minds, thoughts and motivations of its characters the way a novel can.

Not only that, but is there not room for both? Star Wars is based upon Myth, the story of a young man's journey through the perils of the world. Most myths are relatively simple (on the outside), filled with spectacle, and exciting to tell. Add in a Flash Gordon style and you have Star Wars. Just because it's fun makes it dumb? There is enough room in the genre for thought-provoking stories, stories to entertain, and those that manage to do both.

On a lighter note, I hope they give Han and Leia marital problems to mirror their real-life relationship.

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Leia gets married and has twins and May the 4th be with you always

Perhaps Carrie Fisher is only going to be in a flashback scene. They could use computers to make her younger and we see Leia giving birth to her and Han's twins and then she dies in childbirth seconds after giving them names due to giving up and dying of a broken heart. Nah, that sound incredibly friggin stupid and no competent screen writer would ever do that.

[Kryptonic]

Star Wars isn't science fiction and it never intended to be. From the opening "A long time ago..." it instantly told you that this was fantasy - space opera to be more precise. It's not about the future of humanity or genetics or cyborg's or time travel - it's ancient mythology from many different cultures cleverly melded into a singular vision. It's really a beautiful thing and it allows for so much creative freedom for authors and artists to grow in. There's a reason that Star Wars has its own section at bookstores - it is its own genre - something totally unique and open to a world of possibilities.

That article, no offense, was written by a closed minded fool.

[sycro]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Star Wars isn't science fiction and it never intended to be. From the opening "A long time ago..." it instantly told you that this was fantasy - space opera to be more precise. It's not about the future of humanity or genetics or cyborg's or time travel - it's ancient mythology from many different cultures cleverly melded into a singular vision. It's really a beautiful thing and it allows for so much creative freedom for authors and artists to grow in. There's a reason that Star Wars has its own section at bookstores - it is its own genre - something totally unique and open to a world of possibilities.

That article, no offense, was written by a closed minded fool.

It is science fiction. Science fiction does not and has never meant futuristic.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

But there was NO WAY the writers of the films were going to have to shoehorn in: Clone Palpatines, Chewbacca's death (and thus not being in the film), one of Han and Leia's kids turning evil, etc. Can you imagine having to exposition all that crap into Episode VII? There's no way.

I've never read a Star Wars novel and don't care about them, but I have occasionally read the jacket copy so I was aware that there were books about one of Han and Leia's kids turning evil. I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea for part of the movie. All dramatic films have to have conflict. The reason why most people feel that "The Empire Strikes Back" was the best Star Wars film is because it became more than "good guys" vs "bad guys". The reveal that Vader was Luke's father added tremendous emotional weight to the story.

If Han has a kid who turns against what Han, Leia and Luke fought for, that also adds tremendous emotional weight and again would make it more than just the "good guys" against some new "bad guy". IMO, one of the (many) reasons why the first film in the PT is not liked is because Darth Maul had the personality of a robot (actually less, since C3PO and R2D2 have plenty of personality).

But if they do follow that plot line, they also have to be careful not to make it "The Godfather", which would be very funny, but too derivative and obvious.

When the original trilogy was released, these characters were completely new to us and even though the stories were based on classic myths, the plots were new to most people as well. Episode IV was loved because it all seemed new and was the first time we had seen very high production values used in a film of this genre (aside perhaps from 2001). Episode V was loved because of the introduction of Yoda, Lando and the Vader reveal. Episode VI was somewhat less loved, but it wrapped up the story. The prequels failed in part for many reasons, but one of the reasons is that the story, even though a different one, could no longer surprise us.

I don't envy the screenwriters. I think it's going be very hard to create a plot that is original and gets people excited. It needs to be more than there's some new bad guy who has turned to the dark side of the Force and wants to rule or destroy the galaxy. Or more than a parallel story to Episode IV where Luke essentially becomes Obi and mentors a new Jedi in order to fight a new villain. Disney will (obviously) want a very broad audience for these films, but IMO, it was that desire for the prequels that hurt those films -- Lucas' desire to appeal to both little kids and to sophisticated adults made the stories incomprehensible for almost everyone. How could an adult want to sit through a whole film about the 9-year-old Anakin and Jar Jar Binks at the same time a kid would have to try to decipher the politics of the trade federation and the Republic. I'm all for multi-layered plots of a sophisticated nature, but the prequel machinations never made much sense to me.

IMO (and I've posted this before), it was never even really explained what Palpatine would have done with all that power had he won. We know he wanted to rule the Galaxy, but why?

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by ariakon

On a lighter note, I hope they give Han and Leia marital problems to mirror their real-life relationship.

Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher have a real-life relationship?

[jpthomas27]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

IMO (and I've posted this before), it was never even really explained what Palpatine would have done with all that power had he won. We know he wanted to rule the Galaxy, but why?

Why would they? There have been an infinite number of movie villains in an endless number of movies that wanted to rule the world/universe/galaxy and very few of them ever had a actual reason. There have been real life villains that have done things for no other reason than the power and the feeling that it gave them, think about historical "bad guys" that destroyed countries, invaded cultures and took over populations for no actual reason. Do you think Putin actually invaded Ukraine for humanitarian reasons? Hell no! He did it because he could, and he wanted to demonstrate his power, grow his territory and gain more power in the process.

The power is a reason in itself and doesn't need any further explanation. Billionaires don't need money so why do they continue to build empires, buy sports teams, acquire corporations or start new ventures... because they can, regardless of what they say, there is no "good" reason other than they CAN and they like having the power to do so.

[ariakon]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher have a real-life relationship?

I just meant the way they've supposedly been bickering because they apparently used to mess around with one another. (Who knows, might be all Hollywood fluff talk, but still, if the stories can be believed, they hate each other and that bitterness could be kind of amusing on-screen).

[Drewbee87]

Not really a fan of the franchise, but I'll give this a shot since I loved what J.J. Abrams done with Star Trek, another series/film franchise I never really liked.

[thegoat]

Originally Posted by sycro

It is science fiction. Science fiction does not and has never meant futuristic.

It's fantasy. What separates Star Wars from science fiction is that it never attempts to make its universe plausible - the universe it there and you can accept it or not. We never hear about how the lightsabers work, how Han understands Chewie, the rationale for an X-wing's shape, etc. While the EU may venture into sci-fi territory, the movies are pure fantasy. Midicholorians are the closest thing to science fiction in the saga, and they were vehemently rejected by much of the fanbase.

[sycro]

Originally Posted by thegoat

It's fantasy. What separates Star Wars from science fiction is that it never attempts to make its universe plausible - the universe it there and you can accept it or not. We never hear about how the lightsabers work, how Han understands Chewie, the rationale for an X-wing's shape, etc. While the EU may venture into sci-fi territory, the movies are pure fantasy. Midicholorians are the closest thing to science fiction in the saga, and they were vehemently rejected by much of the fanbase.

All science fiction is fantasy. And what about its universe isn't plausible... within its universe?

As a movie franchise, do you really want them to explain the reason for the X-wing? And people thought the Phantom Menace was bad.

Is Star Trek science fiction in your mind? Does it ever take the time to explain every bit of technology in it?

[Walts Ghost]

Star Wars FAQ: Is Star Wars Sci-Fi or Fantasy?

Star Wars is a story of aliens and space battles; but it's also a story of ghosts and mystical powers. Is Star Wars science fiction, or is it fantasy? More importantly, what makes it one or the other?

Magic vs. Science

The difference between sci-fi and fantasy is a much-debated subject. One common dividing line, however, is that science fiction is about scientific and technological advancements that could reasonably occur in the future, while fantasy exists only in the realm of imagination.

Much of Star Wars does deal with advanced technology, which seems to put it in the realm of science fiction. We may not have hyperdrives that allow for interstellar travel, but we can easily see manned spaceships that travel to other planets as a natural progression from traveling to the moon and sending unmanned probes to other planets in our solar system. Some of the technology in Star Wars is not even that far off; for example, scientists have already been able to create miniature lightsaber-like devices.

The existence of the Force, however, makes Star Wars seem more like fantasy than science fiction. The Force is a mystical energy field which gives Jedi seemingly magical powers, and the study of the Force is more like a religion than a science. The idea of midi-chlorians, microorganisms in the blood, attempts to provide a scientific explanation for the Force; but even midi-chlorians cannot explain how the Force can make bodies disappear or allow beings to become ghosts after death.

Hard Sci-Fi vs. Space Opera

Sci-fi and fantasy have many subgenres, each with their own common elements. One subgenre is "hard sci-fi," or sci-fi concerned with scientific accuracy. The author of a hard sci-fi work might, for example, do extensive research to make sure the spaceship she created works under known scientific principles. The author of a "soft sci-fi" work, on the other hand, might be comfortable just saying that the spaceship works; exactly how is not important to the story.

Star Wars falls into the subgenre of "space opera," which takes many of its elements from adventure fiction. Space opera involves plots, battles, characters and abilities on a huge, dramatic scale -- all of which is true of Star Wars. Technology and other scientific elements in Star Wars are often scientifically inaccurate or merely given a scientific flavor; for example, the midi-chlorian explanation for Force-sensitivity.

In much of hard sci-fi, the science is the story; in Star Wars and other space opera, the science is a backdrop for the real story. This doesn't make Star Wars any less science fiction.

Science Fantasy

While it may feel like a cop-out, the best answer to whether Star Wars is sci-fi or fantasy is that it's a little bit of both. Calling Star Wars "sci-fi" ignores its fantasy elements, such as the Force; but calling Star Wars "fantasy" ignores its interplanetary setting and sci-fi feel.

The best label for Star Wars may be "science fantasy," a subgenre that blends elements of sci-fi and the supernatural. There's no need to force Star Wars into a sci-fi or fantasy genre box when its science fiction and fantasy components work together in harmony.

Source

[Astro Zombie]

^ Nice

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by sycro

It is science fiction. Science fiction does not and has never meant futuristic.

Yes it does. It always has.

Star Wars is a fantasy film with science fiction trappings is probably the best way to say it.

[sycro]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Yes it does. It always has.

Star Wars is a fantasy film with science fiction trappings is probably the best way to say it.

It does not. It might often be about the future, but it's also alternate realities on past events or different universes.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by sycro

It does not. It might often be about the future, but it's also alternate realities on past events or different universes.

Those also have nothing to do with Star Wars.

Star Wars isn't about alternate dimensions or socio-political commentary or robots taking over the world or alien visitations or science gone wrong or whatever else that 99% of science fiction literature deals with. It has more in common with The Odyssey or ancient mythology than any science fiction story of the last century or two.

[DoubleDownAgain]

Originally Posted by sycro

It is science fiction. Science fiction does not and has never meant futuristic.

Meant? Not implicitly.. but most of the time the setting is in the future.

[sycro]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Those also have nothing to do with Star Wars.



Star Wars isn't about alternate dimensions or socio-political commentary or robots taking over the world or alien visitations or science gone wrong or whatever else that 99% of science fiction literature deals with. It has more in common with The Odyssey or ancient mythology than any science fiction story of the last century or two.

"A galaxy far, far away" == alternate universe.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by sycro

"A galaxy far, far away" == alternate universe.

A lot of fantasy novels are set in "a far off land" so they're sci-fi too, I take it?