An Experiment in Inducting a SW newbie. — Page 2

ray_afraid said:

twooffour said:

that one line about Jabba's intolerance for lousy smugglers is really the only "sore thumb" in the whole business.

What about Han telling Luke and co. that he needs to get going because he's rushed? Originally, it was true. Jabba was sure to be pissed when he found out that Han just blasted his messenger and then took off to god knows where. In the Special Edition version, not only is Jabba not very upset at the loss of Greedo, but also gives Han more time! He isn't "rushed" in the least! Also, IMO, it stops the flow of the film dead in it's tracks for nothing more than a lackluster CGI mess that makes the previous scene with Greedo unnecessary. ALSO it ruins the big reveal of who and what Jabba is in Jedi.

Was Han really talking about Jabba, though?
That scene was directly intercut with an Imperial spy tracking Luke and Ben to the ship; directly before that, some of the stormtroopers had "taken an interest in their handiwork".
There was a very urgent sense of rushing and menace in that scene, directly related to the Imperials. Solo upped the price as soon as he learned that they were trying to escape / avoid the Empire.

Jabba however? How long would it take him to learn that some thug of his got shot in a bar? Was that hinted in the movie anywhere?



At any rate, I obviously agree that it doesn't do the pacing any good and sticks out with its redundant exposition (Han repeats the same line fromt the Greedo scene) - not least because I've already said that in my previous post.

However, I'd vehemently disagree with the part where you say the scene is inserted "for nothing more than a CGI mess".
You certainly haven't read my post.

ray_afraid said:

twooffour said:

 

However, I'd vehemently disagree with the part where you say the scene is inserted "for nothing more than a CGI mess".

You certainly haven't read my post.

So, because we disagree, that means I didn't read you post? Right.

Not really, it's just if you reply to a post of mine where I, at great length, describe all the "cool stuff" in that particular scene, line specific lines, or mannerisms (or the fact that this Jabba is much better than the original nervous guy in the funny hat, and makes some of the lines here more ironic than they'd been originally), as a direct pre-emptive rebuttal to the "this is just for more stupid CGI" attitude - I'd reasonably expect you to actually somewhat address my sentiment, and why, despite all the bullshit I'd said, you still think this scene has nothing more to offer than "stupid CGI mess".

Just saying "it was a stupid CGI mess" in one lazy sentence, is something you would do if you... hadn't read my post.


I mean, what kind of dialog is that?
"Lucash just included the scene to show off silly fake CG"
"Well let me refer you to my post above, where I have 10 examples arguing that it's more than that"
"... it's just stupid CG".

Whatever floats your boat, man.

Man, is my foot ever getting itchy!

Gaffer Tape said:

Unfortunately, each person only has one first impression.  I've always thought it would be a much better judge of things if you could somehow give someone two first impressions.  Show them the films in one order, record data, erase their brain, and then show them another order and record data.  That's the only way really to test things out.  Unfortunately, there's no way to do that. 

If you'd like to donate your brain, I'm sure we can work something out. :p

Fine, then, you just didn't bother to mention it - it just appeared as though you hadn't read it.
Just a tip for the retroactive future, if you'd said "I don't find any of that amusing, or entertaining, it's fucking lame", there wouldn't have been a misunderstanding :p


Then again, this new post gives me another reason to suspect the same.

You've just listed all the reasons why this scene doesn't work in the movie, which I'VE ACKNOWLEDGED IN MY ORIGINAL POST.
Yes, all the redundancy, the way it may not fit in with the rest, the problems with Jabba's character (and size), and obviously, the still fake-looking CGI - I've already acknowledged all that, so no need to tell me again.

All I said was why I kinda liked this scene DESPITE all of these problems (while still saying that it should've been left out of the finished movie).


Then, you bother to point me to the fact that you've criticized out the flaws in that scene (as opposed to just saying "it sux"), while completely ignoring... MY RESPONSE TO ONE OF THOSE CRITICISMS.

I've also never accused you of turning a blind eye on the scene's flaws, merely (my ramblings about its supposed) its strengths ;)

But hey, you know... I'm not going there now. Not again.

... maybe it's best if you change the topic now :D

ray_afraid said:

twooffour said:

Fine, then, you just didn't bother to mention it - it just appeared as though you hadn't read it.
Just a tip for the retroactive future, if you'd said "I don't find any of that amusing, or entertaining, it's fucking lame", there wouldn't have been a misunderstanding :p


Then again, this new post gives me another reason to suspect the same.

You've just listed all the reasons why this scene doesn't work in the movie, which I'VE ACKNOWLEDGED IN MY ORIGINAL POST.
Yes, all the redundancy, the way it may not fit in with the rest, the problems with Jabba's character (and size), and obviously, the still fake-looking CGI - I've already acknowledged all that, so no need to tell me again.

All I said was why I kinda liked this scene DESPITE all of these problems (while still saying that it should've been left out of the finished movie).


Then, you bother to point me to the fact that you pointed out the flaws in that scene as if I hadn't noticed, while completely ignoring... MY RESPONSE TO ONE OF THOSE CRITICISMS.

But hey, you know... I'm not going there now. Not again.

... maybe it's best if you change the topic now :D

I don't find any of that amusing, or entertaining, it's fucking lame.

Retcon. Doesn't count.

Darth Bizarro said:

Many of you are suggesting that it is a bad idea to show her the prequels first because it ruins the experience of the originals.  But how can any of you really say that for certain.  Most people here saw the originals first and then the prequels so I ask, what frame of reference do you have that showing them the other way ruins the originals.  Everyone is going to have their own opinion.  And dare I say, part of the reason why we consider the prequels to be so bad is because our standards for what makes a good Star Wars film have been set so high by the original trilogy, especially Empire, that it is impossible for the prequels to live up to our standards.  Remove that sentiment and the prequels not only become less offensive, but dare I say it, good.  Some people do like them and it's not fair to call all those people stupid just because they like something you don't.  And even through it all, she picked 2 of the 3 original movies as her favorites, gagged at all the right stuff in Episode 2, and picked Episode 3 as the best of the prequels and a good film, a sentiment that even many people here share.  

The only reason why showing the prequels first would be a "bad idea", is, as I think Gaffer Tape put it, because of the SPOILERS.

It's not a definite reason against it (a movie with a twist can still be enjoyed knowing the twist ahead, if it's a good movie), but the WOW effect is still a memorable experience you don't NEED to take away from the viewer, so I dunno.
I think I liked the 6th Sense quite enough, but I don't know how much more impressed I'd been, had I not known ahead.
On the other hand, I remember being blown away by the reveal in "Identity" (it's all in the mind of a crazy fat guy; don't read the previous sentence if you don't want your WOW effect completely and hopelessly ruined - it's not like you can just erase a spoiler from your memory!), which was pretty awesome.


Now, all the "cool" spoilers in the OT are already common knowledge, but the portrayal of its characters in the PT may negatively affect the first viewing of the OT.
Then again, I do think it's very possible to take Ben, and Darth, for what they are in their respective movies, without thinking too much about asshole Obi-Wan and emo Ani.



So I'd say it doesn't really matter :D


"Remove that sentiment and the prequels not only become less offensive, but dare I say it, good."
Not really, no. You can't get over its most basic, and glaring flaws, like the predominantly dull characters and delivery, the shitty exposition, the confusing plot structure and, more than anything, character motivation, and some of its "annoying humor".

Not that anyone who likes them is stupid, but it's very possible to like them out of stupidity.

Well yea, pretty much my thoughts, as well :)

One can "like" a seriously "flawed" product for, I think, two very basic reasons:
-the flaws have some sort of appeal in themselves
-you don't give a crap about the aspects that are flawed, at the moment.

Like, recently, I watched Dark City, and I just couldn't be bothered to follow the plot line closely (couldn't understand some of the dialogue), nor did I feel a particular connection to the characters (the whole "stoic" "noir" atmosphere might be at fault - everyone's talking as if they're stoned).
So the only thing that kinda disturbed me were the sometimes narmy aliens and Sutherland's speech pauses, but I enjoyed it very much for its setting, its mysterious setting, and the imagery.

Did the protagonist have a very good arc? I don't even remember, but it was a hell of a payoff.


So if someone watches the prequels, and just doesn't give a crap (like, by going to the toilet while Ani and Ami beat around the bush), then hey, who cares.

I just think it's wrong to say that they could be considered good movies if you only thought away the OT, for the reasons stated - but yea, at the end of the day, if the flaws don't go over the head, then you're pretty safe. ;)

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

I'd be disappointed in ANH too if I was expecting a sequel to ROTS.

You wouldn't find the refreshing and lively characters, and straight-down-the-line plot to be a positive surprise?

You might be "disappointed" in it in terms of the decreased "scope" and the corny choreography, but come on...

On a related note, I showed my girlfriend the OT about two months ago. She had never seen it, but knew all the cultural memes. She grew up in an all-girl house and was just never exposed to them, although she had seen parts of them on TV while at friends/families places. She likes Harry Potter, LOTR, Spiderman, anime, stuff like that, so I figured she might enjoy them, although she doesn't know older movies and I knew she wouldn't treat them as though they were on equal ground to newer fantasy classics like some of the above.

-ANH: We watched the 1977 GOUT version. Overall, she liked it, found the characters amusing. She thought R2D2 was cute, predicted that Han Solo is "a jerk but then you find out at the end that he is a nice guy after all," and found it an entertaining and funny film, although I doubt she would want to watch it again on her own willpower.

-ESB: I'm not sure if she liked this better or not, but she appreciated the better production values, and the more adult nature. We watched the 2004 edition, because the changes weren't so intrusive. She didn't have much to say about this one, other than finally knowing the full context of a lot of famous quotes.

-ROTJ: Watched the SE because I never owned the GOUT. Most of her comments were made in relation to this film, mainly because of its flaws. Of course she thought the Ewoks were cute, but she noticed that the acting and dialogue was bad, especially Han Solo. A lot of other things, like Leia being Luke's sister and the whole romance triangle, made her laugh, and all the puppets and kid stuff. In general she said at the end that "it's like they didn't take it seriously anymore", that the makers sort of threw this out there. When Hayden came on at the end she did a double take and said why there was a guy "giving the creepy uncle stare." (I later explained and showed her the original, which she said made more sense) When the final scene of Ewoks dancing came on (this was the more sombre SE version, remember) she said that there had to be one more serious closing scene to tie all the story up in a mature way and was shocked when the iris went to the credits.

I haven't shown her the prequels. Maybe one day. Given her misgiving about ROTJ I am sure she would find them hard to stomach in places, but I am also sure she would appreciate the more snazzy visuals as well. I wanted her to be able to enjoy the OT, which is why I showed her this first. I can imagine her, like most people--and probably myself, were I in that situation--would find the sylistic incongruity and story/character re-focus that comes between ROTS and ANH to offputting and confusing. It's better to let people appreciate vintage films in the context in which they were meant to be seen (some SE misgivings aside).

zombie84 said:

-ESB: I'm not sure if she liked this better or not, but she appreciated the better production values, and the more adult nature. We watched the 2004 edition, because the changes weren't so intrusive.

Well, I know what you mean, especially given a first time/casual viewer probably wouldn't notice, but the fucked up colors were pretty intrusive.

Gaffer Tape said:

Yeah, see, for me it has less to do with spoilers in the 'OMG SPOILERS!' sense, but more just in a narrative build sense.  Sequels are always attempting to build on what came before it.  Even if it's not even necessarily intended to, it's impossible not to.  So, quality aside, each Star Wars movie is building, in scope, in spectacle, in new content, upon what came before it.  So the prequels are always going to be made with the original films in mind, but not the other way around.  The PT always refers back to the OT because, even though it chronologically comes before it, it was made afterwards.  The PT was made to be watched after the OT, and George can whine and stamp his foot about it all he wants, but that's exactly the way he made them.  He made absolutely no attempt to make them work in numerical order (although, as I said, that would be practically impossible even if he had tried) and every attempt to make them nod vigorously at the OT.  Really, you're putting both trilogies at a disservice to watch them in that order because you're taking away from both of them what makes them tick:  for the OT, the freshness of brand-new ideas, and for the PT, the context it's constantly making references to.  Again, that's just the nature of the sequel business, and why would you watch three sequels before the original film?

Certainly; spoilers are probably just the worst example of what can happen if you already know ahead.

Maybe it's just how my mind works, but I can happily "blend out" something that happens in a sequel, or prequel, or later in the movie, for the sake of the moment. But blending out something you know about an upcoming surprise, well - it works to 5% maybe.

So I guess if I'd watch it in chronological order, I'd still be able to absorb ANH and all that from the context of its own narrative, without giving the prequels much thought.
I mean, it's pretty obvious from the movie that it was created as a stand-alone, so that makes it easier.

Darth Bizarro said:

I should probably mention as well that when we got to Ep IV, she really liked that the special effects were less in your face and flashy.  So it is true that she went into the originals expecting more flash but she was happy to not have it.  

I agree with you guys 100% that she might have enjoyed ANH more if we started there, but even still, I'm quite happy with the level of preference she had for the originals overall even having seen the prequels first.  To me it proves that the originals can and will still endure even with the prequels clouding people's judgement.

While watching the prequels, she never batted an eye at Yoda.  He was CG and she knew he was CG.  But when we got to Empire and Yoda started doing stuff CG free, she actually asked me how they did that.  To me, that's success. 

But... but... the CHARACTERS??? :D

Seriously, this is what's been intruiguing me the most all this time (in so far as it intrigues me at all, that is):
when we look at EpIII, and EpIV, we see a very sharp contrast between characters that are dull and boring, woodenly acted and hard to relate to, and characters that are lively, charming, sympathetic and memorable.

Has she not given any attention to that at all, or... couldn't have perceived it the other way round, really, now could she? :)