Vaderisnothayden

Johnboy3434 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

You're still not getting it. Canon exists independent of Lucasfilm's word. Canon is about what's the real thing, hence what's the real thing is the real canon. Anybody with a brain can take a stab at judging what's the real thing and thus what's the real canon. This is not about "personal canon", this is about the issue of what's the real Star Wars. I do not pick and choose to suit myself and then call that canon. I studied Star Wars works and the overall sitaution and then made my judgement on what I believe to be the real thing. And I believe in my view, after going through so much effort in judging and examining. I do not take some piece of EU and say "I like that, so it's canon". It's not the real thing, so it's not canon, WHETHER I LIKE IT OR NOT. What I like or don't like is irrelevant, what I want is irrelevant . What counts is what happens to be the real thing as judged by the standard of the films that made the legend. As for versions of the films, it is very obvious which versions of the films are the real thing. I don't pick to my taste there, I merely go by the original that made the legend.

As for what grinds your gears, judging from your posting now and in the past, what grinds your gears is somebody confidently expressing an opinion you don't agree with. And you react to this by getting insulting. And that grinds my gears.

BUT WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION? The idea of canon originated with the decision of which holy writings were considered inspired. That decision was made by people of authority, people who had intimate knowledge of the workings of language and history (such as it was back then). The point is, the people who made the decision had some degree of QUALIFICATION. You are a fan. I am a fan. We have no qualifications. In comparison with the people who made the decision on holy canon, we aren't the priests or the scribes. We're the farmhands tilling the soil. You speak of judging what's "real" Star Wars as though it were an objective process that any individual could go through and reach the same conclusion every time. I challenge, Hell, I DARE anyone here to detail this process in full without analyzing a single subjective quality. It can't be done, because this analysis and judgment is completely subjective on every level and can literally yield any result that includes some version of the original film. Why? Because other people view Star Wars in other ways, Vader. It is your personal canon, whether you say it is, whether you THINK it is, or not.

No, what grinds my gears is not a differing opinion. What grinds my gears is intellectual dishonesty. Those who own a franchise decide its canon. Now, always, and forever. This is inarguable.

No they don't. This has been proven by Lucasfilm pushing EU as canon (when it's plainly not) and Lucas pushing the SEs and PT as canon (when they're plainly not). If they can go so far wrong on canon then their word counts for nothing (on the topic of canon). Just because somebody owns a franchise doesn't mean they know best what's the real thing -Lucas is proof of this. If canon is just what the supposed authority (franchise owner, etc) says is canon then it's quite meaningless. Just because they label something canon doesn't make it in actual fact the real thing. All you have is a label, nothing more. A label like that is an artificial thing that says nothing real about the true nature of the labeled thing. But the whole idea of canon is what's the real thing, which is a question about a thing's true nature. And we need no help from Lucas or Lucasfilm to see what's the real thing. The real thing, the question of what is the real thing, is something real and substantial. Unlike a "canon" decided by Lucasfilm or Lucas. So WHAT if they own the franchise. That is merely a legal reality, not a moral or artistic thing. It does not in any way make their view paramount when it is clearly mistaken. Inarguable, my ass hole.

The historical knowledge of scholars back at the times of the definition of most bible canons (there are more than one -different groups and religions disagree on canon) was actually not that great. People had some pretty funny ideas about history back in those times. As for their knowledge of language, they knew languages but linguistics and history of language was not a field they were expert in, which left them missing a crucial source of info for their judgments. They were not so much experts as you seem to think.

I'm not going to go into what qualification I have to judge Star Wars canon, but I would argue that no special exclusive qualification is needed. Star Wars is not the bible. It is not esoteric. We are not dealing with works created long ago in a different sort of society, their origins lost in the distant past. What you need most of all to judge Star Wars canon is to to look at the important works and understand the nature of them and how they work. You need to be able to analyze the mentality they project. You need to be able to analyze a work of art and tease out its mentality and underlying principles. Many people are capable of that. I am capable of that.

And you could not list for me any person whose qualifications would make their judgement on the matter of Star Wars canon so superior to other people's as to make it impossible to challenge. Even Lucas has gotten it so wrong and he was at the very center of Star Wars for so long. If Lucas can get it wrong then so can any other "expert".

You put your faith in some higher authority or experts. I recognize that such authority has no meaningful authority and that those experts have nothing essential to the judgement task that I or many other people don't have.

I would suggest that some of things you take as subjective are not so very subjective. We have disagreed on that before. Not everything about examining, judging and understanding art is subjective. You think it is. I do not.

It is your personal canon, whether you say it is, whether you THINK it is, or not.

No, because ultimately all the careful judging effort that I advocate and go into is just a careful precaution against error. Really, it is blindingly obvious what is the real canon and what isn't. It's self-evident. People can choose to not see it if they wish, that is their choice. But it is out there obvious for everyone to see. Once you know the nature of the different elements, it is obvious that the prequels go against the OT in their very soul and fundamental principles, it is obvious that the SE is just sticking things that don't belong into the original films and that the originals which made the legend are the real thing, it is obvious that novels and comics and games exist in another sort of less real Star Wars universe and that things like the Holiday Special and the Ewok movies or 80s cartoons are not serious attempts at Star Wars fiction. Etc etc. These things are obvious. 

I didn't pick or choose any canon to suit myself, I just looked to what was the real thing. If I chose a canon to suit my tastes I'd include various other things that I'd love to include as canon if my priority wasn't adhering to a canon that's really there and has an independent existence. Instead I just go by what's obviously the real thing. I'm not interested in dividing lines that are purely subjective. I'm only interested in ones that have an objective existence, and a dividing line that divides the OOT off from all subordinate works is a real objectively existing dividing line. Star Wars is about movies. Everything else is subordinate. And the later movies are anything but real. So there you have it, canon and apocrypha.

But if somebody wants to believe differently they are entitled to. I'm not going to tell them they can't have their opinion. Whereas you are trying to tell me I can't have mine. You're trying to force your tyrannical worship-the-word-of-the-authority viewpoint down my throat. I don't appreciate it.

No, what grinds my gears is not a differing opinion. What grinds my gears is intellectual dishonesty. Those who own a franchise decide its canon. Now, always, and forever. This is inarguable.

Intellectual dishonesty. That's a laugh. What this really amounts to is you see some thinking that differs from yours in its fundamental principles and you don't understand it and its difference from your way of thinking bothers you. It challenges you, it challenges the very principles by which you think. So it makes you angry. So you slap on the label  "intellectual dishonesty" to justify your anger to yourself. People are always finding excuses for their aggressive feelings against things they don't understand and/or which are different from them. It's the oldest story in the world. My thinking on the matter of Star Wars canon is subjected to a painful tortured intellectual honesty, but you wouldn't know that, because you don't care to understand me or to even acknowledge that you don't understand me. All you want to do is condemn me and dismiss my disturbing challenging opinion.

But I'm tired of this. You literally can't converse with me without being insulting. Whether it's calling me ignorant or pointing to me as an example of what supposedly gives OOT purists a bad name or accusing me of intellectual dishonesty. You simply cannot GET that civilized discussion doesn't involve throwing insults at somebody just because they disagree with you. Why the hell should I honor any more of your narrow-minded insulting posts with a reply? I don't see why. So I'm done with my side of this discussion. Natter on if you wish, just don't expect me to reply. Find some good insults to throw at me while you're at it, because the ones you've used are a bit boring.

skyjedi2005 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

skyjedi2005 said:

The radio dramas and novelizations have been thrown out as canon because they contradict the prequels.

Where did you hear this?

 

There is no official source but i think the Canon was  changed and these became EU.  Lucas even had the novelizations rewritten as Juvenile novelizations in 2004 to reflect the changes imposed by the prequels.

Even though Lucas contradicted himself in Attack of the Clones by Making Owen Lars Anakin's step brother when he was supposed to be Obi Wan Kenobi's brother.  As decided by Lucas during story conference on return of the jedi and made its way into the novel.

But this like any of the major retcons introduced during the oot could be excused as he was making it all up as he went. Vader being the father and Leia the sister.  The change in the Emporer from when star wars was written to how the character became later.

In the prequels Padme dies in childbirth from a broken heart. But Leia remembers her Her "real mother" in rotj.

Even the character of Anakin Skywalker as described in the originals is desecrated by Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith.  But its all okay now the changes are excused as that lying Kenobi s.o.b again.

Yeah, Kenobi is now totally a pathological liar. lol

Johnboy3434 said:

 My beef isn't with those who think that only the movies are canon instead of including the EU. My beef is with those who pick and choose certain versions of the movies and maybe certain parts of the EU as part of their personal canons and then proclaim it as indisputable truth, like Vaderhasanoverlylongusername has done on more than one occasion and will most likely continue to do. That grinds my gears, and so I post in response. While the last line of my previous post may sound like I feel otherwise, I have nothing against OOT purists. This is about one user, not the whole movement.

You're still not getting it. Canon exists independent of Lucasfilm's word. Canon is about what's the real thing, hence what's the real thing is the real canon. Anybody with a brain can take a stab at judging what's the real thing and thus what's the real canon. This is not about "personal canon", this is about the issue of what's the real Star Wars. I do not pick and choose to suit myself and then call that canon. I studied Star Wars works and the overall sitaution and then made my judgement on what I believe to be the real thing. And I believe in my view, after going through so much effort in judging and examining. I do not take some piece of EU and say "I like that, so it's canon". It's not the real thing, so it's not canon, WHETHER I LIKE IT OR NOT. What I like or don't like is irrelevant, what I want is irrelevant . What counts is what happens to be the real thing as judged by the standard of the films that made the legend. As for versions of the films, it is very obvious which versions of the films are the real thing. I don't pick to my taste there, I merely go by the original that made the legend.

As for what grinds your gears, judging from your posting now and in the past, what grinds your gears is somebody confidently expressing an opinion you don't agree with. And you react to this by getting insulting. And that grinds my gears.

skyjedi2005 said:

The radio dramas and novelizations have been thrown out as canon because they contradict the prequels.

Where did you hear this?

Gaffer Tape said:

Johnboy3434 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

No way. The films shouldn't have to kow tow to the EU. The EU is by very nature non-canonical, no matter what certain Lucasfilm employees think, and Lucas is thoroughly justified in ignoring it or going counter to it. The only question is whether he should be allowing his employees to officially call it canon if he's not going to treat it as that in his work. I think he shouldn't. I think it's a con to call the stuff canon when it's clearly not treated as canon. I think it's called canon just to to aid sales and wouldn't be called canon if not for that. The EU needs to be soundly put in its place. They should do the honest and appropriate thing and declare it all non-canon.

That's not your call to make. Whatever their reasons for saying it's canon, the point is that they say it, and so it is. The company that owns the right to a franchise can define its canon however it wants, so the EU is not "by very nature" non-canonical. If GL disagreed so vehemently with the presence of EU in Star Wars canon, he would fire the entire team of individuals whose sole job is to maintain a massive database on what constitutes canon, and who keep threads in the official message boards open for questions from readers. High-visibility jobs like that wouldn't last long if they were as unnecessary as you think.

I've noticed from your previous posts that you seem to think you have much more authority in these matters than you actually do. First, you insist that the OOT is the canon version simply because you think GL has lost sight of some nebulous concept of what SW "is" (which smacks of the same self-styled elitist definition as the phrase "true fan"), despite having no involvement in the production of the films of even an affiliation with the companies that made them. Now, you use the fact that Lucas Licensing is a business to off-handedly dismiss any official statements on the definition of canon. There's no logical follow-through to these statements at all. Simply put, you know less about what Star Wars "is" than Lucas and company ever will, because they DECIDE what it "is".

OOT purists, if you ever wondered why people have a tendency to look down on you, you need only look at people like Vaderisnothayden.

 

Nope.  Gotta agree with Vaderisnothayden on this one.  Nearly all of us here consider the OOT to be Star Wars canon over the '04 editions, myself included.  That's why most of us are here.

And while I've been a fan of EU and oftentimes consider some parts canonical, and it's obvious that Lucas the company considers it, it's even more obvious that Lucas the man does not.  He's made several statements saying he ignores EU works and has no idea what happens in them.  Even that wouldn't be so damning except for the fact that the prequels outright contradict elements of EU that the company considers to be canon.

Granted, we get our jollies off on holding opposing views from Lucas, but it's extremely funny that the company is pulled in two different directions.  I agree with Vaderisnothayden that the books are given such high status solely to boost sales.  I whole-heartedly believe that.  It's a little bit contradictory for Vaderisnothayden to follow Lucas's opinion on this when he doesn't in any other situation, but I certainly believe the fact that George shits on EU validates Vaderisnothayden's opinion.

Great post. As for me being contradictory, I'm not really. I don't depend on Lucas's view for my own. My own view of what's canon is based on my own examination of the various works and thinking on the subject. Lucas's view is merely relevant when talking about his work or when talking about what is the view of the recognized (by some) "authority". However that fact that Lucas's view on this agrees with my own on this is not accidental. Works like the expanded universe works are naturally the sort of thing that's non-canonical. It's instinctive and natural to see them as non-canonical.

I agree it's funy to see the company pulled in two different directions. Their own boss undermines their "canon" with his statements. I wonder if it drives them up the wall.

Johnboy3434 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

No way. The films shouldn't have to kow tow to the EU. The EU is by very nature non-canonical, no matter what certain Lucasfilm employees think, and Lucas is thoroughly justified in ignoring it or going counter to it. The only question is whether he should be allowing his employees to officially call it canon if he's not going to treat it as that in his work. I think he shouldn't. I think it's a con to call the stuff canon when it's clearly not treated as canon. I think it's called canon just to to aid sales and wouldn't be called canon if not for that. The EU needs to be soundly put in its place. They should do the honest and appropriate thing and declare it all non-canon.

That's not your call to make. Whatever their reasons for saying it's canon, the point is that they say it, and so it is. The company that owns the right to a franchise can define its canon however it wants, so the EU is not "by very nature" non-canonical. If GL disagreed so vehemently with the presence of EU in Star Wars canon, he would fire the entire team of individuals whose sole job is to maintain a massive database on what constitutes canon, and who keep threads in the official message boards open for questions from readers. High-visibility jobs like that wouldn't last long if they were as unnecessary as you think.

I've noticed from your previous posts that you seem to think you have much more authority in these matters than you actually do. First, you insist that the OOT is the canon version simply because you think GL has lost sight of some nebulous concept of what SW "is" (which smacks of the same self-styled elitist definition as the phrase "true fan"), despite having no involvement in the production of the films of even an affiliation with the companies that made them. Now, you use the fact that Lucas Licensing is a business to off-handedly dismiss any official statements on the definition of canon. There's no logical follow-through to these statements at all. Simply put, you know less about what Star Wars "is" than Lucas and company ever will, because they DECIDE what it "is".

OOT purists, if you ever wondered why people have a tendency to look down on you, you need only look at people like Vaderisnothayden.

Another insulting post from Johnboy. At least you didn't call me "ignorant" this time.

You seem to adhere to the slavish view that canon is just what the company says it is, but that is failing to recognize what the idea of canon is about. It's all about the question of what's the real thing. And the company does not always know best what is the real thing. As such, something is not made canon just because they say it is. If canon were a value that consisted solely of what a company SAID was the real thing, then it would be a worthless value. But canon is about the very real question of what's the real thing, and that exists quite independent of any company's word. As such, there is a canon that exists independent of a company's decisions. And anybody with a brain can take a stab at judging what this real canon is.

GL is not going to fire his EU pseudo-canon employees, because they help to bring him money. But he has made it very clear that he does not consider the EU to be canon. He has talked of it beng a separate universe from his Star Wars and compared the situation to the Star Trek situation, in which there are two universes, the live action and the books etc EU which is not canon. I'm amazed you take Lucas employing these guys as some sort of evidence that he believes in the EU as canon. All it is is evidence of marketing strategy. Indeed, you YOURSELF have previously acknowledged that Lucas does not consider the EU to be canon. You passed off his view then by saying that one day he'll die and then the Lucasfilm EU-is-canon idea will be the one left standing.

GL has certainly lost sight of what Star Wars is. A lot of people will agree with me on that. It's not elitist to say he has, merely accurate. He has clearly lost touch with the original Star Wars. No, Lucas and Lucasfilm do not decide what Star Wars is. The OOT films that made the legend of Star Wars decide that. They're the measure of Star Wars. And Lucas has broken away from those films and their mentality. The "Star Wars" that's being pushed these days, far from deciding what Star Wars is, just isn't really real Star Wars itself at all. And you don't need to be involved in the making of Star Wars to judge this. You don't need to be involved in the making of a piece of art to be able to judge it. All you need is a brain. 

Akwat Kbrana said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

God knows how you can see a mediocre film like Raiders as being one of the greatest films ever made. Two good films (Crusade and Doom), one mediocre film (Raiders) and one bad film (Skull).

Wait...are you really saying that Doom is superior to Raiders?

 

Of course. It's way superior. It's alive. Raiders is subdued.

ChainsawAsh said:

I think it's amazing that anyone could find "Doom" or "Crusade" to be superior to "Raiders."

"Raiders" is a perfect adventure film.  There isn't a moment wasted or a character that's uninteresting, and none of the humor is over-the-top or out-of-place.

"Doom" is a corny movie under the guise of a "darker" film.  I hate Willie.  The bad guys are bland and boring.  In general ... the movie isn't very good.  It's lucky that it has some fun moments.  The best thing I can say about it is that they definitely tried to do something different from "Raiders" instead of copying it.

"Crusade" is just the opposite.  It's a carbon copy of "Raiders" with a different religious MacGuffin, Brody's character is completely ruined, all the humor is campy and out-of-place, and don't get me started on the young Indy sequence.  The best thing I can say about it is that any time Sean Connery and Harrison Ford are together in a scene, it's fun to watch them play off of each other.

"Skull" is pretty much the same as "Crusade," but without any heart, and all the secondary characters are boring.  I didn't mind the alien thing, but the CGI was way over-the-top, and the humor was just far too much.  But the graveyard scene was brilliant - hell, everything from Indy meeting Mutt until the graveyard scene was over was pretty damn good.  The rest ... yeah.

"Raiders" 10/10
"Doom" 5/10
"Crusade" 6/10
"Skull" 5/10

Basically, you have "Raiders," one of the greatest films ever made ... and then three shitty movies Harrison Ford starred in that had "Indiana Jones" in the title.

And I just realized that this is INCREDIBLY off-topic, so I'll stop typing right about ... now.

"Raiders" is a perfect adventure film.  There isn't a moment wasted or a character that's uninteresting, and none of the humor is over-the-top or out-of-place.

Raiders is hardly perfect. It's a rather limited film that leaves me disappointed every time I watch it. And it certainly wastes moments on uninteresting characters, seeing as various of the characters are uninteresting (such as Belloq and his Nazi officer). Its humor wasn't great (except when Indy shoots the swordsman).

"Doom" is a corny movie under the guise of a "darker" film.  I hate Willie.  The bad guys are bland and boring.  In general ... the movie isn't very good.  It's lucky that it has some fun moments.  The best thing I can say about it is that they definitely tried to do something different from "Raiders" instead of copying it.

The bad guys are rather more interesting than the unenthusiastically portrayed bad guys in Raiders. Willie can be annoying, but she's acted with enthusiasm and isn't all bad. While Short Round is better than any character in Raiders other than Indy himself. The film has intensity and atmosphere, two things Raiders is sorely lacking.

"Crusade" is just the opposite.  It's a carbon copy of "Raiders" with a different religious MacGuffin, Brody's character is completely ruined, all the humor is campy and out-of-place, and don't get me started on the young Indy sequence.  The best thing I can say about it is that any time Sean Connery and Harrison Ford are together in a scene, it's fun to watch them play off of each other.

Hardly a carbon-copy of Raiders or you'd probably like it more. It's a distinctly different film, with a different tone and mentality and it's defined by the Indy-Indy's dad double-act, something very different from Raiders. There's some humor that's overdone or too silly, but much of the humor is good fun, a considerable improvement on Raiders, which took itself way too seriously. The young Indy sequence was surprisingly likeable. Brody's character? Seriously, who gives a damn about Brody. Boring character. Also, the MacGuffin was much better handled in Crusade.

"Skull" is pretty much the same as "Crusade," but without any heart, and all the secondary characters are boring.  I didn't mind the alien thing, but the CGI was way over-the-top, and the humor was just far too much.  But the graveyard scene was brilliant - hell, everything from Indy meeting Mutt until the graveyard scene was over was pretty damn good.  The rest ... yeah.

Skull is way different from Crusade. A very bland film.

Basically, you have "Raiders," one of the greatest films ever made ... and then three shitty movies Harrison Ford starred in that had "Indiana Jones" in the title.

God knows how you can see a mediocre film like Raiders as being one of the greatest films ever made. Two good films (Crusade and Doom), one mediocre film (Raiders) and one bad film (Skull).

No way. The films shouldn't have to kow tow to the EU. The EU is by very nature non-canonical, no matter what certain Lucasfilm employees think, and Lucas is thoroughly justified in ignoring it or going counter to it. The only question is whether he should be allowing his employees to officially call it canon if he's not going to treat it as that in his work. I think he shouldn't. I think it's a con to call the stuff canon when it's clearly not treated as canon. I think it's called canon just to to aid sales and wouldn't be called canon if not for that. The EU needs to be soundly put in its place. They should do the honest and appropriate thing and declare it all non-canon.

skyjedi2005 said:

I think that a lot more people liked the prequels than people now want to admit to.  People went to see them multiple times in theaters and they made some serious cash for Lucas.  They were much more lucrative in the long run than the originals were.

Add on the home video sales and Lucas made a killing in terms of these being financially sucessful.  And these films do what popcorn films are supposed to do they entertained people for a couple hours in their boringly dismal lives. 

I have known kids who love these films.  They were made for a different generation.  Lucas knows his audience.

 

Adults in their 30's and 40's or even 20's are not going to enjoy films made for 9-12 year olds and 13 year olds for sith.

At the end of the day i think it is okay the new films were not made for me.  I am an adult.  The wrong such audience for childrens films.

I already know someone will come on and say the originals were for all ages.  Well at least star wars and empire strikes back were.  JEDI started the kiddie stuff with teddy bears beating the empire and celebrating as harrison said a teddybear picnic.

Really not all that suprising though even all the sequels to raiders of the lost ark got increasingly childish until the fourth film there is no peril and its like a warner bros Looney Tunes cartoon.

ROTJ was overall for all ages too, despite the ewoks. It's a kids' film, but it works for adults in a way the prequels don't. Sure, you have to be open-minded about the ewoks, but they're not all that terrible. Other than the ewoks, ROTJ is not kiddy in a way that would turn off adults. Whereas the prequels seem designed overall not just for kids but for STUPID kids. Lucas should have made the prequels so they'd work for all ages. Not doing so was a betrayal. 

Are you sure the prequels were more lucrative than the originals? Even if you calculate for money value changing over the decades since the time of the originals? I do know that they had a much weaker impact on kids.

I think the sequels to Raiders were an improvement on Raiders (except the most recent one). Raiders is actually a rather bland film. I get disappointed by it every time I watch it. And it doesn't use Ford's talents enough, nor does it fully exploit the humor inherent in the whole Indiana Jones thing. The only thing I love in that film is when Indy shoots the guy with the sword and the expression on Ford's face in that scene, which is priceless. Temple of Doom was a significant improvement on Raiders. The blandness was replaced with intensity and atmosphere and a strong sense of threat. And Last Crusade is the best of the Indy films. Here they finally realized that Indy stuff can't be taken seriously and fully exploited the potential for comedy. Sure, some of the comedy is childish, but it's good natured and there's plenty of good comedy too. It's a very positive film with a great sense of fun. Sean Connery is great in it and his interaction with Ford is marvellous. The villains may be the best in an Indy film (though Mola Ram was pretty menacing, with his heart-extraction thing and all). I love Byrne as Vogel, and General Veers Julian Glover is very good, much better than that annoying Belloq guy in Raiders. And Elsa Schneider is the best Indy film female. I agree that Indy 4 lacks a sense of peril. It has this bland plastic feel.

skyjedi2005 said:

Did you know they spent about a million dollars on the frickin thing and did'nt even shoot it on film as far as i have read.  They shot it on u-matic studio video tape circa 1978. Thats some quality there,lol.

This special is easily the worst thing George Lucas ever created.  Worse than Howard the Duck, Worse than Jar Jar even.  Worse than Pee Wee herman as a droid on star tours.  That and Captain EO are a bit creepy now knowing they were meant for children.

Unless you have a servere case of nostalgia i also would say stay as far away as possible from the ewok movies and the droids and ewok cartoons.  Can you believe this is all we got after jedi back in the day.  The marvel comic was a couple steps above but was at some point later cancelled.

Can you imagine being a kid and wanting sequels to Return of the Jedi and all you get is this garbage.  At least until Heir to the Empire and Dark Empire came out.

Then you wait 16 years and get served up a disney channel movie of the week like the phantom menace.  What an utter disappointment.  Turning off my brain to the next 2 and enjoying their mind numbing stupidity and action was the only was i could deal with it.  I had to tell myself there are not star wars only something using the name themes and characters poorly.  So i saw menace in theaters once and clones and sith twice only for the epic lightsaber duels that were in hindsight laughable.

If you could mute the horrible wooden and uninteresting dialogue and characters basically you have six hours of wall to wall cgi and frantic action.  The plot threads so thin i'm surprised the films work at all.  They work a whole lot better when filled in by EU comics and novels.  So they throw an EU bandaid over plot and continuity vacuum big enough to fly a death star through.

Also the politics now in the EU are very heavy handed.  They dealt with Terrorism and the war on terror with the vong.  They dealt with Bush in the prequels.  And now the last book was about more politics and religion crap.  Something Outcast or something i can't exactly remember.

The originals had politics too but they were not in your face.  It was more your standard revoltionary war style story.

Having Hayden deliver the bushism in Epsiode III made me burst out laughing in the theater.  It was so bad i literally could have been rolling on the floor laughing at Lucas.

This special is easily the worst thing George Lucas ever created.  Worse than Howard the Duck, Worse than Jar Jar even.  Worse than Pee Wee herman as a droid on star tours.  That and Captain EO are a bit creepy now knowing they were meant for children.

I'm not sure it is worse than the prequels, because it's not meant to be taken very seriously, but the prequels are supposed to THE Star Wars backstory and actual star wars films. The Holiday Special didn't ruin Star wars. The prequels (along with the SE) did. If Lucas rejected the prequels as much as he rejected the Holiday Special I'd be very happy. I still think the Holiday Special should be available on dvd. It's just like Lucas to keep it unavailable.

Unless you have a servere case of nostalgia i also would say stay as far away as possible from the ewok movies and the droids and ewok cartoons.  Can you believe this is all we got after jedi back in the day.  The marvel comic was a couple steps above but was at some point later cancelled.

The first ewok movie is unbelievable dreadfulness. And Lucas was careful to make it quality unlike the Holiday Special, can you believe. Some quality (as in none). The second movie is pretty lame but significantly better, and Wilford Brimley was great in it. The ewok cartoon is the sort of thing Obama would ban from being used on detainees. It's pure torture. It, along with the ewok book series that predated it, totally warped the ewoks into something they weren't in ROTJ or even the ewok movies. Basically care bears. The droids cartoon was a bit more bearable and had Anthony Daniels' effective talents. The Marvel comics had some pretty dumb stuff, but there was also some good stuff in there too. The Marvel comics are more Star Wars than the 90s/2000s EU.

Turning off my brain to the next 2 and enjoying their mind numbing stupidity and action was the only was i could deal with it. 

I can't say I found much of the action in the later two prequels to be enjoyable. Ok, the Jango-Kenobi fight was ok and the flying car chase had something to it, even if the characters were too blandly unconcerned during it. But otherwise the action in those two films is boring, uninvolving and sometimes really bad. The awful video game droid factory sequence comes to mind. What the FUCK was the point of that? Not to mention the Mustardfart lightsaber battle and the Loony Tunes Emperor-Yoda fight. And the AOTC arena battle was sleep-inducing, other than Windu giving us some relief by chopping Jango's noggin off. 

As for enjoying the stupidity of the films, yeah, that works. I've recently gotten a kick out of watching the films to point and laugh when the lameness hits the screen. Hayden's lines on Mustfart crack me up every time.

Can you imagine being a kid and wanting sequels to Return of the Jedi and all you get is this garbage.  At least until Heir to the Empire and Dark Empire came out.

I wasn't impressed with Dark Empire, though the art in Dark Empire 2 was good. The characterization of the Emperor in the Dark Empire/Empire's End comics was crap. The Emperor just comes off like a dumb cliche villain and looks nothing like himself. The emperor in ROTJ was a cliche villain, but he was a cool and distinctive one, whereas in the Dark Empire comic he was just a totally nondistinctive cliche villain. Heir to Empire was pretty well done, but I have issues with its revisionist take making the empire still be around in significant power after ROTJ. I prefer the Marvel comics even though they're obviously on a lower level. They're more the old tradition, rather than revisionist 90s EU.

Also the politics now in the EU are very heavy handed.  They dealt with Terrorism and the war on terror with the vong.  They dealt with Bush in the prequels.  And now the last book was about more politics and religion crap.  Something Outcast or something i can't exactly remember.

The originals had politics too but they were not in your face.  It was more your standard revoltionary war style story.

Having Hayden deliver the bushism in Epsiode III made me burst out laughing in the theater.  It was so bad i literally could have been rolling on the floor laughing at Lucas

The political stuff in the prequels was idiotic. If Lucas is to be believed, the original trilogy had political stuff in them, but it wasn't heavy-handed. Whereas the prequels' stuff was. It looks to me very like Lucas trying to get points with the critics by doing trendy politics. I bet that political stuff is why ROTS got better reviews. I think Lucas claimed that the political stuff was invented back in the 70s or so and thus wasn't made to refer to modern politics, but the very political lines WERE written in modern times and thus could certainly have been written to refer to modern politics. Plus, whatever story he had way back could have been shifted slightly in writing the films to fit modern politics. 

SilverWook said:

"Itchy" and "Lumpy" are nicknames, just like "Chewie" is. Look it up!

There wasn't a whole lot of canon on Wookiees back in 1978.  But Chewie isn't a total primitive as originally conceived, and it's silly to assume Wookiees don't have the basic comforts of home.

I don't know of any 20th century dwellings that look like that, and happen to be in the top of giant trees though. (Nor do I know of anyone who had holographic displays, video communications, or virtual reality porn devices in their homes at the time.)

Ralph McQuarrie designed the Wookiee home, so blame him. ;)

The Wookiees all wear red gowns at the end to conceal the fact they only made  new costumes for Chewie's family. In fact, all the extras are wearing modified Don Post Chewie masks!

No major network or studio would shoot a tv special on U-matic in 1978. It was probably one-inch broadcast tape on a reel. U-matic was what colleges and cable access channels once used because it was cheaper than most broadcast gear. Some news broadcasts used it early on for it's portability in the field.

"Itchy" and "Lumpy" are nicknames, just like "Chewie" is. Look it up!

I know full well that they're nicknames. So what. That doesn't mitigate the awfulness of them. Also, you have to go outside the Holiday Special to find out that they're nicknames. And you can have one silly nickname like "Chewie" and pass it off as a coincidence (in-universe) that it sounds like a word and that it sounds a bit silly, but when you have a whole dose of them you can't escape the silliness. And "itchy" and "lumpy" sounds like a disease. I don't know WHAT they were thinking. And when all's said and done, we have a Holiday Special in which Chewbacca's relatives are named Itchy and Lumpy.

But Chewie isn't a total primitive as originally conceived, and it's silly to assume Wookiees don't have the basic comforts of home.

I made no "silly" assumptions. It's inappropriate for such a species to be portrayed as having such normal earthlike home life. If they have "comforts of home", let those comforts be a bit more alien in style and in a style more appropriate  for a species that lives in trees, wears no clothes and talks in growls. They made wookiees too much like modern day earth people. Epic fail. Worthy of the prequels, which had all sorts of aliens coming off like they were just humans in costumes/makeup. 

I don't know of any 20th century dwellings that look like that, and happen to be in the top of giant trees though. (Nor do I know of anyone who had holographic displays, video communications, or virtual reality porn devices in their homes at the time.)

I made it clear I was talking about the INTERIOR of the home, not the exterior, so the fact that it's in a giant tree is irrelevant (also, btw, really weak exterior painting, didn't look real at all). And I've seen plenty 20th century homes with interiors just like that. As for holographic displays, vid communications and virtual reality porn devices, well, if the home is going to be portrayed as being up to Star Wars general tech level then you'd expect there to be at least some high tech stuff in it, but the presence of that stuff does not change the overall feel of it being very 20th century American.

Ralph McQuarrie designed the Wookiee home, so blame him. ;)

Did he design the interior?

generalfrevious said:

I was thinking more like all the wallflowers in the Jedi Council.

The Jedi fucking council. They were epic fail. Silly pretentious idiots. Wtf is that cucumber that guy has on his head? And we're supposed to give a damn when they're offed, even though we never get to know them. More fail, Mr Lucas. And the ones we do know, Yoda and Windu, are a pain in the butt.

That whole Using Vong thing was really dumb. The whole Vong war bullshit.

Let's talk about the Holiday Special.

Chewie's relatives are called "Itchy" and "Lumpy". That sounds like fucking chicken pox. They couldn't have found better names? Itchy and Lumpy?

The various acts. Harvey Korman comes on in drag and does a cookery show, while waving his hips around and saying "whip", "beat". Ooooookaaaay. There's an acrobat show that goes on too long. There's Itchy's fantasy. He watches this thing in which this woman with bad hair appears (judging by the weird hair I'd guess she was a member of the Jedi council) and she says she's his fantasy and that he should enjoy her. And she sings. And it goes on and on and it's fucking painful. And I was thinking "Why am I watching this? I hope nobody knows I'm watching this". Harvey Korman does an act where he's an android that keeps malfunctioning. This too goes on too long. Ok. A band appears and sings, for no apparent reason, and they sure don't seem very Star Wars. Oh god, there's the Tatooine segment. First we have deleted footage from ANH. Cool, interesting to see. But then we go inside the cantina and we have Harvey Korman trying to get into Bea Arthur's pants while pouring drinks into the top of his head. Until I saw the Holiday special I didn't know Harvey Korman could be so disturbing -three fucking roles. Then things get worse, because the empire declares a curfew and Bea Arthur starts singing. I was thinking "If she says 'friend' one more time I'll scream."

There's the cartoon, which is ok. Boba Fett's voice is done very well. But we also have Darth Vader telling us that Boba Fett is the best bounty hunter in the galaxy, which is like saying "Yeah kids, this guy is the coolest!" The beginning of the Boba Fett cult, obviously.

There's a cut clip from ANH of Vader and imperial officer Chief Bast in the death star, and it's cool to see ANH deleted scenes. It's long overdue Lucas put out a dvd with all ANH's deleted scenes. So many movies have tons of deleted scenes on the special features and ANH's deleted scenes include some very significant stuff. They should be on the dvd, not just some of them on a computer disc put out over a decade ago.

I don't mind the wookiees. It's fun to see them going around growling while acting like ordinary people. The little wookiee kid is cute. But the inside of their house is very 20th century American and they have a normal life with all mod cons, and this doesn't fit for wookiees. The films made an effort to make aliens alien, this is failing at that.

Finally we have the wookiees all walking through space (wtf?) to some magical place and Leia sings. What are wookiees wearing clothes for? Why are they walking through space? What's this whole magical thing? Is this Star Wars?

Does anybody have any idea how much Lucas originated the story? I've heard conflicting accounts -that he wrote the original story or that he just gave story ideas. Did he come up with the names Itchy and Lumpy? Was it his idea for the wookiee house interior and life to be so normal 20th century Earth? Who thought up the walking through space bit?

Anyway, it's bizarre and much of it is quite hard to watch. You wonder what they were thinking. I'd really like to hear from all the people behind it what their intentions were. One thing I read is that they thought they had to disguise the fact that they had a story about creatures who don't really talk so they thought they had to put in song and dance etc stuff to disguise it.

I was actually pretty hopeful before TPM (I refuse to call it Episode 1 -ANH is episode 1 as far as I'm concerned). Here was a Star Wars film with Liam Neeson in it (only three years earlier he'd done an incredible performance in Michael Collins) and it had Natalie Portman who was so good in Leon/The Professional. Things looked good. Except they didn't really -I should have paid attention to the screwed up Jabba and in the 97 SE and realized trouble was coming. I read a fair bit about TPM before I saw it and I still was optimistic. I was having a bad year and I really needed something good. I didn't hate the film when I saw it (I even liked it to an extent), but it was deflating. Still, my year did get better otherwise. And late the same year, Hollywood made up by putting out Fight Club. 

AxiaEuxine said:

I submit to you that they are nether reductive or stupid. I enjoy them.

You may enjoy them, but that doesn't mean they're not reductive and stupid. There's so much stupid shit in the EU that really brings the SW universe down.

Octorox said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

The first Matrix film has its merits, but it's sorely overrated. The other Matrix films are better than they're given credit for but they're nothing great. Critics and university courses have all sorts of silly ideas about films and shouldn't be paid attention to. There's a lot of pretention going on about The Matrix. Another cyberpunk film which gets a lot of pretentious reaction is Bladerunner. The setting is good and Harrison Ford is good, but that's about it. The film doesn't work very well and is terribly disappointing. It's even worse with the director's cut making Deckard a bleedin replicant, which is NOT what Harrison was playing.

 

And surely you know better than the experts?

Such "expertise" is on very shaky ground. Yes I would know better than people caught up in pretention.

xhonzi said:

And as far as recasting goes, I would be curious to see Haley Joel Osment as a 1999 Anakin.

Oh please no.

As for the idea of Fishburne as Windu, that might just work.

The first Matrix film has its merits, but it's sorely overrated. The other Matrix films are better than they're given credit for but they're nothing great. Critics and university courses have all sorts of silly ideas about films and shouldn't be paid attention to. There's a lot of pretention going on about The Matrix. Another cyberpunk film which gets a lot of pretentious reaction is Bladerunner. The setting is good and Harrison Ford is good, but that's about it. The film doesn't work very well and is terribly disappointing. It's even worse with the director's cut making Deckard a bleedin replicant, which is NOT what Harrison was playing.

I don't know who I'd cast as Jango, but I'd prefer someone other than Morrison. And get the actor to practice sounding like Jason Wingreen. ESB Boba shouldn't be made to match a PT character -if they have to be the same then get the PT actor to imitate Wingreen. The kid playing Boba should match the adult in appearance as much as possible.

Somebody other than Christopher Lee as Dooku. Donald Sutherland?

Heath Ledger as Anakin. This is the big one.

I don't know if I'd keep McGregor, but I don't know who else I'd put in that role.

I'd get a more exceptional kid to play young Anakin. I don't know who.

Somebody other than Samuel L Jackson as Windu. I don't know who. Eamonn Walker? If Jackson has to be in it, give him another role. I don't know what role.

Get different directors. Del Toro? Peter Jackson? Anybody but Lucas.

Get a real actress to play Aayla Secura.

Oh, and somebody other than Pernilla August for Shmi, but I don't know who.

AxiaEuxine said:

OMG will you people chill out. You turn every single post no matter what its about into an opportunity to complain about the PT and EU. It's exhausting.

Some people like the EU and if they do why not write a story about that obscure little character in the background. It makes the movie more alive. At least for me it does.

It doesn't make the movies more alive to cook up all sorts of stupid reductive stories about the background characters.

That's a tusken raider, a sandperson.

Oh yeah, Secret History of Star Wars is cool. It's a great archaeological work. Zombie's done us all a service by writing that book.

Sam Jackson was Sam Jackson in a robe, which is fine I suppose, but it's out of place in a Star Wars movie.

Well... he was an awfully subdued Sam Jackson. The part sure didn't make much use of his talents. Also, Windu came off arrogant and was often annoying. And Sam Jackson doesn't fit prequel Jedi and they don't fit him. Jackson is a really good actor, but a lot of the time in the prequels he was just annoying.

Ian McDiarmid was awesome, both as the fairly subtle (for Star Wars anyway) Palpatine and the cackling Sidious (man did he look like he was having fun). The best of the lot.

 

Once ROTS got to the point when Windu came to arrest Palpatine, Ian's performance turned to shit and never recovered. He delivered some excruciating "acting" in the later part of the movie.

Ewan McGregor was commendable, his acting wasn't always terrific, and sometimes it got a bit hammy even, but he clearly put a lot of effort into "being" a young Obi-Wan, so I can't complain too much. He is capable of better, though.

Ewan was ok in TPM, but in the later two films his performances were just bland and artificial and sometimes annoying. A key thing about the later two prequels is that all three main characters came across false and were unrelatable. Kenobi in the later two films, particularly the second, came off like a pretentious poser.

Liam Neeson was good, as he usually always is, shame he had no part in the second two, he would have helped them a lot.

Neeson's one the best actors around. In TPM he wasn't at his best, but he delivered a great performance anyway. Easily the best thing in the prequels.

Christopher Lee was given nothing to do, but he did it with dignity as always, a wasted oppurtunity though.

I found Dooku annoying. He came off like such a pompous effete poser. And his duellist pretentions made me want to throw something at him. The EU builds up his duellist thing farther and is quite worshipful about him. They even have Yoda say at some point that he was the best and wisest of the Jedi or something like that. The EU likes to build up characters most worshipfully -Mace Windu the bestest lightsaber duellist who's so cool he's got a fighting style only he can master without going dark and which plays with the dark side without going into it (he also he also a special sort of prophetic shatterpoints power and was on the council at age 28, because he's, like, the coolest), Count Dooku, also the bestest lightsaber duellist, who's just so wise even though he's evil (oh how tragic is it that this great Jedi went dark), Jango Fett who can kill loads of Jedi with his bare hands because he's the coolest Mandalorian warrior ever before lil Bubba (and we all know Mandalorians are sooo cool), etc, etc.

Characters in the prequels who are more annoying than Jar Jar: Anakin, Kenobi, Padme, Yoda, Windu, Dooku, Jango, Boba, Nute Gunray and his pals, Later-ROTS Palpatine, various silly droid troopers of various types, various podracers.