Star Wars: Remember the Good Old Days?
POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 22:56
VIEWED: 8677
PAGE 2 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by rivertamkicksass03:
First which plot lines didn't go anywhere Qui-Gonn's came to a definate conclution as well as Obi-wan's, Anakin's, Padme's, Nute Gunray's even, Sidious' One of the main points of the film was that everything was pointless as Sidious held all the keys and just wanted power and to turn Anakin and that everything else was a destraction
Uh, the whole second movie didn't go anywhere. Rolling in the grass and riding on the back of some giant grass-eating tick. Blah. The plotline about the virgin birth of Anakin went nowhere. The journey "through the core" (does Lucas KNOW what a planet core is?) went nowhere. The fighting on Kashyyk went nowhere.
The main point (of all three prequels) was supposed to be "the fall of Anakin Skywalker" (while the original trilogy has been referred to many times as "the redemption of Anakin Skywalker"). You're right, everything else was a distraction, and unfortunately that constituted about two and a half movies' worth of distraction.
Look, my beef with Qui-Gonn is this (and bear in mind that I love the character, I think Liam Neeson is great and his role was very well acted).
Qui-Gonn shouldn't have been in the first movie. He's totally unnecessary and oh yeah, his existence makes everything Ben said in the old trilogy a pack of lies:
"You will learn from Yoda, THE Jedi Master who instructed me." (not A Jedi Masterm but THE Jedi Master)
[about Anakin] "I took it upon myself to train him, I thought I could teach him as well as Yoda." (not "I thought he was another pathetic lifeform but my master NOT Yoda wanted me to teach him.")
"When I first met your father he was already a great pilot, but I was amazed at how strongly the force was with him." (In Episode I Obi-Wan had to be forced into believing, and the only evidence of Anakin's piloting is his fluke in destroying the droid ships).
The focus should have been on Ben finding Anakin and through his own arrogance and failure to teach Anakin right helped cause Anakin's fall to the Dark Side.
Quote:
2nd point is that Jar Jar was hardly a key figure in the three films, and using him as a example of what was wrong with it is almost like saying Serenity is rubbish becouse of Fanty and Mingo (who were great by the way)
I wasn't that bothered one way or another by Jar Jar, although I think he could have been done a lot better. Stepping in crap didn't really impress me to be honest. As an example of CGI, I thought he was great, I just wish he could have been wiser.
Quote:
3rd point is that you used my Mc Dermind quote (prob not how you spell his name) and didn't mention him, his chariter was great and can you at least except that he did a jod job of acting and his lines were well scripted
I included your line on him by mistake - sloppy cutting.
First of all I really have to tell you that the word is ACCEPT. Except (as a verb) has almost the opposite meaning.
Second, his acting was good (if a little over the top, though that's not a problem). However, I deny utterly that his dialog was well scripted, along with just about all the other dialog of these particular films. In complete contrast with Firefly/Serenity, whose dialog is witty, well-written, and has probably gone through several more revisions than Lucas's ever did. I attribute this to the fear his employees have of him. Such fear as is exemplified by the fact that no-one in ILM felt able to tell Lucas that they didn't think Yoda should act like Sonic the Hedgehog in the fight with Dooku.
Quote:
I assume your teen with a temper tantrum is refering to Anakin, what did you expect he would start choking people through out the trilogy.
Of course I'm talking about Anakin, and the point I'm making is that his fall to the Dark Side should have been dealt with over the course of three movies, not crammed into a half of one as a side effect of teenage angst. Darth Vader was one of the most sinister villains of the 80s but now all I can
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey all, I'll chime in as another big Star Wars fan who appreciates the prequel stories as worthy additions to SW. ("Worthy" doesn't really do them justice; "integral" is closer to the mark.) Note, however, that I'm emphasizing "prequel stories" here. I feel that the prequel movies were, to put it bluntly, pretty bad. Got no trouble admitting that...although one can't discount the many non-film differences between the two trilogies, which have nothing at all to do with the quality of the movies themselves. That'd be a thread subject all to itself, and one without any clear agreement or ability to reach resolution. But, regardless, to go further and say that the things that Lucas was trying to achieve with the prequel movies are somehow out of place, are "wrong"...well, that's something quite different, with which I strongly disagree.
Sure, they change our conception of Star Wars. It's no longer the simple "underdog Rebels vs. monolithic Empire" idea, with the particular resonance that that possessed in the late 70s. So much more has entered the story now, most importantly the Prophecy of the Chosen One, which is what brings along all the baggage that most people point to as "changes." (The introduction of Qui-Gon and the changed role of Obi-Wan; Anakin as more than just a simple bad guy warrior; the stagnation of the old Jedi Order; etc.) One can like or dislike this changed view of Star Wars, that's completely personal, and to be sure there is plenty about Lucas's fleshed-out story that I don't like. (Han shooting first; Jedi powers being pretty much just telekinesis and precognition; etc.) But to say that one doesn't like the enlargened scope of the story is very different from saying that Lucas somehow went wrong.
For myself, I feel that the larger story is much nobler and much more poignant, particularly where Anakin's character is concerned. The only place that I see Lucas "messing up" was some of his choices/technique in translating his story into film, and even some of those are personal reactions rather than measured critiques. (Not all of them, though. Episode 2 was like a damn video game, and I feel that Lucas missed an opportunity to show us more of a "waffling" Anakin, opting instead to show us some Mega-Man side-scrolling action.)
Anyway, as regards Serenity/Firefly: apples and oranges, folks. As was already pointed out, just because both stories take place in space doesn't mean that they are trying to accomplish the same thing. Serenity's writing and character dynamics and humor were outstanding, but to point to Star Wars and say "see, that's why Serenity is better!" is to find fault with orange juice because it doesn't get you drunk. As a mythic tale, with archetypes and rigid themes, of course Star Wars--classic trilogy included--isn't going to be as witty and spunky as something like Firefly. Star Wars really isn't sci-fi at all, when you get down to it, although such definitions can be (and have been) debated ad nauseum.
Eh, don't know where I'm going here. Just, I think that it is perfectly possible to appreciate the classic trilogy for what it is, and the place it occupied in society and our lives, without completely trashing the larger story that is Star Wars. There's a lot of beauty there, and its translation onto the big screen may have been flawed--certainly was, in fact--but goodness, what a powerful story.
"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Yeah, well, that's just...ya know, like, your opinion, man." --The Dude
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Lochlann:
Jedi powers being pretty much just telekinesis and precognition; etc.)
Don't forget bacteria. It all comes from bacteria. In the blood.
Quote:
But to say that one doesn't like the enlargened scope of the story is very different from saying that Lucas somehow went wrong.
Which is exactly what you said below.
Quote:
Episode 2 was like a damn video game, and I feel that Lucas missed an opportunity to show us more of a "waffling" Anakin, opting instead to show us some Mega-Man side-scrolling action.)
I reckon ham-fisted film-making techniques ARE wrong. You shouldn't have felt this way - you said yourself that the prequels have a poignancy all their own. The unfortunate part is that we all have to imagine that poignancy for ourselves because GL is incapable of creating a movie that can make us FEEL that.
Sorry to be so damn ham-fisted myself, but only recently discovering FF actually really brought home to me just how very very disappointed I was by the prequel trilogy. The reason FF is being compared to SW (in my opinion) is that it has the power to make you care, in the same way that Star Wars USED TO.
Are you old enough to have loved the original trilogy as a kid? To have had your whole childhood shaped by them? To be a part of a generation for whom these movies actually are a cultural phenomenon? Because all of my friends and I are part of that demographic, and try as I might to enjoy the prequel movies I've found myself growing more and more ill-disposed toward them. To the point now where I can't even watch them on TV now. And though I might still enjoy the old movies, I am actually denied that because Lucas refuses to release the originals on DVD, and watching the original trilogy now means also having to watch ILM's poorly executed practice runs for inserting CGI footage into movies with living people.
Steve
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I was an original "Star Wars" fan since the summer of 1977. And, as eager as I was to see the prequel (and waited nearly 3 decades, at that), I liked them, but they didn't stand up to the original three episodes, IMO.
But, one thing we should never forget is that if not for "Star Wars" there probably wouldn't be a "Firefly" or indeed, any Sci-Fi as we know it today.
For those old enough to remember the early 1970's, or even the 1960's (like me), you remember the sad state of sci-fi, pre "Star Wars". "Star Wars" not only forever changed the face of sci-fi, but of all movies in general.
"Star Wars" made it possible for escapism to get made into enjoyable movies once again (after a decade and a half of gritty realism -- which, in my opinion, made for mostly horrible movies which I would never want to watch a second time).
"Star Wars" also changed the face of special effects. Think. We'd never have a realistic "LOTR" trilogy if not for the effects pioneered by Lucas.
Were the "Star Wars" prequels anywhere near what they were expected to be? Heck no. Were they worth the nearly three-decade wait that a lot of us original fans had to endure before we saw them? I don't think so. Were they worth the price of admission? Yeah, to me, anyhow. Would I rather watch "Serenity" than any of the prequels? No contest. Definitely yes!! 
But, like a lot of boy wonders, Lucas should not be held in contempt because he couldn't follow up genius with repeated genius (think of Orson Welles). We should thank him for what he did do for us (the rebirth of sci-fi, the return of enjoyable escapism, the creation of special effects which made other movies possible), and not merely bash him (perhaps deservedly so) for not continuing to live up to his genius.
P.S. BTW, I've always maintained that Lucas would've been better off making one three (or even 4) hour movie, than in making three, two hour movies. Trim down all the extraneous nonsense (most of the first film), and give us one good prequel. Granted, it mightn't have made as much money -- but then it wouldn't have cost as much to make, either.
I think it would've been a much more enjoyable film.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The prequels were three fo the worst things that could have ever happened. He told the story behind Darth Vader that we all already knew. Wow. Breakin new ground there Copernicus. Lucas forgot what Joss excels in: that stories are made with characters, not pople who simply wiggle around in front of green screens. The first trilogy had dynamite characters (Han I'm looking your way). The prequel had people in it. No characters at all.
FF on the other hand, as we all know, has the best characters in the ruttin verse.
Remember, that but for one trifling exception, the entire universe is made up of others.- Oliver Wendall Holmes
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by spaint2k:
Don't forget bacteria. It all comes from bacteria. In the blood.
Which is exactly the same as in many major mythologies, by the way, only there not spelled out so precisely. One didn't get to be a Hero without being the child of a god or demi-god or some such, pretty much end of story. Nothing different here, only recast into modern imagery...which is exactly what the classic trilogy did in utilizing sci-fi space imagery in the space-crazy atmosphere of the 70s.
Quote:
Quote:
But to say that one doesn't like the enlargened scope of the story is very different from saying that Lucas somehow went wrong.
Which is exactly what you said below.
No, not so. You're mixing right/wrong criticism of the story with right/wrong criticism of the filming of that story. I join the most vocal critics in bashing the latter, no question. But when it comes to criticizing the story itself, I usually cast it in terms of what I like/don't like. (I'm not saying that Lucas was "wrong" to have Han shoot first; I'm just saying that I don't like it.) This is especially important when dealing with the big heavy things, the mover-and-shaker thematic elements behind the visible changes.
Quote:
I reckon ham-fisted film-making techniques ARE wrong. You shouldn't have felt this way - you said yourself that the prequels have a poignancy all their own. The unfortunate part is that we all have to imagine that poignancy for ourselves because GL is incapable of creating a movie that can make us FEEL that.
Totally agree. The movies should NOT require us to go behind-the-scenes to find out info, or fill in poorly-developed gaps with screenplay motivations, etc. That is a failure of the movies, and of Lucas as a filmmaker, I believe. But I also believe that many people encounter material in the new movies that changes things, and that some people are simply unwilling to incorporate such changes into their view, and dislike the prequel trilogy for exactly that reason: because it changes things. I strongly feel that many of the changes introduced by the prequel trilogy actually improve the story.
Quote:
Are you old enough to have loved the original trilogy as a kid? To have had your whole childhood shaped by them? To be a part of a generation for whom these movies actually are a cultural phenomenon?
I was right on the cusp. I was probably not as influenced as those who were just a few years older, but it was very powerful for me, man, yeah. But, y'see, this gets into a larger issue: to find fault with the prequel trilogy because it fails to reproduce a feeling that was caused in large large large part by the timing of the Classic Trilogy in our youth, and not entirely by its intrinsic quality, is to condemn it unfairly, and somewhat naively. Of course the prequel trilogy did not recapture "the magic"...the magic was not just about the original movies, it was about the intersection of the movies and youth and the culture of the late 70s, and so much else. Of course the prequels can't have that; it's unfair to expect them to. When we look back on the magic of the original movies, we are looking back at much more than just the movies. God, MUCH more.
This does not excuse the prequels their faults, of course. I'm not saying that the two trilogies are identical save that they appeared at different points in our lives. I'm just saying that the power of that particular difference cannot be discounted. People who went into the prequel trilogy seeking the same experience that they got from the classic trilogy pretty much condemned the prequels to being inferior and disappointing, quite aside from any inferiority and disappointment that they possessed on their own. (And inferiority they did possess, as I've said.) Naturally, it is impossible to objectively separate the experience/impact of the classic trilogy from the movies themselves; all I'm saying is that there is a mixture
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"Star Wars" also changed the face of special effects. Think. We'd never have a realistic "LOTR" trilogy if not for the effects pioneered by Lucas.
We'd still have the books, though.
Quote:
He told the story behind Darth Vader that we all already knew. Wow. Breakin new ground there Copernicus.
Oh, you already knew all about Palpatine's intricate seduction of Anakin, and how Anakin lost his mother, and how he came to view Obi-Wan as an obstruction to his doing good for those he loved, and how he was the Chosen One of the Prophecy, and how he came to believe that he killed his wife bearing his child? Wow, you knew a lot more than most people...
Quote:
Lucas forgot what Joss excels in: that stories are made with characters, not pople who simply wiggle around in front of green screens. The first trilogy had dynamite characters (Han I'm looking your way). The prequel had people in it. No characters at all.
That's a good observation, but the implication isn't quite on-target. Star Wars is indeed inhabited more by wooden archetypes than it is by fleshed-out characters. Absolutely true. However, that is part and parcel of the kind of story that Star Wars is. Star Wars is not supposed to have quote-unquote "interesting" characters. Han isn't interesting (although he's cool), and Luke isn't interesting, any more than Qui-Gon or Dooku are. Star Wars, as mythic storytelling, is driven by character archetypes rather than "interesting characters." You've got the Evil Wizard, the Dark Warrior (with messed-up childhood), the naive Knight In Shining Armor, the Wise Mentor, the brash Mercenary, the Ruthless Bounty-Hunter, etc., etc. You're right, such roles have little personality to them, apart from those of the actors who happen to play them...but they aren't really supposed to. I'd rather watch Mal and Jayne bicker any day of the week to watching Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan discussing the Will of the Force...but that's an artifact of the genre differences, not so much an outright failure on the part of Star Wars (though see below).
That said, I do agree with the general view that Han Solo rocks, with just the general observation that his particular archetype tends to allow for a touch more personalization and flexibility--not to mention all-around coolness--than other archetypes. Dunno if he could take Mal in a fistfight, though.
And I also think that the characters are indeed less-well-developed in the prequel trilogy than in the classic (to the extent that they should be, as above), etc. etc., in line with my general view that the prequels are inferior. (I don't really see myself as flat-out disagreeing with what's being said by others; rather, I'm just trying to contextualize everything a bit, something that I think is very important.)"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Yeah, well, that's just...you know, like, your opinion, man." --The Dude
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I'm going to throw in my two cents on this, as a fan of the prequels. I don't think they're perfect movies, by any streatch, but some of the complains I see people making about them, I feel, are often way off-base. I'll address some of these complaints in no particular order:
First off, people say that the movies sucked as films. Flawed, yes, but I hardly think they sucked. Really, as someone mentioned above, there was really no chance for the movies to live up to their expectations. Not only were they following up movies that have been considered modern classics for over 20 years, movies that we all grew to love as children (and admit it or not, this stuff will never impact anyone quite as much as when they were children), but they also had nearly 20 years of anticipation and fan-imagining to live up to. Add to that the biggest hype wave to ever be attatched to a movie, and it was doomed to dissapoint. Phantom Menace was the weakest by far, but it was essentially a prologue to get the rest of the story flowing. And in the case of Revenge of the Sith, which I really did enjoy, I have heard it said (and I agree), that so many had it out for Lucas, that people would have complained regardless of the quality.
People have complained that Lucas told us a story that we already knew the end of: The Rise of Darth Vader. Well, you (said at no one in particular) may not have wanted that story, but the majority of Star Wars fans out there had been asking for that very story for over 15 years, so there was a demand.
Some say the effects were more believable in the originals. Sorry, but while I don't find CGI 100% beleivable, I find it at least as good or better than the gray matte boxes around the ships in space, or the wobbling appendages on the rubber masks, or the black matte line around the stop-motion creatures, or the fanged sock-puppet that came from the asteroid in Empire, or the totally static matte paintings (as beautifully rendered as many of them were).
People complain about Anakin. I would argue that the portrayal of Anakin is fairly realistic. He was a boy born in poverty, who was suddenly raised to the near-mythic (even in their universe) level of Knight. Add to that super-powers, and a profecy telling him he's the most important guy in the universe. Now, as someone who works with teenagers, a lot of them behave just like Anakin in Attack of the Clones, and they don't have powers of profecies. Yes, he was whiny and petulent, but that's common at that age. It's also a problem his son had in the original movies, that no one seems to be complaining about.Sure, probably most of us imagined him differently, but this is Lucas' story, told how he wanted, and if you're going to defent Joss' right to tell Serenity the way he wants to (as many have in variouse Wash/Book discussions), then Lucas has that right as well.
The dialog is another point. Sure, it comes off as stiff and stilted, moreso than in the originals. But in the originals, the characters were mailny outlaws and farmboys. In the prequels, they are Knights, politicians, and royalty. Those people speak in different ways. Even in our culture, most "common" people speak in what's called the casual register. Politicians and Royalty (as well as the very wealthy) are known to speak more often in the formal registry, which sounds alot more like the dialog in those films. Or, to take a different angle, the "love scene" dialog from Anakin in Clones. Yes, it was akward, stilted, and well, awfull. But how many teenage boys, who have NEVER so much as flirted with a girl, or even been allowed to consider it, sound like Romantic Poets the FIRST time they try to express they're feelings? Not many, I would wager. Chances are, most boys in that position would say even dumber things. I know I did at that age. I would say, for the characters depicted, the dialog is just as realistic as the dialog in Firefly/Serenity.
Others complain that the characters in the prequels are less interesting than the rogues of the originals. This i
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTC, nothing will ever replace the excitement of 1977 when SW came out, and 1980, and'83. It was a magical and fun trillogy, maybe the Ewoks took a little of the edge off in the last one, but watching Luke's growth as a Jedi was the best part, and he was right.
Chrisisall Skywalker
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
maybe the Ewoks took a little of the edge off in the last one
Well, I was one of those in 1983 had who wished that the Death Star had actually incincerated the forest moon of Endor. Ewoks -- poof!! No more.
Don't get me started on the Ewoks. They destroyed an otherwise outstanding film. Even though I did watch it ten times theatrically when it was initially released, I always wished I had to go to the bathroom (or have root canal) whenever an Ewok appeared on the screen.
A note to geniuses who plan to make future film history -- save the "cute" crap for kiddie films. Ewoks did to "Star Wars" what disco did to music.
(Don't get me started on disco!) 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME