Sign In

How many 'Bad' Star Wars movies could you take before you check out? — Page 4

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t care about the metaphor. He said he won’t watch any new Star Wars until we get the OOT.

But we did get the OOT. Just not in a purchasable form from official sources.

I don’t see how the argument of not having the OOT yet makes sense at this point, given that the “guerilla restorationist” himself even actively posts on these forums.

Again, just taking the metaphor and running with it…

Let’s say your beloved Barbara became a zombie. You have memories of Barbara, photos, letters, even videos that can remind you of her. You got a chance to know Barbara, and for that you are forever thankful.

But the neighbor kid down the street just got eaten by Barbara. The only Barbara he ever knew was the zombie Barbara.

So when you’re asking if “we” ever got the true Barbara, that depends if you’re just talking about yourself or are including the neighbor kid down the street.

TL;DR: The OOT is more than just unavailable commercially. As far as the general public is concerned, it’s been replaced.

Except it’s more like Barbara is still alive but just got some work done, and she never did anything like eat anyone, she just acted a little rude a few times.

The old Barbara was the real monster. She’d shoot people just for nothing more than being moments away from killing her. Now she doesn’t fire back until after she’s given her would-be assassin a sporting chance. And it’s of enormous help to her when dodging to have the partially detached zombie neck.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

hairy_hen said:

The movies that got us all hooked on the galaxy far, far away have essentially died as far as official policy is concerned - that is my point. Disney has the power to resurrect them, but they are either unwilling to do so, or just can’t be bothered. Star Wars should have been allowed to die in peace, to just exist for what it was without having to be continually revisited. And yet the commercial exploitation continues and shows no sign of ever stopping.
George Lucas, for all his infuriating stubbornness, at least had personal and artistic reasons for doing what he did, misguided though it was. Disney, on the other hand, doesn’t care about anything except money.

Are you actually saying that George didn’t commercially exploit Star Wars out the wazoo before Disney got a hold of it? Because I seriously beg to differ. Star Wars was merchandised like mad since the very beginning.

Of course Disney cares about making money, but you say so with the assumption that George did not. Plus, you actually sound apologist for George refusing to release the OOT. That is George’s fault, not Disney’s. It may very well be true that the powers-that-be at Disney are not releasing the OOT because George asked them not to, if what’s-his-buckets who commented about it on twitter recently was to be believed.

Artistic reasons or not, George is not of lesser blame than Disney, and he certainly did not care less about making money than they do.

Finally, you accuse Disney of wrecking Star Wars by changing characters into people for which you don’t like their portrayal. As though Disney, as an entity unto itself, was making those artistic decisions as opposed to the particular writers and directors involved. I would certainly say that to blame Disney for story and character elements you don’t like is definitely misplaced. Blame Lawrence Kasdan, J. J. Abrams, Michael Arndt, and Rian Johnson because you don’t agree with their artistic interpretations of possible events. Just because someone is working on a Star Wars project at Disney, it doesn’t mean Disney as an entity is making those artistic choices.

It’s also not like Disney cares so much about money and so little about art that Disney itself is purposefully crapping on Star Wars for the sake of the almighty dollar. And even if they were, George had already been doing that for decades.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I don’t get George’s lesser blame either. Studios and publishing houses don’t have the best record of respecting the wishes of the creator before something becomes a hit, but afterwards, they tend to follow the most ridiculous art-destroying notions as long as they can even theoretically be tied to the creator’s intent. So George doesn’t even have to contractually force Disney to keep the OOT off the shelves – all he has to do is clearly indicate the way he’d prefer them to be dealt with, and studio deference will take care of the rest, even long after he’s gone.

But IMO there is a difference between cashing in on an available property (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins pre-1997), and cashing in on the fading collective memory of a property that nobody can actually have anymore (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins 1997 and onward).

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

hairy_hen said:

The movies that got us all hooked on the galaxy far, far away have essentially died as far as official policy is concerned - that is my point. Disney has the power to resurrect them, but they are either unwilling to do so, or just can’t be bothered. Star Wars should have been allowed to die in peace, to just exist for what it was without having to be continually revisited. And yet the commercial exploitation continues and shows no sign of ever stopping.
George Lucas, for all his infuriating stubbornness, at least had personal and artistic reasons for doing what he did, misguided though it was. Disney, on the other hand, doesn’t care about anything except money.

Are you actually saying that George didn’t commercially exploit Star Wars out the wazoo before Disney got a hold of it? Because I seriously beg to differ. Star Wars was merchandised like mad since the very beginning.

After ESB it really felt to me like Lucas only made Star Wars movies to sell merchandise.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CatBus said:

But IMO there is a difference between cashing in on an available property (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins pre-1997), and cashing in on the fading collective memory of a property that nobody can actually have anymore (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins 1997 and onward).

I don’t see what the difference is between cashing in on OOT merch and cashing on on SE/PT/ST merch. It’s all merch. And I don’t see why Disney, as a company, is to blame for ruining Star Wars simply by making money on it.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

They didn’t even ruin it!

They can’t even ruin it!

!!

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

They can’t even ruin it!

They can if people choose to let them. People can choose to accept or ignore iterations in a franchise that they dislike, and many people would rather accept that they exist and then complain about them than to ignore them entirely.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

But IMO there is a difference between cashing in on an available property (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins pre-1997), and cashing in on the fading collective memory of a property that nobody can actually have anymore (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins 1997 and onward).

I don’t see what the difference is between cashing in on OOT merch and cashing on on SE/PT/ST merch. It’s all merch.

Pre-1997, you could buy the merch AND see the thing you loved that motivated the purchase. Post-1997, you can just buy the merch based on a memory of loving something a few decades back. To me, that’s a notable distinction.

Admittedly, seven people do like the SE, and they can buy the merch and see the thing they loved that motivated the purchase, so it’s not universal.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

But IMO there is a difference between cashing in on an available property (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins pre-1997), and cashing in on the fading collective memory of a property that nobody can actually have anymore (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins 1997 and onward).

I don’t see what the difference is between cashing in on OOT merch and cashing on on SE/PT/ST merch. It’s all merch.

Pre-1997, you could buy the merch AND see the thing you loved that motivated the purchase. Post-1997, you can just buy the merch based on a memory of loving something a few decades back. To me, that’s a notable distinction.

But as I said, that distinction only applies when people can’t acquire the originally loved thing. But I can. People can. It’s been mentioned in more than a few articles. Whether they want to bother or not is up to them.

Meanwhile, if I mention loving the original Original Trilogy, I get called a “purist” by my friends and acquaintances, so there we are. If people don’t care, they won’t bother, and that’s on them.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, I still get the feeling that George had a story to tell/finish, differently from KK. I guess that’s the point they were trying to make. That’s not to say George didn’t milk the franchise though. By the time of RotJ, he was more of a businessman than a filmmaker, unfortunately.

Author
Time

Can we please stop saying Disney and say LucasFilm? I mean, does anyone really think Disney is pulling the strings?

Author
Time

dahmage said:

Can we please stop saying Disney and say LucasFilm? I mean, does anyone really think Disney is pulling the strings?

It is a fair way to say that it is LucasFilm under Disney rather than under George.

Author
Time

dahmage said:

I mean, does anyone really think Disney is pulling the strings?

Have you not read some of the posts here?

Author
Time

ExNihilo said:

dahmage said:

Can we please stop saying Disney and say LucasFilm? I mean, does anyone really think Disney is pulling the strings?

It is a fair way to say that it is LucasFilm under Disney rather than under George.

I suppose. but it feels more like it is an easy way to cry about some perceived mega corp unhuman thing is directing everything that happens. And i think that is dishonest.

Author
Time

dahmage said:

ExNihilo said:

dahmage said:

Can we please stop saying Disney and say LucasFilm? I mean, does anyone really think Disney is pulling the strings?

It is a fair way to say that it is LucasFilm under Disney rather than under George.

I suppose. but it feels more like it is an easy way to cry about some perceived mega corp unhuman thing is directing everything that happens. And i think that is dishonest.

What do you suggest?
Lucasfilm under the helm of Disney= LD
Lucasfilm under the helm of George= LG
?

Author
Time

ExNihilo said:

dahmage said:

ExNihilo said:

dahmage said:

Can we please stop saying Disney and say LucasFilm? I mean, does anyone really think Disney is pulling the strings?

It is a fair way to say that it is LucasFilm under Disney rather than under George.

I suppose. but it feels more like it is an easy way to cry about some perceived mega corp unhuman thing is directing everything that happens. And i think that is dishonest.

What do you suggest?
Lucasfilm under the helm of Disney= LD
Lucasfilm under the helm of George= LG
?

I guess i don’t see the difference between Lucasfilm LD or LG

Author
Time

dahmage said:

ExNihilo said:

dahmage said:

ExNihilo said:

dahmage said:

Can we please stop saying Disney and say LucasFilm? I mean, does anyone really think Disney is pulling the strings?

It is a fair way to say that it is LucasFilm under Disney rather than under George.

I suppose. but it feels more like it is an easy way to cry about some perceived mega corp unhuman thing is directing everything that happens. And i think that is dishonest.

What do you suggest?
Lucasfilm under the helm of Disney= LD
Lucasfilm under the helm of George= LG
?

I guess i don’t see the difference between Lucasfilm LD or LG

LD is headed by Kathy Kennedy and she has some crazy feminist agenda that ruins Star Wars as as a fantasy for the white working class male.

/sarcasm

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

But IMO there is a difference between cashing in on an available property (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins pre-1997), and cashing in on the fading collective memory of a property that nobody can actually have anymore (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins 1997 and onward).

I don’t see what the difference is between cashing in on OOT merch and cashing on on SE/PT/ST merch. It’s all merch.

Pre-1997, you could buy the merch AND see the thing you loved that motivated the purchase. Post-1997, you can just buy the merch based on a memory of loving something a few decades back. To me, that’s a notable distinction.

But as I said, that distinction only applies when people can’t acquire the originally loved thing. But I can. People can. It’s been mentioned in more than a few articles. Whether they want to bother or not is up to them.

Meanwhile, if I mention loving the original Original Trilogy, I get called a “purist” by my friends and acquaintances, so there we are. If people don’t care, they won’t bother, and that’s on them.

There are also people who care and don’t know. The idea that it might be available from another channel other than Lucasfilm may seem too preposterous to consider, let alone actively seek out. I don’t think that’s on them. That mindset works perfectly well for every other film.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

CatBus said:
As far as the general public is concerned, it’s been replaced.

If they know at all. I think most don’t even know what they have is putrefied.

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time

Mocata said:

CatBus said:
As far as the general public is concerned, it’s been replaced.

If they know at all. I think most don’t even know what they have is putrefied.

“That’s funny. I used to think these movies were really good when I was a kid. It turns out they’re pretty meh. Oh well, I guess I’ve outgrown them.”

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

I don’t think that’d be the special edition’s fault. I could be wrong though.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

A new SW movie, to me, it’s like listening to the new album of a band I love: I have to, at least, give it a listen, even if I didn’t love EVERY previous albums. I still like the idea of watching a new Star Wars movie and it’s more than enough for me to buy my ticket even when I’m not too crazy about the synopsis (Solo…)
Although, I think that, with the years, I tend to rewatch less often new movies in general (except when I’m making fanedits, of course!). So I’m NOT making them “iconic” to me anymore. They are just movies, without nostalgia attachment, maybe with less passion as before too. But it’s not because they are bad, it’s because I simply care less. I still find interesting and sometime even moving to follow the stories of a world I was so passionate about (and that I still love) but it simply can’t be the same as before.
(That being said: The Last Jedi was very good and it totaly works for me as a worthy SW sequel!)

Author
Time

TMBTM said:

A new SW movie, to me, it’s like listening to the new album of a band I love: I have to, at least, give it a listen, even if I didn’t love EVERY previous albums. I still like the idea of watching a new Star Wars movie and it’s more than enough for me to buy my ticket even when I’m not too crazy about the synopsis (Solo…)
Although, I think that, with the years, I tend to rewatch less often new movies in general (except when I’m making fanedits, of course!). So I’m NOT making them “iconic” to me anymore. They are just movies, without nostalgia attachment, maybe with less passion as before too. But it’s not because they are bad, it’s because I simply care less. I still find interesting and sometime even moving to follow the stories of a world I was so passionate about (and that I still love) but it simply can’t be the same as before.
(That being said: The Last Jedi was very good and it totaly works for me as a worthy SW sequel!)

All of this!

The “rewatching movies less and less” resonates with me quite strongly. I just don’t have time anymore.

Although I will say I’ve seen the OT and TFA more than I expected in the past few years thanks to the interest my daughters have shown in it.

Author
Time

TMBTM said:

A new SW movie, to me, it’s like listening to the new album of a band I love: I have to, at least, give it a listen, even if I didn’t love EVERY previous albums. I still like the idea of watching a new Star Wars movie and it’s more than enough for me to buy my ticket even when I’m not too crazy about the synopsis (Solo…)
Although, I think that, with the years, I tend to rewatch less often new movies in general (except when I’m making fanedits, of course!). So I’m NOT making them “iconic” to me anymore. They are just movies, without nostalgia attachment, maybe with less passion as before too. But it’s not because they are bad, it’s because I simply care less. I still find interesting and sometime even moving to follow the stories of a world I was so passionate about (and that I still love) but it simply can’t be the same as before.
(That being said: The Last Jedi was very good and it totaly works for me as a worthy SW sequel!)

Away with this well reasoned/rounded logic and approach to watching SW films - it has no place on here 😉

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here?
And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?