In 100 years...

[Majimaune]

Well not quite 100 years, a bit under but anyway...In approx. 100 years do you think Star Wars will be remade, made more of or whatever? Personally I don't think so. The reason I say 100 years is copyright laws and Lucas doesn't want anyone else to make SW and he wont make any more.

What do you guys think.

[tangaloomababe]

Its an interesting thought. I hope not though. I am not much into remakes and something on the Star Wars scale would be hard to imagine being redone.

Not that they probably couldn't do it better, with the way films and special effects are done now, one can only assume that technology will further develop. However I tend to believe that no matter how good your technology is that once the story has been told, there is no point in telling it again. It only draws comparasions and sometimes not favorable ones.
Still it dosn't really matter, we won't be around to see if its remade or not.

[Harpo]

Just for comparison, albeit on a smaller scale, "War Of The Worlds" was created as a novel in the 1890s, then performed as a radio play in the 1930s, then made into a film in the 1950s (and again recently), and as a musical version in the 1970s (recently turned into a stage musical).
Imagine the late 19th Century readers of the novel, wondering if it might be "performed" in whatever way in the decades to come. We in the early 21st century know that it was done, successfully, many times. Was there no point in telling the story again?

[tangaloomababe]

Well the 70'smusical was well worth telling I give you that, but I doubt to many people will want to remember the most recent movie version, but I see your point Harpo!

[Joel007]

I'm sure something new will spring up which will acknowledge Star Wars as a distant ancestor, but remaking it... I'm not sure about that.

[Huttman]

An interesting question. There are so many movies re-made for new generations of movie go-ers and many are quite good. If a story is good enough for a film from the 50's, 60's and such, bringing them to the screen in a contemporary setting, if done well, could make for quality viewing. This makes me look at my years when I see movies re-made or re-imagined that I remember seeing the original first run. Batman is the one I'm refering to, and as much as I've enjoyed the entire run, (1 - 3 anyway), I have to say Batman Begins is a masterfully written, performed, and played out film, one of my favourite of all time movies. Most re-made films are of a single story nature, though, that could be told in two hours or less, while Star Wars is a saga of a story that could and should be expanded, not re-imagined. But in a 100 years, who knows? The unique thing about Star Wars is that it's one of the most timeless series of films because of no time reference in it to compare, or feel the need to update, to fit another generation. Also, the historical impact of these movies might be enough for future generations to respect and not re-tell such a timeless classic. Time will tell...

[C Of K]

There's little doubt in my mind that if Star Wars movies were remade in the future, they would loose the charm of the past. If you look at todays Hollywood action movies, with substantial effects, the focus is largely on the effects. Everything else is secondary, if not less important. Transformers is a good example. The effects were unbelievable, but the story stunk, and only a few of the real characters were any good at all.

The Original Trilogy was made with great hassle on the part of George Lucas, but the struggle left an irreplaceable mark on his work. I think that was George Lucas at his best. It inadvertently helped establish a certain charm that no other movie has been able to capture.

Even the prequels were lacking it. Some people may like George's Special Edition stuff better than the original movies, but going back to implement that stuff, he couldn't accomplish 30 years ago, rubbed much the charm out of his movies.

100 years or so from now, I don't see them being able to capture the same magic. If they make more Star Wars films, good or bad, they will be a completely different thing in their own right.

[Huttman]

Hey, how about Empire on Ice, anyone?

[Majimaune]

I thought that if it was remade in 100 years all the technology wouldn't be so cool and newish. It would seem more achievable if not some of it already there. Special effects would be pretty awesome I think.

[Lore]

i think so, look how big star wars is, its bigger now then it was when it come out

[Lioness]

...thread necromancer...

[Ironic cyborg]

In a hundred years time we will all be bald asexual clones with witheringly weak arms and legs, our oversized craniums all plugged into a massive supercomputer that rules the earth.

If however that supercomputer does decide to remake Star wars it can't possibly make a bigger mess of it than Lucas did with the prequel trilogy so I wouldn't be too concerned.

[sarakoth]

Star Wars, being a pop culture icon, will most likely be forgotten in one hundred years except maybe in film circles. Pop culture rarely persists longer than a few decades and it is not easy for Star Wars to have survived so long. Ordinary chart topping songs and blockbuster films are easily forgotten within ten years.

[C Of K]

Star Wars has enough material to survive. It isn't something you compare to a song, or just any blockbuster movie. It caters to far more than just movie goers. George Lucas has reached into almost every popular form of media, and established a place in each of them.

Dark Horse Comics wouldn't survive without the Star Wars comics it has produced for the last few decades.

How many people doubt that Superman will be around in a hundred years. It's possible Superman will fade away, but seventy years after his conception, five movies, several tv shows, and untold thousands of comic books later, he's going strong as ever.

Big business and creativity find ways to survive. If creative minds are interested in prolonging the life of Star Wars, it will be around.

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by Harpo

Just for comparison, albeit on a smaller scale, "War Of The Worlds" was created as a novel in the 1890s, then performed as a radio play in the 1930s, then made into a film in the 1950s (and again recently), and as a musical version in the 1970s (recently turned into a stage musical).
Imagine the late 19th Century readers of the novel, wondering if it might be "performed" in whatever way in the decades to come. We in the early 21st century know that it was done, successfully, many times. Was there no point in telling the story again?

It may depend on how good the original story is. With WOTW, there is great material for all kinds of ideas. And the original was a book, not a movie to be remade endlessly, ala Beau Geste. Nevertheless, Spielberg's remake was a do-over of the George Pal movie, not a new version of H.G. Wells' book. At some point, it becomes pointless to try to do another film version.

Case in point: In 1962, Peter Ustinov directed and acted in a film version of Herman Melville's tale, Billy Budd, Foretopman. Entitled simply Billy Budd, it starred Ustinov, Robert Ryan, Melvyn Douglas, David McCallum and Terrence Stamp in his film debut in the title role. With a fine score by Sir Antony Hopkins as recorded by the London Philharmonic, this B&W film had much to recommend it. Stamp was nominated for an Oscar. Nevertheless, Stanley Kaufman, the acerbic film critic for "The New Republic" panned it and bemoaned his conclusion that the release of the film took away all hope of a definitive version of Melville's story ever to be released. Well, sure enough, 46 years later, there hasn't been a remake. But I venture to say it's because the first film was sufficiently "definitive" that there has been no need.

This may well be the situation with Star Wars also.

Jim