Sign In

Do Star Wars fans have appreciation for the wrong Lucas?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 

Do Star Wars fans have appreciation for the wrong Lucas?



    As a OOT fan, sometimes I think about the Special edition or the prequels and wonder What the hell happen to George Lucas?...  Did he go crazy sometime after 1983? Now, after think about for 11 years I think I have an answer...
"George Lucas has always been like this".
 George Lucas has always sucked...but, why are the OOT and the first Indy good?
The only answer I can find is Marcia Lucas (George Lucas' Ex-wife).

Marcia and George were married from 1969 to 1983 which are the best years of Lucas' film-work. Marcia was the editor of the OOT and even won Academy Award for Film Editing for Star Wars in 1977. After their brake-up, George's film work gets bad. I have to question if Marcia have a bigger hand in the OOT then just editing them. Did George talk to his wife Marcia about the OOT and did she give input? Did Marcia tell George what was bad in his ideas when he was working on the OOT?
       
George Lucas film-work after Marcia:

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) (the first time George Lucas decided to make a prequel.) (even Spielberg said in 1989: "Temple of Doom is my least favorite of the trilogy")

The Ewok Adventure (1984)

Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (1985)

Captain EO (1986)

Willow (1988) (story)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) (which I like, but some do not like)

Radioland Murders (1994)

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

 

Author
Time

George Lucas is not the same man that directed American Graffiti and Star Wars. I used to idolize him- I have no idea what would cause such a change in a person.

My pod-person theory stands. ;-)

Author
Time

Yes, my feeling is that Lucas was once a brilliant man, corrupted by power. He fought the system, and won, then became worse than the system.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time

i think he beat the system,

 

because he's able to do whatever he wants, and that's the point....

 

whether we like his post-star wars movies, is another issue..

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

I didn't say he didn't beat the system, I said that after the system he became worse than what he was afraid the system would make of him.

He wanted to be a free film maker to go about and do the films he wanted, yet he got stuck doing a single franchise and not the films he himself claimed he wanted to be free to do. He said Star Wars was his means to become free to do those films, but instead he became entangled by Star Wars and grew old never having done those films he use to want so badly to do.

I still think if young George could meet old George and see what he has accomplished, he'd be more than a little disappointed. He went from being a young film maker with a vision, to an old fat man with shit loads of money.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
As much as I hate the shit after 1983 in the SW-ville, you guys have to understand that is nearly impossible to keep churning out great movies from a movie series. In many ways after seeing the PT, the SE, and The TV series, I am thankful we got 2 classics (SW & ESB) and a pretty good final movie (ROTJ). Look at most movie series & TV series, the quality usually goes to shit, simply because it loses that magic after time, and it just gets stale. Just think of most TV shows near the end of their run, they are a shell of what the show was in its prime. Just think of Superman III & IV, Jurassic Park II & III, Jaws III & Revenge, Batman & Robin, etc. I could go on and on of movie series that just went bad. The OOT will stand as one of the greatest trilogies of alltime when it comes to movies, it was groundbreaking, it created the blockbuster, it gave us characters like Luke, Leia, Han Solo, Darth Vader, and it touched a generation that is loyal even today, and will as the movies are introduced to future generations. To ask Lucas to keep up that quality is crazy cause it is damn near impossible. So forget post 1983 SW-stuff, but just remember from 77-83, SW was the best.
Author
Time

Don't know much about Jaws, but several of your other comparisons are imperfect in one important respect. While Batman, JP, etc. do indeed form a series, they do not have creative continuity. The Star Wars series does have one creator from beginning to end. So, are we to blame its lackluster final three (or four) episodes on franchise fatigue, or creative fatigue?

* Jurassic Park 3 was a made-to-order summer blockbuster. It was not representative of Crichton's vision or interests. JP2 was also heavily modified from the original novel. I think the film basically preserved the setting and two or three set pieces, then told a different story.

* Batman and Robin was really a sequel to Batman Forever, and almost completely divorced from the successful Tim Burton series. I view it as the second of the Schumacher series, and that series was always creatively bankrupt (or hamstrung, if you want to be generous to Joel).

* Superman III and IV were Salkind cash-ins IIRC, nothing to do with Donner's groundbreaking work in Superman I and parts of II.

The common denominator here is that these series crashed after the original creative talent left, or was dismissed. Not so with Star Wars: George Lucas was always there. It is with some perverse delight that I imagine the series might have been better had Lucas relinquished more control in the 1990s. Or maybe it would've been much worse. There's really no way to know.

"It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for." -- Tom Shales on Star Wars
Scruffy's gonna die the way he lived.
Author
Time
Scruffy said:

The common denominator here is that these series crashed after the original creative talent left, or was dismissed. Not so with Star Wars: George Lucas was always there. It is with some perverse delight that I imagine the series might have been better had Lucas relinquished more control in the 1990s. Or maybe it would've been much worse. There's really no way to know.

 

 i think there is a way to know..... we know what happened with 'empire strikes back',

and with 'return of the jedi'....  even though Lucas was still intrinsically involved, neither

matched up with original greatness of 'Star Wars'.... both were a decline in quality, and

care in making them.. they never reached the greatness that the first had..(to me of course)..

no one ever says 'empire' or 'return of the jedi' are groundbreaking, because they arent'..

the precedent was already set..

 

so regardless of who did what, we can think it would have gotten worse, because we

have examples that show it......

 

to me the SE, and the Prequels are in a completely different league than the originals,

and while still enjoyable to me, the only movie that i really enjoyed was the third (ROTS)..

however, i'm not going to constantly try to compare them, or wish they had turned

out differently, because i like to live in the present, and  not constantly try to

retroactively change the past..

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
Scruffy said:

The common denominator here is that these series crashed after the original creative talent left, or was dismissed. Not so with Star Wars: George Lucas was always there. It is with some perverse delight that I imagine the series might have been better had Lucas relinquished more control in the 1990s. Or maybe it would've been much worse. There's really no way to know.

 

 Thats a fair point, but then I will bring up movies series that got worse with the original creator:

Lethal Weapon IV:  All of them were directed by Richard Donnor and this one totally sucked.

Indy IV:  Spielberg and Lucas still at the helm, as this was ridiculous, and the worst of the 4 Indy movies.

Rocky V:  Though Rocky VI sorta redeemed the series, this movie left a bad taste in my mouth the minute I walked out of the theater.  I have yet to watch again.

These movies were all made years after the original, and all the creators were well past their prime.  As I said, post 1983 SW pretty much sucks, but if you drag these movies series past 3 movies, they all usually start sucking too.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

As I try to say, George Lucas had a lot of good, talented people helping him with Star Wars and the OT as a whole (Ralph McQuarrie comes to mind). Part of his problem is the way he's tried to overshadow their work and glorify himself by comparison. The other part is how he has tried to dismiss and destroy what others have done.

That said, Lucas was more talented in his younger years, just not as much as people say. There was a mix of many factors. Star Wars was a success of luck more than anything.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
C3PX said:

I still think if young George could meet old George and see what he has accomplished, he'd be more than a little disappointed. He went from being a young film maker with a vision, to an old fat man with **** loads of money.

 

 just to put things in your perspective, i knew they were popular,

but i never realized this much:

------------------------------------------------

Forbes Magazine has estimated that the franchise has made approximately $20 billion US, making it the most successful film franchise ever.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2007/05/24/starwars-anniversary.html

 

if you have access to a fraction of that much money, i guess you can do pretty much

whatever you want, and not really care about what anybody thinks about it..

 

thats how i would feel too, and so would most people....(otherwise, they'd just be

lying about it)..

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

Thanks skyjedi2005

This does answer all of the questions:

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/natureofthebeast1.html

      Marcia also kept Lucas in check by reminding him of the fundamental emotional resonance needed for a screenplay, in contrast to Lucas' more technical interest: "I was the more emotional person who came from the heart, and George was the more intellectual and visual, and I thought that provided a nice balance," Marcia says.      

      Mark Hamill remembers, "She was really the warmth and the heart of those films, a good person he could talk to, bounce ideas off of, who would tell him when he was wrong.” After a three year process of finally filtering and refining his ideas, Lucas had a script that was imaginative and human.

___

This was an eye-opener article and things seem clearer.

Lucas' was into more technical and visual side seems to me to fit the prequels which are all eye-candy and souless.

It also seems to me the Special Edition had edited out all of Marcia's warmth and the heart of the films. The Marcia Lucas edit of the oot seems to me to have a more epic and grander look and feel than George Lucas' re-edit in the Special Edition.

also Marcia could tell George Lucas that he was wrong which is something no one around him does or dares to do, these-days.

---------------

The George Lucas of today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EykrMEAzxN0

Author
Time
 (Edited)

You have to remember Lucas in college was about film without story.  He was into the french New wave and something called Cinema Verite where filmed are composed with montage and can resonate themes and ideas with the viewer but often no script is needed or just a bare plot.  Lucas never was about story he was always about plot.

I think People got confused because Lawrence Kasden Wrote 2 brilliant scripts with Raiders of the Lost Ark and Empire Strikes back.  The Huycks wrote the best dialogue of the first star wars.  Lucas credits them with 30% of the final screenplay.  Not sure how much of Graffiti is theirs also.  I know Walter Murch helped Lucas write THX 1138.

He always had friends helping Him with Scripts Until he made the prequels and Indy 4 he became obstinate and set in his ways that he had to write, edit and direct them himself to not get his vision muddied.  He believes Both Kurtz and Kershner ruined and Muddied Empire strikes back.

The idea that a writer, director, editor, and producer all in one the one man filmaker is from the french new wave and they called it auteur theory.  Truffeut, Goddard and others followed this.

Now to be Fair to Lucas all his companions have also had their share on failures and flops.

Indiana Jones Temple of Doom, Radioland Murders, and Howard the Duck were written by the Huycks.  Kershner ended up directing Never say never again.  Kasden never wrote another good script after Empire and Raiders, and ended up later making a bad stephen King movie.

Other than the Dark Crystal and Return to OZ Kurtz went nowhere after he was kicked out of Lucasland.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time

I don't really care about more Star Wars, Lucas had some pretty good story ideas, and always talked about wanting to go off and do his fancy little films once he was done with SW. Of course you can't keep churing out good movies in a series forever, but that is kind of a cop out excuse for the prequels sucking so much. Everyone always says that they could have never been as good as the originals and that their biggest problem was too high of expectations. But the fact of the matter is that they just simply sucked. They were terrible movies, and could have been done much better. I am pretty forgiving when it comes to inferior sequels, I love all the Apes movies, just not as much as the first one (and I hate the remake), I really enjoyed the James Bond movies, sometimes they got pretty retarded, but I was willing to forgive some flaws. Star Trek is another series I have been very tolerant towards, some of the movies I really hated, but I still gave it the benefit of the doubt and went back to the theater to see the next one, I knew it might not be the best ST had to offer, but I was willing to over look that for another adventure in the ST universe, a place I had become rather fond of. I cannot say this is the case with SW. The SW universe was my favorite universe in the universe, I went to the theater in 1999 knowing that whatever I saw on the screen was not going to be anywhere near as good as what I have seen already, but as a guy who spend years soaking up the EU and making my own stories in that universe, I didn't care, another journey into that universe on the big screen was going to be amazing, no matter what! Even with that mindset, TPM was very disappointing. But I still gave it the benefit of the doubt and decided to over look it, and I actually still enjoy TPM, it is by far my favorite prequel, and the only one I have ever seen more than a couple of times.

Anyway, what I am saying is that I was more than willing to forgive inferior prequels, but once we got down to AOTC, it was such a horrible awful movie, it was insulting to watch. So much more could have been done with it. The "come on guys, no series can go on for ever without loosing its magic" just isn't going to cut it. AOTC and ROTS were simple awful films that needed some love and care put into their making that just wasn't there. Instead they feel like an inferior product thrown on the shelves (or in this case cinemas) as quickly as possible to pull in some cash.

Lucas should have finished wit Star Wars after ROTJ, and went on to do more things. Things that he could have really put his heart into, as he did with the first Star Wars, instead of rehashing something he was sick and tired of just because he felt some sort of obligation (and obviously realized it would bring him more money than anyone should ever dream of having).

-1, I find it funny that you say "nobody ever calls Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi ground breaking, because since they first came out I have heard plenty of people using that exact phrase to describe them. They were both very much ground breaking.

And as for you saying, "thats how i would feel too, and so would most people....(otherwise, they'd just be

lying about it).."

Sorry to see you have such a shallow and pessemistic view on creativity. It doesn't matter how much money you have, why should that make your standards drop? If you have something you want to make, do it right. You have no excuse not to, especially if you are literally drowning in money fans of that series have given to you already. When you have such a loyal fanbase, you should care what they think, after all, if it were not for them you never would have made it that far.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
C3PX said:

And as for you saying, "thats how i would feel too, and so would most people....(otherwise, they'd just be

lying about it).."

Sorry to see you have such a shallow and pessemistic view on creativity. It doesn't matter how much money you have, why should that make your standards drop? If you have something you want to make, do it right. You have no excuse not to, especially if you are literally drowning in money fans of that series have given to you already. When you have such a loyal fanbase, you should care what they think, after all, if it were not for them you never would have made it that far.

 

 i would agree with you up until a certain point..

why have the prequels, and everything after them generated more revenue and

income for the Star Wars franchise, greater than anything the original trilogy ever did?

(even with inflation) ???????????

 

if people really cared about artistic integrity and value, they should have all been flops,

every movie should have failed miserably, and all the interest in Star Wars should have

died off, instead the exact opposite happened....

 

what kind of message does that send to Lucas?

 

even if he actually cared about how well the movies did (obviously he doesn't, look

at the lower results for the 'clone war' movie)...................... why should he bother stopping,

when people continue to validate his efforts regardless of how well they are critically

received or not..

 

and my pessism is based on human nature, and experience, and not on some

altruistic, or superficial view that people remain true to their nature of always

seeking good, or doing whats best for others, as opposed for their own interests...

 

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
negative1 said:

if people really cared about artistic integrity and value, they should have all been flops,

every movie should have failed miserably, and all the interest in Star Wars should have died off, instead the exact opposite happened....

 

 

Exactly. Because people don't care, fans do care though. People will suck up and buy anything, look at all the garbage that gets thrown around shamelessly on TV that people soak up and love. All the crappy movies that get released every year. My wife was sick earlier this week, and I rented Get Smart for her, because she likes Steve Carell and wanted to see something funny. That was one of the worse movies I have ever seen! Acting was horrible, plot was typical "spy comdey" fare, and not a single joke was laugh worthy. Why should a film like that, while not a super successful film, still be able to make back what was spent to make it? Why should a film like that even deserve a DVD release? Why do people suck up all these fads and love them to death for a year or two, then forget about them and loose interest in them entirely?

People will suck up and eat up anything you throw at them that has an ounce of popularity too it. If other people are doing it, they will do it. Its hip it is cool. But once that fad is over, all that is left are the true fans, the loyal base of people that really care about it and want to hang onto it forever, not just suck up and throw away when they loose interest. The real fans want to show this stuff to their kids and say, "See, how cool is that!" A film maker, a writer, a director, anybody with fans has to make a choice: Remain loyal to your fan base, or make something that will be hyped up for a few months or maybe even years before being dropped forever? There are still artists with integrity out there who want to show what they can do and really build something to last, something that the fans can hold on to and be proud of. This does NOT describe the PT by any means. But fans have been holding onto the OT for pushing thirty years now, I have no doubt they will hang onto it for another thirty.

Whether the PT is part of this is yet to be seen. Movies like the Jaws sequels were popular once too, now most fans of that franchise will tell their friends, "Just check out the first one and forget the sequels, they're nothing to write home about." The sequels are remembered as campy late night TBS fodder. I wouldn't be surprised if that is what the prequels eventually find themselves as. "Just watch the original three. That prequel trilogy is nothing to write home about. Watch them if you like, they're kind of fun,  but they are just as campy as can be." 

 

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
 (Edited)
C3PX said:
negative1 said:

if people really cared about artistic integrity and value, they should have all been flops,

every movie should have failed miserably, and all the interest in Star Wars should have died off, instead the exact opposite happened....

 

Exactly. Because people don't care, fans do care though. People will suck up and buy anything, look at all the garbage that gets thrown around shamelessly on TV that people soak up and love.  Why do people suck up all these fads and love them to death for a year or two, then forget about them and loose interest in them entirely?

 

when star wars came out it was a fad, and so were the two sequels,

people forget about  them in the mid 80's after 'return of the jedi',

and continued to forget about them until the late 90's when the SE

versions came out... then they came back, and now are stronger than ever..

 

so , by your criteria, there really were'nt any fans back then either, only now?

A film maker, a writer, a director, anybody with fans has to make a choice: Remain loyal to your fan base, or make something that will be hyped up for a few months or maybe even years before being dropped forever? There are still artists with integrity out there who want to show what they can do and really build something to last, something that the fans can hold on to and be proud of. This does NOT describe the PT by any means. But fans have been holding onto the OT for pushing thirty years now, I have no doubt they will hang onto it for another thirty.

 

honestly, i can't really think of any great movies i've seen in the last 20 years (or longer) that made

we want to be a fan of the series/or think its a classic, the majority of my favorites are from the 70's,

and 80's... its' all mostly rehashes, and reworks or earlier material,

or subpar populist stuff now... yeah, i watch a lot of independant and foreign films too, but none

of them really stands out to me..

 

i agree, we'll never know if the movies that come out now will be remembered down the line..

 

later

-1

 

 

 

 

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well it really depends on if you go to the movies as a critic or as a person looking to be entertained for a couple of hours.

Still there are films as art form, films as social commentary.  And films with big budget special effects called blockbusters.  The difference Is Blockbusters today don't put the story first or use it as a driving force for the movie the cgi effects are the movie.  I mean it is absurd and stupid it would be like putting the carriage before the horse so to speak.

The Cgi, the sets, the special effects.  Lucas once called special effects the window dressing and stated that the plot and story and characters had to take center stage.

Films today are incredibly bankrupt in story creativity, whereas the effects are sophisticated Unlike they have ever been before.  The Nineties and early 2000's push the CGi and digital domain forward but at the cost of the characters and the script.

Today's Movies may not be remembered years from now like the films of the 70's and 80's i grew up on and that is okay to me, Forgettable popular entertainments and fads come and go.

Some things can have lasting popular Appeal even if one does not understand the reasons for them being so.  I personally don't get Harry Potter, or Pokemon but they are lasting franchises with popular appeal.

I understand Things Like Star Wars or star trek, or lord of the rings. 

I liked them as a kid and i still like them.  Other things don't survive adult sensibilties Like He Man, or Transformers.

I won't Lie their were entertaining Moments in the Star Wars prequels.  I was entertained by Kingdom of the Crystal skull but at the same time i left the theater feeling empty and betrayed rather than uplifted.  I had that uplifted feeling after watching star wars and return of the jedi in theaters, empire was the only downer of the three Emotionaly because the rebels lose and the bad guys win and Luke gets owned by Vader and loses his hand.

The only modern films that have come close to the tapping that emotion as the original trilogy is peter jackson's Lord of the rings trilogy.

The films connected with the audience the Viewer or at least me speaking for myself felt attached to the heros journey whether frodo, or Luke.

The prequels did not have that same kind of connection, they were more of a disconnect to me.

Lucas was supposed to build up a deep emotional sympathy for Anakin and i never felt that he did that.

If its supposed to feal like McCallum said Losing a son or daughter, or family member to drugs or some other evil circumstance Lucas failed.  If Lucas was going for the Same Sympathy for the devil as Milton did in paradise lost he ultimetely failed.  Not that is to be fair something within Lucas powers of a director or writer to do.  He is no Shakespeare, No Milton, not even on par with the Stage Playwrights who write for broadways dramas.

Someone i believe who could have pulled it off is Christopher Nolan.  George Lucas?  no way in hell.

It is interesting to think of turning the series on its head and trying to get people to root for the Villain Darth Vader as a hero.  The prequels were the opposite and antithesis everything the original trilogy was not.  You had a fall from grace instead of a heroes triumph Like Luke's in Return of the Jedi.

As a fan of mythology and Storytelling this idea had deep facination for me.  Luke and Are Basically the same prototypical hero but at some point there paths diverge. Luke rejects the dark side and anakin embraces it.

Its to bad Lucas could not put off anakins turn, it could have been the counterpoint to the original trilogy and created a 21st century myth.  Instead we got a mess.  I understand that is what Lucas intention was, he just executed it very poorly.  It was a heroic attempt but he needed to Hire a Director or other writers to help him, in the end he chose what we now have.

It may be the prequel trilogys biggest failing that Star Wars had to go dark and have anti heroes where the original you had all black and white good guys and bad except for the Chracter Han Solo who had shades of grey.  In the prequels the Jedi are Just as bad as the sith and the story plotting makes it confusing to the viewer being Morally ambigious and containing heavy shades of grey or darkness.

The Darkness and brooding prevalent in the prequels is the same mistake he made with THX 1138.   People want real heroes they can root for, they want to be a part of the story the want to chear when the Villain gets his comeuppance.

At the end of the day Luke's story is one i could identify with as if it was the story of me, Anakin's Story i could not give 2 shits about.

But then again i never was a goth kid or misunderstood emo whiny bitch.  Anakin has to be for a different generation than mine.  We wanted to have an active role in things and go out and change the world kind of Optimism.  Anakin is the 90's kid anguished and venting his personal hatred living in his parents basement wearing all black and nobody understands that goth dude,lol.

The prequels seem to me to come out of a deep sense of pessism for humanity and the world.  Perhaps the Lucas with the Sunny Dispostion who made the original trilogy changed or his heart died.

Episode III seems to be quite Fatalist and saying no matter what Anakin could not change his fate.  Indeed he is damned because he tries to take an active role in changing it.  Much like the story of Oedipus.  Anakin's fate as the chosen one was to destroy the sith from within as seen in Return of the Jedi.  Though the force seems to not have cared about Padme, all the butchered Younglings, or the countless million or billion killed in the galactic civil war and before during the empires rise.

Actually to be honest the only reason everything goes dark and evil is because it is in the script, talk about Lazy writing and directing.  Because Anakin has to go bad for episodes IV, V and VI to happen.  If he did not those movies would not exist,lol.

The prequels did not need to be made period.  You could figure out about the empires rise and vaders fall from the original trilogy alone through inference it did not have to be shown.  The prequels had to be written as a backstory for the original trilogy to exist.  But the Original trilogy was the real meat of the story.

You could make a much better case before the prequels were ever made to Figure out what happened to Luke after Return of the Jedi and the Empire's remnant. But that story does not need to be told because the original trilogies story is self contained and in Return of the Jedi Lucas seemed to put a neat little bow and tied everything together.

The Clone Wars which were mentioned in a conversation between Luke and Ben in Star Wars which sounded so intensely Interesting Because of Alec Guiness Oscar worthy performance.  Ended up being the least interesting part of the prequels, at least to me.

Okay it helped Lucas show where the stormtroopers came from and where Boba Fett came from but i don't care where the fuck they came from, geez.  So the Cloned Men and Conscripts made up the Military in the oot who cares.  The fake war between the seperatists and the Republic was the Revenge of the Sith to try and thin the jedi's ranks.  They lost the war as soon as they started fighting it.  Jedi are keepers of the peace not soldiers.  I would find it hard to find a more boring and mundane sci fi trilogy than star wars episodes 1-3.  The entire plot is filler and backstory for 4-6.

It amounts to Along with the 2008 clone wars movie a couple to a few exciting Space battles and Lightsaber duels,but zero substance.  seven and a half hours of your life wasted thats about it.

 

It seems to me  the existance of Lucas's prequels Trilogy is to strip the Lustre and Magic away from the original trilogy and ruin it.

I mean it would be like a kid who has a facination with magic tricks for instance, and then the kid learns how it is done and it is ruined for him.

Episode 1-3 were to deconstruct the original trilogy and show how everything came about.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
negative1 said:
C3PX said:
negative1 said:

if people really cared about artistic integrity and value, they should have all been flops,

every movie should have failed miserably, and all the interest in Star Wars should have died off, instead the exact opposite happened....

 

Exactly. Because people don't care, fans do care though. People will suck up and buy anything, look at all the garbage that gets thrown around shamelessly on TV that people soak up and love.  Why do people suck up all these fads and love them to death for a year or two, then forget about them and loose interest in them entirely?

 

when star wars came out it was a fad, and so were the two sequels,

people forget about  them in the mid 80's after 'return of the jedi',

and continued to forget about them until the late 90's when the SE

versions came out... then they came back, and now are stronger than ever..

 

so , by your criteria, there really were'nt any fans back then either, only now?

A film maker, a writer, a director, anybody with fans has to make a choice: Remain loyal to your fan base, or make something that will be hyped up for a few months or maybe even years before being dropped forever? There are still artists with integrity out there who want to show what they can do and really build something to last, something that the fans can hold on to and be proud of. This does NOT describe the PT by any means. But fans have been holding onto the OT for pushing thirty years now, I have no doubt they will hang onto it for another thirty.

 

honestly, i can't really think of any great movies i've seen in the last 20 years (or longer) that made

we want to be a fan of the series/or think its a classic, the majority of my favorites are from the 70's,

and 80's... its' all mostly rehashes, and reworks or earlier material,

or subpar populist stuff now... yeah, i watch a lot of independant and foreign films too, but none

of them really stands out to me..

 

i agree, we'll never know if the movies that come out now will be remembered down the line..

 

later

-1

 

 

 

 

 

Boy did you ever COMPLETELY miss the point of what I was saying. And I know very well the history of SW through the eighties and ninties. Star Wars may have been a fad for a lot of people, but my point is it DID HAVE true fans, witnessed by the fact that I and many others, including a lot of members here never forgot about it during that time, hence, true fans. You may have forgotten about it during that time, but a lot of people didn't. That is why Star Wars merchandise continued to be sold all through the early to mid ninties, BEFORE the SE was released. That my friend, is not the definition of a fad.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
negative1 said:

when star wars came out it was a fad, and so were the two sequels,

people forget about  them in the mid 80's after 'return of the jedi',

and continued to forget about them until the late 90's when the SE

versions came out... then they came back, and now are stronger than ever..

 

Dude, you seriously need to go back in time and understand what happened during the days of The Original Trilogy.  First of all it wasn't a fad, they were pop culture, and remembered years later.  I don't know if you are American or not, but our President, Ronald Reagan, called our defense system to block Nuclear Weapons, "Star Wars" and he would say in many speeches during his presidency about the Russians, "They are the Evil Empire, and the force is on our side." 

Now why would he do that?  Because EVERYONE knew what those words meant, because EVERYONE loved Star Wars, as that is why it was the highest grossing movie of all time until ET broke that record in 1982, and still remains the top 5 even today.

As for after Jedi, sure it wasn't on everyones mind everyday, but there were no more movies, why should it?   But in 1987, a movie called Spaceballs did a spoof of Star Wars and was a hit with characters like Lord Helmet and Princess Vespa.

Sure the SE & PT brought back SW in a mainstream way, but that happens when any sequel comes out years later.   I bet when The Hobbit comes out in 2 years, Lord of the Rings mania will be in full force again, but as I said, that is just the way it is with movie series.

But Star Wars was never a fad, cause a fad goes away, and doesn't have continuous VHS releases in the late 80's and early 90's of The Original Trilogy that is in the top 5 sales every year on VHS, a fad is Bell-Bottoms, something that is popular that is gone within a year and never sees the light again.

 

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)
C3PX said:

 

Boy did you ever COMPLETELY miss the point of what I was saying. And I know very well the history of SW through the eighties and ninties. Star Wars may have been a fad for a lot of people, but my point is it DID HAVE true fans, witnessed by the fact that I and many others, including a lot of members here never forgot about it during that time, hence, true fans. You may have forgotten about it during that time, but a lot of people didn't. That is why Star Wars merchandise continued to be sold all through the early to mid ninties, BEFORE the SE was released. That my friend, is not the definition of a fad.

 

 ok, lets step back a little here..

i'll admit i forgot about it until the SE versions came out, but i did read a few of the books,

and play a few computer games from 1983-1997.. but that was pretty much it......

by 'fad', i meant referring to the popularity of the films (yes, i know there were limited

re-releases from time to time).... but to the majority of the populace, thats what was important.

 

merchandise wise, i still think there was a huge drought, because other than action figures,

cards, and books, they were pretty scarce until the EU stuff came out.... i only had the

han solo trilogy, splinter of a minds eyes, and the lando books, and that didnt' last long.

sure there were comic books, and newspaper comics too.. but still that didn't last that long

either.. maybe they did sell, but surely not as much UNTIL AFTER THE SE versions were

released..

 

i question whether 'a lot of fans' did remember, because

there would have been more support or more releases

in the 14 years after 'return of the jedi' came out, and

there weren't....

 

that was my point..

later

-1

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time
Chewy72 said:

 

Dude, you seriously need to go back in time and understand what happened during the days of The Original Trilogy.  First of all it wasn't a fad, they were pop culture, and remembered years later.  I don't know if you are American or not, but our President, Ronald Reagan, called our defense system to block Nuclear Weapons, "Star Wars" and he would say in many speeches during his presidency about the Russians, "They are the Evil Empire, and the force is on our side." 

Now why would he do that?  Because EVERYONE knew what those words meant, because EVERYONE loved Star Wars, as that is why it was the highest grossing movie of all time until ET broke that record in 1982, and still remains the top 5 even today.

i'm canadian/american [was in canada during 77, and in america during 80->present]

yes, 'star wars' the movie was a 'fad'.....

'star wars' pop culture wise only manifested itself much later, it's hard to see it's presence

until 'return of the jedi' and much much later than that..

 

i don't consider a few references here and there to be indicative of a larger sign of significance,

other figures such as 'the terminator', 'rambo' etc, are also just as popular in speech.....

 

just because a movie makes a lot of money doesnt' signify much : see 'titantic', 'dark knight' etc..

it's actually the merchandising which remains much more significant... i think i mentioned

that the series has generated some US$20 billion in revenue, which is something the

movies will never be able to generate...

 

As for after Jedi, sure it wasn't on everyones mind everyday, but there were no more movies, why should it?   But in 1987, a movie called Spaceballs did a spoof of Star Wars and was a hit with characters like Lord Helmet and Princess Vespa.

Sure the SE & PT brought back SW in a mainstream way, but that happens when any sequel comes out years later.   I bet when The Hobbit comes out in 2 years, Lord of the Rings mania will be in full force again, but as I said, that is just the way it is with movie series.

But Star Wars was never a fad, cause a fad goes away, and doesn't have continuous VHS releases in the late 80's and early 90's of The Original Trilogy that is in the top 5 sales every year on VHS, a fad is Bell-Bottoms, something that is popular that is gone within a year and never sees the light again.

 

i think you're agreeing with some of what i was saying..

but i stand by my original assertion that the popularity of the 'star wars' FILMS WAS A FAD,

because by it's very nature, they only came out for awhile, were only popular for a short time,

and were promptly forgotten until their rereleases (SE), and releases on other media..

 

maybe we're just debating about semantics now..but that was not my original intent.

 

later

-1

 

[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]

Author
Time

Dude, you don't know what you are talking about. You have this weird tendancy to define words on your own terms, and unfortunately, language doesn't work that way. And no, that is not a personal opinion of my, language seriously doesn't work that way. Non debatable. "Fad" can be defined as "a short lived fashion, something that is embraced very enthusiastically for a short time."

"Pop culture" is something that has ingrained itself into a culture.

And no, we are not debating semantics now, you just like to define words however the hell you choose and categorize things as you see them (i.e. "Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are not classics).

negative one said:

i'm canadian/american [was in canada during 77, and in america during 80->present]

yes, 'star wars' the movie was a 'fad'.....

'star wars' pop culture wise only manifested itself much later, it's hard to see it's presence

until 'return of the jedi' and much much later than that..

i don't consider a few references here and there to be indicative of a larger sign of significance,

other figures such as 'the terminator', 'rambo' etc, are also just as popular in speech.....

just because a movie makes a lot of money doesnt' signify much : see 'titantic', 'dark knight' etc..

it's actually the merchandising which remains much more significant... i think i mentioned

that the series has generated some US$20 billion in revenue, which is something the

movies will never be able to generate...

 

"'Star Wars' popculture wise only manifested itself much later, it's hard to see it's presence until 'return of the jedi' and much much later than that..."

Where did you come up with that? You are almost arguing aginst yourself. First you say it was only popular for a while, then died out, just like all fads do. Then you flip it and say that it was not until after the films died out that they became pop culture? Again, reality is not to be redinfined by one persons perspective, you may live in your own world, but in the world the rest of us live in, SW was VERY much in popular culture right out of '77, and was compounded by the sequels. Just because its merchandising died down a bit (if you can really a constant array of best selling video games, comics, more than one fan magazine dedicated to the series was in wide circulation during the time you say there was a big drought. Maybe the market wasn't flooded with SW crap there for a while, but a "drought" is no small exaggeration. During those slow years there was a huge market for used figures, since they were no longer availible in retail stores. Which proves my point about the loyalty of fans, to the real fans, it never died. Just because it died for you, doesn't mean it died for the rest of us.

As for you saying a few references here and there mean nothing, and Terminator and Rambo also recieving similar treatment. You obviously missed the whole concept of "Pop Culture", Star Wars, Rambo, and Terminator, are all big parts in American popular culture. Just about everyone knows the phrase "Come with me if you want to live!" or "Hasta la vista baby", even if they haven't seen the Terminator films. In America, from '77 till present, just about everyone knew/knows the phrase "May the force be with you!"

Again, it doesn't matter whether or not you consider these things to mean anything or not, because the fact of the matter is, these things are deeply ingrained in American pop culture. In your own little world, maybe not, in the real work, yes.

And yes, Titanic and the Dark Knight were fads, nobody gives a care about Titanic anymore, and nobody other than Batman fans will care much about Dark Knight before long. They are not ingrained into pop culture, Batman most certainly is, but the Dark Knight as a film is not.

 

Anyway, this whole pointless sidetrack you have taken us on was me making the point that Lucas didn't make the new films for the fans, he made them for the hoards who will treat it as a fad, and that I do not believe they will stand the test of time, as the OOT has. The only reason Lucas was able to resurrect the OT in 1997 was because it wasn't a fan, it had never died, the fans had kept it alive. If it was a fad, there would not have been a market for books or video games based off of it 20 years later. The whole point was, SW still had a huge fan base before the prequels or the SE were released. This site is proof of that! A group of fans who want the original versions, the version they grew up with preserved, shows they were fans before the SE.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape