skyjedi2005 said:What it comes down to is that prequel trilogy defenders will say star wars was always a kids movie series. That it was always dumb popcorn cinema, and Lucas backs them up in this. To be honest the oot trilogy was written better and acted better as well as directed better. But was still popcorn films. Nobody ever said they were arthouse cinema, or had serious themes and issues discussed in them. These were movies like old hollywood, not serious film. They were basically an A picture upgrade in terms in budget and effects, writing and acting of the flash gordon serials.
They may not have been written to be intellectual films, but they always had depth due to their emotional depth and the conviction of their imagination and their use of mythical stuff of a sort that resonates in our subconscious. The prequels lack emotional depth, particularly the later two films, and their imagination doesn't have the same conviction. They are shallow films, the latter two horribly shallow.
As for the claim that Star Wars was always for kids, used as a justification for The Phantom Menace's bullshit... that claim fudges the truth. The original films were kids films to an extent, but they were made to work fully for adults. They were the definitive general audience films. The Phantom Menace put in a whole lot of kid-aimed stuff that seemed designed to turn off adults. The OOT is adult-friendly, the PT is not. Of course the OOT has Ewoks, but the ewoks work far better than Jar Jar Binks and the bloody video game podrace. The OOT was not exclusively kiddie, but The Phantom Menace had a lot of stuff that seemed to say "Adults, Keep Out." And the other two prequel films were silly teen films. I don't understand how anybody who's not a teen can get through that romance without severe stomach pains.
We as an older audience (i'm of course referring to us oot fans) are accused of Looking at the films through rose colored glasses. That these films were overhyped and not as good as we remember them being if we sit down now as adults and attentively watch them and out them under the same microscope as the prequels.
The OOT stands up amazingly well. These are films that work so well they're magical. The OOT was a phenomenon that brought something to life. There is no life in the PT.
Cgi these days is the least of Hollywood's problems though it has allowed them to get lazy. Movie directing is almost a joke these days, scriptwriting is worse than it has ever been. I very much agree with anyone who thinks mediocrity and profit are synomous with Hollywood today. Bankrupt creatively, sequels, prequels, reboots, and a slew of badly made and badly produced comic book films with an occasional gem. That being said movies have yet to stoop to the same low as television standards have, Reality tv anyone? Tv is Tits, Asses and Explosions and, sex and killing and more sex and killing. It is often hard to find a narrative or story thread between those and the tv advertisements. Plus movies are the same too. They have the flashy colors and cgi, and the Shaky cam and quick cuts in the editing. There are a lot of films that are cool and modern and flashy, but competely lack any decernable substance other than garbage. Dumb entertainments and twerp cinema are the name of the game, and if you refuse to turn off your brain and enjoy yourself for 2 hours and want quality, then you can go fuck yourself. Seems to be the unspoken feeling in tinseltown these days. Anyhow this is the way it is. There was a golden era in sci fi and fantasy, a golden era in movies, and a golden era in the comic books and that has passed us. The moderns can try to ape the classics all they want and fail at every turn. The seventies and Eighties with a few exceptions were the last great era in motion pictures. There is very little now to distinguish movies from music videos, or video games. To me movies stopped being an artform when they got rid of traditional effects, traditional animation and Stopped using film. The few still doing so should be commended because the Lucas types out there are going to destroy it with their great modern advances that forget storytelling and craftsmanship come first. The one word that sums up todays movies is "disposable". You watch and enjoy them for 2 hours and then forget them, if you can even sit through how awful most of them are or even keep you in your seat. At lot of people talked about wanting to walk out of the prequels or Indiana Jones IV for instance. I almost walked out of Star Trek nemesis and will probably walk out after paying to see the JJ trek film in disgust.
Now this I can't agree with. There have been many great films in recent times. Like Fight Club, Wonderland, Butcher Boy and Pan's Labyrinth. Nor is tv a medium marked by low quality. There is much great tv. I've never seen a movie to manage quite what the tv show The Wire has managed, for example. Furthermore, I'm not so confident in the greatness of many of the old films that are hailed as great classics. I'm not a believer in the view that great cinema is a thing of the past, of a bygone golden age. I find much to by happy about in modern film and tv. But not in modern Star Wars. I think that in certain ways the film medium has advanced over time. And the old Star wars films stand up beside the modern films, but the prequels do not.
Nor do I think cgi is necessarily bad. It's just bad when it's unconvincing or overdone, like how Lucas does it. The overuse of cgi in Indy 4 was a bloody abomination. Not the ants or the monkeys or the gophers (I was ok with those), the problem was the use of cgi for the backgrounds. Not on. Go film something real. But I love a good cgi monster done well. Which is something that was totally absent from the prequels. I don't think the use of cgi makes a film any less a work of art unless it's done badly. Lucas type cgi certainly makes a film less a work of art.
I didn't hate Trek Nemesis. It was no great film, but I've seen far worse. It was miles better the prequels. I have serious issues with Indy 4, but there's much I liked about it. Harrison Ford as Indy adds a lot and I think Shia LaBeouf is a good actor and makes a good son for Indy as well. I would have approved if the villains were more menacing, if events were menacing, if the film was less bland and didn't serve up total bullshit with their mangled aliens plot. Also, I could have done without Winstone's annoying character and I'm no fan of Cate Blanchett either.
As for the new Trek film, it's a bloody abomination. You don't take classic characters and recast them with other actors who don't fit the parts. Spock is Nimoy. Spock is not Quinto. Sylar was a pain in the butt on Heroes and now we have to the same actor doing Spock. I've seen photos of him in action playing the part that indicate he's getting it totally wrong. Meanwhile, the whole film is clearly an attempt to push Trek as some sort of teen thing. The guy they have for Kirk looks like he belongs in something like Dawson's Creek.