Anchorhead said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
I think bashing ROTJ is a tired cliche...
a lot of inventing faults that weren't there...
It's a great film like the other two and I wish people would stop perpetuating the myth that it's the bad one in the trilogy.
As much as you may not care to hear it or accept it, there are some people who genuinely disliked Return when they saw it in the theater, myself among them. We felt every bit as let down by it as you do by the prequels.
Our thoughts aren't cliche, they aren't invented, nor is our view a myth. For a great many people, the story & style of Return fits better with the prequels than they do with the first two films. That's been clearly demonstrated here and backed up with examples - not tired cliches.
I explained my thoughts here;
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/How-would-you-have-done-ROTJ/post/370539/#TopicPost370539
Truthfully, when this came on the screen...
...it was all I could do to keep from walking out of the theater.
"For a great many people, the story & style of Return fits better with the prequels than they do with the first two films. That's been clearly demonstrated here and backed up with examples - not tired cliches."
Not successfully demonstrated, not backed up with examples that prove the point. There is a huge gulf between the sincerity and seriousness that was in ROTJ (see the whole ROTJ Luke-Vader storyline for the best of it) and the ineffectual sweetness and unconvincing blandness and artificiality of TPM, let alone the utter soullessness of the later two prequels (which you really should see before you make generalizations about the prequels). TPM did have its stronger elements, most notably stuff involving Qui Gon and particularly his death, but that stuff was set in a sea of weak stuff that did not convince. ROTJ had its lighter elements (which people never cease giving it hell for), but they were set in a film which had strong real feeling aplenty and a convincing imaginative vision. ROTJ rang true, ewoks and humor and all. TPM did not. Whereas the later prequels (which are very different from TPM) had no hint of any sort of emotional depth and had a totally unconvincing imaginative vision that made TPM look convincing by contrast. ROTJ was vital and alive and heartfelt. TPM was mostly just plastic and the other two prequels were even less than that. I'll remind you that you claim to have not seen ROTJ in many years, whereas I have watched it recently and studied it carefully, and the same with the prequels.
ROTJ had somewhat childish elements set against a foundation mentality that was more emotionally serious. TPM was just childish. ROTJ is certainly different from ANH, but like ANH it is sincere and heartfelt. TPM was different from the later two prequels, but like them it did not ring true.
Re your ewok picture, picking on one creature that appears only briefly and is a very minor part of the film does not work as an argument to condemn the whole film. And while that baby ewok is perhaps a tad more cute than it needs to be, the reality is that there are baby animals that can look extremely cute similar to that, as if designed for cuteness, so it is not so unconvincing as a creature. Plus, the majority of ewoks did not look like that and actually looked rather serious and fierce (particularly if people bother to look them close in the face and read their facial expressions, which people don't seem to think of doing). That baby ewok is still miles better than cartoon creatures like Jar Jar who don't even look 3-dimensional and who are designed for humor to the point of looking like jokes. That baby ewok is alive and vibrant and looks like it has a mind of its own, not like Jar Jar. It is even better than the Trade Federation guys, who were not cgi, because it is cuteness in a creature you might expect cuteness in, while they were cartoon humor in villains. You picked on the worst of ROTJ and it's still way ahead of the prequels.
I explained my thoughts here;
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/How-would-you-have-done-ROTJ/post/370539/#TopicPost370539
And I answered them in full weeks ago.
As for invention, cliche and myth, I must disagree. The same tired points are rallied against ROTJ endlessly, despite the fact that they are inaccurate in their view of the film and its specifics and refuse to recognize the merits (often at least) and overall nature of the film. The view of ROTJ as this lame utterly childish film that stinks compared to the other two is indeed a myth, one that simply does not take into consideration the true nature of the film and all the stuff in it that soundly refutes such a viewpoint. And I do see invention, where people look for faults that are not there or blow wildly out of proportion things which are not harmful at all. ROTJ has been beaten over the head unfairly for over a generation. One would think that after Lucas finally did put out films that fitted the derogatory description given to ROTJ, people would see the difference and forgive ROTJ for faults and quirks that are nothing compared to those of the prequels. Obviously, you're not going to agree with my views stated here, but that's how I feel on the matter and my view is the product of many viewings and much thought.
And yes I know some people disliked ROTJ in the theater, but they have been joined over the years by many people who originally liked the film. I think there has been subtle pressure to adopt a certain view about ROTJ. And as for people dislikng it in the theaters, that can happen with any film, no matter how great, so it says little. People who felt ROTJ was a huge let-down perhaps expected the wrong things of Star Wars. From the very beginning, Star wars was jokey, with 3PO and R2's comedy act in the first film and the blatant comedy elements in the Leia rescue/escape from the death star part of the story. The ewoks did not admittedly have precedent in the first film, but they are rather less purely cute than they are often given credit for, and I don't find it impossible to believe them as being in the same universe as the first film. Unlike Jar Jar, who is clearly just a Roger Rabbit transplant. The ewoks stretch the mold a bit, but they do not break it. Remember, the first film had some pretty dumb unconvincing creatures in the cantina -the devil and werewolf costumes come to mind. Those appeared only briefly, but then so did the baby ewok you showed above. The argument that Star Wars is for kids has been overused in recent times, used to pretend the OT's for-kids-but-designed-to-be-appreciated-by-adults targeting was the same as the PT's for-kids-and-morons mentality. However, it is fact that Lucas indicated as early as 1977 that Star wars was for kids. So it should not have been expected to keep entirely adult in taste. However even ROTJ is, if approached with an open flexible mind, a film that can be appreciated by adults. People overreact to the ewoks and react to a bit of humor and fun like it was paedophile porn spliced into the film.
And let's remember, the ewoks were NOT the cute Care Bears they were made into in the cartoon, nor were they stuffed toys like they were in the merchandising. They were fierce little fuckers who nearly ATE the main characters. And their facial expressions varied from the serious and oddly mature (Wicket) to the downright nasty-looking (Chirpa). There was a distinct streak of untamed dangerous wildness in them, very at odds with the cute stuffed toy image they are often laden with. Yes they were used for comedy, but so were R2 and 3PO from the first film onwards, and R2 was always designed to be cute, the stubby little droid with his cute little noises and comically independent personality.
I notice from your tone that you are getting a tad pissed off with me. There is no need to make this personal or heated. We disagree over a film, that is all. Admittedly we both feel strongly about it and the issue is personal to us, but I would hope we could get along.
