Vaderisnothayden

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

That dictionary definition is no help to the discussion, because it only gives a very bare interpretation of the word. In the real world "reminiscent" is used a variety of ways.

 

In general, this kind of thinking simply doesn't work. If this were a true statement, then communication would be nearly impossible. Words are not to be interpreted, words have a very specific meaning. Sometimes multiple meanings and uses, but still, very specific in those meanings and uses.

If I were free to interpret words how I felt fit, or at least as I thought they mean, rather than what they really mean, then my using of that word in conversation with other people would almost invariably cause a breakdown of communication (as exemplified in the discussion at hand). In the real world, the word "reminiscent" has a strictly defined meaning, and that meaning was summed up quite well in the dictionary definition by DF.

Not that I am taking sides on the issue at hand, as I think it is a rather absurd sort of debate. It is just whenever someone decides to take liberties with the English language and the definition of words I cringe a bit.

 

 

I was using reminiscent in the sense of "meaningfully reminiscent" or "the whole is reminiscent", as opposed to the sense of "some bit is reminiscent". It's a valid use of the word. There are different ways things can be reminiscent and all versions I have mentioned fit in with the dictionary definition. No matter how much you follow dictionary definition, interpretation is still important. The reality is that very many words are interpreted. That's how language works. It's not a simple clean cut thing. It's messy and complicated.

skyjedi2005 said:

Still it is not really trying to be on par with the oot, it is a seperate thing really An EU offshoot childrens show.

 I'm not so sure about that. I think Lucas intends it to be as much canon as the films. And he'd say the films are for kids too.

That dictionary definition is no help to the discussion

You mean it's of no help to your case.

No, I mean it's not any help to you in understanding what I'm saying.

They aren't "little details", they're heavily reoccuring visuals in the series.

To imply that visuals aren't truly important is truly ludicrous.

Here's another to stew on: the Republic clones mounting attacks on Separatist ships is very reminiscent of the Battle of Yavin, in ways that the prequel "dogfights" never could be.

 

 

Continuing to deny that the striking similarities are meaningful is a type of stubborness that will quickly rob your opinion of any credibility it once had.

By that standard the prequels must be significantly reminiscent of the OT. And they're not. Yes they are little details, no matter how often they recur, because despite them the show still manages to have a vastly different feel from the OT. Obviously those "striking similarities" of yours can't count for much if they fail to result in the show feeling anything like the OT. And they fail because the foundation mentality of the show is totally different from the OT. If those "striking similarities" were so meaningful the show wouldn't feel like prequel lite.

It's not loose details like you've listed that determine whether or not something is like the OT, it's the overall mentality. Which is not like the OT in the case of this show.

And don't talk to me about credibility. You're the one that tried to defeat an argument through narrow thinking and misunderstanding. Just because someone doesn't accept your view doesn't mean their view doesn't have "credibility".

Here's another to stew on: the Republic clones mounting attacks on Separatist ships is very reminiscent of the Battle of Yavin, in ways that the prequel "dogfights" never could be.

Sorry, it didn't remind me particularly strongly of the battle of Yavin. There was a totally different feel to the battle of Yavin. This is just a cheap imitation, not something of the same variety. There is a similarity, but it doesn't feel like the same thing at all. Which is why the show with all its similarities fails to feel remotely like the OT. It is prequel-lite, not a return to the OT tradition.

Plus, a scene having some limited similarity to something in the OT does not mean the overall show feels like the OT. You're still dealing in loose details rather than the overall mentality and feel.

And I shouldn't have had to explain all that to you.

Don't make me laugh. ;)

While you're busy laughing maybe you can note that you're still failing to understand what I'm saying. You're quite simply not getting my thinking. And not making any effort to, as far as I can tell. I think I'm done trying to explain it to you.

DarkFather said:

I said it was not reminiscent of the OT. There's a difference.

No. There isn't. If something is reminiscent of something else, it has something in common with what it's reminiscent of.

Your picture did not prove it was reminsicent of the OT

Yes. It did.

The picture contains things specifically and distinctively in common with ESB especially.

rem·i·nis·cent (rm-nsnt)

adj.

1. Having the quality of or containing reminiscence.

2. Inclined to engage in reminiscence.

3. Tending to recall or suggest something in the past

reminiscent - serving to bring to mind

That dictionary definition is no help to the discussion, because it only gives a very bare interpretation of the word. In the real world "reminiscent" is used a variety of ways. In the way I'm using it I'm not talking about "oh here's a star destroyer that reminds me of the OT", I'm talking about the overall nature of the show and whether THAT is reminiscent of the OT. Which is the only meaningful sort of being reminiscent to discuss here. Who cares about little details, it's the overall nature of the thing that matters. And the overall nature of the show is NOT reminiscent of the OT. So the show is not reminiscent of the OT in any way that counts.

As such you can have all the star destroyers in common with the OT that you like but the show is still not meaningfully reminiscent of the OT. And the picture of a star destroyer certainly did not prove it was meaningfully reminiscent.

Really, by the standard of being reminiscent that you're using, the prequels would be reminscent of the OT because they have lightsabers and jedi and Ian McDiarmaid and spaceships and troopers like the imperial ones in the OT and a character called Kenobi and a character called Anakin and Yoda and a guy in a suit like Boba Fett with the name Fett. But the prequels are for the most part not meaningfully reminiscent of the OT. There's no point in talking about a level of being reminiscent like that. What's worth talking about is whether the thing overall is like the OT. And the prequels weren't and this show isn't. And when you address the topic of whether the show is reminiscent of the OT, it's quite reasonable for people to assume you're talking about whether the overall show is seriously reminiscent of the overall OT, not whether there are some details in common.

And I shouldn't have had to explain all that to you.

TMBTM said:

I remember the episode with the betrayal of a Rodian leader, that was very reminiscent of Lando's character in ESB. There are tons of little lines, and situations, that ring a bell of the OT in that show (okay that does not make it as good as the OT, but it's fun enough to watch the show IMO). Even the droid army and their "Rodger Rodger" sounds silly but in a way that you feel that the writers know it's silly, and want to play with it (and even laugh AT it). I feel like it's really a try to reunite the "prequels kids" (don't forget it's a kids show) and their "OT parents.

 

That said I did not see the "movie" yet. I was aware that it was just a pilot for the TV series and so not really made for the big screen.

I didn't find the Rodian leader the slightest bit reminiscent of Lando. You can have an old friend leader who betrays you to your enemies in all sorts of stories. Just because it has a basic element of story in common with the OT doesn't mean it is genuinely reminsicent of the OT. And yeah they can throw in lines or story bits that echo the OT, but that doesn't mean the overall product is at all reminiscent of the OT. No offense meant, but your sort of attitude just looks to me like desperately scrambling for scraps so you can say "Here, I got a bit that's like the OT." All these things are superficial. They don't dictate the overall flavor or mentality or nature of the show.

The OT was a very heartfelt classic story with deep emotions, characters that make a strong connection with the audience, vivid strongly realized imagination and a 70s-80s feel. This show is a fairly amiable but shallow modern-feeling fairly bland piece of work without a strong imaginative vision and with only one regular character who makes any sort of real connection (Ashoka). The OT existed in an unpretentious universe. This show builds on the prequels' envisioning the Star Wars universe as a place full of pretentious bullshit, such as the Jedi being a bunch of posers. In the OT Kenobi was wise not pretentious. In the prequels Kenobi had an edge of affectation to him and the same is true in the show. In the OT Yoda came out with some silly crap but he wasn't the arrogant poser he became in the prequels. In this show we've had Fisto, Luminara and Aayla coming off very artificial. This show lives in the prequels' interpretation of the Star Wars universe. And it's basically a show of shallow cheerful fun, which is what much of the Phantom Menace was. The OT's fun was of a different tone. This show shares the unreal unconvincing feel of the prequels, rather than the convincing imagination-brought-to-life feel of the OT. This show is very far from being like the OT, and no amount of throwing in OT references and items and OT-echoing lines and story elements will change that. The foundation mentality of this show is deeply at odds with the OT.

I think maybe people want too much for this to be like the OT.

Also, the Roger Roger robots are an element that is very strongly at odds with the OT. In the OT the villains weren't a joke like they were in the PT and this show. The robots are bloody annoying.

DarkFather said:

Oh there you are being offensive again. Why do you have to keep doing that? Why you keep getting aggressive and/or personal? Why can't you just accept somebody disagrees with you without having to diss them?

I'm not being the least bit offensive.

You said the series had nothing in common with the OT, and I showed you the picture that proved it very plainly does. Whether it's cosmetic or not is completely immaterial.

I never said it had nothing in common with the OT. I said it was not reminiscent of the OT. There's a difference. Your picture did not prove it was reminsicent of the OT and your statements about me were definitely offensive.

I never got into Star Wars games.

Oh there you are being offensive again. Why do you have to keep doing that? Why you keep getting aggressive and/or personal? Why can't you just accept somebody disagrees with you without having to diss them?

The feel and mentality of the show has very little in common with that of the OT. People go on about how it's like the OT because of OT references (but anything can have OT references -doesn't make it like the OT) or because it's more fun and straight forward than the prequels -but more fun and straight forward doesn't necessarily make it that much like OT. Anyway I find it reminiscent of TPM in particular, not the OT. It approaches Star wars in prequel mindset even if it's more fun-oriented than the last two prequels. And it's very much built on all the bullshit the prequels built up, complete with the Jedi being a bunch of pretentious wankers and all that. The OT was a very specific thing and this prequel-lite show is very different from what the OT was. The OT had a thousand times more emotional depth and human connection and strength of imagination and it didn't have the bullshitty mentality and pretention. This is so NOT like the OT. I wish people would stop saying it's like the OT, because it's like they're forgetting what the OT was really like or getting into wishful thinking.

And seriously, seeing the inside of a star destoyer doesn't make something like the OT. Like I said, it's just cosmetic. I don't see how somebody could really think that makes this show like the OT.

DarkFather said:

Really.

 

Inside of a Star Destroyer:

 

So what. Things that look similar are just cosmetic.  That's not real similarity. The show is not remotely reminiscent of the OT in any real way.

rcb said:

i love the action, comedy and adventures. the clone soilders match the the novelizations perfectly. plus there's no corny love story between anakin and padme. 

Why the clone soldiers should match the novels I don't know.

I don't find it all reminiscent of the original trilogy.

The prequels needed to be a lot better than that. If anything the animated show is reminiscent of The Phantom Menace.

:)

Oops, I double posted.

That more empty Mos Eisley may have been something Lucas was forced into by the realities of filmmaking, but it works better. It has atmosphere. Also, it fits with the feel of 70s films. The 97 Mos Eisley is just meaningless show, like so much in the prequels. Complete with silly comedy. If I want Jaws falling off of rontos I'll bloody well ask for it. 

That more empty Mos Eisley may have been something Lucas was forced into by the realities of filmmaking, but it works better. It has atmosphere. Also, it fits with the feel of 70s films. The 97 Mos Eisley is just meaningless show, like so much in the prequels. Complete with silly comedy. If I want Jaws falling off of rontos I'll bloody well ask for it. 

Rontos. Oh god, fuck rontos. Seriously, we don't need all that revisey crap. Mos Eisley was cool the way it was.

auraloffalwaffle said:

I'd admire him more if he actually did supermarionation with lightsabres... now that would be worth seeing!...

 No thank you. Thunderbirds seriously creeps me out.

auraloffalwaffle said:

No... and I hate the thing with Han walking over his tail... that was a terrible idea...

Yeah it was. It came from Han walking around him in the original footage, which would only have been possible with a human Jabba, not with a huge monster, proof that they originally planned to put Jabba on screen as human. Zombie84's Secret History of Star Wars site has an article about Jabba originally being meant to be human in the finished film despite official accounts claiming he was intended to be alien. But the walking around bit is my own observation.

auraloffalwaffle said:

TPM on the other hand... only 10 years down the line and it looks even more like a painfully average bit of sub-Disney-live-action-kids-movie-fluff than it did originally... the sporadic flashes of po-faced lightsabre weilding look all the more out of place now... adrift, as they are, in a sea of twee... SW77 was smart enough to inject a bit of fun and cynicism into the mix, in the form of Han Solo... he was the character everybody admired... not Luke or Obi-Wan... it's been said many times... the PT needed the smartness of a Han Solo in there for the 'straight' characters to work off... someone to cut through the pomposity with a well-delivered quip or flirtatious one-liner...

TPM is pretty fluffy. It's very lightweight. But despite that it still has more to it than the later two prequels, which just goes to show how bad they are.

Han was great. A definite contender for best Star Wars character. I once thought Darth Vader was the best, but the best are really Han and Leia, because the actors do such a great job bringing those characters to life.

auraloffalwaffle said:

I think the Luca$hcow was in full flow by the time the SE/PT build-up started, though... the merchandising overload in the late 90s made it seem like there was more excitement in the general public but I reckon it was actually less than during the early 80s... not being a total idiot, in business terms, Luca$h probably realised he'd have to push much harder to get TPM to a similar level of success as the OT...

I think there's some truth in that. The marketing was huge in the 90s, even though the 80s marketing was huge for its time. But I don't remember the general public in the 90s being interested in Star Wars to the same degree as they were back in the early 80s. In the early 80s Star Wars was The Shit. In the 90s it was just this thing Star Wars fans were into, and I don't remember the special editions being that huge when they came out. When I saw the Star Wars films back in the early 80s there were queues around the block. Nothing like that in 97.

TLSO, you said on another thread you were 7 when you first saw Star Wars, on the 95 videos. That means you were born in 88 at the earliest. That means you weren't around for the 77-83 Star Wars era. See, that would give you a very different perspective from somebody like me. I can see why you'd see the 90s as the height of Star Wars then.

Seriously the whole The Clone Wars movie/show project was unnecessary, as is the upcoming live-action action series. I wish Lucas would leave Star Wars bloody well alone and go off and do his airmen film and all those other non-Star Wars films he was supposed to do. I mean, hasn't he done enough damage already?

C3PX said:

In the early eighties I was quite young, so while I myself was big into SW at that time, I really didn't see it a whole lot from anywhere else. I remember watching as SW action figures vanished from store shelves and it was all forgotten. Even in elementary school for some reason it seemed really hard to find other kids who liked SW. To me, the eighties were when Star Was began to fade away.

 

I remember action figures being plentiful around the place until the mid 80s and there were some around as late as 85 or so. And kids who were into Star Wars to one extent or another weren't hard to find in my area. Star Wars was the in thing until Transformers took over. In 83 for example, Star wars was everywhere. And Star Wars comics were some of the easiest comics to get, into or even through the mid 80s.

The nineties on the other hand, were really exciting. Suddenly SW was everywhere again, tons of new books to read, tons of new comic series to choose from.

Yeah, but that was all nouveau Star wars. The comics were Dark Horse not Marvel, the books were all part of this new EU they were building on the foundation of the role playing game. Star Wars was switching its focus to the EU, whereas the real thing had always been centered on the movies. It was less genuinely Star Wars. It wasn't that classic thing I'd loved. Personally, I read the Zahn novels and some Dark Horse comics and then decided this new EU-focused Star Wars wasn't the real thing and wasn't my thing. It wasn't any great Star Wars time for me. When the special editions came out there was a lot of buzz and that was exciting and it was exciting to see Star Wars on the big screen. But then they were replacing my originals, so it wasn't marvellous. Still, I looked forward to the prequels, which looked hopeful at that time. Though maybe after the special edition changes I should have realized there wasn't all that much hope. So yeah, the 90s was better for Star Wars than the past decade, but I don't see it as a great Star Wars time.

Maybe it's different if you were very into the 90s expanded universe, but I wasn't. I ended up seeing all that stuff as a lot of cashing in really. All these new books and comics coming out after all the others had came out and I was like "More? Haven't they got enough money already?" I got that some people bought into that stuff, but I didn't understand it. Because that wasn't Luke and Leia and Han in those books, it was just some writer. The old EU at least had the benefit of being part of classic Star wars, but this new stuff didn't have that. I wanted films. Alas, when I finally got them they weren't the real thing either.

Meanwhile, back in the 90s there were all these "Essential Guides" and I was like "Essential, my ass." Which was pretty much how I felt about most of the big glut of Star Wars things that came out then. They weren't MY Star Wars. The "Art Of" books were an exception. Script books were cool too. But all these novels and comics and essential guides and stuff... I didn't love that. It wasn't like when I was a kid and real classic Star Wars was all around me.

I've been looking into some of that 90s EU recently and while I still feel it's not Real like the older stuff, I do find it of some interest as being a relic of a pre-prequels Star Wars. I think the prequel era of Star Wars makes that 90s era look more Star Wars than it was.

But I've still got plenty cynicism left about cashing in- the new multi-volume Star Wars encyclopedia is a big focus of that cynicism now. You've got to be really sold on the EU to get that. I've taken some more interest in the EU recently, but not that much. A lot of these reference books things still look like sad cashing in to me. Essential Guide to Weapons or something, like who needs it. Cross sections? Worlds of? I mean how much bullshit can they invent and trot out? Obviously a lot.

I first saw the Star Wars in 81, but I didn't see Empire until 82. Saw ROTJ in 83.

Well, a bit more than that was around early on. I mean, Lucas had midiclorians invented in 1977 (see Rinzler's Making of the Star Wars). It sure looks like a lot was invented later on, but seeing as some stuff actually dates back to early stages, I want to find out what actually was invented long ago and wgat wasn't.

That Jar Jar poster is a good laugh.

rcb said:

ask the kids and younger people. they'll say different. i like them, but i admit that there are flaws in the PT.

 They'll change their minds when they grow up.

rcb said:

 

 now that's not fair to assume lucas just wants the money. he doesn't even need money he's so god damn rich!

anyways, the PT will stick out for many people especially future film makers. when ur kids are born they'll laugh at the OT. Though, i'm with everyone when i say that the OT is better then the PT.

 

I think future filmmakers wil sneer at the PT. Or ignore it. Nor do I think there's any reason to assume kids in the future will laugh at the OT. They may love it.