Lucas Vs. Whedon

POSTED BY: NEEDY
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 18:34
VIEWED: 7526
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

ZOID

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:46 PM

NEEDY wrote:

Quote:
...As for Star Wars not having the same emotional response as Serenity... well I'd have to disagree there.
I think there are a lot of emotions on display during Han being frozen in carbonite, and Luke being told the truth by Darth in Empire, and the brilliant moment near the end of Jedi when Luke really lets loose on Vader after the mention of his sister. This scene alone, along with the remarkable music by John Williams, always sends a chill up my spine...

I, too, was a great fan of all 3 of the 'middle trilogy' Star Wars films. I didn't really even have that much of a problem with the Ewoks, until other people started saying they were cheesy. At first I argued the point, saying, "The Ewoks are not cheesy! In fact, they taste of chicken!"

But in all of filmdom, there are only 3 fight scenes that are so emotionally involving that I feel my skin flush, the hair on my arms standing erect, and I stand up from my seat and start whooping and pumping my fist like a total moron. These are, in no particular order: Clint Eastwood in the final saloon showdown of "Unforgiven"; Russell Means kicking Wes Studi's a$$ in "Last of the Mohicans"; and Summer Glau going ballistic on Reavers in "Serenity". The whole "My turn" thing, leading up to that battle royale is simply amazing, as is Summer's physical work in the scene. And then the image as the blast door reopens (no spoilers), finishes that singular event that the whole movie has been heading toward...

Nothing in Star Wars has got that kind of impact.

I will say that the scene you mentioned was very effective, but does not reach quite the same emotional level, for me personally. I know it moved the plot/character development along, but when Luke severs Darth's hand, the scene lost a little emotional momentum while he considered their physical similarity and what dark emotions have cost them in terms of their humanity. And the action virtually stopped thereafter, unless you consider evil cackling, goopy moralisms, CGI thunderbolts and midget-tossing as 'action'.

For me, the most beautiful fight scene in Star Wars was Luke vs. Vader in the carbonite chamber, in TESB. I loved the shadowy lighting and colorful (literally) swordplay. Very kendo...

Contrarily,

zoid

P.S.
I did stand up and cheer when they blew up the kit-model Death Star in ANH; but that was not a fight scene by my lights, per se. Oddly, I was not as moved when they blew up the CGI Super Death Star in RotJ. The first one was climactic, the second was denouement...

Edited to add: I was 19 years old when the original "Star Wars" was released cinematically in 1977. Not yet the emotionally mature person I am today, but not a 'kiddie' by any means. "Star Wars" was not a kiddie flick. But it was a return to heroic stories in movies, a welcome change. Now, if you want to argue that RotJ was a kiddie flick because of the Ewoks, you might have an argument there; but the first installment was well-noted for 'dirty'-looking spaceships, cobbled together equipment and the presence of Han Solo (Greedo did not shoot first!) as being a radical departure from the squeaky-clean Star Trek and "2001: A Space Odyssey". Just an old fogey's reminiscences...
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

MEKAN

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:48 PM

Well you may want or not want to read this:

[/link] http://slashdot.org/articles/06/03/21/163235.shtml
It seems that a broken and boring Star Wars universe will be made while Firefly languishes in fan thoughts.

George Lucas = Hack

AZHEA

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:09 PM

I'm so thoroughly depressed now. You warned us, but I HAD to go read about it. Shoulda seen that comin'.

While I respect all that GL has accomplished, I do feel he's past his prime. Episodes 1-3 were done, imho, merely for profit.

I won't be watchin' the TV series... too busy replaying Firefly epsisodes to care about that galaxy, not far enough away.

*************************************************
I look out for me and mine... that don't include you 'lessen I conjure it does.

FIRESTALKER

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:40 PM

I'm sorry if this offense anyone, but WTF!!!!!

WHO CARES WHAT LUKE WAS DOING BEFORE HE MET C3PO AND R2D2?! I can tell you what he was doing... He was shooting rats from a speeder, working on the farm and whining about do it! Thats what he was doing. My god what more could have done without making what happened in "A New Hope" repetetive?

I'm curious... Who really cares?

-------------------------------------------------
"You know what the definition of a hero is? Someone that gets other people killed."

AGIRLYMAN

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:55 PM

It was a miracle Starwars ever made it to the theaters, if you haven't seen it, check out the making of starwars. Lucas, not only got his vision on screen, he changed the industry, and raised the bar on how movies are made.

Joss took one character from Starwars, put his spin on it, made it better, and created a grand new verse.

I love Joss, but Lucas wins this battle.

P.S. Note to Lucas: Episodes I & II sucked

AM I NOT MERCIFUL?!?!?!?

Tee Hee

CARTOON

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
I was 19 years old when the original "Star Wars" was released cinematically in 1977. Not yet the emotionally mature person I am today, but not a 'kiddie' by any means. "Star Wars" was not a kiddie flick.

Exactly. I was old enough to drive, myself. And, we did not view it as a "kiddie" flick by any means.

One thing I think people born after "Star Wars" can't realize is what movies were like before it. Sure, they can watch tons of pre-1977 movies on TV (or DVD, or whatever), but they've already seen what came after "Star Wars", as well, so it's not the same as having lived through the 60's and 70's (or even earlier) and not having seen (or even guessing) what was going to come afterwards, because it didn't exist yet.

Believe those of us who were there, movies before "Star Wars" were completely different than what we're used to (and take for granted) today.

I, for one, enjoy "Serenity" more than is normally healthy to, and I'd rather see a new "Firefly" series/"Serenity" film than something else from the "Star Wars" universe.

Nonetheless, "Star Wars" paved the road for everything done in sci-fi after it.

OTMA

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:51 PM

I think Lucas does "big" very well, but not so well with "small."
Star Wars blew audiences out of their seats with its opening scene when that star destroyer flew overhead. Part of the problem people had with the prequels may be that in the intervening years, we've come to expect special effects on that scale. Star Wars, like Blade Runner, has actually aged rather well. It's effects aren't as spectacular and ground breaking today as they once were, but they don't look as thoroughly dated as a lot of other older SF. Still, the bar has been raised quite a bit on "blow me out of my seat."
The prequels, despite having technnically much more spectacular visuals, couldn't pack the same "big" punch as the originals. As far as the "small" goes, the Star Wars movies created classic characters. Like Star Trek, though, they come across as "characters", not so much as "people." This is because Lucas isn't very good at the "small" touches. He can do grand arcs of character development, like the growth of Luke from ANH to ROTJ, and emotions writ large, like Luke's confrontation with his father. His dialogue and style tend to undercut or omit smaller moments. A fan's imagination can fill in the blanks of thin characterization, and make the characters seem like real people, but the blanks are definitely there to need filling in.
Joss Whedon is much better at "small." His Firefly crew come across as much better defined and multi-dimensional, more like "people" than "characters." They are more real, more emotionally engaging. He can certainly do "big" as well, but even in the biggest moments, the focus is on the people in the spectacle, not the spectacle itself. To be fair, Lucas can keep a huge scene focused on his heroes too, but Whedon's BDH's bring more depth to the table.
Star Wars, even at its most intimate, is an epic. Serenity, even at its most epic, is an intimate character study. River's big scene at the end packs a punch, not because it's a big fight scene, but because that's RIVER in there. Because Joss Whedon has made her so real to us, we're in there with her. Most "big" fights leave you on the outside, looking in. It's the "small" touches that pull you in, make you feel it. "Small" makes the "big" mean more.

CARTOON

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:00 AM

In my opinion, your analysis is flawless.

I think of "Star Wars" as "The Iliad" -- which, while we get taken up in it and love to watch it, we know that we, ourselves, would never quite fit in with this group of people. "Serenity" is like the people you know next door (for both the good and bad that entails).

MOSS

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:05 AM

Firstly I am not a fan of the latest Star Wars movies, I think that Mr Lucas has become what he dispised back when he made Star Wars.

Moss says:

Joss is cleverer than Lucas -but Lucas had a damm good imagination.

Lucas just got old.

MOSS

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:40 PM

CARTOON, You must live in an interesting neighbourhood dude.

I can't say I have met many people resembling the crew of firefly (except when I was travelling) I have met a couple of Jayne's (one guy who went by the name 6 chickens) and a Wash (a taxi driver called Vaczic who prefessed to being a lesbian trapped in a mans body)...

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE