Easterhay

deepanddark20 said:

Even though he's no longer the same Lucas who wrote and directed the original Star Wars in 1977 (he's very far from it now actually) it's still way more interesting to hear him talk about Star Wars in interviews like this than it is to actually watch his post-1989 movie work.

Nothing beats Star Wars fans (well, some of them anyway) for fixating on the age-old tradition of revisionism.

What? He didn't have the whole thing mapped out from the start? Oh, no, my world has ended.

Wake up and smell the proverbial; none of this is new or revolutionary - even Tolkien went back and revised The Hobbit to fit in with The Lord Of The Rings.

Oh, and one more thing. Someone referred to Gary Kurtz as a father. No he's not; he's a mother.

I always felt that the story of Plagueis was yet another sly reveal as to Palpatine's real identity - for those viewers who were discovering Star Wars through the prequels. True, in an earlier draft Palpatine reveals himself as Anakin's father but Lucas wisely re-wrote that (we only need one "I am your father" in the saga, after all).

I don't think the character should have played a bigger part in the films anymore than I think Dooku should have been in Episode One or Grievous should have been in Episode Two.

"The reason we went with it is because it ended up being great"

No, the reason you went with it is because you were young and had yet to develop cynicism.

I've managed to miss out on whatever negativity might have been heaped on The Hobbit films so I honestly don't know if it's been subjected to the same kind of internet-based bashing that the prequels had. As with the prequels, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that someone, somewhere, watched the films, made a negative remark, and it's been repeated ad nauseum ever since by a growing number of "haters" - ergo, the first person to use the phrase "mannequin skywalker" was a genius, the second person to say it was an idiot.

Has the criticism been about the amount of CGI in the films? Quelle surprise, if it has. Or is it about the additional scenes? I don't remember Saruman being in the book but then again I only read it once and it was a long, long time ago.

imperialscum said:

He doesn't blast any myths. He himself creates more of them. His statements are as (un)trustworthy as those of Lucas. He states that they "natural parted" because of the story, yet as it seems that he was in fact removed by Lucas in the middle of ESB and replaced by Kazanjian.

After a promising start, it's become increasingly Disney-fied as the weeks have gone on. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a musical number in every episode soon.

The only aspect of the show that I really like is the music - plenty of cues from both the OT and PT, which is really nice.

Well, I am an infrequent poster so you'd be better off checking in five years' time ;)

darklordoftech said:

1. That's a faded 35mm print.

2. I shouldn't have to buy a 4k projector to enjoy a movie.

I remain completely blase about the new trilogy. The new cartoon series has already confirmed my strongest suspicions, that Star Wars without Lucas is not Star Wars and it shows. In spades.

The title of the new film was announced last week. I felt absolutely nothing when I read it. It means nothing. It's safe and dull and that's what the film will be - no surprises to upset the apple cart because the makers of this movie want so desperately to please the fans of my generation. It's the worst example of the tail wagging the dog.

When I mentioned the new title to my son and wife, I could practically see the tumbleweed rolling across the living room floor.

Maybe this is my cut-off point for the saga. Return Of The Jedi is, for me, the best way to end the series so I think I can happily call closure on something of which I've been a fan since the age of five. That way, from Jabba to Jar Jar, all my memories will be happy ones.

darthatton said:

While we're talking about oddly ADR'ed Lando lines, how about that weird echoing "That was too close!" (always sounds like he's saying "tooth loose") line from the Death Star II run later in the movie? Never fails to stick out to me.

KilroyMcFadden said:

Between Harmy and Adywan there is no need to ever watch any current George Lucas version of the OT ever again.  FTR, I am totally into discussing the positive changes made by either of these people to the OT.

hairy_hen said:

One reason for changes going unnoticed is that the most recent round of alterations has made the Blurays so bad, nobody even wants to watch them in the first place.

CO said:

Another change that many fans miss is the Luke's wink to the Jedi Ghosts.  In the OOT version, he gives a quick wink to the ghosts as he walks away with Leia.  In the 1997, 2004, 2011 versions, the wink is gone? 

I don't know why Lucas would take that out, because it was cool little nod to the older jedi from Luke.  Reason #356 why you don't f**k with original versions of movies! 

msycamore said:

Easterhay said:

No, the changes go back as far as 1977. It's just that in 1997 the most changes were made. And, obviously, those were the changes which were trumpeted most loudly by Lucasfilm.

It surprises me, though, that on a forum such as this, where fans will pick up on anything and everything (from colour coding to the different fonts used for the subtitles), no-one appears to have noticed the dialogue change that I mentioned. Or has it become de rigeur to just post endlessly about the changes that we don't like? Perhaps that's why the audio cock up with the music during the Death Star battle on the DVD of A New Hope drew so much stick and yet, when Matthew Woods changed it back to how it was originally, there was barely a murmour.

I blame the papers! Appeal to the lowest common denominator by selling bad news and people begin to believe that that's what they want to talk about. The endless negativity is rather wearing, though.

You are welcome to post your findings, you very much seem like the kind of guy who are very interested in film history. Don't be surprised that we on a forum such as this haven't catalogued every audio change in the recent mixes. Speaking for myself, I haven't even heard Lucasfilm's latest and greatest inventions in audio for these films and I'm honestly happy for it.

And seriously do you expect people to applaud and give Matthew Woods a medal for fixing an error he supposedly introduced in 2004? It's like ordering a dinner at a restaurant and when the chef comes out to your table after your complaining, removes the worm that was in the salad with his hands. Do you kiss his feet afterwards for doing so or do you leave the table?

twister111 said:

Fixing one issue while changing many other aspects of the films right down to re-editing fights for no reason really distracts from the part that was fixed. It's like fixing a crack in the back of a chair but then taking a chainsaw to the legs. Yeah they fixed the crack but the chair isn't exactly in good shape.

DominicCobb said:

More important than references, the original trilogy continues to strongly influence the majority of science fiction/fantasy and blockbuster films made today.

[quote=Anchorhead]

 Not really one of your more subtle attempts at baiting.  The prequels are prominent in pop culture specifically for being so poorly done.  Outside of something as insular as TFN, pop culture references to Star Wars are almost solely the original trilogy.  1977 and 1980 are why Star Wars remains prominent.

hairy_hen said:

How about instead of 'you people', we call them 'you Easterhay-people'.

Cuz I don't see many others so determined to be offended by dislike of the prequels.

CatBus said:

Easterhay said:

...or at least accept that the prequels have their fanbase and are referenced in modern films as much as the original trilogy was in its day.

Your whole post presented a good point, but this section right here presents the limitations of that point. It's fair to measure cultural relevance through references in other prominent cultural works.  And, in works produced in the same eras, they may be about equal.  In works produced today, they may also be about equal.  I don't know either of these for a fact, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.  But the bolded text highlights the difference.

Star Wars was made nearly forty years ago and it's still a very relevant cultural work.  If someone made a reference to The Phantom Menace in 2036, it will make about as much sense to the audience as a "Dude, where's my car?" joke.  Yeah, that's a prediction, and yeah, predictions can be wrong.  But I simply see no way in hell the prequels will be anything more than an interesting footnote in 2036, akin to the Holiday Special today (which still gets referenced, but not much).

I hate that every time Han Solo is in a bar, the writer feels the need to remind us of the cantina scene in A New Hope. I opened Crucible in a book shop the other day and, first page, there it was, Han in a bar reminiscing about meeting Luke in a bar god-knows-how-many-years-ago. It's lazy writing.

spectraljulian said:

Grievous is a multi lightsaber wielding robot 

The other minor villains are just really bad racial stereotypes

Sidious is OK, but we see him too much.  The sequel trilogy needs to not show things until it's necessary to do so.   

luckydube56 said:

Stay away from massive metropolis', councils, politics that marked the PT.

<span style="font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.2em;">Go back to the Old West frontier in outer space atmosphere that characterized the OT.</span>

<span style="font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.2em;"></span>

<span style="font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.2em;">And please dont flood the galaxy with Jedi.  They're too stoic and it made the PT too stoic.  Where was the comic relief?  Star Wars should be an escape and it should be light hearted and fun.  Stay away from the current hollywood trend that a darker mood is better.

Yes, the Jedi were pretty dour in the prequels. A lot of chin-stroking and sitting around. But, then again, if they were based on Buddhist monks then the depiction was spot-on. I always imagined Luke's Jedi would be much different.

As for comic relief, well...Jar Jar? Buzz droids? Threepio losing his head? All in all, the story of Anakin is a tragedy. I don't recall Macbeth being chock full of hilarious one-liners.

On whom the joke was, not whom the joke was on. We'll take the language back if you can't use it properly...and leave you with Spanish lol

That aside, I wasn't aware that - even here - the plot of Episode One was open for that much criticism. Overuse of CGI, bad dialogue, no chemistry between the actors, Jar Jar Binks...oh, and not being exactly the way people imagined it to be, down to the last frame, I thought they were the common gripes some people had with the film.