The Redemption of Jar Jar Binks

[Iroscato]

No, Star Wars is practically in the hands of people that wished they could dissociate themselves with the prequels entirely.

And humankind is richer for it.

[Galvatron]

No, Star Wars is practically in the hands of people that wished they could dissociate themselves with the prequels entirely.

And humankind is richer for it.

You're so right. Hey, what if Disney remakes the prequels?

[Eternal_Freedom]

That would generally be awesome but for the sad absence of Christopher Lee.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, Star Wars is practically in the hands of people that wished they could dissociate themselves with the prequels entirely.

And humankind is richer for it.

You're so right. Hey, what if Disney remakes the prequels?

Then I would be deeply pissed. They would be decanonizing an entire series of films that millions of people enjoyed simply to pander to a group of rabid, bitter fans, who are the very people who should not be running things because they have no sense of proportion or objectivity. Besides, I think it is deeply unprofessional for one film maker to piss on another's work like that.

Keep that shit in fanfiction.net.

Edit: To be clear, I have no problem with reboots in general. If they wanted to do a remake of the entire franchise, an alternate continuity, I'd be doubtful about their chances for success, but I'd wish them the best of luck. But if they remade one particular part of the franchise to decanonize to pander to spite, I'd have a problem with that.

And yes, I know you could say that's pretty much what happened to the EU. But let's face it, the EU was always ancillary, and never fully canon.

[biostem]

No, Star Wars is practically in the hands of people that wished they could dissociate themselves with the prequels entirely.

And humankind is richer for it.

You're so right. Hey, what if Disney remakes the prequels?

I think we're better off looking forward instead of trying to remake those films.

That being said, I'm not against them doing a film or films that take place during other periods of time within the Star Wars universe - it doesn't have to be in the "Old Republic" era, either - do you think a film smaller in scale, centered around a young Sidius, would be interesting?

[Galvatron]

What if the remakes were animated? That is, they'd have the same script, but animated and voice-acted in the style of the TCW cartoon. It'd be very interesting to see if that would make them more palatable.

[Grumman]

Then I would be deeply pissed. They would be decanonizing an entire series of films that millions of people enjoyed simply to pander to a group of rabid, bitter fans, who are the very people who should not be running things because they have no sense of proportion or objectivity. Besides, I think it is deeply unprofessional for one film maker to piss on another's work like that.

Keep that shit in fanfiction.net.

Edit: To be clear, I have no problem with reboots in general. If they wanted to do a remake of the entire franchise, an alternate continuity, I'd be doubtful about their chances for success, but I'd wish them the best of luck. But if they remade one particular part of the franchise to decanonize to pander to spite, I'd have a problem with that.

It's not pandering to spite. The fact of the matter is that the OT tells a coherent story that works, despite a few flaws, while the PT tells us that Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader because of the secret romance between a democracy-loving senator and her openly fascist, emotionally unstable bodyguard. Not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater while still wanting a good story about the fall of Anakin Skywalker and the Republic is not unprofessional.

[The Romulan Republic]

The PT tells a coherent story, for the most part. That you do not personally like that story does not make it incoherent.

Anakin became Vader for numerous reasons, but it basically boils down to fear of loss coupled with selfishness, anger problems, and lack of self-control. Entirely plausible, or so it seems to me at least.

As to the relationship with Padme, Anakin's obsessiveness with her isn't so hard to believe. A teenager who can't have a healthy romantic relationship because of stupid Jedi bullshit holds a crush for ten years and then has a chance to act on it? With a very attractive woman? Is it hard to buy that he does so? Or that he might develop deeper feelings when she reciprocates his interest?

That Padme would fall for him shows a certain lack of judgement on her part, but really, who knew that people in love could behave irrationally?

Edit: Mind you, I'm not saying Padme should have gotten together with Anakin. While I don't do shipping debates as a rule, its pretty clear Anakin was not stable, not a good or safe match for her even before he fell to the Dark Side, and that he was probably too immature to handle a serious relationship (he was 19 in Attack of the Clones as I recall, though for all I know that went with the old EU too).

[Channel72]

I hope these new Star Wars movies aren't so damn good that we totally forget about the Prequels, otherwise I'll have nothing left to bitch about on SDN, and then my life would be completely empty. I need to bitch about the Prequels at least once a month - it's very therapeutic. Otherwise my feelings of repressed anger and disappointment manifest in ways that lead me to the Dark Side... oh shit... I'm having traumatic flashbacks again... why the fuck are ALL STORMTROOPERS apparently now Boba Fett clones ??? ... oh my god.... okay, breathe... breathe.... go to your safe place.... breathe ....

Anyway, remaking the Prequels would definitely be a fantastic idea, since the storyline is so compelling ... and if Disney could find an actor capable of portraying Anakin's arc from hero to villain in an extremely dramatic, compelling way, it would be worth doing. But, I doubt that will happen any time soon - the general direction Disney is going with this whole thing is obviously building up the storylines and characters in the post-ROTJ setting. Plus, I have a feeling that George Lucas still commands enough respect and influence behind the scenes that the idea of totally throwing away his films would be a bit... commercially awkward and unlikely to happen any time soon, especially given all the revenue still generated from Prequel related media and merchandise.

[Gandalf]

Then I would be deeply pissed. They would be decanonizing an entire series of films that millions of people enjoyed simply to pander to a group of rabid, bitter fans, who are the very people who should not be running things because they have no sense of proportion or objectivity. Besides, I think it is deeply unprofessional for one film maker to piss on another's work like that.

Why is their apparent decanonisation a problem, does it somehow cause these (apparently) beloved films to stop existing? There's nothing wrong with a decent retcon, and if Disney has huge expansive plans for the franchise it might be a good idea, like nixing the books.

[Adam Reynolds]

Then I would be deeply pissed. They would be decanonizing an entire series of films that millions of people enjoyed simply to pander to a group of rabid, bitter fans, who are the very people who should not be running things because they have no sense of proportion or objectivity. Besides, I think it is deeply unprofessional for one film maker to piss on another's work like that.

Why is their apparent decanonisation a problem, does it somehow cause these (apparently) beloved films to stop existing? There's nothing wrong with a decent retcon, and if Disney has huge expansive plans for the franchise it might be a good idea, like nixing the books.

Do you not see the difference between something created by the founder of the franchise and something tacked on by others?

[Batman]

Yes. The difference is one was created by the founder while the other is created by the people who now own the franchise. I fail to see how this automatically means the latter product can't be better. Who cares if it isn't created by Lucas? If Disney manages to give us a better PT, I'm all for it.

[Galvatron]

Plus, I have a feeling that George Lucas still commands enough respect and influence behind the scenes that the idea of totally throwing away his films would be a bit... commercially awkward and unlikely to happen any time soon, especially given all the revenue still generated from Prequel related media and merchandise.

Any remakes could always be saved until they can be made posthumously, if it's Lucas that's standing in their way. What's funnier is that he's once again changing his mind and telling he press that he was planning to make the ST himself before he sold it to Disney.

http://screencrush.com/george-lucas-dir ... -episode-7

For once, I'm glad he changed his mind one final time.

[Zixinus]

They wouldn't do it, at least not in the near future, because it would be devaluing the franchise as a whole if not outright damaging it.

Even if they didn't give a fuck about Lucas or rabid fans, how much can you really hope to get out of retelling a story that people already know? It would cost as much as making the prequels did or more and for what? To confuse and mess about an already confusing canon and timeline? To give a second, slightly improved take? I don't know the figures, but wasn't making the prequel series a really mayor investment as far as movie-making goes? Why should Disney risk doing something on a similar scale?

The problem with the prequels would still be that the audience would still know what happened: Anakin goes full Dark Side, the Jedi are wiped out, the Republic is turned over to Palpatine, Luke and Leia are separated at birth or so young that they don't know each other, etc, etc.

The only way to fix that problem is to make the original series non-canon and easily modifiable, at which point why bother using Star Wars and make an original franchise instead? The same goes of making an animation based on them instead, it's a very wasteful use of animators. I know it's really popular to air disappointment over the prequels but it's just not worth fixing them. If Lucas couldn't or didn't make a better series of what was his lifework of his later years (out of 8 full-length films he directed, 6 were Star Wars films), I don't see why others should try to.

[Channel72]

Even if they didn't give a fuck about Lucas or rabid fans, how much can you really hope to get out of retelling a story that people already know? It would cost as much as making the prequels did or more and for what? To confuse and mess about an already confusing canon and timeline? To give a second, slightly improved take? I don't know the figures, but wasn't making the prequel series a really mayor investment as far as movie-making goes? Why should Disney risk doing something on a similar scale?

I would agree with you completely, if you said the same thing maybe 5 or 10 years ago. But now I have no idea anymore what the hell studio executives might do. They rebooted/remade Spiderman like 10 times before I lost count. They did the same with Hulk. They don't care - if something is a well known franchise, they're apparently willing to endlessly finance "do-overs", because it's pretty guaranteed that people will go see them.

[Galvatron]

Excellent point. And being that it's a brand as valuable as Star Wars, I can't imagine that Disney will ever allow it to languish. Don't be surprised if we get alternative versions of the prequels in some form or another. I wouldn't even rule out a remake of the OT.

[Batman]

And why wouldn't they? Unlike us they don't give a damn about consistency or 'in-character' or silly ideas like that, they want to make money, so what incentive do they have to discontinue an approach that so far seems to be pretty succesful at making them money?

[Batman]

Re retelling a story people already know, that's exactly what the PT did.

[Galvatron]

And why wouldn't they? Unlike us they don't give a damn about consistency or 'in-character' or silly ideas like that, they want to make money, so what incentive do they have to discontinue an approach that so far seems to be pretty succesful at making them money?

Batman would know that better than most.

[Batman]

That's unfair. I inherited the Wayne Fortune.

[Ralin]

The only way to fix that problem is to make the original series non-canon and easily modifiable, at which point why bother using Star Wars and make an original franchise instead? The same goes of making an animation based on them instead, it's a very wasteful use of animators.

Not that I want to see the OT made non-canon or anything, but I would be curious to see a retelling that used some of the ideas from early drafts and concept art that didn't make the final version. Like Luke lightsaber fighting with stormtroopers aboard the Death Star.

[Grumman]

Not that I want to see the OT made non-canon or anything, but I would be curious to see a retelling that used some of the ideas from early drafts and concept art that didn't make the final version. Like Luke lightsaber fighting with stormtroopers aboard the Death Star.

There is a comic book that was based on those drafts, if you wanted to have a look. It's called The Star Wars, and evidently there is a trade paperback being released at the end of this year.

[Ralin]

Not that I want to see the OT made non-canon or anything, but I would be curious to see a retelling that used some of the ideas from early drafts and concept art that didn't make the final version. Like Luke lightsaber fighting with stormtroopers aboard the Death Star.

There is a comic book that was based on those drafts, if you wanted to have a look. It's called The Star Wars, and evidently there is a trade paperback being released at the end of this year.

I watched a review of the first issue of that and it was one of the things I was thinking of while I typed that post.

[Zixinus]

Even if they didn't give a fuck about Lucas or rabid fans, how much can you really hope to get out of retelling a story that people already know? It would cost as much as making the prequels did or more and for what? To confuse and mess about an already confusing canon and timeline? To give a second, slightly improved take? I don't know the figures, but wasn't making the prequel series a really mayor investment as far as movie-making goes? Why should Disney risk doing something on a similar scale?

I would agree with you completely, if you said the same thing maybe 5 or 10 years ago. But now I have no idea anymore what the hell studio executives might do. They rebooted/remade Spiderman like 10 times before I lost count. They did the same with Hulk. They don't care - if something is a well known franchise, they're apparently willing to endlessly finance "do-overs", because it's pretty guaranteed that people will go see them.

Yes, but has Disney did anything similar to this? If not, then we can have some peace of mind that at least they aren't stupid enough to follow that line of thinking.

Excellent point. And being that it's a brand as valuable as Star Wars, I can't imagine that Disney will ever allow it to languish. Don't be surprised if we get alternative versions of the prequels in some form or another. I wouldn't even rule out a remake of the OT.

Yes, but I imagine that they would only do so if the Star Wars brand was falling in popularity and making a remake of any part was a double-or-nothing investment (either it will revive the franchise or it will fall apart). Right now the Star Wars franchise is still alive and everyone is eagerly anticipating the movie. A lot of the future of the franchise now depends on how it will work out.

[Channel72]

Even if they didn't give a fuck about Lucas or rabid fans, how much can you really hope to get out of retelling a story that people already know? It would cost as much as making the prequels did or more and for what? To confuse and mess about an already confusing canon and timeline? To give a second, slightly improved take? I don't know the figures, but wasn't making the prequel series a really mayor investment as far as movie-making goes? Why should Disney risk doing something on a similar scale?

I would agree with you completely, if you said the same thing maybe 5 or 10 years ago. But now I have no idea anymore what the hell studio executives might do. They rebooted/remade Spiderman like 10 times before I lost count. They did the same with Hulk. They don't care - if something is a well known franchise, they're apparently willing to endlessly finance "do-overs", because it's pretty guaranteed that people will go see them.

Yes, but has Disney did anything similar to this? If not, then we can have some peace of mind that at least they aren't stupid enough to follow that line of thinking.

Disney releases endless sequels all the time. They haven't yet done anything as extreme as rebooting Spiderman like 20 seconds after it came out, but I wouldn't be completely surprised if they did something like that. Although, I agree that they won't remake the Prequels any time this decade, but that's because I imagine that a large percentage of all revenue generated from Star Wars media and merchandise includes concepts and characters from the Prequels.

But you know, it's not like the 90s where every Batman movie was technically part of the same "timeline" or "continuity" (even though the actor playing Batman was constantly changing.) These days if a take on a specific franchise is even remotely a flop, studios seem willing to redo it. I mean, from a pure monetary standpoint, which is more likely to make money: the 1,782nd remake of Spiderman? Or some random new movie about new characters? The Nth Spiderman remake is at least guaranteed a certain bottomline turnout, whereas the new movie's success is totally unpredictable.

In a way, we've almost returned to a more traditional form of storytelling - ancient "epics" like Homer's Odyssey and all that were told, retold, "rebooted" etc., all the time, depending on who was telling the story. It was only hundreds of years later that a "canonical" text was established. Right now, the Star Wars OT is pretty much strongly "canonical" - and I don't mean "canonical" in the stupid SDN nerd sense - I mean, it's culturally canonical because it was so impactful that it serves as a "standard", almost untouchable version of the original story.

Even so, I honestly don't know if that means much in the long run. I would have though that the original Star Trek characters, as played by Shatner and Nimoy, were so strongly "canonical" and so strongly cemented into popular culture, that "rebooting" these characters would be considered too much of a risk, or too unthinkable, for a major movie studio. Yet, here we are with new younger takes on Captain Kirk. So Kirk has now passed on from "exclusively Shatner" to an actual "character" in the literary sense, like James Bond or Hamlet ... many people can now play him, and he becomes more of an amorphous collection of certain character traits, rather than specifically William Shatner. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, the same thing happens to Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi.

I mean, it's an established psychological fact that humans like to hear the same shit retold and retold... it's why bards in Ancient Greece could go from town to town and keep making a living telling the same stories, with slight variations, over and over. And it's the same reason that today, people will keep paying money to see Spiderman's origin story told again and again, or Batman's origin story, or a new take on the Joker, or whatever.