- Time
- Post link
Watching in order 1-6 is screwing up the original SW for newcomers! — Page 3
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: CO
Exactly. I really have enjoyed the EU. It certainly does, in my opinion , add so much more to the story than what is seen in the films. The OT, or even all six by themselves, are seen as part of a larger whole when put with the EU. In fact, I can't see how someone can call themselves a fan without appreciating, or at least trying to appreciate all parts of the story. As a wise man once said: "To understand the great mystery, you must study all of its aspects...
Text
That is not fair to say, because the EU books didn't come out until the early 90's, and we were all diehards fans of the OT through the 70's/80's. Now to each his own, if you like the EU and the story of Anakin Skywalker as a 6 part movie saga, that is great. But I consider myself a diehard SW fan for almost 30 years, and only love the OT, and I like ROTS, just for backstory purposes.
I don't think that Lucas ever imagined there would be such different types of SW fans since the Prequels came out. You have the OT diehards who hate the PT, you have the PT diehards, who don't understand the fascination with the original Star Wars, you have people in the middle who grew up with the OT, and still keep giving the PT a chance, but still feel underwhelmed. And then you have the EU/Anakin Skywalker Saga fans who love everything about SW, and can't get enough.
Back in 1983, when ROTJ was finished it film run, we were all just SW fans and never argued or insulted each other as many do all over different SW boards, we argued with people that were NOT fans of the SW, and defended the movies to a tilt. After the last 10 years, and what Lucas has done to the series, (OT SE changes, TPM & AOTC mediocre movies, constanstly contradicting himself), I find myself bashing Lucas rather than defending him in 1983 when I thought he was a genius.
It is kind of ironic that the man who created the movies I love and are my favorite of all-time is the same man who is screwing them up now.
Exactly. I really have enjoyed the EU. It certainly does, in my opinion , add so much more to the story than what is seen in the films. The OT, or even all six by themselves, are seen as part of a larger whole when put with the EU. In fact, I can't see how someone can call themselves a fan without appreciating, or at least trying to appreciate all parts of the story. As a wise man once said: "To understand the great mystery, you must study all of its aspects...
Text
That is not fair to say, because the EU books didn't come out until the early 90's, and we were all diehards fans of the OT through the 70's/80's. Now to each his own, if you like the EU and the story of Anakin Skywalker as a 6 part movie saga, that is great. But I consider myself a diehard SW fan for almost 30 years, and only love the OT, and I like ROTS, just for backstory purposes.
I don't think that Lucas ever imagined there would be such different types of SW fans since the Prequels came out. You have the OT diehards who hate the PT, you have the PT diehards, who don't understand the fascination with the original Star Wars, you have people in the middle who grew up with the OT, and still keep giving the PT a chance, but still feel underwhelmed. And then you have the EU/Anakin Skywalker Saga fans who love everything about SW, and can't get enough.
Back in 1983, when ROTJ was finished it film run, we were all just SW fans and never argued or insulted each other as many do all over different SW boards, we argued with people that were NOT fans of the SW, and defended the movies to a tilt. After the last 10 years, and what Lucas has done to the series, (OT SE changes, TPM & AOTC mediocre movies, constanstly contradicting himself), I find myself bashing Lucas rather than defending him in 1983 when I thought he was a genius.
It is kind of ironic that the man who created the movies I love and are my favorite of all-time is the same man who is screwing them up now.
All that is so true,
I do like good old George and always will, and I stlll think he is a genius in some ways, but he does contridict himself alot and sometimes blatantly lies to cover his ass and he comes out with silly statements and excuses sometimes, I feel, and I have to say he has done in my opinion bafflling things since 1983 and its also sad to say since 83, the things George has done with Star Wars, there are not too many things that appeal to me and I really watch.
- Time
- Post link
The old George is still there, the problem is that you've merely expected the films to grow as you have.
- Time
- Post link
A lot of younger fans don't seem to understand that any plot holes or major changes like Vader not being the lead character in the OT are due to changes Lucas made along the way. Like if it seems weird that Leia remembers her mother, they think the mistake was made in Return of the Jedi back in 1983!!!!
In many ways this reminds me of Back to the Future 2 with the alternate reality created by Biff. The entire town has changed and Doc and Marty know its changed, but to everyone else its reality. For the millions who grew up on the OT, Luke is the protagonist who redeems his father, and the galaxy is a realistic, "used future" place. To the kids who saw the PT first, the cgi infested Anakin centered galaxy is their reality.
- Time
- Post link
War does not make one great.
- Time
- Post link
If both sides weren't so damned annoying at times then perhaps the Star Wars community wouldn't be quite as polarized.
- Time
- Post link
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
Anyway, I think I can sum up the problems, based on thse boards, with the old AND new generations of fans:
Old Generation: Your nastalgia blinds you.
New generation: Your CG blinds you.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: The Bizzle
One of the bigger problems with CGI is that everyone wants to show off that they're using it in behind the scenes stuff, promotional docs, all that. The tool is getting as much publicity as the movie is. That didn't necessarily happen back in the 80's--the studio wasn't trying to show off all their toys all that much. They were maxing out old tech and old methodology, not innovating new ones. Once you start re-inventing the wheel as far as effects go, people realized you could appeal to the "Bang for the buck" style of hucksterism and make the effects used part of the marketing. "We made this with a COMPUTER!! BUY A TICKET!!" I guarantee you that if an effects movie was released that didn't go into detail about HOW they made the effects, people would stop being so nitpicky about em. but in todays moviegoing climate, there's no way that happens. you have to have the behind-the-scenes video blogs and the special on the dvd and the hook in the movie magazines.
i think the problem with effects-driven movies is not that people are already familiar with the technical aspects, but a problem of transparency. a movie can be drenched in special effects and still not be driven by the effects. it should be driven by the writing, directing and acting... and complimented by the effects. what's happening in a lot of post-"A New Hope" movies is that the effects are either getting in the way of the story, or simply filling a void where the story is weak or absent, so you can't help but twiddle your thumbs and say "gee i wonder how many polygons there are in that computer-generated character" or "i wonder how much money they spent on that effect." if the effect were really doing its job, then it wouldn't be drawing attention to itself & away from the matters at hand. the effect would be transparent. i think the movie studios are much more preoccupied with the "bigger faster & louder" trend (which the george lucas is largely responsible for starting, unfortunately) than the audience is. and to the detriment of the basics: story, character, dialogue, direction, and acting. we all know that Van Helsing sucked, we all know that The Matrix Revolutions and Stealth sucked... they really are just non-interactive video games. deep in their guts, the 13 year old attention deficit kids in the audience know it, too, no matter how eager they are to buy into every overhyped cross-licensed videogame-to-comicbook-to-movie-and-back-again piece of junk that comes along.
but try telling that to the studio executives who greenlighted those movies, and see if they comprehend. their solution is not to give the audience good movies, but to give the audience what it thinks it wants (and ends up being disappointed in, when the movie turns out to be horrible for its lack of story & direction), then blitz the media with advertisements & promo interviews in hopes that they can grab everyone's cash in the opening week before word-of-mouth spreads about its actual (low) quality.
Originally posted by: JennyS1138
A lot of younger fans don't seem to understand that any plot holes or major changes like Vader not being the lead character in the OT are due to changes Lucas made along the way. Like if it seems weird that Leia remembers her mother, they think the mistake was made in Return of the Jedi back in 1983!!!!
In many ways this reminds me of Back to the Future 2 with the alternate reality created by Biff. The entire town has changed and Doc and Marty know its changed, but to everyone else its reality. For the millions who grew up on the OT, Luke is the protagonist who redeems his father, and the galaxy is a realistic, "used future" place. To the kids who saw the PT first, the cgi infested Anakin centered galaxy is their reality.
One of the bigger problems with CGI is that everyone wants to show off that they're using it in behind the scenes stuff, promotional docs, all that. The tool is getting as much publicity as the movie is. That didn't necessarily happen back in the 80's--the studio wasn't trying to show off all their toys all that much. They were maxing out old tech and old methodology, not innovating new ones. Once you start re-inventing the wheel as far as effects go, people realized you could appeal to the "Bang for the buck" style of hucksterism and make the effects used part of the marketing. "We made this with a COMPUTER!! BUY A TICKET!!" I guarantee you that if an effects movie was released that didn't go into detail about HOW they made the effects, people would stop being so nitpicky about em. but in todays moviegoing climate, there's no way that happens. you have to have the behind-the-scenes video blogs and the special on the dvd and the hook in the movie magazines.
i think the problem with effects-driven movies is not that people are already familiar with the technical aspects, but a problem of transparency. a movie can be drenched in special effects and still not be driven by the effects. it should be driven by the writing, directing and acting... and complimented by the effects. what's happening in a lot of post-"A New Hope" movies is that the effects are either getting in the way of the story, or simply filling a void where the story is weak or absent, so you can't help but twiddle your thumbs and say "gee i wonder how many polygons there are in that computer-generated character" or "i wonder how much money they spent on that effect." if the effect were really doing its job, then it wouldn't be drawing attention to itself & away from the matters at hand. the effect would be transparent. i think the movie studios are much more preoccupied with the "bigger faster & louder" trend (which the george lucas is largely responsible for starting, unfortunately) than the audience is. and to the detriment of the basics: story, character, dialogue, direction, and acting. we all know that Van Helsing sucked, we all know that The Matrix Revolutions and Stealth sucked... they really are just non-interactive video games. deep in their guts, the 13 year old attention deficit kids in the audience know it, too, no matter how eager they are to buy into every overhyped cross-licensed videogame-to-comicbook-to-movie-and-back-again piece of junk that comes along.
but try telling that to the studio executives who greenlighted those movies, and see if they comprehend. their solution is not to give the audience good movies, but to give the audience what it thinks it wants (and ends up being disappointed in, when the movie turns out to be horrible for its lack of story & direction), then blitz the media with advertisements & promo interviews in hopes that they can grab everyone's cash in the opening week before word-of-mouth spreads about its actual (low) quality.
Originally posted by: JennyS1138
A lot of younger fans don't seem to understand that any plot holes or major changes like Vader not being the lead character in the OT are due to changes Lucas made along the way. Like if it seems weird that Leia remembers her mother, they think the mistake was made in Return of the Jedi back in 1983!!!!
In many ways this reminds me of Back to the Future 2 with the alternate reality created by Biff. The entire town has changed and Doc and Marty know its changed, but to everyone else its reality. For the millions who grew up on the OT, Luke is the protagonist who redeems his father, and the galaxy is a realistic, "used future" place. To the kids who saw the PT first, the cgi infested Anakin centered galaxy is their reality.
i'm an old fart OT fan who's got "issues" with the prequel trilogy, but not so much of an issue with the anakin-centricity of the prequels. that's fine. although hayden's (as well as most of the actors') acting is quite wooden and the dialogue is abysmal. the focus on anakin furthers the sort-of "oedipus rex"-ish tragedy (minus the incest of oedipus) hinted at in the OT. luke discovers that he's the son of the second most evil man in the galaxy and he's destined to destroy him. well, redeem anakin by destroying vader. that's pretty messed up. the idea of the cruel inevitability of fate, and the parallels running between the two trilogies (in terms of character, relationships, plot), is very greek. there are echoes of shakespeare too (macbeth, hamlet, etc). i do like the fact that there is a classical complexity to it. the problem for me is that lucas didn't have the full 1-through-6 plot worked out from the start, so there's a whole lot of clumsy tying-up of loose ends, like the "oh by the way, i've been chatting with qui-gonn's ghost" and "yoda and chewbacca are BFFs" angles, midichlorians, continuity errors and such. it walks a fine line between being a million times better & smarter than Flash Gordon, and being a dumbed-down worse-plotted Dune.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
It's not, IMHO, ROTS is.
Anyway, I think I can sum up the problems, based on thse boards, with the old AND new generations of fans:
Old Generation: Your nastalgia blinds you.
New generation: Your CG blinds you.
It's not, IMHO, ROTS is.
Anyway, I think I can sum up the problems, based on thse boards, with the old AND new generations of fans:
Old Generation: Your nastalgia blinds you.
New generation: Your CG blinds you.
Text
I disagree, I gave the prequels a chance, I didn't start bashing them until I saw all 3. I stood by TPM & AOTC for 5 years saying it will all come together when ROTS makes the whole trilogy work. Now I feel the opposite, ROTS is so much better than TPM & AOTC, I will never watch them again, and atleast Lucas made a good movie on this one, which makes myself notice how average the first two prequels are.
The PT, after it is all said and done, has made me realize how good the original & ESB are. I have always said that ROTJ, is my least favorite of the OT, cause you can see the first crack of kiddiness with the Ewoks, but when I was growing up, it was my favorite? When I was growing up, ESB was too dark for me as an 7 year old, and was my least favorite of the saga, but now 20 years later, those movies have flipped. So if you're talking about nostalga, I should still love ROTJ?
The reason why I think the original & ESB are great, is because........They are great films! I watch them now and am amazed at how good they are. After ESB, the quality in SW never reached that level again. Sure ROTJ is very good, because we still had Luke, Leia, and Han, and The Emperor scenes and the space battle make the movie. But the prequels, to me personally, just don't reach the level of that ESB & the Original had.
Maybe Lucas hit lightning in a bottle twice, cause how many sequels ever rival a classic original? Maybe it is ESB fault, that it is so damn good, that every older fan is waiting for the high-quality of movie, and it is just so hard to duplicate. Maybe Lucas lost his hunger to make a classic movie, and a good Star Wars was enough to sell to the public. Or maybe Lucas just became to autonomous toward every decision, and you don't have someone to tell him Jar Jar ruins the movie.
It isn't nostalga, it is quality, that's what we think is wrong, and to me, the quality hasn't been gold since 1980.
- Time
- Post link
what's happening in a lot of post-"A New Hope" movies is that the effects are either getting in the way of the story, or simply filling a void where the story is weak or absent, so you can't help but twiddle your thumbs and say "gee i wonder how many polygons there are in that computer-generated character" or "i wonder how much money they spent on that effect."
but here's the thing--that's been going on since BEFORE "A New Hope" I'm trying to steer discussion away from the old chestnuts about "story first" and "evil executives" because both of those are hoary old cliches that don't really hold up under scrutiny after awhile. they're nice shorthand stereotypes, but the circumstances vary so much from movie to movie, director to director, exec to exec, that to paint them all with the same faceless, clueless brush is either insulting or ignorant, one of the two.
A LOT of people use the CG effects as they're supposed to, and use them artfully, in movies with good stories, but they get crapped on for it ANYWAY because it's CG. There's more than a bit of unfairness to that, and closed-mindedness as well, especially considering most people can't tell the difference half the time, even if they say they can. I've lost count of the number of "effects experts" online who got shown up by what was what--and the fact we have so many books, videos and magazines detailing the making of a single space-ship or set or whatever sorta points to the fact the viewers really have gotten almost too sophisticated for their own good. People are looking at movies not as fans, but as potential movie-makers themselves, and it's changing how they view things radically. That's one of the bigger problems. It's not that people are rejecting CG when its' bad. It's that people are rejecting it out-of-hand whether it's good or not simply because they've learned how to focus on it. Why? because the whole behind-the-scenes phenomena has gotten so big and has actually dwarfed the movie itself in some cases, people paying attention can't help but to be saturated with it.
LOL. no. Hell, you can use google groups search and go back to 83 and find the EXACT same back and forth sniping and snipping over Return of the Jedi (and even Empire Strikes Back) on the internet. Yes, there was an internet back then, and people were still pissed about Star Wars. The idea that the Prequels ruined Star Wars for the fans is silly. Fans ruined Star Wars for fans because it ceased being just about movies, it became something filling a central part of their lives, and ANY movie is a poor substitute for something of actual substance.
Star Wars fandom wasn't one big unified front. It just wasn't the huge, sprawling, annoying dysfunctional popularity contest among geeks that it's become now. That really doesn't have as much to do with the Prequels as it does the internet becoming a huge, sprawling, annoying dysfunctional popularity contest among geeks.
So if you're talking about nostalga, I should still love ROTJ?
but here's the thing--that's been going on since BEFORE "A New Hope" I'm trying to steer discussion away from the old chestnuts about "story first" and "evil executives" because both of those are hoary old cliches that don't really hold up under scrutiny after awhile. they're nice shorthand stereotypes, but the circumstances vary so much from movie to movie, director to director, exec to exec, that to paint them all with the same faceless, clueless brush is either insulting or ignorant, one of the two.
A LOT of people use the CG effects as they're supposed to, and use them artfully, in movies with good stories, but they get crapped on for it ANYWAY because it's CG. There's more than a bit of unfairness to that, and closed-mindedness as well, especially considering most people can't tell the difference half the time, even if they say they can. I've lost count of the number of "effects experts" online who got shown up by what was what--and the fact we have so many books, videos and magazines detailing the making of a single space-ship or set or whatever sorta points to the fact the viewers really have gotten almost too sophisticated for their own good. People are looking at movies not as fans, but as potential movie-makers themselves, and it's changing how they view things radically. That's one of the bigger problems. It's not that people are rejecting CG when its' bad. It's that people are rejecting it out-of-hand whether it's good or not simply because they've learned how to focus on it. Why? because the whole behind-the-scenes phenomena has gotten so big and has actually dwarfed the movie itself in some cases, people paying attention can't help but to be saturated with it.
Back in 1983, when ROTJ was finished it film run, we were all just SW fans and never argued or insulted each other as many do all over different SW boards, we argued with people that were NOT fans of the SW, and defended the movies to a tilt.
LOL. no. Hell, you can use google groups search and go back to 83 and find the EXACT same back and forth sniping and snipping over Return of the Jedi (and even Empire Strikes Back) on the internet. Yes, there was an internet back then, and people were still pissed about Star Wars. The idea that the Prequels ruined Star Wars for the fans is silly. Fans ruined Star Wars for fans because it ceased being just about movies, it became something filling a central part of their lives, and ANY movie is a poor substitute for something of actual substance.
Star Wars fandom wasn't one big unified front. It just wasn't the huge, sprawling, annoying dysfunctional popularity contest among geeks that it's become now. That really doesn't have as much to do with the Prequels as it does the internet becoming a huge, sprawling, annoying dysfunctional popularity contest among geeks.
So if you're talking about nostalga, I should still love ROTJ?
But you do. You're still giving it way more credit than it deserves. Hell, I rank Phantom Menace over Return of the Jedi. That movie exists solely for the last half hour. Everything before that alternates between confused and boring, save for the speederbike chase. I still like Attack of the Clones the least out of all six, so Jedi's got a leg up on one of them, but most people who make these sort of "OT PURE" arguments end up kneecapping themselves when they give Return of the Jedi way more credit than it really deserves, simply because it was made back then.
- Time
- Post link
Phantom Menace was a waste... The lightsaber fights, music, fx all brilliant, but the story was an unfocused mess. Who's the main protagonist? Quigon, Obiwan, Anakin, Amidallalalalallalalala, Panakakakakakakaka, R2? The world may never know. maybe it's jar jar. That terrible movie introduced star wars, (which I'll admit had its share of sophmoric humor thanks to han solo), to the gutter of bad humor: fart jokes, poop jokes, groin smashing etc... was all that garbage necessary? Midichlorians? Hello!? mcfly!
Waste, waste, waste, waste.
Why does Rots feel so rushed? Because eps 1 and 2 were a waste. For me Clone wars 1 and 2 are eps 1 and 2 forever. They may not be as straight forward, boring, full of midichlorians, and fart jokes as the films, but they have more to do with what was stated about that particular time from obiwan to luke than ep 1 and 2 ever will. And another thing. Why not give rots room to breathe. everything just feels a little too clumped together without much natural progression from one thing to the next. it's already the only pg-13 Star Wars movie, why not the longest of the bunch as well? I'd have enjoyed an extra hour of jedi massacre or Empire building if that's the case; or maybe touch upon that whole immortality thing just a smidge more...
Oh yeah, and the OT space battles don't give me a nose bleed. CW-1-2 then 3 Battlefront 501st journals. Then SW 4-6 That's my way and it's arzome. But don't take my word for it. Try it for yourself.
"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."
"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.
http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
- Time
- Post link
So if you're talking about nostalga, I should still love ROTJ?
But you do. You're still giving it way more credit than it deserves. Hell, I rank Phantom Menace over Return of the Jedi. That movie exists solely for the last half hour. Everything before that alternates between confused and boring, save for the speederbike chase. I still like Attack of the Clones the least out of all six, so Jedi's got a leg up on one of them, but most people who make these sort of "OT PURE" arguments end up kneecapping themselves when they give Return of the Jedi way more credit than it really deserves, simply because it was made back then.
But you do. You're still giving it way more credit than it deserves. Hell, I rank Phantom Menace over Return of the Jedi. That movie exists solely for the last half hour. Everything before that alternates between confused and boring, save for the speederbike chase. I still like Attack of the Clones the least out of all six, so Jedi's got a leg up on one of them, but most people who make these sort of "OT PURE" arguments end up kneecapping themselves when they give Return of the Jedi way more credit than it really deserves, simply because it was made back then.
Text
You didn't read my comment, I said that ESB & the original are way better than ROTJ, and that though ROTJ is still a good movie it comes no where close to the quality of the first two. Does it start off slow at Jabbas Palace, yes, but the Yoda death scene is great , and when Luke kicks every ones ass on the sailbarge is great, and the final act is great with the Emperor and the Space Battle, that sequence alone is better than anything from the prequels. Now for the ending, I used to love it , but was alot better when Hayden's mug wasn't staring back at Luke, but that is another issue alltogether.
My whole point is if it was nostalgia it would be #1 for me, but it is #3, and my tastes have changed on it since then. Is it a classic, no, but it is still a pretty damn good movie.
As for people arguing about Star Wars in the early 80's, I am sure people argued about which one was better of the three, and I'm sure there were heated arguments over whether the Ewoks were necessary. But there are SW fans who despise the prequels, I mean really hate them. I personally dont like TPM, think AOTC was alright, and liked ROTS. But people didn't hate the OT, now I am talking about just SW fans now, people who were SW fans did not despise to the same level toward TPM back in 1999. Sure we didn't love the Ewoks, but I know people who utterly hate Jar Jar. Most people say the Ewoks bring down ROTJ, in which I agree, Jar Jar to most people ruins TPM, which was already shoddy to begin with, and that is why his role is limited in the next two movies.
I agree that the internet brings out some juvenile arguments, but the prequels and SE have opened up a can of worms cause people who grew up with this series feel Lucas is spitting in our face. Is it a movie, yes, do we take it to seriously sometimes, yes, but it's entertainment, that's what is suppose to be for.
- Time
- Post link
I have no problem with special effects, except when they become the focal point of the film. A lot of the special effects, esp in the OT simply enhanced the story. Just compare the level of tension in the Battle of Yavin to the other space battles. All the cgi in the world couldn't produce a better space battle. It was a combination of the effects, John Williams' awesome music, the editing, and the emotions shown by the actor and the fact that the entire fate of the Rebellion depended on a tiny fighter plane destroying a fearsome battle station. Awesome.
- Time
- Post link
My whole point is if it was nostalgia it would be #1 for me, but it is #3,
My point is that your nostalgia is what's making it #3. Nostalgia doesn't automatically mean you love it unconditionally. just that because of your childhood memories, you give it more love than it probably deserves. Nothing really WRONG with it, but it helps to understand that up front so there's a proper frame to your argument. The nostalgia is also why you refuse to believe there was ALWAYS this divide amongst film fans and even Star Wars fans more specifically, and it's deeper than simply "Ewoks = Jar Jar" or whatever the line is that you're drawing. There were people back then who HATED ROTJ and ESB after Star Wars came out. The difference is a) you didn't really seek those people out and b) there wasn't, because of lack of internet, as far reaching a segment of the community for you to easily read about. You think it was nicer mostly because you didn't KNOW about those who hated just as people now hate the Prequels and Computer Animation and all things post models and opticals. And along with the growth of the internet has come the gift of massive overstatement. It's one thing to recognize there are some screwed up elements in all the movies, and some really screwed up stuff in the Special Editions. It's another to call it "spitting in the face" as if it carries that much weight. But that sort of overstatement isn't just accepted, it's EXPECTED.
CG has become a scapegoat for superficial bitch sessions about films. It's just how it is. It's unfair, yes, but that's how it's become. I should know better than to be devil's advocate in these cases because I've gone down these roads and hit the logical dead ends these discussions end up slamming into, but it seems so flimsy and superficial to act as if CG is fundamentally any different than opticals and models. They were using the same techniques back in the 80's. They're just using something different to fill in the blue areas now. And it's VERY hard to tell the difference when it's done well. And you'd have a hard time convincing me ILM, WETA, Imageworks and Digital Domain dont' know how to do it well. To decry special effects presence in a Star Wars movie is odd, because as I pointed out in the post that spun off this argument--the story was secondary to a LOT of people when they went to see Star Wars. It was the effects that they went to see. Sometimes people act as if CG is a sentient being made up of nintendo cartridges that's helping write the movie and design the posters, and that seems so willfully simplistic when looking at why a movie works and doesn't work.
- Time
- Post link
Lucas over-does it sometimes. I think we can all agree on that to some extent.
"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."
"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.
http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
- Time
- Post link
AWK, I'm only a few years older than you, and I was only introduced to Star Wars in any form a few years before you were. I find it hard to believe that there should be that big of a Star Wars generational gap between. But sadly, I am forced to admit that it's true because everything got turned upside down between those four years.
But I do like the prequels. The Star Wars geek in me has to have them and has enjoyed watching them. I'm so pissed that I don't have ROTS yet because I'm a poor college student and can't afford it (been tempting, though). I simply don't feel they tell a story as well as the OT does, and it annoys me when their status is elevated to that of the OT, in terms of story. I'll never feel that the prequels are more than backstory. Of course they add depth to the story. That's what backstory's supposed to do, hence the term "back" or "behind". The problem is, as much depth as it adds, the more continuity holes and stupid moments they add as well. I just have to grin and bear it.
And I'm (or was) a fan of the EU. I just read EU before the prequels, so the EU solidifies even more strongly that Luke, Han, and Leia are the stars of the Star Wars. Don't see any Vader around there.
Well, anyway, that's all. Gotta go.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
- Time
- Post link
All I can say is on Thursday I took on the task of watching all six movies back-to-back. It took almost 15 hours (Because the stupid plummer came and bothered me during the club scene in Episode II). Fans have to watch all six movies in Episode order I-Jedi, but new-comers should watch the movies in the order in which they were made. Star Wars-Sith.
Watching 13+ hours af Star Movies was pretty awesome. I was waiting to do this since Episode I came out. And basically all I can say is Episodes I and II are not that great, story connection a little weak (Being nice) but the rest are awesome. And you really only have to watch III, Empire and Jedi to get the real story of the movies in which Lucas implied. The chosen one's fall and his redemption by his son. I get goosebumps every time I watch those movies (And fight back tears at III and Jedi (especailly the funeral pire)
I don't know why everybody disses Jedi. Yeah the Endor battle is a little crapy, but the whole 6-part movie revolevs around Anakin and Luke, that's why I think III and Jedi might be the best of the herd.
And yes there are numerous things that don't make sense between the originals and the prequels. But that is a whole new thread. We all can go on for years discussing that.
- Time
- Post link
Notice how you have to go to the end of the OT to make your point. The simple answer is staring you in the face, and yet you still don't see it
"If Anakin was the star, Retun of the Jedi would be a movie centered around Darth Vader's struggle to decide which way to go, not Luke's struggle to keep from falling to the dark side and fighting his father."
Bingo.
"becuase, as Lucas said himself, "it would be a rather boring story" or something like that."
To my knowledge, Lucas never made a statement like that in regards to the OT focusing on Vader. He simply stated that the three films comprising the OT were, in his opinion, more exciting in general - not specifically due to any particular character.
"But to me, the PT adds the depth to the story, rather than simply being the "backstory to the main story." "
Actually, Lucas has referred to the PT as the "backstory" several times as well.
"the problem is that you've merely expected the films to grow as you have."
You know, YOU are the one talking about the "added depth", NOT us. We aren't expecting them to grow - we want the OT to stay just as it is. Hence the name www. ORIGINAL Trilogy.com. Again, the obvious answer stares you in the face, and yet you completely miss it.
"I gave the prequels a chance, I didn't start bashing them until I saw all 3."
I was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO looking forward to TPM, and seeing Anakin's journey. I was also dying to see an all-CGI main character as well. All I saw was a lot of wasted material.
And before anyone else starts accusing me of "nostalgia", please bear in mind that I view ROTJ and ROTS on a similar level - that being that both have good material, but there are large segments that I fast-forward through.
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
- Time
- Post link
<a href="http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/05/i_hates_lucas_i.html" title="www.bynkii.com/archives/2005/05/i_hates_lucas_i.html" target="_blank">.Truth.</a><br /><br />"Mmm....starcruiser crash!"
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: The Bizzle
either insulting or ignorant, one of the two.
either insulting or ignorant, one of the two.
what's insulting is misrepresenting someone's argument and calling it ignorant. i would be insulted, anyway. if someone were to do that, i mean.
- Time
- Post link
All gravy.
Which part of your argument do you feel I maliciously misrepresented?
- Time
- Post link
RotS, which I didn't like as many of the other EpI-II haters did, helped me come to one realization:
Return of the Jedi is really cool! Lukes's (albeit breif) turn to the Dark Side at the end is SO much more convincing than anything in the PT. Luke's character arc was character driven. He became what his character had to become (which is really true of all the OT characters, like it or not, I think). Anakin is plot driven. He must turn to the Dark Side to become Vader so he does. Anyways, it's short, but I came away from RotS with a new appreciation for RotJ.
Xhonzi
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Wow, see what being away for 12 hours does to a guy? I've missed so much, and there are so many things I want to quote. But that would take too much time, so I'll just interject briefly.
AWK, I'm only a few years older than you, and I was only introduced to Star Wars in any form a few years before you were. I find it hard to believe that there should be that big of a Star Wars generational gap between. But sadly, I am forced to admit that it's true because everything got turned upside down between those four years.
But I do like the prequels. The Star Wars geek in me has to have them and has enjoyed watching them. I'm so pissed that I don't have ROTS yet because I'm a poor college student and can't afford it (been tempting, though). I simply don't feel they tell a story as well as the OT does, and it annoys me when their status is elevated to that of the OT, in terms of story. I'll never feel that the prequels are more than backstory. Of course they add depth to the story. That's what backstory's supposed to do, hence the term "back" or "behind". The problem is, as much depth as it adds, the more continuity holes and stupid moments they add as well. I just have to grin and bear it.
And I'm (or was) a fan of the EU. I just read EU before the prequels, so the EU solidifies even more strongly that Luke, Han, and Leia are the stars of the Star Wars. Don't see any Vader around there.
Well, anyway, that's all. Gotta go.
Wow, see what being away for 12 hours does to a guy? I've missed so much, and there are so many things I want to quote. But that would take too much time, so I'll just interject briefly.
AWK, I'm only a few years older than you, and I was only introduced to Star Wars in any form a few years before you were. I find it hard to believe that there should be that big of a Star Wars generational gap between. But sadly, I am forced to admit that it's true because everything got turned upside down between those four years.
But I do like the prequels. The Star Wars geek in me has to have them and has enjoyed watching them. I'm so pissed that I don't have ROTS yet because I'm a poor college student and can't afford it (been tempting, though). I simply don't feel they tell a story as well as the OT does, and it annoys me when their status is elevated to that of the OT, in terms of story. I'll never feel that the prequels are more than backstory. Of course they add depth to the story. That's what backstory's supposed to do, hence the term "back" or "behind". The problem is, as much depth as it adds, the more continuity holes and stupid moments they add as well. I just have to grin and bear it.
And I'm (or was) a fan of the EU. I just read EU before the prequels, so the EU solidifies even more strongly that Luke, Han, and Leia are the stars of the Star Wars. Don't see any Vader around there.
Well, anyway, that's all. Gotta go.
Though Vader did have a cool role in Splinter of thge Mind's Eye and Shadows of the Empire.
- Time
- Post link
I saw a survey one time that asked which was the official version of a movie:
A) The Theatrical Cut
B) The Director's Cut
C) The Longest Version
D) Version I like the most
The result was an honest D. EU to me is like a buffet. I take what I like and leave the rest and I'm okay with that.
However, the PT has really ruined SW for me in a big way. It's like dating a really cool girl for a while and setting up a good history only to find out that she is a he. A little hard to go back and forget the new information, you know?
Darn you George Lucas, why did you have to be a woman!!!
Xhonzi
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.