imperialscum

Anchorhead said:

That wouldn't be possible now.  People go into the theater expecting HD CGI realism. If it isn't Avatar, Matrix, Transformers, or a Marvel-based comic action piece, it doesn't land at the level Star Wars circa 1977 did. 

Yet these films doesn't have that something special as Star Wars has. That is why they were popular for a year and then forgotten.

Anchorhead said:T

The time to capture the world with an event comes along seldom.  Once it does, you can't get your innocence back.  There was only one Apollo Space Program, one The Beatles, one Facebook, and one Summer of Star Wars.

We are in agreement about that. But I assume from what was said so far that I attribute the main reason for the success to these things itself while you claim that the historic context around them was the major factor. It is the opposite, the greatness of these things shaped the history and not the other way around.

Anchorhead said:

You can read all you want about Star Wars 1977, you can imagine you understand it, and you can equate your TV experience decades later to it, but unless you were there, you can't feel or understand the emotional moment the way some of us did.

I have never claimed I understand anyone's emotional feelings... I said I love the film as much as someone else. I did not say I love it in the same manner.

Anchorhead said:

imperialscum said:

Time of release had little to do with anything.

I saw it 2 decades after its release and yet I fell in love with it just as much as people back in late 70's

when I first watched it I loved it just as much as people who watched it at release

With all due respect, those aren't statements you get to make for other people.  Particularly those of us who were there.  Time of release had a great deal to do with the cultural impact.  Plenty of articles have addressed it in detail. 

Regarding being just as moved by it as people were in the 1970s: That's not a quantifiable statement, nor one for you to make so definitively.  You were clearly moved by it or you wouldn't be on a Star wars board ten years later, but you don't get to speak for other fans' level of emotional impact.

First of all I was clearly speaking only for myself. All I did was a comparison "just as much us people in 70's" which is not speaking for anyone but just comparing my appreciation of Star Wars to someone else. A lot of people back then went to see it in theatres multiple times which is (in my book at least) an indication that they loved the film a lot. Just like me (OT being my top 3 favourite films of all time). And I did not go into any detailed emotional feelings of anyone. It was a matter of love or hate stance which can be observed with just a little common sense. I do hope you won't argue that they hated the film so much that they went to see it 5 times.

My argument was that the historic context of release might have had a minor influence on its success but the key factor was the product itself. If the historic context (Vietnam war, Nixon etc.) was of any major role in its popularity then why on earth was received just as well in Europe and Japan and why has it been continuously gaining fans for over 30 years?

Actually the only relevant historic context was that it was a revolutionary film in cinematic sense and that it changed the industry and influenced so many films and film makers to this day. Actually that's not even an influence of historic context but more like an impact the film had on cinematic history. Therefore hypothetical questions like "what if Star Wars was released today?" is as dumb as " what if Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published today?".

luckydube56 said:

imperialscum said:

CO said:

The whole 'Post-Vietnam' argument about Star Wars in the documentary is another attempt by Lucas to re-write history.

I don't think that this was Lucas' doing. The documentary creators just threw in some stuff that would make it look smarter. Now fans are taking that kind of crap as the holy truth. This is just one of many such cases.

 Perhaps you two are correct.  Of course it pre-supposes the notion that there is really nothing special about this film series you love so much.  Maybe it is, indeed, just another movie.  A mere hobby.  An over loved one trick pony.  

Maybe Lord of the Rings is the same?  

Well I am saying that the historical contexts had little to do with success of the film. It was successful because it was just great. It was equally popular in Europe or Japan and we had no Vietnam war. And almost 20 years leater, when I first watched it I loved it just as much as people who watched it at release (I think LOTR came out a little later and compared to SW trilogy it was unappealing to me). Many films we had in the past 30 years were actually influenced by the Star Wars. Star Wars changed, influenced and shaped the cinematic history like no other film did.

CO said:

The whole 'Post-Vietnam' argument about Star Wars in the documentary is another attempt by Lucas to re-write history.

I don't think that this was Lucas' doing. The documentary creators just threw in some stuff that would make it look smarter. Now fans are taking that kind of crap as the holy truth. This is just one of many such cases.

Unacceptable:
-Any kind of prequel parasite (Hayden, "NOOOOOO", Boba's voice, "wessa free!", Dug etc.)
-Greedo shooting

Acceptable/welcome:
-Pretty much everything else

TK-949 said:

 

imperialscum said:

darklordoftech said:

Everybody, what is your greatest fear for episodes 7-9?

Lens flares. It may not be the greatest fear but it is surely the most justified.

You mean like these?

Click

 

No, not like those. Those were probably part of the SFX and look like its part of the engine exhaust. I don't want them to shine all over character's faces.

These interviews are extremely boring. They always repeat the same old stuff. At least this guy spiced it up a little.

darklordoftech said:

Everybody, what is your greatest fear for episodes 7-9?

Lens flares. It may not be the greatest fear but it is surely the most justified.

Star Wars OT was so successful because it was so great. Time of release had little to do with anything. At least from my perspective. I saw it 2 decades after its release and yet I fell in love with it just as much as people back in late 70's and early 80's.

I couldn't care less if they build full-size ships. Even if they prequels had all model base SFX and full-sized ships, they would suck just as much. My primary concern is about the story, characters and visual (rather then practical) design of things.

And I don't want to see a single lens flare. Why the hell would one remind the audience that they are watching a film shot with camera, instead of letting them enjoy the fantasy world, is beyond me. JJ Abrams said he wanted to be unique with those stupid lens flares but that is like trying to be unique by taking a dump in the middle of the street.

Darth Lars said:

Yeah, but that creature is very silent, you see.

I am sure the humans are unable see the sound or silence. :p

I don't know much about restoration projects here but you might check this one: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Harmys-STAR-WARS-Despecialized-Edition-HD-V25-MKV-IS-OUT-NOW/topic/12713/

m_s0 said:

Tobar said:

valinkrai said:

Knight of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords has always been my favorite. I got it and Battlefront II for my birthday in 2006, and enjoyed the crap out of it. It really surpassed the first in terms of character development in my opinion, and a lot of ways, was stronger in terms of story. I can see why some prefer the original though. One of my biggest regrets is that I got KotOR spoiled. Wish I hadn't got KotOR II first. XD

You're just all kinds of turned around aren't you? =P

Have you tried the fan made update that restores a ton of the content that got cut for time?

I wouldn't recommend it. The restored content is mostly subpar and/or tedious. It's not worth it. Watch a video on youtube instead.

KotOR2, even though it's unfinished and technically quite broken, is vastly superior to the first one, which, if you ask me, was a really bland SW game with crappy combat, a mostly poor story, good twist, trademark bad Bioware writing and no evidence of actual artistry being involved in the process of making it. It was a safe product, nothing more.

In a lot of ways - perhaps due to the time constraints - KotOR2 feels like a fix-up of the first one (compare the npcs in both games, for instance). Obsidian tried to add substance to the combat (and failed, but it is a bit more interesting this time around), not to mention that the plot is smart and involving this time around, the writing is good, the characters have motivation and are... well... characters, and not whining cardboard cut-outs spewing crappy dialogue you don't feel the least bit interested in reading/listening to.

I also like how Obsidian attempted do deconstruct and play with some aspects of the rather stale SW mythos rather than taking it at face value like Bioware. KotOR1 felt like a generic modern pseudo-crpg with an expensive license slapped on top of it.

I recommend looking up how the story of KotOR2 was conceived: the lead designer basically decided to round up everything he didn't like about Star Wars, think it over and start writing from there.

Interesting opinion. I enjoyed KOTOR2 a lot but I just hated some of the aspects. The most obvious are cliché over-exaggerated abilities of the two main villains (Sion and Nihilus). To me, attaching that kind of super powers to the character is an indication of lack of originality and it seems like a filler for lack of talent to make the character interesting in a classic manner. The second thing I dislike is Malachor V. I don't know whether it is the visual aspects or music or both, but the planet and its story completely ruined the atmosphere that was previously established by the game. It was like I was sucked out of Star Wars and thrown into some cheesy black&white horror film from the first half of the 20th century.

RicOlie_2 said:

You have a point there. imperialscum, but I think it was overdone a little with the immortal emperor thing. I think the analogy you're pointing out exists anyway, without the power of the bad guys being blown out of proportion. I think the power of Sidious vs. Yoda is a good example of what you mean. Yoda is a powerful Jedi, but Sidious has greater destructive power and uses it to defeat powerful Jedi like Yoda, but he is defeated in the end. The "immortal emperor" was just stepping too far.

Well yes, of course. My analogy wasn't meant for the immortal Emperor. I already said I don't like that at all. I was talking about light/side power in general. Sorry for misunderstanding.

RicOlie_2 said:

This also shows that the dark side of the force is more powerful than the light side, since light side users must practice moderation in order to avoid becoming proud and falling to the dark side, which it shouldn't be.

I think light/dark side is well done in SWTOR. It is like a real life equivalent. You must struggle to be a fair citizen and in the end of the day that feeling can be rewarding. Or you can become a crock and break the rules. Yes, in rare occasions being a crock can turn out way better for you than being fair (for example, getting rich by some undetectable scam). But in most cases you will end up in jail.

RicOlie_2 said:

I'm surprised that the Old Republic series wasn't mentioned in this thread, considering its popularity. I though Deceived and Revan were pretty good, but the clichéd superweapon was used in Fatal Alliance which detracted from the overall quality of the book. I didn't enjoy Annihilation as much as the first two, but it was still quite good.

I love SWTOR. The only EU sources I really love are KOTOR1,2, SWTOR, JK2 and JKA.

As for TOR books, I enjoyed Revan and Annihilation the most. I must say though that I am not a big fan of 1000 years old immortal Emperor and I would have preferred if they left Revan's fate after KOTOR1/2 a mystery. I like Malgus subplot in Deceived but I found the other two subplots boring (that of the Jedi girl and smuggler guy). As for Fatal Alliance, I think it is stupid and ridiculous.

TV's Frink said:

I don't respond to that spelling of labor, sorry.

Don't tempt me... I have been trying so hard to tolerate improper English around here.

TV's Frink said:

Oh great, my wonderful thread has devolved into the same repetitive back and forth that exists in every other thread.

Your thread has been nationalised. Now be quiet or we will take your house and send you to forced labour.

darklordoftech said:

Am I the only one who understands how the Empire died with Palpatine in ROTJ?

No, you are definitely not the only one. But it seems there are not many of us.

I mean one doesn't really need to think a lot but just need to know a bit of history to get a parallel. But a lot of fans seem to have a weak mental capacity combined with poor knowledge of history.

darklordoftech said:

imperialscum said:

Well I don't care about the "official canon". I regard OT as completely canon. Then there are EU sources that I regards almost completely canon (by that I mean I ignore a few things I don't like within the source) such as KOTOR1/2 SWTOR, JK2 and JKA. And then there are sources from which I mostly only pick the major events and characters (example: Thrawn Trilogy - not that I dislike it, I just never got into it). And lastly there is stuff that I mostly ignore (FU, Dark Empire, PT).

Would you be ok with the ST contradicting the JK series and/or the TOR series? As for me, no matter how much I love something, I have no problem with something else contradicting it. 

I do not see how ST can seriously contradict JK series since it is going to be set 20 years after, let alone KOTOR series. One great thing about JK series is that it does not really touch/pollute the main OT characters (unlike so many other EU sources) and it feels like its storyline is more of a side event. If the ST is good, even if there are a few contradictions I can sort them out in my head. If ST suck then I will just ignore ST.

Well I don't care about the "official canon". I regard OT as completely canon. Then there are EU sources that I regards almost completely canon (by that I mean I ignore a few things I don't like within the source) such as KOTOR1/2 SWTOR, JK2 and JKA. And then there are sources from which I mostly only pick the major events and characters (example: Thrawn Trilogy - not that I dislike it, I just never got into it). And lastly there is stuff that I mostly ignore (FU, Dark Empire, PT).

deepanddark20 said:

and I don't understand it because for most of my life I found her to be very plain and she didn't do anything for me at all.

Well to me she was always very plain, i.e. sort of not very attractive. I wonder if this will ever change as in your case.

These photos look absolutely terrible. It is like the worst amateur shot them.

deepanddark20 said:

My whole life, I have never been a fan of ranking the Star Wars movies above/below each other when it comes to episodes 4, 5, and 6. I have always placed all 3 of them on my highest rank for movies. So I would be hesitant to call RoTJ the "best" movie in the trilogy like the title of this discussion thread does, but that's not because I like ANH or TESB any better.

Having said that, I must admit that the perspective which considers Return of the Jedi to be a significantly inferior achievement to ANH and TESB is a very common one, and many of the reasons given for this perspective are very compelling to me. But it's a perspective that never occurred to me before I read other people expressing it. Which leads me to my next point:

Something just seems really wrong to me about the following scenario: I hold my top level of movie love for Return of the Jedi my whole life into my 30's, and then suddenly I read what people say about it on the internet and it's no longer one of my favorite films. I'm not advocating closed-mindedness, but no matter how much sense people's criticisms of RoTJ make, that scenario doesn't feel right.

I don't have a reasoned-out counter argument for many of the criticisms people level against Jedi. All I know is this: when I sit down to watch it, I have as good an experience as I can expect from a movie. If I read people's criticisms and feel one way, but then watch the movie and feel another way, I think I'll go with the way I feel from actually watching the movie.

I don't appreciate people feeling the need to "explain away" how I feel about Jedi by assuming that I must just be blinded by nostalgia or some other factor, as though the critical opinion of Jedi is the "correct" one and mine is the "biased" one. If we're honest, we can admit that all of our opinions are subjective.

And for those who insist that it makes no sense to love Jedi but hate the prequels, get ready for this: I think the prequels are a suckfest from episode I all the way through episode 3.

Good post.

SpilkaBilka said:

Doom - 4.5? (though I must say it is the greatest horror movie for 12 year olds ever made)

How can 12 years olds get horrified by that is beyond me. I was watching Alien, Predator and stuff like that when I was about 8 and it didn't horrify me.