luckydube56

Yes the OT has faults.  Lots of little gaffes.

The PT is entirely faulty because it lacks any connection to the original trilogy.  It is an entirely different franchise as far as I am concerned.  To me, it is like saying Dark Knight and Batman are the same.  We were sold the PT as a continuation of the OT but the PT ended up feeling like a film adaptation of what was once known as the expanded universe.

Lucas could have taken the OT and reverse engineer the PT from it.  What he did instead was he built the PT and then wired it into the OT universe.

Anchorhead said:

bkev said:

Hijacking Tobar's JJ post from the Trek thread over in off-topic because I feel it's relevant here.  Allow me to direct you to the original theatrical trailer for Star Wars.  Pay close attention to a particular quote from the narrator: "The story of a boy, a girl, and a universe."  Sounds pretty simplistic, right?  There's not much depth to the trailer... and, ultimately, I feel the same way about the film itself.  At its core, Star Wars 77 really is a movie of style over substance.  It's the movie George Lucas made because he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon.  It gives you everything you want from a blockbuster film - easy to follow plot, endearing characters played by actors with chemistry, etc. - but goes above and beyond due to (well, I personally attribute much of the success to these factors) the editing and iconic musical themes throughout.  I must admit, in my time here, Anchorhead's love of '77 rubbed off on me.

While I said it gives its audience what it wants, that doesn't necessarily mean it entirely lacks what they need.  Star Wars manages to balance the two well enough that the movie never feels like it's missing something.  The two main protagonists*, Han and Luke, have character arcs.  They develop.  Han has a change of heart, and Luke is suddenly thrust into adulthood and responsibility following the death of Ben Kenobi.  In that sense, it satisfies both needs and wants - you feel like there was a greater purpose to the story than the action, even if that's what your attention focuses on.

I personally believe Empire has the stronger story given that everyone, including Leia, develops in that film.  But Star Wars '77 has more style.  To me, it's a pretty damn good standalone film - I don't know if I could say that about Empire.  By the time I saw Empire I had already grown attached to Luke & Company.  Without that bond, I don't know if I would have cared about the characters as much.  Because I knew where they started, the development felt more organic. Also, I'm not sure if it balances needs vs wants as well as Star Wars itself.

What does this have to do with JJ?  I return to my point on style.  The man certainly has some, even if you don't care for the other aesthetics of his films/media projects that come with his role as an auteur.  I trust him to make a simple, fun movie that satisfies both my needs and wants as a filmgoer.  So far, he's managed to (particularly with Super 8) -- although note that I haven't seen Into Darkness, and that I never had much fondness for the original Trek (I started on TNG.)

To close this mouthful of a post, I'll talk about what happens when substance takes over style: the prequels. Trade disputes? False flag terrorism? On their own, fine - even interesting, particularly the latter - concepts. Just not in the Star Wars universe. It bogs down the moments where style succeeds in the prequels, like the establishing shots of Theed. Ultimately, there needs to be a balance between the two that can't just center around having both as in-your-face as possible. That's what the prequels did, and failed. I think Abrams can manage balancing these two factors, at the very least, better than Lucas... and that's me downplaying my affinity for him as an auteur.

Excellent points, many of which occasionally get lost in the noise this franchise has become.  Along with a myriad of other inabilities and demons Lucas was tangling with, he never understood what made Star Wars77 connect with the audience.  Like you pointed out, it was the simplicity.  It was fun.  It was an escape.  It wasn't a government\economics course.

Even in 1977 he had to be guided by Marcia and Gary (among others).  He just didn't get it.  Once he became the sole decision maker, the franchise was doomed.  The decision to eliminate any checks and balances was a terrible idea.  One that gave us (arguably) four bad films. 

I too trust Abrams to understand what made 1977 work.  If we've seen anything so far, it's that he's a fan of the 1977 universe. 

Again, excellent post bkev.

 Wow.  Great points both of you.

I just wanted to add that when you look at what Abrams did with Star Trek, it should give us all hope.

Roddenbury's Star Trek was a universe that dealt with serious socio-political themes while Star Wars dealt with personal themes....family, friends, and growing up.

Whether Lucas intended it or not I'm sure his own experiences made their way into the plot.  Being unsure of oneself and having to choose between the life you know and the life you dream of.  That was Luke's journey in Star Wars '77.

As for JJ's interpretation of Star Trek, you can clearly see an emphasis on friendship and family.  You can also see the comic relief.  

Maybe JJ is getting some payback for all the leaked photos by throwing some b.s. rumor out there for people to choke on.

I remember getting the Kenner Han Solo figure and thinking "he looks like Steve McQueen"

spectraljulian said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

This makes me wonder if the Ferengi ever get criticized for being Jewish stereotypes ...

 They do

 I never knew they were supposed to be Jewish until the torch and pitchfork croud told me.

Easterhay said:

luckydube56 said:

Stay away from massive metropolis', councils, politics that marked the PT.

Go back to the Old West frontier in outer space atmosphere that characterized the OT.



And please dont flood the galaxy with Jedi.  They're too stoic and it made the PT too stoic.  Where was the comic relief?  Star Wars should be an escape and it should be light hearted and fun.  Stay away from the current hollywood trend that a darker mood is better.

Yes, the Jedi were pretty dour in the prequels. A lot of chin-stroking and sitting around. But, then again, if they were based on Buddhist monks then the depiction was spot-on. I always imagined Luke's Jedi would be much different.

As for comic relief, well...Jar Jar? Buzz droids? Threepio losing his head? All in all, the story of Anakin is a tragedy. I don't recall Macbeth being chock full of hilarious one-liners.

 Well, point taken.  But the unlikable or unrelatable aspect of these characters is what then robs the PT of its desired tragic affect doesnt it?

In Star Wars, we meet Luke as a young naive farm boy.  Han is the man we wished we were; Luke is the man we relate to.  He goes on an adventure for the first time and he is taken for a ride; and we are riding along with him.  In many ways he is like an inolved observer; and we are too.  He loses Ben and we feel his grief.  Towards the end he is in the drivers seat and we feel the same mixture of tension, nervousness and hope and we are elated when 'we' win.

In Empire, he is learning new things.  We are learning those new things right along with him.  The entire installment is about discovery.  

In Jedi, he is a Jedi....I no longer find his character as interesting until the end when he loses his father.

The PT failed to execute because it lacks connection with the audience.  By making every other character a stoic Jedi, it is a universe full of people you couldnt care less about.  Obviously, its foolish to think you can get by with no jedi but the story was too Jedi-centric.  

Now I fully realize that of course the PT was about Jedi and that it would have to be....but that is why it fails.  No matter rhow appropriate, it was almost doomed to fail.  The PT belongs in a myth and lore of the galaxy and should never have been realized into film.

That does not have to be the case with episodes 7,8,9.

Stay away from massive metropolis', councils, politics that marked the PT.

Go back to the Old West frontier in outer space atmosphere that characterized the OT.

And please dont flood the galaxy with Jedi.  They're too stoic and it made the PT too stoic.  Where was the comic relief?  Star Wars should be an escape and it should be light hearted and fun.  Stay away from the current hollywood trend that a darker mood is better.

The Han Solo film would offer the most for fans of the original trilogy in terms of character familiarity. With Han Solo, you get Chewie, Lando, The Empire, the Falcon, Jabba, Boba....it's a near foregone conclusion this film is made and could easily segue to Episode 4. Han is the central character but we get lots of supporting characters out of this.

But aside from that, I have no interest in seeing a back story for any of the other OT characters i can think of unless its a dedicated Boba Fett movie which has Western written all over it. A badass who doesnt say much and kills/captures people.

Do I want to see Luke working moisture farming? Darth Vader killing Jedi? Princess Leia doing political stuff? The rise of Gran Mof Tarkin? 2 hours of Yoda waxing philosophical? Not much fun or adventure in any of this stuff.

Oh....Wedge. The one genre hollywood hasnt really exploited to the nth degree is aerial dogfight movies. Lucas based his space battle scenes on old war footage of dogfights. This could be like a sci fi Top Gun minus the homo erotic undertones.

Okay, so the next question is...characters.  Can we glean anything from the picture that's been circulating?  Remember it is a script reading so their position might say something about their interactions with those nearby.

I'm guessing its pretty obvious Daisy Ridley is the daughter of Han and Luke based on the fact she sits right between the two actors.

What about the three actors at the top of the photo?  Boyega, Oscar Isaac and the weird looking guy Driver.  They could be friends.  They seem more like friends and allies than enemies for some reason.  

Lucas, Carrie Fisher said, cast Ford, Hamill and herself to type.  Granted, Abrams isnt Lucas so it could be completely inconsequential how Lucas cast his actors.  What does anyone know about these actors and the type of characters they play?  I saw a clip of the funny looking guy Driver....he is actually pretty funny in a cynical way...I dont think he is the villain.

Andy Serkis <--> CGI.  Or will he just play himself?

CO said:

luckydube56 said:

It's been reported that Han Solo will be the central character in episode 7.  Hmmm...will Ford get the death he's always asked for?

I think Abrams knows that Han Solo is the key to grabbing that casual fan as you see him him sitting next to Ford for the table-read.

Don't get me wrong, I love Luke Skywalkers character as the OT was really about him, but Han Solo made Star Wars cool, and brought in a fanbase other then SciFi nerds. 

The Prequels really lacked a Han Solo type character, and you could even say that ROTJ lacked his coolness as he was relegated to a secondary role to the Vader/Emperor/Luke faceoff.

 I wholeheartedly agree.  Han Solo is cool.  I look at these actors and I dont necessarily see anyone 'cool'.

I'm sorry I dont know his name but that guy with the odd looking face, everyone assumes he is the villain.  But if anyone could be the cool guy of thr group it would be him.

And if he's the cool guy, do you gotta kill off the old cool guy?

It's been reported that Han Solo will be the central character in episode 7.  Hmmm...will Ford get the death he's always asked for?

EyeShotFirst said:

When I was young, the Original Trilogy was all I had, so in the end, I didn't need the prequels. In fact, the mystery of what happened to Darth Vader was one of the things that always excited me, but that was because I had an imagination.

I never needed to see it. I agree it had so much potential to be a great story, I just never felt it. We never got a glimpse of the great man Obi Wan said he was. We never saw that. If you feel something for an asshole turning evil, more power to you.

George could've pulled some tears out of some people if he'd made Anakin a likable person.

I still like some things about the movies, I don't know if it's the score, or the fact that there are occasional glimpses at what is to come, but without the OT, my interest in the prequels would be nonexistent. Your great films only stand because people that saw the OT wanted to see more.

 I couldnt agree more.  This whole origins story thing Hollywood is onto has gotten so old.  

OBI-WAN37 said:

 And yes, the story was great, because anakin turning to the dark side is truly moving, and the way Palpatine manipulates anakin into doing so is so cool, especially in episode III when you're just watching and thinking, "no, don't turn to the dark side", but then he does and the effect, regardless of how obvious it is that it was going to happen, is amazing.

I can say with complete honesty, that I never thought or felt this.

The moment I saw what the film makers were doing with Anakin Skywalker, I wanted no more.  I wanted them to hurry up and bring on Vader.  There was nothing in Hayden Christensen's acting or characterization that compelled me to want to see more of him.  To be fair, that may be more on the filmmakers than Christensen himself.

I watched all three PT films only because they had Star Wars in the title and I kept coming back on the chance they might get better; something I typically never do.  They did not.

I'm hoping the sequel trilogy makes no mention of that disaster of a galaxy.  The OT lives forever on film.  Hopefully the sequel trilogy builds on that.  The PT is best left to everyone's imagination.

imperialscum said:

Well don't get me wrong. I think ROTJ is fine as it is (same goes for ESB).

Just curious about the "reunion" stuff. What kind of reunion do you have in mind. I hope not the kind they did in LOTR:ROTK that made me want to leave the theatre. :D

 LOL.  Me too.  Frankly I dont have any ideas.  Just critiques.  My ideas are most unwelcome anyways.  If I had good ideas, I wouldnt be some keyboard jockey.

darklordoftech said:

space battles vs. ground battles vs. lightsaber duels. Which is your favorite and which is your least favorite?

 Space battles.  The most iconic and recurring images from these movies is the front view inside the Millenium Falcon cockpit.  It's also like a mini-stage for the actors.

It's going to be glorious seeing the Millenium Falcon again in the ST.

imperialscum said:

luckydube56 said:

Not only do they not need the Carbon Freezing scene.

I am not sure whether this is directed at me. The carbon freezing scene itself is necessary. Its main purpose is to show Han being frozen and sent to Jabba. What I was saying is that the (secondary) romance part was not essential. In fact, it greatly diminished Han and Liea character potential for ROTJ while adding very little to ESB. I know some of you adore the "I love you", "I know" moment brought up by Ford... but what I said is true.

 Well that's a matter of opinion.  The romantic tension was initiated in the early part of the film and the question of whether or not the two characters loved each other was answere at the end.  The movie itself ends with a sense of uncertainty about some things and I think this was Lucas and Kadan's way of tying up at least a couple of loose ends.  Some questions, some answers and some revelations.  

I personally dont adore the "I know" moment brought up by Ford.  Many do and for them, its one of the many reasons they love ESB above all others.  In fact, I actually like the first Star Wars film above all but that's neither here nor there.  Whether some of that should have been saved for the next film is inconsequential.  If ROTJ is viewed as a failure or not meeting its potential, then it failed on its own merits; not because ESB didnt leave enough for it.  

In fact, ROTJ began with a reunion and that's the potential emotional impact that wasn't properly seized upon.  Notice how tragic the breaking up of the old gang felt at the end of ESB?  Notice how there was no price paid to get the gang back together in ROTJ?  That's a disconnect.  You can say ESB took too much material away from ROTJ but in actuality, ROTJ washed away the heartbreak of ESB by making the reunion seem easy.

Not only do they not need the Carbon Freezing scene.  They didnt need to show Vader and Luke dueling.

In fact, they could have had Luke just show up with a stump where his hand used to be:  "Oh this?  Yeah, ummm, Vader cut it off, by the way, he's my dad."

twister111 said:

This proposal of Star Wars being released later on not doing as well is paradoxical. Lets say hypothetically the release of Star Wars was delayed into the 90s, the movie exactly the same as it was in 1977 original release. Same audio mixes everything the same. The hypothetical culture of the 90s sans Star Wars would be different than the culture with Star Wars. Who knows maybe the hollywood landscape would've been much the same in the 90s had Star Wars not made it's initial impact in the 70s. Thus allowing for the same sort of influence only later. Afterall it was the success of Star Wars that made them think about bringing Star Trek back from cancellation(edit or more appropriately in movie form) in the first place. That's just one thing that wouldn't have happened had Star Wars not been released in the time it was.

I would argue it's impact would've been even bigger had it's release been delayed since it seems the execs, and theaters, were straying away from even allowing sci-fi properties a chance. Star Wars was block booked with The Other Side of Midnight to get into many theaters in the first place. Star Trek was cancelled. Maybe if it was delayed into the 90s there'd be so little sci-fi entertainment that Star Wars would've become, almost literally, the only show in town. That sort of impact would've been so much bigger than it's 70's impact. Being the literal only form of "new" sci-fi entertainment after only reruns of old Star Trek or Twilight Zone on the tv.

Course it could've gone another way and some other sci-fi movie could've made it big around the same time. Making a delayed 90s Star Wars release disappear in the haze of that 90s sci-fi market.

 I like what you're saying but I find it implausible that Star Wars could have been released in the 90s and have the same affect.  Star Wars was a part of technological history and a milestone but it was built upon ideas that were just budding in the 70s.  So your paradox would only be true if today's society was unchanged from the 70s...and that is the sticking point for me.  No way society and technology doesnt advance.

It could not have been released in the 90s or 00s and had the same affect.  Technology of today would actually dim the fantastic world of Star Wars.  We're walking around with iphones and tablets and we're going to be presented with a movie that doesnt really blow our minds.  So Star Wars released today would be a completely different film and then who knows what you got or how good it is.  Maybe what we would have ended up with was something very much like....the Phantom Menace.

The movie was unquestionably a byproduct of/reaction to its time.  

Star Trek's rebooted series isnt Star Wars and it isnt Star Trek.  It is the byproduct of a guy from one world caught in another.  It's been said many times only because it is utterly true.

It's entertaining but it lacks the form or character of either universe.  Still, I think his first Star Trek demonstrates a few things he can handle well.  The pacing, the comedy, and his eye for casting.  It is a run up to what he now has the opportunity to do.  Into Darkness, on the other hand, lacks the charm of the first film.  It seems half finished. 

I think what is forgotten is the context of the times.  I'm not suggesting the folks behind the film timed its release intentionally.  What I am suggesting is that society was ready for something new and they didnt even know it; nor were they prepared for it.

Star Wars makes you feel good inside.  It's corny sounding but its true.  It is, unlike nearly all other film since or before, like a beacon of hope.  It came at a time, when people needed it.  Art is a reflection of life and if you look at the films of the time, edgy and dark were standards.

I would also add that I'm not asserting that anything today, even another great Star Wars movie, could have the same deep cultural impact.  Afterall, part of that feeling of hope comes from the fact the film presented technology that hand't existed.  But a good Star Wars film released today could stand apart from all other films; even those of the same genre.  

Cinema today is obsessed with darkness.  I like the Dark Knight as much as anyone but it is representative of the dark, moody, and edgy style of film inundating theaters.  And many of them try too hard to be clever.  Plot twists are almost pre-requisite and most are poorly done.  There are light hearted movies but they tend to be either character driven or lack any real substance.

Above all, Star Wars was an escape in a time where people wanted to escape.  When I first saw Star Wars as a kid, for those couple hours, I was in a completely different world and I was stuck there for about a week after and maybe even longer.  Who wanted reality when you could lose yourself in that universe?  When was the last time you saw a movie where you could totally lose yourself or your sense of time or reality for a couple hours?  Granted I was just a kid and naive but how many adults at the time were absolutely taken by it? 

And I dont dismiss the fact that the product itself was outstanding.  I judged all other movies as 'other movies'.  Star Wars was just a different category.

That's just my opinion.  Technology has caught up with our imagination so it would be difficult for any movie to do what Star Wars did.  Maybe I'm just hoping that the current cinematic landscape of cookie cutter films is ripe for the taking.  Maybe it wont even be a Star Wars movie that impacts our collective conscience next.

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?  

skyjedi2005 said:

luckydube56 said:

  The PT itself is an abomination. 

 

Fixed.

 

I think that is what you meant anyway except you said OT which stands for Original trilogy.  To bad there have been 4 cuts of the trilogy which is why everyone seems to state oot which stands for original original trilogy.

Thank you.  Noted and corrected.

And as for the edits of the OT, you notice how Lucas went and crammed more things in those revisions?  More people mostly.  

The 'galaxy' from the original trilogy had a feel about it like it was still a vast expanse.  Like a largely unsettled frontier.  From Tatooine to Bespin to Hoth to Degobah to Endor....these places are inhabited but not overpopulated.  There was still a sense of mystery.

The galaxy from the PT seemed like one giant congested metropolis with no secrets to hide.  Crap.  

Mythology comes from a time where the world/universe was largely unknown.  The Hero myth in particular deals with journey and exploration.  Not much mystery, exploration or unknown exists in the PT because it was all out there in the open.  That, to me is why the PT was garbage.  That above all minor technical issues or plot incongruence is what ruined it for me.  The setting itself robs it of the fantasy half of space fantasy and puts it squarely into science fiction.  That is why there is such a disconnect between the OT and the PT.

The OT speaks of a time long ago.  An older republic.  Yet this older republic looks more like the mundane over grown society of today.  Where was the supposed glory of it all?

So yes, I hope the next trilogy ignores all aspects of the PT.   Not only can it ignore, it should.  The PT itself is an abomination.  Why acknowledge or pay homage?  I dont want to hear reference to the term 'Darth Sidious', I dont care to see Darth Maul.  Dont care about retaining any of those characters or elements.