CO

darklordoftech said:

Is it possible for anything to ever be as good as the OOT?

 If anyone goes into the ST with the expectations that it will be as good or great as the OOT then you will be letdown.  I said the same thing to my friends before the PT, as they got WAY too excited. 

If there was a recipe for great movies, then we would see more every year from Hollywood, but everything has to go right for a movie to be great. 

-The OOT characters had perfect chemistry and related to the public.

-The story was interesting enough to relate to any age group.

-The Galaxy wowed fans because it took them to a place they had never seen before.

I think it is more amazing that ESB is just as great as Star Wars when you look at all movie franchises.  Usually, the original is great, and the sequels maybe good, but they usually don't reach the level of the original.  ESB is as good as Star Wars and probably better in many ways. 

I think the ST can be good (for SW fans only) because it is in our DNA to love anything in this universe if its done right.  I don't think Abrams will be able to capture that chemistry with a new cast (Skywalker Offspring), hence why he is making Luke, Leia and Han so prominent in Episode 7. 

In the end, I think many people here will rank the trilogies:

1.  OT

2.  ST

3.  PT

And you will have battles as to each fans canon:

-Star Wars 1977

-OOT only

-OOT + ST

-PT + OT/SE + ST

-PT + OT/SE

Let the debate begin!!!  LOL!

Humby said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Well at least you were polite, unlike a lot of people here.

 
On the contrary, I typically frequent other sites such as TFN and I find most of those users to be far less respectful of our opinions, than we of theirs.

 I have always believed that most people at TFN are just 'circling the wagons' for Lucas as they don't believe half of the shit they defend about the PT movies. 

I say this because I used to talk to alot of people there off the record through Private Messages, and THEN they would tell me they thought the PT movies were inferior to the OT, but they just didn't like the Lucas/PT bashing, so they felt it was their duty to defend the cause.

If you notice the way they defend the PT at TFN is take down the OT to make their argument.  If someone says the Anakin/Padme dialogue in AOTC was horrendous, they will respond, "Well, all dialogue in SW is horrendous, so there is no difference between the trilogies!"  Or if you point out the flaws in the PT movies (Like Padme dying from the will to live despite Leia saying her mom died while she was very young), they argue that all of the OT movies had major flaws and none of them were perfect.  Or if you say the PT movies catered to kids because of Jar Jar, etc, they argue they were always made for kids, which goes against their argument when they say the 'Tragedy of Darth Vader' is a Shakespearean tragedy that has deep meaning behind it! 

So they are essentially saying they love a bunch of SW movies that have bad dialogue, loads of flaws, and cater to kids!  LOL!

Wolfman said:

TV's Frink said:

So is the OP gone for good?  I find his brand of crazy rather entertaining.

 He's headed back to the safety of TFN. Spending his time in....The prequel Trilogy forum where everything is awesome !

 I just ventured back to TFN today just to see how crazy that place has gotten and I was banned on my first thread: "At what moment did you realize you didn't like the PT?"

I should have called it, "The Prequels are great, tell me why you love them!"  And I guarantee it wouldnt have been locked.

Ryan McAvoy said:

When Puzo died he and Coppola were planning on a 4th film that would have told Vito's long missing backstory between the end of GF2 and the start of GF1, so this analogy doesn't totally work.

 And if they decided to do that, I believe it would have been too much just like the SW PT was too much with 3 movies.

Godfather II told a nice backstory of Vito Corleone, and that was enough to wet the appetite to the viewer.  Lets just say for the sake of argument, Coppola/Puzo would have done a WHOLE trilogy of Vito Corleone like the Prequels, would anyone be that interested except a fringe base of Godfather fans who want to know everything about that world?

My point is this is what happened with the PT, as too much was too much, and you limited your audience.  I loved the OT like no other set of movies as a kid, and yes I was interested in how Darth Vader came to be, but I never wanted 3 movies of it!  And as for the Clone Wars, how much could you do of them where that would be anymore interesting? 

These are all cool plot points on paper, but when made into a trilogy, it just doesn't have the heart the OT had, simply because you are framing a trilogy off of 'interesting' plot points, and getting away from what made the OT great:  Luke, Leia and Han.

Now of course there are some fans who loved the PT, and of course there are some fans who wanted the PT like nothing else, but there were also fans like me who weren't so crazy about it, and wanted the ST (when Hamill, Fisher, and Ford were still young) as that was the story I loved.

That is why the fanbase is split, and its just natural that you will get fans who love it, fans who are so-so on it, and fans who hate it, simply because its a different animal then the OT.

I always thought the Prequels should have been 1 movie, and I think it would have been alot more accepted among the SW fanbase.  Coppola was able to tell Vito Corleone's backstory in one movie, why did we need 3 movies to see the backstory of Anakin Skywalker other then to cash in on the SW name?

If Lucas would have done 1 Prequel movie, he could have crafted a 3 hour no holds barred movie where it would have been all red meat to the fans, and we wouldn't have to deal with pointless exposition that makes the trilogy move like molasses sometimes.  

The key to the whole Prequels is Anakin and Padme, and would the audience care about them?  In the end, I really didn't care about their struggles and their eventually fate at the end of the Episode 3, so it really makes it tough for me to enjoy 3 movies essentially about them.

That is why I hesitate to these OT vs PT debates because they are essentially 2 different trilogies with 2 different characters, so its just natural that the viewer may only care for the OT characters, and not like the PT characters, or vice versa.

It will be interesting with the ST and the structure from what is leaking on the internet (Luke, Leia, Han are prominent in Episode 7 and their kids will be the leads in Episodes 8 & 9). 

OBI-WAN37 said:

I'm a little sick of everyone bashing the prequel trilogy. They are utterly mind-blowingly fantastic films. And no, I'm not joking. They're a fantastic trilogy and tragedy (I'm not misspelling any words). The way Palpatine manipulates anakin is excellent, and there's so many awesome action sequences. You get to see the Jedi in their prime, and for those who say the prequels had too much CGI, check this thread, which proves there isn't really too much CGI in the prequel trilogy, except for maybe the clones: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/p...-etc.50017310/. And yes, the story was great, because anakin turning to the dark side is truly moving, and the way Palpatine manipulates anakin into doing so is so cool, especially in episode III when you're just watching and thinking, "no, don't turn to the dark side", but then he does and the effect, regardless of how obvious it is that it was going to happen, is amazing. And the climatic duel on mustafar! Fantastic. They even incorporated a real erupting volcano into that scene! As awesome as the original trilogy is, I think the prequels surpass episodes IV-VI. I look forward to episode VII not so much because I want the film to live up to the originals, as fantastic as they are, but because I want it to live up to the prequels. What do you think about prequel bashing?

 The difference between here and TFN is that there is more freedom to debate here, even if most members don't agree with your topic.

I haven't logged on to TFN in awhile, but I guarantee if you started this same topic over there it would get locked.  The only time threads get locked or people get banned here is if  someone steps way over the line,  which is very rare.   EVERY Thread is going to end up in a debate and people are going to disagree,  but for some reason TFN picks and chooses what is a debate, and then they decide to lock a thread.

I have been banned so many times at TFN (because I didn't corform to their ridiculous rules), whereas we are pretty level headed here in our debates.

Again, you aren't going to find people who who agree with your topic, but you have ever right to post it here.

My only beef with the OT is that Luke/Leia should have never been siblings.  That is when Lucas let the 'I am your father' twist go to his head and thought he could outsmart the fans with some new twist every movie after that.  The Luke/Leia sibling plot point made the universe too small, and sadly 'the other' could have played a huge part in the upcoming ST.

Another plot hole is when Obiwan tells Luke his father's name in ROTJ:  Anakin Skywalker.  Really?  So when Luke was hidden from The Emperor and his father, they had him keep the same last name as his father????   That is why Darth Vader should have been called Anakin Starkiller (or something like that) just to show that Obiwan/Uncle Owen did everything in their power to hide Luke from him.   And don't get me started on the Prequels, where we now learn Anakin was also born on Tatooine, so they decide hide Luke there?  And Owen owned C3PO for 10 years yet doesn't remember him in Episode IV? 

buddy-x-wing said:

I really hope that if we have to suffer the offspring of the big three, they at least cast them as early twenty somethings and not obnoxious teens

 I agree.  Everytime you cast a teenager in any movie, there is a risk that they won't be able to pull it off and it will be a turnoff to the audience.  I love T2, but can't stand Edward Furlong as a young John Connor.   I always thought if Lucas centered the PT around an early 30's Obiwan and a early-mid 20's Anakin for 3 movies, it would have worked better. 

I think they can go the route of early-mid 20's, and that way you can hire actors with alittle more experience and won't have to worry about them being whiny teenage brats. 

ratpack1961 said:

To have an episode of star wars to be about three old people running around the universe just doesn't work, at least in theory.  Old cliffhanger serials that star wars was based on kept the cast usually pretty young.  Personally I was fine with seeing some young new characters and Luke as a mentor.  I think thats what Arndt wanted and it kept with the concept of what these movies are about.  Escapism for kids/teens that adults wont detest.

 I agree with you that there is a chance that putting old Luke, Leia and Han on screen could be an utter disaster, as I'm sure there will be alot of monday-morning QB'ing on what was the right approach.

But I still think that fans are taking it too literally about the 'Big 3' being a huge part of Episode 7 thinking that this will be a carbon copy of Star Wars in 1977, whereas I don't see it that way.  My view is you can still have Luke, Leia and Han have prominent roles in Episode 7 while passing the torch to the next generation of Skywalker kids and its still comes off as respectable.

Why cant Leia be the Supreme Chancellor (aka Vallorum, Palpatine in the PT)?  I can't see them having Carrie Fisher running around for 2 hours like she did in 1977, but she could be a strong political force in the re-built republic after Episode 6, along with showing off some force skills to her kids to show that true power Luke said she had in Return of the Jedi.

Why cant Luke be the Head of the Jedi Order (aka Yoda in the PT)?  I think Hamill can pull off some lightsaber action scenes, teaching his kids or Han/Leia's kids about the force.  Heck, if old man Ian McKellan can pull of the action scenes as Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, why can't Mark Hamill who is only in his 60's?

Now Han Solo is where it gets tricky?  Ford is the only role of the 'Big 3' where it is more a crowd pleaser then relevant to the story.  But I think if they can create a great death scene (aka Spock's death in Star Trek II), by means of saving his kids or something relevant to saving someone else from death, that could be powerful.  The end of Episode 7 could have Luke/Leia and the Skywalker kids at the funeral of Han Solo (aka QuiGon in Episode I), which would be sort of eerie that we finally get to see the death of one of the most beloved characters from the OT.

Now Abrams/Kennedy could just try to please the crowd and give us Han/Luke/Leia from Episode IV circa 2015, but I just don't think that would work.  I do think if they get creative, the passing of the torch could please ALL of the SW fanbases and set Episode 8 and 9 up real well.

darklordoftech said:

I can't wait for TFN's reaction if the term "padawan" isn't used.

 I went on there a few weeks ago just to see what those nitwits were saying about the ST:  They wanted Hayden Christensen to play an Obiwan type Force Ghost role throughout the trilogy to guide Luke/Leia and the Skywalker Grandchildren.  That way it could still be viewed as the 'Tragedy of Darth Vader' Episodes 1-9. 

Hayden's in the ST = I'm out

Ben Affleck in the new Batman/Superman movie = I'm out

At this point, should we start lobbying for the OOT to come out on 4K? 

ray_afraid said:

 I'm in the same group your friends are in, CO. The only promising thing about Ep.7 that we know at this point is the inclusion of the 'big 3'. That has me curious enough to go see it, but I have zero expectations of it being anything I'll enjoy.

And I agree with what you said about the folks behind the film needing to focus on the original characters in order to cleanse the awful taste of the PT. I don't know anybody who would even go see it if they weren't involved. And, even with that,  most of the people I know won't be seeing it anyway.

 Now I can't speak for younger generations (people who grew up with the PT or young kids who grew up with the Clone Wars Cartoon Show), as maybe SW fanbase is so big that it doesn't need the OT generation to generate huge box office numbers?  

I go back and forth daily about whether I want them to film this trilogy or not.  There is a part of me that will totally regret if they fuck up Luke, Leia and Han in Episode 7, as there is a chance that could happen.  But I am a SW fan at heart, so I am hoping if its done well I can look at MY saga as Episodes 4,5,6,7,8,9 and that would sort of help me forget the PT ever existed.

The same thing happened with me with the Rocky Franchise.  Rocky 5 was so bad it just left a bad taste in my mouth towards the whole franchise (although I can always look at the Original Movie as a classic without sequels so thats never tainted).  But Rocky 6 sort of put my faith back in the overall Rocky Story, as it was a perfect ending and I actually don't even recognize Rocky 5 now. 

vacuum said:

luke, han, leia seem to be center stage for episode VII in the new script by abrams, and i am thrilled. f**k the haters on this one.

 I almost think they have to approach the ST this way to get back all of the OT fans who were burned by the PT.

I can only speak for my friends (I hate generalizing), but I was suprised at how many of them just didn't give a shit about the ST when I mentioned they were going to make it.  They hated the PT so much, they are EXPECTING the ST to suck, and that is why they haven't got really hyped.

Now where things will change is when they see that first Episode 7 trailer with Luke, Leia and Han, and I think they will be curious enough to see the movie now.

Tack said:

I didn't think Superman IV was that bad.

 Superman III & IV were horrendous, as I put them right up there with the SW Holiday Special.  These are movies that are so bad I refuse to ever watch them again, except for years later just to see how bad they still are.

I would also put Rocky V in that horrendous sequel group that I hate with a passion.

Sorry to get off topic with my rant!

Humby said:

After years of being on the inside, Lucas had no understanding of what made Star Wars important in the first place.  I'm not accusing him of trying to sell toys as many of us like to do, but the cultural marketing of Star Wars is what influenced Lucas' decision making.  For example, Darth Vader was only a larger than life character to the audience, not to the other characters in that world.  But Lucas didn't understand that.  And that resulted in a story that focused on Anakin/Vader being presented as this fallen Christ-like figure.  Or perhaps look at the Jedi and their trusty weaponry.  The marketability of that iconography certainly influenced Lucas in making the Jedi being a huge focus, and such constant use of Lightsabers, scene after scene.  There are countless examples like these, and although that "cultural marketing" perspective may not have been his sole influence, it's still an obvious factor.

Now don't get me wrong, there are definitely certain fans out there who love the prequels, some of whom may only see Star Wars for its superficial imagery, and if they had any say in Lucas' plan, they would have made very similar decisions.  But a successful filmmaker who understand the history of both Star Wars as well as film history in general, will be far more capable of understanding what makes Star Wars interesting and engaging.

 I'm as big a Lucas basher as you get around here, but I have to atleast defend him alittle bit because all franchises fall off the rails at some point.

I respect the story he eventually told about the 6 movies (although I hate that he tries to re-write history by saying this was mostly planned from the original, and Darth Vader was always the main person of the story.)  In an ironic way, if Lucas was more honest about how he kept changing the story, I would have more respect for him.

In saying that, I hate where he took the SW story after ESB (as much as people love 'I am your father') it was a great plot point, but ended up limiting the movies to Darth Vader, and that is where I sort of lost interest in the overall story.

But I will also say that the SW movies would have gotten redundant if he just made them standalone stories like Indiana Jones movies, and no real overall plot line.  That's why I say every great franchise gets to a point where there is nothing more to tell, and the stories are just catering to the fanboys.

I will give Lucas his props for the Original Star Wars from 1977, as I think the bad mouthing from our sector of fans get alittle too much.  Sure it was a collaborative effort (with his wife, the editors, John Williams), but its like that with most great movies.  Now is Lucas as good as Scorcese or Spielberg?  Not at all, as they are much better directors.  But in fairness to Lucas, after he started Lucasfilm in 1981, he was never going to be a director ever again like he was pre-Lucasfilm.  Every decision he made was about business, because that is what CEO's do, they think of the bottom line first. 

It would have been intersting if Lucas has stayed with directing and walked away from Star Wars after 1977, as I think he would have directed more good movies.  But, we will never know!

I actually saw the Holiday Special live in 1978, and even as a 6 year old kid I thought it was horrendous and forgettable. 

The Prequels atleast had SOME memorable moments, but were just overall bad movies.  The Holiday Special is awful from the minute it starts.  I bought a copy on ebay a few years ago, just to see it again 30 years later, and good lord it was just as bad as I remembered. 

It still should be out on DVD or BluRay, simply because it is a part of SW history, and everyone should see it once. 

imperialscum said:

Well I can certainly agree with Matrix having a good story. But the "whole demographic" you speak about (i.e. the teenagers) were (speaking from experience) almost exclusively attracted by its fancy action, violence, slow-motion fighting and shooting scenes. You take that away and you get PG rating but then you lose the interest of most of the kids as well. In Star Wars that wasn't the case.

 I do wonder if ESB would have been PG-13 back in 1980 if the rating existed? I agree that alot of fans were attracted to the fancy action and slow motion fighting scenes in the Matrix, but then there are people like me who really enjoyed the story in 1999, and I think that is the real trick to attracting a bigger audience for any 'blockbuster' movie. 

You look at movie like Jurassic Park, there are many people who loved it in 1993 because no one was able to show Dinosaurs come to life on the big screen like that, yet I loved it because of the overall story and what it said about us as a society (as Jeff Goldblum talks about in the movie how you shouldn't fuck with mother nature and there is a reason Dinosaurs are extinct now.)

Star Wars was able to capture both audiences (Action/Special Effects fans & Story & Character fans) ALONG with young children, so you had that 3rd market of fans.  I give Lucas credit for the success of Star Wars because it is very hard to appeal to those 3 bases of 'blockbuster movie fans' as alot of times a movie ends up appealing more to one base over another base of fans.  (I.E.:  Return of the Jedi catered TOO much to kids, and that is why the movie doesn't hold up as well 30 years later.)

imperialscum said:

Let me put it like this. How many people watches Star Wars, let's say annually, and how many does that with Matrix?

 I think its tough to compare The Matrix to Star Wars simply because one movie is Rated R and the other movie is Rated PG, and just by that The Matrix will never have as big an audience.

If Star Wars was rated R in 1977, then it wouldn't have reached all young kids like myself, and would have been just as popular as a huge blockbuster like Jaws, you are losing a whole demographic. 

Heck, I remember when I went to see Matrix Reloaded in 2003, the Theaters were really cracking down on kids under 17.  I had a bunch of highschool kids come up to me and asked me if I could buy them tickets for the movie the same way I used to stand outside liquor stores before I was 21 years old.

I will say that The Matrix totally owned The Phantom Menace in 1999 as the 'must see' movie, and that is when I started to notice a chink in the armor of the Star Wars brand.  (Then Spiderman beat Attack of the Clones at the 2002 Boxoffice was the final blow to Star Wars being the #1 Franchise it was before.)  The Matrix dazzled people with its special effects that year, along with a really intersting story (it wasn't some dumb Michael Bay summer movie). 

What I think really hurt the Matrix brand is the same thing that hurt the Star Wars Brand:  The Matrix Sequels and the Star Wars Prequels.  I know friends that absolutely love the Matrix but hate the Sequels with a passion!  I liked the Sequels, but most of my friends didn't even bother with Revolutions after they saw Reloaded. 

I think you can ignore the 'big' things from the PT that alienated the fanbase, and still stay true to the 9 part story.

I expect the Skywalker grandchildren to ask Luke/Leia about their father and mother during the ST, so I don't see a problem with talking about that.

What I would have a problem is having Hayden Christenson be a force ghost throughout the trilogy and guide Luke and the Skywalker Grandkids the same way Alec Guiness did in the OT.  That would be such a turn-off to so many fans (and would be a deal-breaker for me), that I think Abrams will stay away from shit like that.  Now if Lucas was directing the ST, then I think there would be more PT-references as he always seems to find a few things to piss of the older fans.

Jaitea said:

The only thing that did jump out at me was the wobbly sets on the Death Star,....they really did spoil the experience for me.....enough for me to post this.

The fast door that Luke shuts as he entered the hanger control room....you can see that it bounces or settles weirdly as though it was made of plywood.

The Trash compactor scene looks off because the walls move in non-mechanically, you can tell that theres a group of guys pushing the walls in....

 I guess everyone looks at movies with a different critical eye, but stuff like this I either never noticed or never cared about. 

I just see movies today and they have every option available with all the new technology and 99% of them are pretty much crap.  With a few exceptions, most movies are hollow on story, characters, drama and comedy, and that is what I look for in a movie, and a big reason why the Star Wars Originals still hold up 30+ years later. 

My mom threw them all out in 1985 when I had 'grown' out of playing with Star Wars Figures.  I didn't care at the time, but I remember when the SE's came out in 1997, and they started talking about how much SW memorabilia was worth, I was sick to my stomach.  Here are some of the bigger SW toys I had along with a zillion action figures.

-Millenium Falcon (which was in perfect condition as this was my favorite toy).

-Death Star

-Hoth

-X-Wing Fighter

-Tie Fighter

-I was always jealous that my one friend had Dagobah, as that was the one planet I always wanted but never got for Christmas.

Anchorhead said:

From the first time I sat in the theater, I've always read that scene differently.  I felt the "I know" was his way of telling her that if he didn't make it, he wanted her to know he understood her feelings.  That they weren't wasted or unappreciated. He would die knowing the truth. 

 That's an interesting take, as I never thought of it that way.  I always thought of it as Han Solo being Han Solo, as that is what makes him cool around women that most guys don't have.  Most guys wouldn't have the confidence to say that to a female in fear of them taking it the wrong way.  But Solo is the ultimate cool guy who has the confidence that regardless of his response, Leia will still love him.

imperialscum said:

As much as I love ESB, it is actually refreshing to see some deviation from the usual "ESB is perfect" attitude.

 It's just my opinion and I am not stating it as fact, but IMO, it a perfect film for its genre. 

I guess what I am trying to say is all movies that I rank at the top of my favorites of all-time are perfect, IMO.  If they were flawed movies or had some flaws, then I wouldn't revisit them so many times and they wouldn't be my favorites.

Movies like Star Wars, Empire, Jaws, Raiders, The Godfather, Field of Dreams, Hoosiers, Rocky, Back to the Future are all perfect movies, IMO, as they are at the top of my list of all-time favorites.  Honestly, whenever I watch them, I really can't find a flaw that really takes me out of the movie or makes me shake my head.

Again, I am not trying to sway someone's opinion about the movie, as I respect if you see flaws in it.  The only movie I truly love and is at the top of my all-time favorites that has a flaw is Superman: The Movie, as I was always very suspect of him turning the earth backwards as that felt like a cop out as he could do anytime after that.

TV's Frink said:

Jaitea said:

Two years today for the release date

J

 Stop trying to drag this thread back on-topic.

 Sorry, but there is essentially nothing to talk about in this topic because Disney/Abrams haven't given us squat about any spoiler.  That is why this thread goes off on tangents, simply because its all speculation at this point and we're all just waiting around for some confirmation of anything about the movie.