Because it's essentially remaking the films.
Not necessarily. You don't have to use the concepts in the same way. In my opinion, its not just about what is in the film, but how it is used, the way its displayed etc.
Its not so easy just to say "no this won't work".
You can make a great film but use all the same concepts. The James Bond series are very proof of this (although debatable, at least we can say its a successful series and there is a divide on which films people prefer).
And it makes the previous six films - particularly the original trilogy - redundant. Who would have the budget, the means and the motive to develop a Sun Crusher? The Empire. If so, why did the Empire bother with two Death Stars, and instead just skip to making Sun Crushers?
Now you're just not bothering. The whole point of the Sun Crusher is that it was developed in secret. There are lots of ways you could explain why they bothered with 2 Death Stars when they could have made this instead. Thats not a flaw in the idea, but a lack of ideas from you how to explain it.
You could explain it as "it took so much work and time to make it, that the Empire couldn't deploy it in time". There are loads of ways you could explain it. Eh, the point is that they could use it either as the focus of a film or as a minor plot point. The idea is there to use - I think its a quite cool weapon that played a part in the books and represents yet further how much of an impact the Empire era made on the galaxy (when they keep un-earthing weapons and projects such as this).
Because STAR WARS has a history of vaguely defining its concepts. It's not a question of distinguishing between good and evil, but one of distinguishing between evil and evil. How can a Jedi be evil without being a Sith?
Does it? It wasn't vague in 4-6 - all of the concepts and ideas used were heavily based on tried and tested stories used again and again throughout film and literature.
This is why 4-6 were so successful - because they didn't need to explain anything because the audience already understands and relates to it.
Only 1-3 are vague. But seeing as they were crap films its a moot point. Obviously nothing should copy those.
I fail to see how you can get a good story out of a retread of the original films.
Who says we have to "retread"? In fact what I've been saying for a few posts now is that I'd prefer 7-9 to be set further in the future to separate themselves from the older films.
You could still use ideas like the Dark Troopers, Sun Crusher or any number of other ideas without re-making 4-6.
I didn't say it was too complex. I said it was too boring.
Actually you didn't say it was either, you just said "it is difficult to pull off". But either way I disagree.
As you say, the Force has never really been defined in anything more than vague terms. The closest we have ever come to a definition is Liam Neeson explaining that the Force comes from midichlorians, whilst Anakin laying down the rules for what defines a Jedi and what defines a Sith; namely, that the Sith are selfish and use their power for their own ends. This is a problem because the film would have to take the time to explain why evil Jedi are evil Jedi, but aren't actually Sith, all without violating the canon that has only ever defined the Sith in broad terms, but has seen a variety of Sith characters behave in narrower and different ways. The whole thing amounts of an exposition dump, which slows down the pace of the film as the characters try to explain to the audience what the hell is going on. They run the risk of doing what PROMETHEUS did with its black goo: three different characters responded to it in three different ways, and there was never anything to explain why they did so when there was no change in the goo.
So why do I think my idea about complications in the Force avoids this? Simple: because the exploration of what the Force is becomes a part of the actual story. It does bring about exposition - no film can fully avoid it - but it softens the blow because it is naturally born out of the story. The characters need to figure out why Force users are going mad, which requires them to look at what the Force is. And the beauty of it is that it doesn't need anything specific. They can just say something like "the midichlorians are infected with a virus from this planet" and then go to that planet.
Look, lets just forget about 1-3 and all that midichlorians BS. Lets not return to that please.
In my opinion the mystery over the Force and the presentation as a kind of inherited magic power is what makes it so attractive.
Trying explain or break it down is boring to me and I suspect the wider audience too. I'm fairly sure the boring details given in 1-3 went over many people's heads. I don't see how doing that again is going be any better.
I think a lot of people view the IV-VI trilogy with overly rose-tinted glasses. Watch them nowadays, and, ignoring the dated special effects (which are still spectacular in parts due to the intricate visual effects and models used... the worst crime of the Anniversary editions was adding CGI!), the stories really aren't all that deep or difficult to understand. Hell, I think the Anakin arc and the Trade Federation / Clone Army send-up in the I-III trilogy is actually a deeper and more complex storyline. One that is only let down by the clunky dialogue, lousy acting and some poorly scripted action sequences.
I still thoroughly enjoy 4-6. I don't think anyone is forgetting or relying on nostalgia - did anyone think they had deep stories? I don't remember ever thinking "man, I loved 4-6 for the depth in those stories".
The reason I loved (and still love) 4-6 is for the imagery, the characters and the general atmosphere and universe. The stories/plots themselves are ok or average at best - its everything else that makes them.
I can still stick Empire Strikes Back on and sit riveted by the Hoth battle. The music, the special effects, the locations and designs...love it.
1-3 were more complex...but not in an intelligent way or because of any depth. In my opinion the biggest flaw of those films
is the lack of depth. They're just a vague confusing mix of ideas with no explanation.
I wonder sometimes if some directors/script writers think that not explaining things is great because it allows people's imaginations to run with it without really thinking why that happens.
Or maybe they were too worried about the audience to actually explain stuff, but still running with stories that the audience can't really relate to or appreciate.
Not explaining the Force - good because it gives it a mystical and mysterious aura. Bit of a religious tang to it too. Its not the focus of the film but a re-curring theme and people understand it because they can relate it to stories of magic or even religious acts. Questions are raised but not so many that people don't understand it, they just don't know the 100%.
Not explaining black goo in Prometheus - bad because its basically the entire focus of the film and the audience can't really relate it to anything. Do we really know anything about it? It changes DNA and its clearly dangerous...but thats it. The focus is so strong on it that the audience is forced to ask why..but then no answers ever come.
