Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Disney's Titling Problem With Its Star Wars Movies

timothy posted 1 year,20 days | from the what-occupies-the-mind dept.

Star Wars Prequels 279

An anonymous reader writes "When George Lucas produced his Star Wars movies, he subtitled them 'Episode I,' 'Episode IV' etc. But that style will become inappropriate and confusing with Disney producing a new Star Wars movie each year, observes blogger Christopher Knight: 'Those were individual chapters of one story in an epic fantasy setting. And it suffices for that one multi-generational epic on film. Except now, there is the intent to produce several stories in that same setting. And they aren't necessarily going to pertain to the tale of the Skywalker family from Anakin to Luke to whoever it will be in the next trilogy.' Knight's solution is to retroactively amend the titles of Episodes I through IX to reflect it being the Skywalkers' saga, just as Lucas retroactively subtitled the first movie to be Episode IV."

cancel ×

279 comments

Peh. (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190809)

They should just name them after the action figure each one is made to sell.

Re: Peh. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191047)

You misspelled. "Pez".

Re:Peh. (5, Funny)

pitchpipe (708843) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191137)

Jar Jar Strikes Back??? NOOOOOOOOOOOO...

Re:Peh. (5, Funny)

Billly Gates (198444) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191301)

Well better than Darth mouse! [youtube.com]

Re:Peh. (1, Funny)

gagol (583737) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191699)

How about Mickey Skywalker?

Re:Peh. (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191333)

Meesa thinking a movie about da Binks family is mooie mooie good. Nowsa that I'm a traitorous bastard who sold da Jedi and da Republic up da river, it could be called Revenge of da Binks!

Re:Peh. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191335)

Would pay to see a grimdark Jar Jar forced to choose between his love for country and the power required to protect it, slipping farther into darkness until he becomes the befouler of the very homeworld he sought to defend.

Re:Peh. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191435)

Jar Jar as the new Sith Lord!

Just rename everything (5, Funny)

anarcobra (1551067) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190863)

The movies formerly known as star wars.

Re:Just rename everything (1)

aliquis (678370) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191075)

"Camel-frog guy and laser sabers" is my suggestion.

I don't know the Star wars saga good enough but maybe:

"Camel-frog guy and the creation of the Israeli state" or something such would work to. Conflict and the princess involved somehow.

Does anyone care anymore? (-1, Redundant)

Gr8Apes (679165) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191173)

I mean really, Lucas has screwed these films up so badly, he's even sullied the original 2, which were decent to great when they came out. The prequels were so awful and badly cast that no one that watched the originals cared to watch them.

Retroactively? (4, Interesting)

sayfawa (1099071) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190867)

Didn't the original scrolling intro always say "episode 4"?

Re:Retroactively? (5, Informative)

Caitlin Ann Patton (2881879) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190907)

Didn't the original scrolling intro always say "episode 4"?

Not in the original showing of the film. The "Episode IV" part was added later when the film's popularity made it viable for a sequel. OR something like that.

Re:Retroactively? (2, Informative)

Animats (122034) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191177)

Didn't the original scrolling intro always say "episode 4"?

It did when I saw the original theatrical release on opening day in1978. Seeing that go by, I thought they were showing a serial out of order by mistake.

Re:Retroactively? (5, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191395)

It did when I saw the original theatrical release on opening day in1978.

Except that Star Wars premiered in 1977. And it did not say "Episode 4" when it did. I was there, and it didn't. It did get a 1978 re-release, but "Episode IV" was not placed into the title crawl until the 1981 re-release (after The Empire Strikes Back proclaimed itself "Episode V" in its original 1980 release).

Re:Retroactively? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191397)

Then you didn't see it in the cinemas on opening day in 1978. Or you're not remembering the opening day screening.

Episode IV wasn't added until the film was re-released.

Re:Retroactively? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191653)

I saw it in the UK the first time it came out, and it definitely said Episode IV. I remember trying to find the first names of the first 3 episodes in the library.

Re:Retroactively? (0)

Rockoon (1252108) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190909)

Yes.

Saw it in the theaters on its first run. It was indeed Episode 4, and even then it was known then that he wanted to make 3 sets of 3 movies, and that episode 1 would begin the second trilogy.

Re: Retroactively? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44190997)

Episode You-Are-Wrong-O.

Re:Retroactively? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191273)

No, it did not. You are misremembering it because it was changed and has been seen in that form so many times since.

The Episode IV moniker was added to the film later.

Re:Retroactively? (4, Funny)

plover (150551) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191775)

No, it did not. You are misremembering it because it was changed and has been seen in that form so many times since.

The Episode IV moniker was added to the film later.

He's obviously confused or deranged. Next he'll be claiming something outlandish, like "Han shot first" or something equally absurd.

Re:Retroactively? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191347)

I guess it all depends on which version of reality Lucas is peddling at any given time. One day it was three trilogies, then two, now it's nine trilogies plus unrelated add-on movies. Why, by the time Disney is done, the Christmas Special will return its rightful canon place and we'll have full length Wookie porn flicks; "Revenge of Chewbacca's 36 Inch Dong!"

Re:Retroactively? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44190937)

Didn't the original scrolling intro always say "episode 4"?

Nope [wikia.com] , that came later.

Re:Retroactively? (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190941)

The very original release just read Star Wars, from what I've seen, with the "Episode 4" added later

Re: Retroactively? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44190973)

No, the original title was "Star Wars". The "Episode IV: A New Hope" was added in the 1981 release. This was after The Empire Strikes Back (1980), which surprised everyone with Episode V in the title.

Re: Retroactively? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191145)

I saw Star Wars in the theater before The Empire Strikes Back was released. The scrolling text clearly stated "Episode IV" back then.

Re: Retroactively? (1)

_merlin (160982) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191507)

IIRC the "Episode IV" line was added in 1981 for the Laserdisc and cinematic re-release. It definitely wasn't there in the '70s.

Re:Retroactively? (1)

Ghostworks (991012) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191007)

It did. The idea as Lucas originally described it in his draft (back when it was called "Journal of the Whills") was that it was like picking a book off the shelf and finding it was the fourth volume of a history series. (While he said that later, it seems more likely that it was actually more like coming into a Buck Rogers serial halfway through.) Perhaps the original poster is referring to the way it was subtitled retroactively _on_posters_. That is, until Episode I came out, it was just "Star Wars", with sequels "(Star Wars:) the Empire Strikes Back" and "(Star Wars:) Return of the Jedi".

Episodes 1 through 3 are a lot more modern idea than Lucas wants many to believe. He never really talked about them until he was into his second sequel. There was likely no master design for a 9-part arc as he described. There was just a convenient gap left by an earlier gimmick.

None of this really changes the point though: Star Wars doesn't have a title problem. Well, other than the fact it keeps changing titles on movies that already exist, a problem this proposed scheme exacerbates. Nobody cares if a Star Wars movie follows the Skywalkers anymore than they care if every videogame, novel, cartoon, and comic follow them. Star Wars is not a brand. And while that makes it ever so slightly awkward for the movie to call itself "Star Wars 7", they never did that in the first place, and likely won't do it by the time the movie has a real title. So who cares? Star Wars: Number-free Title.

Re:Retroactively? (1)

sjames (1099) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191085)

Why not change the title considering that he keeps changing the movie itself?

Re:Retroactively? (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191495)

Why change anything?

We still reference dates with BC/AD, what wrong with negative Episode numbers, and even decimal versions if they decide to squeeze something between two others?

Or betting yet, just let it end, and use their imagination to come up with something totally new and different rather than changing one digit in the title and slapping a brand new copyright date on the same old movie.

How about this (5, Insightful)

MonkeyPaw (8286) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190877)

How about this? Stop making stupid Star Wars movies and come up with a new idea.

Re:How about this (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44190961)

come up with a new idea.

Disney? Come up with a new idea? Hahaha, oh wow, are you kidding? They've finished sucking classical childrens stories dry, and now they've moved on to modern culture, Disney hasn't had a single original idea since the ink dried on Steam Boat Willy.

Re:How about this (4, Funny)

Billly Gates (198444) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191317)

come up with a new idea.

Disney? Come up with a new idea? Hahaha, oh wow, are you kidding? They've finished sucking classical childrens stories dry, and now they've moved on to modern culture, Disney hasn't had a single original idea since the ink dried on Steam Boat Willy.

What are you talking about? Disney has re-innovated Star Wars quite well [youtube.com] . Just look at the new characters introduced in episode 7?

Re:How about this (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191817)

Disney was a cool, innovative entertainment company while Walt was alive. He was the Pixar of the mid 20th century. It was long after his death that Disney turned into the "milk parents company." Disney still churns out the occasional hit like The Lion King, but most of their releases are shamelessly accountant-driven.

Re:How about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44190967)

audiences are afraid of something new, execs are afraid of something new

after a brief 100 yr jump in ideas welcome to the next 1000 of same old thing and mediocre refinements..

Re:How about this (1)

The Sad Nazgul (2803507) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191019)

Inconceivable!

Re:How about this (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191457)

This isn't the movie you're looking for.

(Also, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.)

Re:How about this (2)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191101)

Incidentally, I feel like I've seen more Star Wars related things since Disney took over than in the previous five years combined. The marketing power is strong with this one.

Re:How about this (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191133)

Great idea. Not gonna happen. They already looted our childhood fairy tales and locked them in the vaults under eternal copyright and there was nothing left for them to do except buy Lucasfilms to get Star Wars.

Re:How about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191331)

How about this? Stop making stupid Star Wars movies and come up with a new idea.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. No.
I'am a star wars fan and I don't give a shit about the future of the Star Wars franchise.

I've got Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi (pre Lucas tinkering versions) together with the Thrawn Trilogy (the only good sequel to the original trilogy if only in book form). Everything else is shit except maybe for TPM heavily fan edited version.

Re:How about this (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191351)

Disney paid a lot of dollaro for the rights to Star Wars. They will milk it every nickel they can. And you'll buy it! Do you hear me, you'll buy it!

Re:How about this (5, Insightful)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191373)

come up with a new ide

Quit living in the past. Modern film making is about certainties. If you try to come up with a new idea, what if it didn't work?

The studios need to know precisely what's going to happen before they even try. That's why you stick with the same formula over and over again and the only new content is derived from best selling works. That way you know what's going to fail and what's going to succeed.

Risk is not an option.

Re:How about this (1)

quantaman (517394) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191385)

How about this? Stop making stupid Star Wars movies and come up with a new idea.

I don't necessarily agree, Star Wars has a very rich universe which gives a new movie the advantage of ditching some exposition and working in a universe the viewer has an emotional connection with.

Of course that only works if they recapture the vision and adventure of the original trilogy, I think it's possible (particularly if you pull in some of the old cast) but if they can't make it work it's probably better to leave it alone.

Re:How about this (1)

MonkeyPaw (8286) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191499)

Of course that only works if they recapture the vision and adventure of the original trilogy,....

...and I could go back to being 10 years old when I first saw the movie and thought it kicked ass.

Watching the original Star Wars now is boring. It really isn't that good of a movie. The RiffTrax version helps though.

Re:How about this (1)

westlake (615356) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191417)

How about this? Stop making stupid Star Wars movies and come up with a new idea.

There are three durable Sci Fi franchises and geek culture would be lost without them: Dr Who, Star Trek and Star Wars.

If the geek wants to know why HBO's audience gets Crown of Thorns and CN's DreamWorks: Dragons, he might want to look at his own fandoms --- not exactly a hotbed of original ideas.

Re:How about this (1)

dk20 (914954) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191513)

I think you mean look at project gutenberg for some out of copyright material to turn into a movie? Why not combine them both and use the star wars characters?

Re:How about this (1)

Zargg (1596625) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191789)

I think a lot of people are focusing on the movies too much, remember that Disney does much more with their characters than movies. Imagine a Star Wars land at Disney world, Star wars cruises, and then do it all again with Marvel also. They are the one company is a position to do way more than just more Star Wars movies.

This isn't anything new... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44190881)

For those of us that have entered the realms of Dark Forces/Jedi Knight, X-Wing/TIE Fighter, The Force Unleashed, KOTOR, etc., the LucasArts folks have been pretty good at making sure the general story elements are consistent. Can't really speak to the Clone Wars, though.

You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191105)

Lucas*ARTS* was pretty good about it. Lucas and Lucasfilm have been terrible with consistency and canonicity of elements for DECADES.

Honestly 9/10 of what I consider Star Wars now has nothing to do with 'Lucas-universe' Star Wars, the majority was Book, Comic, or Videogame inspired. Go back to pre-prequels and the only thing that had kept Star Wars going so long was the sublicensing for other media. Hell even the toys started producing extended universe prior to the runup for TPM, due to the 'theatrical' toys having been played out.

Just use the A.D. notation . . . (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190883)

. . . you know, like A.D., as in, "Anno Disneyi" . . . ?

. . . and BCE . . . "Before Crap Era" . . .

What problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44190953)

Star Wars 2015
Star Wars 2016
Star Wars 2098 SE
Star Wars 3001 => Star Wars ME
Star Wars The Next Generation

Re:Just use the A.D. notation . . . (1)

jrumney (197329) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191741)

. . . you know, like A.D., as in, "Anno Disneyi" . . . ?

. . . and BCE . . . "Before Crap Era" . . .

You're missing Episodes 1, 2, 3 and the remakes of 4, 5 and 6.

Re:Just use the A.D. notation . . . (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191823)

. . . you know, like A.D., as in, "Anno Disneyi" . . . ?

. . . and BCE . . . "Before Crap Era" . . .

BCE == Before Copyrights were Eternal.

Reboot! (2)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44190887)

Star Wars: 2015
Star Wars The Next Generation
Star Wars The Dark Night
Star Wars 2: Electric Boogaloo

Or my favorite, how about just:

Star Wars

but in an alternate universe. Hey it worked for Star Trek!

Star Wars II: The Search for More Money (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190913)

Or why not "Star Wars That Sucks" ?

Re:Star Wars II: The Search for More Money (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191245)

Or why not "Star Wars That Sucks" ?

Not nearly specific enough

Re:Star Wars II: The Search for More Money (2)

gagol (583737) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191777)

What about "Star Wars that sucks the balls off a dead moose" ?

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44190931)

From my understanding, The Clone Wars movie and series are set between Ep 2 and 3. So what's the problem then? Just don't name it as an episode number.

Re:So? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191355)

Star Wars 2.5?

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191393)

Star Wars 33 1/3 The Final Insult

Yes, in all but name (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191451)

Star Wars 2.5 is EXACTLY what the Clone Wars series is.

In fact you should not even watch EP3 without seeing the first season of the animated Clone Wars (which is BTW much better than EP3) as it explains a ton the movie just doesn't.

Not a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44190933)

They're just going to try and trick people into buying them again by rebranding it slightly.

Pure Disney.

The least of our concerns (1)

SammyRenard (2965729) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190971)

If you think that's the biggest problem about star wars right now...

Old style serials? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | 1 year,20 days | (#44190985)

So, we're to understand that now that they're going to produce actual episodic content, which is more in the style of old serials that the original were intended to homage, they're going to drop the episodic titling for something else?

I don't get it... (4, Insightful)

lrsach01 (181713) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191003)

What's the problem? There is almost 40 YEARS of novels and they never seem to have any trouble.

Re:I don't get it... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191097)

Yeap, you have the answer, the blogger doesn't know what he's talking about; problem solved, thread closed.

And they can always recycle the "Christmas Special." Or the cartoons. [starwars.com]

Re:I don't get it... (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191099)

There can't be that many years. Because, counting forward from the...D'oh!

Re:I don't get it... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191361)

Yep, there's nothing like contemplating Star Wars' release date to make you feel old. Yes, I remember watching it when it came out--multiple times, in theaters, which I don't think I ever did with any other movie.

I recently embraced the New Imperialism (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191005)

So in my view the Rebel Alliance are not freedom fighters, but terrorists. Leave it to Disney to make movies celebrating horrific, terrorist acts against the forces of the democratically elected galactic government. It's sickening.

Re:I recently embraced the New Imperialism (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191093)

I liked playing TIE Fighter better than X-Wing too.

Re:I recently embraced the New Imperialism (3, Funny)

WhiplashII (542766) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191197)

They destroyed the planetary mineral extractor! All aboard were killed! Hundreds of thousands of civilian contractors perished in the explosion!

These terrorists must be STOPPED!

Re:I recently embraced the New Imperialism (1)

gijoel (628142) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191341)

I had clones on that Death Star.

Re:I recently embraced the New Imperialism (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191411)

Don't forget about the Endor Holocaust [theforce.net]

Re:I recently embraced the New Imperialism (4, Funny)

joe_frisch (1366229) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191421)

Actually they could do some really nice movies showing the story from the other side. The legitimate government of the galaxy battling an unholy alliance of slavers, smugglers, and terrorists being manipulated by a secretive theocracy.

How many contractors died on death-star 2? The terrorist alliance tricked neolithic "ewoks" into a suicidal assault on an imperial base, just as a distraction. (OK, personally I don't mind ridding the universe of Ewoks, but it wasn't nice).

Was there even an attempt at a recall election for the chancellor? No, they went immediately to assassination because they found out that he belonged to a rival religious group.

All I really want though is 2 hours of the opening battle from episode 3......

Re:I recently embraced the New Imperialism (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191445)

How many contractors died on death-star 2?

All the ones that didn't care Alderaan had been blown up by the first one.

Re:I recently embraced the New Imperialism (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191529)

I'm not saying the Moff Tarken didn't exceed his authority.....
I'm sure there would have been a full investigation and a clarification of the rules of engagement.

Re:I recently embraced the New Imperialism (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191749)

Of course. Whenever a government oversteps its authority, there is always a full investigation. The results of the investigation are then placed in the circular file. And in the case of the Galactic Empire, so are the investigators.

Re:I recently embraced the New Imperialism (5, Funny)

Adam Gignac (2834761) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191689)

Alderaan shot first...

Who on earth cares? (1)

vux984 (928602) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191023)

What else is there really to say?

Are there even any star wars fans who care all that much how disney resolves this apparently complicated and difficult conundrum?

Re:Who on earth cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191235)

Are there even any star wars fans who care

You're kidding right?

Star Wars XVIII (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191035)

Star Wars XVIII: The Empire Milks it for All it's Worth.

Star Wars LXIX: The Audience Gets Crewed

etc., etc., Who cares?

Will Lucas ever be satisfied? (2)

fizzer06 (1500649) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191051)

Go on and do it, do it,
Do it 'til you're satisfied,
Whatever it is, do it,
Do it 'til you're satisfied.

Re:Will Lucas ever be satisfied? (1)

gagol (583737) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191881)

Sure Lucas is satisfied, he is laughing all the way to the online bankin website to check his account!

If you don't like it, make your own (1)

Darth Hubris (26923) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191091)

Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga: Episode IV: Con Carne y Salsa Verde

Re:If you don't like it, make your own (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191175)

Are you suggesting we cannibalize it for profit? You realize you would be buried in court and everything taken from you.

Sounds like Disney, the Monsanto of the media world. Simple recipe, take something that has been around a long long time before you existed, modify it some, claim it is yours exclusively and ban all variations.

Spaceballs: The Search for More Money (1)

LostOne (51301) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191229)

Maybe we can have that Spaceballs sequel, too?

Oh, wait. That's essentially what this is.

Of course, there's an outside chance it won't suck horribly.

Expanded Universe (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191277)

I always enjoyed the EU stuff. Pretty much all of it was better than the Prequel Trilogy, except for maybe that story about Zorba the Hutt looking for the Glove of Darth Vader...

So basically Disney is making Expanded Universe movies. I'd love to see films based on parts of Tales From Jabba's Palace/Mos Eisley Cantina, The Zahn Trilogy, etc., and I hope whatever they come up with is at least on par. Making "Episodes VII, VIII, and IX" would just be a mistake.

- chinagreenelvis

Re:Expanded Universe (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191381)

The one thing I'm reasonably certain about is that whatever Lucas had approved for the expanded universe will be thrown out the door. Disney is out to make a lot of money, and it will have absolutely no interest in is optioning Zahn or any other expanded universe author.

Besides, most of the Expanded Universe stuff I've read (admittedly only a splattering here and there), is just gawdawful shit.

On second thought, considering how the standards for the prequel trilogy went down the shitter and Disney's involvement, maybe the Expanded Universe crap will set the perfect tone.

How did they name those 2 Ewok movies? (3)

taxman_10m (41083) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191297)

Why should this be any different?

You haven't read the novels for the last episodes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191339)

Certainly I haven't read all of them, I think they are 52, but I know for shure it continues with son of Luke and the three kids of Leia and Han, so, they continues with the skywalker saga just facing a new menace besides the original one, yes, Palpatine is still alive.

No longer matters (1)

dbIII (701233) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191389)

The naming was to make people think it was like the old Republic serials and nobody younger than Lucas is really going to get the reference any more. While I've been told this I don't really "get it" since I didn't grow up seeing those things in smoky cinemas and waiting for the "next exciting episode" to come out.

Overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191403)

I like science fiction but the cartoon-ish Star Wars movies are some of the most overrated movies in history.

Truth in advertising (5, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191409)

They could just name the last six movies, "The.Star.Wars.Saga.dvdrip.engsubs.aXX0" and I'm not sure anyone would notice.

Re:Truth in advertising (3, Funny)

thegarbz (1787294) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191831)

Oh I hope Disney gets sued by aXX0 for trademark infringement.

It was always episode IV (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191437)

The first Star Wars film was always episode IV, it was NOT retroactively renumbered. It was an homage to the old movie serials that they used to show.

/. editors seduced by the Dark Side (1)

mrsam (12205) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191585)

Following the link to TFA, I find myself reading a few pages on some nobody's personal blog, where he fan-wanks off in some general what-if idle speculation.

And the esteemed /. editors bought this whole load of some fanboy's idle speculation, hook, line, and sinker, thinking it was real news, straight from Lucas's horse's mouth.

Idiots.

Um, no (1)

Adam Gignac (2834761) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191677)

No need to add "The Skywalker Saga" on to the titles. Movies that are part of the main thread keep their "Episode $n" titles, and spin-offs get their own titles. Worked for X-Men (the quality of that series notwithstanding) which had X-Men {1,2,3} (spanning the Xavier vs Magneto stories), Origins and First Class (prequels), and the upcoming Wolverine and Days of Future Past.

What a crap article (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44191691)

I think the guy is just trying to drive traffic to his blog. Seriously, they don't need to follow a scheme or retroactively name anything.

Ahem (1, Insightful)

justthinkit (954982) | 1 year,20 days | (#44191841)

News for nerds, stuff that matters?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...