Servii

Rodney-2187 said:

Would anyone here be interested in a Star Wars voting thread? Not just another thread where everyone ranks the movies, but one where the placement would have point values. Someone would then add up all the points to make a general consensus of everyone who participated.

It could be just the movies, or could include the animated series and The Mandalorian. Maybe the Ewok movies and Holiday Special too. All of that would have to be decided in advance so everyone is on the same page. Going by the name of this community, pretty sure the Original Trilogy movies would come out on top, but it would be interesting to see how everything else placed after that.

Yeah, I’d be interested in that.

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Episode numbers were a mistake.

The Mandalorian should never have brought in preexisting characters.

TLJ didn’t derail the sequel trilogy. TFA already did, halfway through its running time. TLJ just made people aware of the derailment.

Geonosis is the coolest looking planet shown in the saga.

Watto and Nute Gunray are worse than Jar Jar.

I agree with all of this (except for your fourth point)! Happy to find a like-minded individual!

I’m glad to hear you say that!

I have a soft spot for Geonosis. The landscape and architecture are just really cool to me. Something about it has always struck me as especially memorable.

I always hated Gunray, though, and not in the way you’re supposed to hate a villain. He’s basically the main antagonist of TPM, and he’s woefully unfit to fill that role.

Also, one more take. That one moment of the Ewok dying and his friend mourning him in RotJ is sadder than the entire Order 66 scene in RotS.

When the second Death Star explodes, add enormous, intact chunks of the station floating away from the blast and miraculously crash landing on Kef Bir.

Bathrooms don’t really belong in a fantasy melodrama. They’re the sort of thing that technically exists in the universe, but feels out of place and vulgar in movies that focus on loftier concepts like love and war and spirituality, so they should always remain off-camera.

Edit: sorry, didn’t realize how freshly raised this thread was.

Episode numbers were a mistake.

The Mandalorian should never have brought in preexisting characters.

TLJ didn’t derail the sequel trilogy. TFA already did, halfway through its running time. TLJ just made people aware of the derailment.

Geonosis is the coolest looking planet shown in the saga.

Watto and Nute Gunray are worse than Jar Jar.

JadedSkywalker said:

I don’t think they should or would change the canon. It would be much more easy two have 2 different canons if the old EU was continued in a different adjacent timeline. The could even adapt some of the comics, and novels into animation under the Legends imprint.

Would the original cuts of the OT also count as Legends? Since the Maclunky edit is the official canon along with Han shooting second.

Yeah, I personally consider the original versions as the “Legends cuts” of the movies (at least pre-PT Legends). The Thrawn trilogy books are sequels to those versions of the films.

imperialscum said:

Servii said:

But, you’ll admit that some films are simply poorly made and poorly written, right? There may not be some inherent metric for judging a film’s quality, but the fact that we keep trying to create metrics to assess films (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, etc.) shows that we are aware of inherent quality differences between the movies we watch.

Film’s qualities are subjective. We can personally think “some films are simply poorly made and poorly written”, and nothing is wrong with that, but that will only be a subjective opinion. What Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, etc. are creating is simply a generalisation of multiple opinions, which ends up as a sort of a popularity score.

It’s like how we know the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing. The child’s parents may have a greater subjective attachment to their kid’s art, but it’s almost universally understood that the Mona Lisa is better conceived and better executed as a work of art…

No, we do not know that the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing. I will first have to see the child’s drawing, then I will judge. Saying things like “we know the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing” and “it’s almost universally understood that the Mona Lisa is better conceived and better executed as a work of art” is either pretentious, or basically being brainwashed (herd behaviour), or both.

…even thought we have no way of quantifying that.

You have just contradicted yourself.

How?

First off, I was implying in my example that people were able to see the child’s drawing, not just assume it was worse.

I’m not here to argue about the semantics of the word “objective.” I’m just telling you that good films exist and bad films exist. It doesn’t matter if there’s no absolute numerical value you can attach to a film. Some films are simply poorly constructed at their foundation. I didn’t understand that was somehow a controversial opinion on this site. We call films “good” or “bad” all the time. We argue about their relative merits and what they do right and what they do wrong. We don’t just shrug our shoulders and say it doesn’t matter because no film can be quantifiably proven to be better. That’s a self-deafeating mindset to have. When I look at a film that’s riddled with plot holes, just because someone else watching the same film ignores those holes doesn’t mean the plot holes aren’t there or that their existence is subjective. Those are gaps in logic in a film. And the more we try to claim that good or bad writing is just “in the eye of the beholder,” the more common bad writing becomes in media. And as long as a few people say they thought the writing was great, suddenly it becomes “subjective” and immune to legitimate criticism.

NFBisms said:

It’s hilarious and sad to me how people on the internet, like in this thread, only ever become friendly and civil when another party agrees with them, and then they can pat each other on the back for being so “objectively right” together.

“Like in this thread”? I enjoy having civil disagreements and talking things out with people. Just because someone believes in objective quality doesn’t mean they can’t agree to disagree on something. I came to this site to get away from echo chambers, but it really seems like you’re doing that whole “patting each other on the back” thing right now.

You guys all eviscerated the prequels for years. This place was known as a center of George Lucas hate. And that’s not something I’ve ever approved of, but now it’s like you’ve gone in the opposite direction and are refusing to acknowledge the existence of bad movies. It feels hypocritical. I enjoy the prequels for what they are, but I’m fully aware that they’re poorly written, poorly constructed movies. And as I’ve said before, I think it’s important to point out bad writing when we see it, rather than trying to claim it doesn’t exist.

But, you’ll admit that some films are simply poorly made and poorly written, right? There may not be some inherent metric for judging a film’s quality, but the fact that we keep trying to create metrics to assess films (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, etc.) shows that we are aware of inherent quality differences between the movies we watch. It’s like how we know the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing. The child’s parents may have a greater subjective attachment to their kid’s art, but it’s almost universally understood that the Mona Lisa is better conceived and better executed as a work of art, even thought we have no way of quantifying that.

Prequel Obi-Wan is a bad person, his character is written inconsistently, and he’s overrated by fans. I know the whole “He mutilates Anakin and leaves him to burn to death next to a volcano” was something George had come up with a long time ago. It’s still stupid, though. It goes against Obi-Wan’s character, and it doesn’t make sense with the tone of their reunion on the Death Star.

Qui-Gon Jinn should never have existed. His existence contradicts what’s said in the OT, he takes away screentime and development from Obi-Wan, and because of him, Obi-Wan lacks agency since he only trained Anakin because Qui-Gon told him to. The fact that Qui-Gon is basically the protagonist of the first film of the prequel trilogy was a huge misstep.

Prequel Palpatine was excellent until halfway through RotS. Before that point, he was really well acted and his evil was subtle and sinister. Palpatine in the second half of that movie was a clown and ruined the intimidation factor of the character.

(Maybe these aren’t unpopular opinions on this site, but they are unpopular elsewhere.)

Cthulhunicron said:

The Star Wars universe is pretty limited, and I don’t think there’s really anywhere for the story to go.

Hypothetically, the universe has limitless potential for new stories to tell and settings to explore, but since the people in charge of this IP are unwilling to step outside of the franchise’s comfort zone and make anything too unfamiliar, it will continue to stagnate, and the universe will shrink. This isn’t just Disney’s fault or modern Lucasfilm’s fault, by the way. This was a problem under George, as well. The franchise is too fettered to its past.

So, if movies can’t actually have their quality measured, then what’s the point of lists like the AFI Top 100? Why create official rankings of movies that are generally considered great if there’s no way to actually quantify that?

theprequelsrule said:

SparkySywer said:

Screw the actual quality of the prequels or their hypothetical reboot, the angry zoomers alone would be worth it.

What the hell is a zoomer?

Gen Z. The one after millennials.

I was wondering if the name was ironic, or if you used to think the prequels ruled until you had a change of opinion lol.

I get why George added the montage, of course. He wanted to give the ending a greater sense of finality, while also tying it into the upcoming prequels, as a way of making the saga feel more complete when watched in chronological order. RotJ was retroactively changed from the finale of a three-part story to the finale of a six-part story, so he wanted to give its ending more weight and a sense of total closure. Arguably, the new ending works better if someone is watching in Chronological or Machete Order, but I don’t watch in those orders, and to me, it still just feels forced.

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Critics are very often wrong about the films they judge. Let’s not drag down the OT to try to make the newer films look better. That won’t get us anywhere.

Citizen Kane is objectively a better film than The Room, for example. No one will dispute that. Some films are simply better put together than others. A film is like a piece of architecture. We judge it partly based on our own personal design tastes, but we also judge it based on how well or shoddily it’s been built.

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

I’ve actually seen the opposite happening. When TFA came out, it was met with an overwhelmingly positive reaction from the vast majority of people. As time has gone on, though, I’ve noticed that fan perception of the movie has soured. TLJ’s perception is still just as split between love and hate as it always was.

I think it’s important for love of a franchise to never be unconditional. We’re not obligated to love whatever new content a brand produces. Fans ought to be critical of subpar material when they see it. Otherwise, if corporations are able to put out content and have it be praised and profitable regardless of quality, then they’ll pay less and less attention to quality in the future. Star Wars content is not inherently good just because it’s Star Wars. The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films. It had to earn that distinction. Modern Star Wars has been able to stand on the OT’s shoulders, coasting on fan good will and nostalgia while often not being able to stand on its own. We all want Star Wars to be the best it can be. We know it can be better than what it’s become now. There’s nothing wrong with calling attention to that.

The planet celebration montage added in the RotJ Special Edition is stupid and doesn’t make sense. It wraps up the story too neatly to the point of being unrealistic, while the original version is more open-ended. Palpatine is defeated, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the Empire is. And I always liked the EU version of events where the Empire falls apart due to infighting, but still exists in a fragmented, diminished form in later stories, being just one of many factions at work in the galaxy. That feels like a more realistic progression than that whole “Operation Cinder” business ending the Galactic Civil War within just a single year.

General Grievous is ridiculous. He should have never been brought over to live action.

Characters need to stay dead more often in Star Wars.

The added Cloud City windows trigger my OCD because of how they disappear between shots. They’re not worth existing if they create more continuity errors than the film originally had.

The final shot of the movie is just a closeup of Joh Yowza’s salivating mouth as he consumes the camera.

I like it. The idea of the Republic using droids makes more sense to me, since it’s more humane than using clones. I’ve tried doing my own prequel rewrites before, and I always got stuck on how to define the connection between the clones and the Mandalorians. Your idea makes sense, though I want to hear more about these Clone Masters.

theprequelsrule said:

Servii said:

Hey, man! Those were some rough years when the GOUT was my go-to way of watching the trilogy. As a kid, I had been so excited for the Blu-ray release. Then, after the Blu-ray came out, I heard about the new changes, and saw the clip of Vader shouting “Nooo!” in RotJ. That was the last straw for me regarding the Special Editions. I had accepted every change up until then, but that one was just too much. So I stuck with my 2006 discs for the longest time, only getting the Blu-rays so I could enjoy Harmy’s works of art.

Lol, well as an older teenager I looked forward to the 1995 THX remastered release. This was on a format known as “VHS”. 🙂

Before that the only versions I had were taped from network TV - often edited for time! And they were taped on a Video Cassette Recorder (VCR for short) that my family would rent from our local independently owned video rental store.

I do remember VHS lol. In the early 2000s, my family would go to the local video store every other Friday and rent one of the OT films to watch. The store had two copies of each movie: the 1995 THX version with the faces on the box, and the 1997 Special Editions. We would often go back and forth on which versions we watched, and we thought it was neat that we had options. My two siblings and I would always argue over which to rent, since each of us had a different favorite of the trilogy (mine being Star Wars, of course).

theprequelsrule said:

Servii said:

theprequelsrule said:

Servii said:

To be honest, I’m not totally sure about the name “Xim the Despot.” Maybe something a little more grandiose sounding. I’d like to hear more about his character, though.

Mentioned in passing in the old Daley Han Solo novels from the 80s. The background info that I have for him is directly from those books.

Never mind, then, I retract my issue. I always love digging up old pre-PT lore about the history of the galaxy. It’s sparse and you have to really look for it, but it’s fascinating how it gets the imagination turning and gives you a sense of how the prequels could have gone.

That’s an interesting choice to have the Calamari as the second most developed species. I don’t remember which species has that position in canon, but I had assumed it was something like the Muuns or the Bith. I’m not an expert on that, though.

They provide the main capital ships for the Rebellion at The Battle of Endor, so it made sense to me to give them an extensive interstellar civilization. Sadly the design of their ships happens to be one of my least favourite designs from the OT. They look like giant space turds! 😁

Great, now I can’t unsee that. I actually love the Mon Calamari ships lol. Their round design is a nice contrast to the angular Imperial ships.

I’m sure the design contrast was indeed intentional, but what was the inspiration for the actual design? Pickles?

I would have based it on something like a Manta Ray or other acquatic life.

I think that they didn’t want something that was too overtly aquatic looking. The ships we see still seem like something an aquatic species would build, but don’t feel out of place in a Rebel fleet with a multi-species crew. That’s what I think they were going for.

Hey, man! Those were some rough years when the GOUT was my go-to way of watching the trilogy. As a kid, I had been so excited for the Blu-ray release. Then, after the Blu-ray came out, I heard about the new changes, and saw the clip of Vader shouting “Nooo!” in RotJ. That was the last straw for me regarding the Special Editions. I had accepted every change up until then, but that one was just too much. So I stuck with my 2006 discs for the longest time, only getting the Blu-rays so I could enjoy Harmy’s works of art.

theprequelsrule said:

I can’t prove it, but my feeling is that there is a silent majority of Star Wars fans that are desperately waiting for Disney to reboot the damn PT!

Certainly a lot of Boomers or GenXers probably feel this way. Maybe the older millennials too.

Back in 2012, I would have been fully on board with that idea. Now, though, I don’t trust Disney and Lucasfilm to fare any better than George did.

Also, the zoomers would revolt.

theprequelsrule said:

Servii said:

To be honest, I’m not totally sure about the name “Xim the Despot.” Maybe something a little more grandiose sounding. I’d like to hear more about his character, though.

Mentioned in passing in the old Daley Han Solo novels from the 80s. The background info that I have for him is directly from those books.

Never mind, then, I retract my issue. I always love digging up old pre-PT lore about the history of the galaxy. It’s sparse and you have to really look for it, but it’s fascinating how it gets the imagination turning and gives you a sense of how the prequels could have gone.

That’s an interesting choice to have the Calamari as the second most developed species. I don’t remember which species has that position in canon, but I had assumed it was something like the Muuns or the Bith. I’m not an expert on that, though.

They provide the main capital ships for the Rebellion at The Battle of Endor, so it made sense to me to give them an extensive interstellar civilization. Sadly the design of their ships happens to be one of my least favourite designs from the OT. They look like giant space turds! 😁

Great, now I can’t unsee that. I actually love the Mon Calamari ships lol. Their round design is a nice contrast to the angular Imperial ships.

theprequelsrule said:

I prefer GOUT!

Madlad!