logo Sign In

Expecting too much of George Lucas? — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
But is George's artistic arc that different from the natural arc of many artists' works, or of many people's accomplishments, or of most human lives?

American Graffiti and Star Wars in the 70's giving way to The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith at the dawn of the next century is, to my mind, a deterioration in talent and skill.

But is it so far off from the natural order of growth and decay that colors most lives, most accomplishment and most art on this planet? I heartily applaud artists who can continue to produce great works for decades, in their old age as well as in their youth. But how much should we chide George Lucas for not rising to that rare and lofty level?


In fact, I personally don't chide him for (imo) losing his talent - but rather for betraying his legacy (or for being fool enough to not know when he is betraying his legacy).


.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
But is George's artistic arc that different from the natural arc of many artists' works, or of many people's accomplishments, or of most human lives?

American Graffiti and Star Wars in the 70's giving way to The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith at the dawn of the next century is, to my mind, a deterioration in talent and skill.

But is it so far off from the natural order of growth and decay that colors most lives, most accomplishment and most art on this planet? I heartily applaud artists who can continue to produce great works for decades, in their old age as well as in their youth. But how much should we chide George Lucas for not rising to that rare and lofty level?


In fact, I personally don't chide him for (imo) losing his talent - but rather for betraying his legacy (or for being fool enough to not know when he is betraying his legacy).


.


This is a very good point. Few artists have the consistent longevity of say Scorsese or Speilberg. Even Copolla could not even touch his achievements of the 1970's (his last film was fucking Jack!) and Kershner, the supposed genius responsible for the majestry of ESB, could only follow that film up with crap like Robocop 2. Lucas simply peaked in 1977, and its not uncommon--in fact, its downright common. The only difference is that, unlike most other directors, he had such a fanbase and following that the dissapointment was magnified many times more than what any other typical director would.

Author
Time
Post link
there are tons of such fans who are wonderful people that can function just fine in society, will indeed have sex with their girlfriends, and don't need to press a button on their stormtrooper costume to have their mother come pick them up.


What?!

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
I must point out that, whether deserved or not, Star Wars fans have a reputation for being socially inept, borderline-retarded geeks.

I am honored to know dozens of die-hard Star Wars fans who do not fit that description at all ... but have also come across many who fit the stereotype to a "T."


I might also suggest that Lucas has had contact with or information about only the geeks who are star-struck or fantatical enough to have tried to get in contact with him, tried to break into Lucasfilm headquarters, or bothered him or his minions at public appearances. I would not be surprised if he has a skewed vision of Star Wars fans ... though I most certainly fault him for not bothering to find out the truth ... that there are tons of such fans who are wonderful people that can function just fine in society, will indeed have sex with their girlfriends, and don't need to press a button on their stormtrooper costume to have their mother come pick them up.


I don't think this is true at all. In fact, I'd suggest the exact opposite. He's shielded himself from fans because he thinks they're like that. Now that he finally came out of his hole, he's realizing that the majority of them are not like that. As an example, he's getting 200 troopers from the 501st (fan organization) to march in the Rose Parade on New Years day. That doesn't sound like a guy that's shying away from fans. He was also at C3 and got to witness thousands of fans himself, very few of which are the stereotypical fanatics. He may have had a skewed vision before, but it was only because he believed they were like that based on nothing but his own prejudices. Now that he's coming out in public more, he's finding that his prejudices were mostly wrong.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Few artists have the consistent longevity of say Scorsese or Speilberg.


I am of the opinion that neither of these filmmakers are the creative forces they used to be. But that rather adds to that side of the argument, doesn't it? Few artists consistently make work that is proclaimed as their best. In fact, I'd be hard pushed to think of any. I think Luca$h should be credited with coming up with the initial concepts of SW and working his ass off to make sure that ANH got made. I would be unwilling to give him much more than that, though.

How about this: Luca$h fought hard to become independent from the Hollywood system but, in so doing, Luca$hFilm became just like the studios he wanted to leave behind.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
Originally posted by: Mike O
his desire to deny fans the SEs.


You might wanna edit that post, Mike!

Luca$h may have come up with the screenplay and directed ANH but, as discussed elsewhere, there were many people with him (Ralph McQuarrie, Gary Kurtz, John Mollo, Joe Johnston, John Dykstra, Ben Burtt, Richard Chew, Paul Hirsch, Marcia Lucas and many more) that shaped Luca$h's material into what people saw on 25/05/77. You can't lay it all at Luca$h's feet, like you would with a true auteur filmmaker. The reason that we have a shit PT is that Luca$h has been convinced that he is an auteur when he really never was.


And can you imagine their work on Star Wars without Lucas? Wow....McQuarrie's Darth Vader design.... Burt's Sound design...... ILM's SFX..... JW score..... the editing...

...


Oh wait. Without Luca$h, there wouldn't have been a movie.

Oh, well. No need to hire McQuarrie to design characters that don't exist...nothing to edit because nothing was shot... no Ben Burt sound, no score, no ILM because why put together a SFX house without a to movie make, right? No Star Wars at all.

But again.... it's all trivial. What with GL's lack importance and all.

"Among many things I have to be thankful for are you, the fans. I know that some of you haven't liked every single thing that I've done with the saga, and that you have a strong sense of ownership over all things Star Wars. But take that passion and devotion and channel it into a creative project of your own."
-George Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediRandy
Oh wait. Without Luca$h, there wouldn't have been a movie.


And without everyone else it would have been as shit as the PT.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
Originally posted by: JediRandy
Oh wait. Without Luca$h, there wouldn't have been a movie.


And without everyone else it would have been as shit as the PT.



that makes sense.
"Among many things I have to be thankful for are you, the fans. I know that some of you haven't liked every single thing that I've done with the saga, and that you have a strong sense of ownership over all things Star Wars. But take that passion and devotion and channel it into a creative project of your own."
-George Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
Originally posted by: zombie84
Few artists have the consistent longevity of say Scorsese or Speilberg.


I am of the opinion that neither of these filmmakers are the creative forces they used to be. But that rather adds to that side of the argument, doesn't it? Few artists consistently make work that is proclaimed as their best. In fact, I'd be hard pushed to think of any. I think Luca$h should be credited with coming up with the initial concepts of SW and working his ass off to make sure that ANH got made. I would be unwilling to give him much more than that, though.

How about this: Luca$h fought hard to become independent from the Hollywood system but, in so doing, Luca$hFilm became just like the studios he wanted to leave behind.


Well, remember, Lucas had bad experiences with Hollywood and the system because of the fines, etc. Perhaps that factored into his decisions.

And Spielberg and Scorcese have both been a bit experimental of late, but I see no reason to count them out.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Lucas was AWESOME in the 70s. I'd never downplay his talents from back then. To direct Graffiti, THX1138, and Star Wars by age 32, or whatever he was, is fucking brilliant. And all three original works, not based on a book, or a true story, and all made with limited resources. He was great. I miss that guy.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
all made with limited resources


Now that's a favourite of mine! There are many directors who seem to make their most interesting work when they have no resources. Increasing age + increasing money = decreasing quality. I'd suggest John Carpenter as a pretty good example of that trend.
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediRandy
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
Originally posted by: Mike O
his desire to deny fans the SEs.


You might wanna edit that post, Mike!

Luca$h may have come up with the screenplay and directed ANH but, as discussed elsewhere, there were many people with him (Ralph McQuarrie, Gary Kurtz, John Mollo, Joe Johnston, John Dykstra, Ben Burtt, Richard Chew, Paul Hirsch, Marcia Lucas and many more) that shaped Luca$h's material into what people saw on 25/05/77. You can't lay it all at Luca$h's feet, like you would with a true auteur filmmaker. The reason that we have a shit PT is that Luca$h has been convinced that he is an auteur when he really never was.


And can you imagine their work on Star Wars without Lucas? Wow....McQuarrie's Darth Vader design.... Burt's Sound design...... ILM's SFX..... JW score..... the editing...

...


Oh wait. Without Luca$h, there wouldn't have been a movie.

Oh, well. No need to hire McQuarrie to design characters that don't exist...nothing to edit because nothing was shot... no Ben Burt sound, no score, no ILM because why put together a SFX house without a to movie make, right? No Star Wars at all.

But again.... it's all trivial. What with GL's lack importance and all.


No one's saying that Lucas is unimportant to the creation of Star Wars. That would just be silly. But it is definitely fair to say that Lucas was as dependent on the aforementioned people to make his movie as the aforementioned people were dependent on Lucas for having an idea for a movie that gave them jobs!

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.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediRandy


And can you imagine their work on Star Wars without Lucas? Wow....McQuarrie's Darth Vader design.... Burt's Sound design...... ILM's SFX..... JW score..... the editing...

...


Oh wait. Without Luca$h, there wouldn't have been a movie.


So, are you then saying that George Lucas has the moral and ethical right to disregard the work that so many people accomplished for him? There's nothing wrong with him treating the theatrical releases as rough garbage?

Sure Lucas was the epicenter for the creation of Star Wars, but without him, those same great movies wouldn't have been crippled with disgustingly worthless changes. Even if you think the SEs are superior (which is totally nonsensical to me, but everyone has the right to hold an unfounded opinion), quality treatment for the original theatrical releases shoud still have some importance to you.

"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
Post link
This is a very interesting thread, and I think it all comes back to the success of ESB, and fans set the bar for every SW movie after that at that level, including me. The first two SW movies, SW & ESB to me are bonafied classics, that rank up with any great film on any list. What seperates SW movies is that the sequel to the classic original is a classic too, and to me that has never been done before, and never since. I love Godfather II, but it is not as great as the original, I love Terminator 2, but it is not as great as the original, and I could name so many others.

After ESB, fans expected every SW movie to be a 'classic' and now I think about it, we should be lucky we got two great movies. If ESB had been a good sequel, but not great, many fans including myself would look at the OT or the saga 1-6 very differently. I would say, "Well, SW '77 is a classic just like every movie series, and the sequels are good, but just can't match the original, oh well." But ESB is as great as SW '77, so now many fans have been waiting since 1980, "Where is the next ESB?"

The Original SW is my favorite movie of all-time, but ESB makes me a SW saga fan. After I watch ESB, I have to watch ROTJ to get closure as a trilogy, so in a sense I will watch an inferior ROTJ 23 years later, when I would never watch any other movie series sequels that I think are pretty good/average. I will even watch the PT sometimes, just because there is the hope that this time 1-6 will work as a story for me and tie together nicely. If ESB was pretty good, I would probably only watch SW '77 and as Luke & Han get their medals, that would be my closure, and the rest of the sequels would be just that.

I used to get mad when I watched ROTJ & PT and said, "What if Lucas did this and that...." but if you really think about it, how the hell would anyone be able to put out 6 movies that are as great as SW '77 & ESB? I still like to debate 'what if' on message boards, but I have come to accept the saga the way it is now.

As for Lucas not releasing the O-OT in great quality it deserves, I can't defend him on that one. I think he is worried that fans may accept the O-OT as the real OT, so as long as it is inferior quality on home video, it will get people to shy away from it.

Hating Lucas for making an average PT, shame on the fans. Hating Lucas for making an average ROTJ, shame on the fans. Hating Lucas for putting out crap transfers for the O-OT, I will agree on that.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: JediRandy


And can you imagine their work on Star Wars without Lucas? Wow....McQuarrie's Darth Vader design.... Burt's Sound design...... ILM's SFX..... JW score..... the editing...

...


Oh wait. Without Luca$h, there wouldn't have been a movie.

So, are you then saying that George Lucas has the moral and ethical right to disregard the work that so many people accomplished for him? There's nothing wrong with him treating the theatrical releases as rough garbage?

Sure Lucas was the epicenter for the creation of Star Wars, but without him, those same great movies wouldn't have been crippled with disgustingly worthless changes. Even if you think the SEs are superior (which is totally nonsensical to me, but everyone has the right to hold an unfounded opinion), quality treatment for the original theatrical releases shoud still have some importance to you.

To say nothing of the fact that he is also mucking with Empire and Jedi, which he did not direct, and that Gary Kurtz, who prouced the first two films vehemently disagrees with him, as does Mark Hamill, the star of all three films, as well as millions of fans. It think that the issue with the comparison is that many, particularly Lucas himself, seem to regard an attack on the SEs (which I don't neessarily dislike per se, I just won't associate with them because of what happened to the OOT because of them), when in fact the comments simply mean that we prefer one version while he prefers the other. I really don't care about his original vision. He can change the releases with new one ever single day of the year for the rest of his life, for all I care. But I want the originals to be availabe on high quality releases. They are not. And that to say nothing of THX 1138, which I can't watch because it's not available on DVD, just Lucas's altered version. And I very much doubt that the original version will ever see the light of day.

Lucas seems to be to be a much more skilled technican and craftsman than storyteller. He is great at cmoing up with characters and stories and taking them in new directions; witness such works as The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark. He is a phenomenal producer--Lucas can hold together a production like few people, and is great at manipulating people (I don't meant that word in a negative connotation, it is simply the best way of phrasing description that I am thinking of) and contructing things. That's probably what makes him such a marketing genius. Heck, the PT, especially AOTC (which Lucas co-wrote), has a great story. The problem is the dialogue and the performances (and isn't it widely believed that his two American Graffiti co-writers assisted with original screenplay of Star Wars?).

Lucas was AWESOME in the 70s. I'd never downplay his talents from back then. To direct Graffiti, THX1138, and Star Wars by age 32, or whatever he was, is fucking brilliant. And all three original works, not based on a book, or a true story, and all made with limited resources. He was great. I miss that guy.


Not to start anything, but the fact that a work is adampted from a comic book/novel/whatever does not in any way diminish its artistic quality, in my opinion. All 13 of Kubrick's films were based on books, but that doesn't make them any less brilliant.

Now that's a favourite of mine! There are many directors who seem to make their most interesting work when they have no resources. Increasing age + increasing money = decreasing quality. I'd suggest John Carpenter as a pretty good example of that trend.


I don't know, I mean, I don't think that that's fair. Spielberg got carte blanche and the money after fJaws to make CE3K, a big-budget film filled with special effects, and it wasn't bad at all. I think that it depends on a lot of things (I'd bring up Peter Jackson, but I know that many people around here do not share my opinions of him). A lower budget certainly makes one think outside of the box, and commercial success can lead "sell-outs" (I'm not 100% sure what that phrase means) but there are directors, like James Cameron for example, who can take the bigger budget that they get and do things with it other than serve their own egos, ala Michael Bay.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: CO If ESB was pretty good, I would probably only watch SW '77 and as Luke & Han get their medals, that would be my closure, and the rest of the sequels would be just that.

Well, I for one, usually think of Luke and Han getting their medals, and that's my closure. I like SW'77 soooo much more than any of the others that I often consider it a standalone film. The fact that Lucas made up the main story of the saga (Vader being Luke's father) after the first film, and conflicting with dialogue (and thus the audience's truth) as presented in the first film, I have a pretty easy time thinking of the sequels as non-canon offshoots ... despite their pedigree.

I happen to think the emotional thrust of Star Wars is messed with if Princess Leia is Luke Skywalker's sister. She's not. Not in that film. And I like avenging his father as Luke's motivation for hating Darth Vader. That's the plot I fell in love with, as did millions around the world. In SW'77, Leia is the hero's legitimate love interest, and the hero's father was betrayed and murdered by Darth Vader, a pupil of the hero's mentor. Oh, and the Princess' name is pronounded "Lee-ah." (I'm surprised George didn't dub in the new pronunciation for the Special Editions)


Heheh, I don't know why Lucas had to go that far in changing things from the previous film, but the changed plot points alone are enough for me to negate the authenticity of the sequels, when it pleases me. Which it often does.


It also helps, as I now confess and then run for cover .... that I am the world's only megastarwars fan who ... wait for it .....










.... doesn't like The Empire Strikes Back.





And, yes, I realize what a pariah that makes me.


.
Author
Time
Post link
No, Anchorhead feels the same way you do.

But, wow, I never thought about the Princess's name before. I always just thought it was the way some characters pronounced it "Hahn" while others pronounced it "Haan", and the way that Lucas always mispronounces his characters' names ("Doku" for "Dooku", "Clariisian" for "Calrissian"). But, yeah, does anybody refer to her as "Lay-uh" in the first movie? Now that I think about it, I don't think so. I can only think of three times her name is actually said in that movie: once by Tarkin, once by 3PO, and once by Dodonna, and I think they all say it as "Lee-ah," but I'm not entirely sure about 3PO.

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.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen



It also helps, as I now confess and then run for cover .... that I am the world's only megastarwars fan who ... wait for it .....

.... doesn't like The Empire Strikes Back.

And, yes, I realize what a pariah that makes me.


.



Dont run for cover, cause there are millions of fans like you, and that is why no SW movie ever grossed what the original SW did in 1977, adjusted or unadjusted for inflation. I for one don't love Vader being Lukes father one bit, and I think that is when Lucas went Vader crazy and ruined the whole saga.

Whenever I watch SW '77, I watch it as that standalone film, and don't think about any of the other 5 movies. If you just watch the original SW in the context it was written, there are no plot holes, and Lucas started changing things in 1980, but the difference back then is he didn't go back and changed the previous films like he did with the OT movies after the PT, that is what makes so many OT fans mad now.

I just think ESB is a great movie, plain & simple, cause Kershner brought the saga to another level on the dramatic end with Yoda and the Leia & Han relationship. But once Vader uttered those words, "I am your father," SW the saga jumped the shark for me, cause it went from this macro story of good vs evil to this micro story of this anti-hero grey character called Anakin Skywalker. And for me, that type of story does not mix with the type of movie Lucas does when it comes to SW.

Obi Jeewhyen, you are not alone in feeling that SW '77 is the end, but about 99% of that fanbase doesn't post on an internet board at this point in their life, so you don't get that representation of your views on any of the SW message boards. I tried getting a whole forum board on TFn about talk of just The Original SW without the context of sequels and prequels, just to talk to anyone like me who saw it in 1977, and how everything was perceived before 1980. The mods didn't even understand what I meant, as they couldn't even relate to anyone who would just look at the original as a standalone movie? I made this one statement to them in a PM, "Do you even realize The Original SW isn't even about Darth Vader, other than just being a really cool bad guy?" I am still waiting for a response.

By the way, thanks for the compliment Zombie 84.
Author
Time
Post link
.... doesn't like The Empire Strikes Back.

Get away from me . In all seriousness, good points.

I'm surprised George didn't dub in the new pronunciation for the Special Editions


Don't give him ideas!

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
as I now confess and then run for cover .... that I am the world's only megastarwars fan who … doesn't like The Empire Strikes Back.
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
No, Anchorhead feels the same way you do.


Gaffer speaks the truth.
I’m not a fan of Empire. Too contrived, too slick. Star Wars was a complete story. A reluctant bystander gets drawn into a battle against an evil lord and with the help of a mentor and an unwilling pair of shady characters, he rescues the princess and defeats the bad guys. It’s an outer space fairy tale, and it worked very well.

No more of the story needed to be told. Doing so started the process of shrinking the universe and weakening the story. The characters in Star Wars aren’t related to each other and it’s just by chance that their paths cross. The adventure they all go on because of the chain of events that brought them all together is what makes the movie so big and magical. Empire is none of those things.

In fact, I haven’t seen Empire in about 7 or 8 years and I can’t imagine I’ll bother with it again.

Star Wars is the movie that awed me as a boy. It’s the only one I’m interested in.


Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Star Wars is the movie that awed me as a boy. It’s the only one I’m interested in.


But alas, according to its creator, it "doesn't exist anymore," and if it does, it's in a substandard release.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Anchorhead
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
as I now confess and then run for cover .... that I am the world's only megastarwars fan who … doesn't like The Empire Strikes Back.
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
No, Anchorhead feels the same way you do.


Gaffer speaks the truth.
I’m not a fan of Empire. Too contrived, too slick. Star Wars was a complete story. A reluctant bystander gets drawn into a battle against an evil lord and with the help of a mentor and an unwilling pair of shady characters, he rescues the princess and defeats the bad guys. It’s an outer space fairy tale, and it worked very well.

No more of the story needed to be told. Doing so started the process of shrinking the universe and weakening the story. The characters in Star Wars aren’t related to each other and it’s just by chance that their paths cross. The adventure they all go on because of the chain of events that brought them all together is what makes the movie so big and magical. Empire is none of those things.

In fact, I haven’t seen Empire in about 7 or 8 years and I can’t imagine I’ll bother with it again.

Star Wars is the movie that awed me as a boy. It’s the only one I’m interested in.



I'm very glad to see fans like this on these boards, and am very impressed that you've stuck around the fandom as only like 15% of the series is still devoted to this film. Makes this place much more diverse.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Anchorhead
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
as I now confess and then run for cover .... that I am the world's only megastarwars fan who … doesn't like The Empire Strikes Back.
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
No, Anchorhead feels the same way you do.


Gaffer speaks the truth.
I’m not a fan of Empire. Too contrived, too slick. Star Wars was a complete story. A reluctant bystander gets drawn into a battle against an evil lord and with the help of a mentor and an unwilling pair of shady characters, he rescues the princess and defeats the bad guys. It’s an outer space fairy tale, and it worked very well.

No more of the story needed to be told. Doing so started the process of shrinking the universe and weakening the story. The characters in Star Wars aren’t related to each other and it’s just by chance that their paths cross. The adventure they all go on because of the chain of events that brought them all together is what makes the movie so big and magical. Empire is none of those things.

In fact, I haven’t seen Empire in about 7 or 8 years and I can’t imagine I’ll bother with it again.

Star Wars is the movie that awed me as a boy. It’s the only one I’m interested in.


I shudder to think what you'd say about Jedi or (gulp) the PT.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
I love Star Wars for what it is- a fun, simple, somewhat naive morality-tale, and the beginning of the Star Wars franchise. But to me, Empire is the best of the series. It's much more complex, darker and more twisted- which is right up my alley.

Darth Vader is considerably more menacing in Empire, which I also think is great. He sort of acted like Tarkin's thug in SW, but he really comes into his own in Empire- and he's one seriously scary dude.
I also love Empire's cliff-hanger ending, which was very daring and risky back in 1980. I love that they avoided the stereotypical Hollywood 'all-wrapped-up-in-a-neat-little-package' ending.

I also love Jedi- I thought is was a very exciting, somewhat bittersweet ending to the trilogy.