Next Star Wars movie, a bit related with Dark Forces 1?

Off topic discussions that don't fit in any other categories.
Manhs
Junior-Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 3:00 pm

Next Star Wars movie, a bit related with Dark Forces 1?

Postby Manhs » Sat Apr 09, 2016 12:36 pm

Here is the link:
http://moviepilot.com/posts/3859966

I think, if it's really like DF1, disney should have changed the name and others stuff to be free to make the story like they want, but the fact it could use the story style of DF1 can make the movie, really fun !!!
Also, it seems, there is the concussion weapon ! :D
User avatar
MrFlibble
Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Next Star Wars movie, a bit related with Dark Forces 1?

Postby MrFlibble » Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:13 am

Heh, this is cool :)
User avatar
Special K
Member
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:02 am

Re: Next Star Wars movie, a bit related with Dark Forces 1?

Postby Special K » Thu May 05, 2016 11:37 pm

My problem with Rouge One is that I think it is telling a story that never needed to be told. The whole Death Star plans thing was just an efficient and effective plot device in A New Hope to get things rolling story-wise, which worked perfectly. It didn't matter how the Rebels had got the plans, just like it didn't matter how they got the plans of Death Star II in Jedi: the point was they had them, and then they moved on with the film. Bothans died, shit happened, but hey, now it's time for an epic space battle. That works. That's story telling.

What doesn't work is trying to go back retroactively to explain things that before were left up to our imagination (and rightfully so). One of the key components of a successful story is an element of mystery or complexity: characters mention things that are never fully explained, allowing the audience to experience a sense of true unfamiliarity and wonderment that immerses them in the story. When authors or directors feel the need to explain every last detail of their imagined world, the stories they tell loose their magic, their charm. The great masters like Tolkien are famous for the way they left things deliberately vague or unexplained, and it speaks volumes about the technique when you realize just how much it enhances the overall experience for the reader.

Take a character like Boba Fett, for example. What made him and the other bounty hunters of Empire so interesting? They had hardly any screen time and were never given any expository dialogue to establish their back stories. And yet, all these years later, Boba Fett is one of the most revered characters of the entire Star Wars universe. What made Boba Fett such a great character was that he was basically an anti-character: a character so mysterious and unexplained that the audience can't help but wonder what his story is. Unable to derive that information from the film, the audience is forced to use their imagination, thereby forming a connection with the film that is stronger than any connection that some scrap of backstory or exposition could manage to effect.

So yeah, long story short I hate retroactive money-grabs like Rouge One that tear to shreads any semblance of profound and artful mystery for the sole reason that there is money to be made. Tell new stories, damn it! Create new mysteries to captivate a new generation! But spare the mysteries of old; the characters best left unexplained; the places best left unvisited and the stories best left untold, for those are what make art truly great.
User avatar
Klasodeth
Site Staff
Site Staff
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: Next Star Wars movie, a bit related with Dark Forces 1?

Postby Klasodeth » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:55 am

Special K wrote:My problem with Rouge One is that I think it is telling a story that never needed to be told. The whole Death Star plans thing was just an efficient and effective plot device in A New Hope to get things rolling story-wise, which worked perfectly. It didn't matter how the Rebels had got the plans, just like it didn't matter how they got the plans of Death Star II in Jedi: the point was they had them, and then they moved on with the film. Bothans died, shit happened, but hey, now it's time for an epic space battle. That works. That's story telling.

What doesn't work is trying to go back retroactively to explain things that before were left up to our imagination (and rightfully so). One of the key components of a successful story is an element of mystery or complexity: characters mention things that are never fully explained, allowing the audience to experience a sense of true unfamiliarity and wonderment that immerses them in the story. When authors or directors feel the need to explain every last detail of their imagined world, the stories they tell loose their magic, their charm. The great masters like Tolkien are famous for the way they left things deliberately vague or unexplained, and it speaks volumes about the technique when you realize just how much it enhances the overall experience for the reader.

Take a character like Boba Fett, for example. What made him and the other bounty hunters of Empire so interesting? They had hardly any screen time and were never given any expository dialogue to establish their back stories. And yet, all these years later, Boba Fett is one of the most revered characters of the entire Star Wars universe. What made Boba Fett such a great character was that he was basically an anti-character: a character so mysterious and unexplained that the audience can't help but wonder what his story is. Unable to derive that information from the film, the audience is forced to use their imagination, thereby forming a connection with the film that is stronger than any connection that some scrap of backstory or exposition could manage to effect.

So yeah, long story short I hate retroactive money-grabs like Rouge One that tear to shreads any semblance of profound and artful mystery for the sole reason that there is money to be made. Tell new stories, damn it! Create new mysteries to captivate a new generation! But spare the mysteries of old; the characters best left unexplained; the places best left unvisited and the stories best left untold, for those are what make art truly great.

I think there's some middle ground here. I agree with you to a point. For instance, the Clone Wars is something I don't think ever really needed to be covered, particularly since it was described as an event of the distant past. On the other hand, I think there is room to tell stories about relevant events like the Rebels obtaining the Death Star plans. There are a few reasons why I think doing so can work. One is that it's already depicted as a very recent event in the context of Star Wars that's of some significance. Another is that since it's a recent event, it's a prime opportunity to tell a separate, but related story within the time period Star Wars fans have the most attachment to. Third, it's an event that quite clearly requires a largely separate cast of characters, as it's pretty clear that Luke, Obi-wan, Han, and Chewbacca would have had no involvement in the story. Even Princess Leia, R2-D2, and C-3P0 would have limited roles if they were involved in the events at all. Fourth, capturing the Death Star plans isn't exactly a Noodle Incident. It's the sort of thing where you can expect a few likely scenarios, due to the relatively limited scale of the event.That's different from the Clone Wars where it's likely to be a very large scale chain of events with a cryptic name. I had always envisioned some scenario where a person couldn't tell which side someone was on, because you have two identical-looking groups at war--something where the fact that clones were involved made the scenario inherently unique. Instead, the clones were just flesh-bag equivalents to a droid army or brainwashed soldiers.

Because of all that, I don't think making a movie based on the Death Star plans really ruins anything. The story requires the introduction of new protagonists, so we don't have the problem where the same few people are responsible for everything. We get a return to the world of Star Wars that most of us were introduced to in the first place, instead of the "even the real stuff looks fake" prequel trilogy. We get a chance to see the war between the Empire and the Rebellion from a different angle. And we get a depiction of significant events that can be expected to feature conflict and tension, as opposed to the prequel trilogy which ended up being too much of a history lesson. I don't think telling a story about the capture of the Death Star plans ruins the mystique of Star Wars, since it's not trying to tell the whole history of the Rebellion versus the Empire.

It really is a fine line sometimes, I suppose. For instance, I don't think telling the origin story of Boba Fett was a good idea, but I can see room to tell a story where he has a significant presence, yet remains a mystery.
I'm frequently online in the #xlengine.projects channel at irc.freenode.net as Klasodeth, Klaso, or KLA.
Taraking
Lurker
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:59 am

Re: Next Star Wars movie, a bit related with Dark Forces 1?

Postby Taraking » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:08 pm

I agree, Dark Forces was about the creation of Dark Troopers and their implementation in the Imperial Forces, the destruction of their production ship. Only the first introductory level was about stealing the plans to the Death Star, which is what Rogue One is entirely about. Recently, one of my friends bought dark souls from Instant-gaming official site and was told his experience while playing the game and was satisfied with the game.

Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests