My earliest memories of Star Wars were reading the Star Wars storybook and seeing Empire in theatres - at age 3! I remember seeing Star Wars and Empire back-to-back with my father at the Tivoli in, maybe, 1982. I would have loved to have been born anytime in '58 through '65, making me the perfect age come '77.
corellian77 said:
theprequelsrule said:
zombie84 said:
Lee-Sensei said:
About the US and UK's global significance... it's called Cultural Imperialism. The cultures of the countries at the top are very influential.
Well, to be honest in the case of Star Wars is just boils down to 1) English speaking countries and 2) Domestic production. Star Wars was in many ways an American-British co-production so of course it will be biggest in those two countries. It's also, I would argue, equally big in Canada, which is maybe the one area you could make the case for cultural imperialism, but it's not really imperialism since it's a deliberate audience choice mainly because our own entertainment industry sucks in comparison.
Aren't you are forgetting about a little movie called Men with Brooms?
Or the aforementioned Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter?
How about that CBC reality show that took place on the GO Trains?
TV's Frink said:
Long live this thread.
+1.
But shouldn't the band be called either "Porkins and the I'm All Rights" or "Gold 5 and the Came from Behinds"? We don't want people to get confused.
Either way, can I get a t-shirt?
zombie84 said:
Lee-Sensei said:
About the US and UK's global significance... it's called Cultural Imperialism. The cultures of the countries at the top are very influential.
Well, to be honest in the case of Star Wars is just boils down to 1) English speaking countries and 2) Domestic production. Star Wars was in many ways an American-British co-production so of course it will be biggest in those two countries. It's also, I would argue, equally big in Canada, which is maybe the one area you could make the case for cultural imperialism, but it's not really imperialism since it's a deliberate audience choice mainly because our own entertainment industry sucks in comparison.
Aren't you are forgetting about a little movie called Men with Brooms?
xhonzi said:
theprequelsrule said:
I loved Mass Effect 1, but was somewhat disappointed in 2 for the following reasons:
- I felt they were aiming at a younger age demographic and going for a more pure TPS, rather than a TPS/RPG hybrid. This is a matter of taste of course.
- The game lacked narrative drive and got really bogged down in the side quests.
- Too many squadmates with little to say, instead of a smaller number with more dialogue
- The Collectors were lame, uninspired enemies who you hardly ever saw; it felt like your mission was to hunt down merc groups!
- It also really annoyed me that I could not put my companions in proper armour or spacesuits for those times when, you know, they go into space!
- No meaningful upgrades to your armour and no weapon upgrades to speak of.
- No inventory or economy whatsoever!
- Shrinking universe (a side quest mission allows you to eliminate the entire Geth threat from ME1!)
- Planet scanning
- N7 missions sucked; give me the Mako (with better controls) and those stunning vistas on unexplored worlds anytime
ME2 was still a good game with some really slick presentation with great voice acting (at times), and a few interesting characters, but it felt like the soul of the first game was sacrificed to create it. I think there was a lot of missed potential - the game would have been much more interesting if Cerberus had been shown to be undoubtedly evil and they had created a compelling reason for you to join them.
Having said all this; do you think I will like ME3?
I'm a little worried about this. I haven't started ME2 yet, and I was only so-so for ME1. Everyone told me I was going to love ME1. When I didn't, everyone said not to worry because I would love ME2 for sure.
But the things that are gone (Mako, RPG elements, economy, etc.) are some of the things I liked best about ME1.
I also forgot to mention that they abandoned the late 1970s early 1980s scifi aesthetic in favour of a more "edgy" and "dark" look.
DuracellEnergizer said:
DavidBrennan said:
Star Wars Kid was better than those Jedi actors.
Fixed.
AOTC was an utter piece of shit from beginning to end.
DavidBrennan said:
I defy anybody to watch 'Capturing Avatar' (or the dozens of terrific "Making of" featurettes that the production released for free online leading up to 'Avatar's release) and compare that to the PT. James Cameron's philosophy for creating quality performances for actors in synthetic environments (all green screen for the PT, mostly performance cap for AVTR) was 100% the opposite.
Yeah, but it didn't matter in the end; I thought Avatar was crap. Every fictional Cameron film since True Lies has been an unintentional comedy. Compare the "acting" in Avatar with that in Aliens or Terminator.
But modern audiences have held blockbuster films to lower and lower standards for many years now. I think the only major summer blockbuster of the last 15 years that I have enjoyed was Iron Man.
And for the record: Jake Lloyd's acting sucked in TPM. He actually lowered the quality of the dialogue by his terrible delivery - quite a feat.
Sadly I was not born until late that year. For those who were alive at the time, and still have memories, what was the Star Wars phenomena like?
I loved Mass Effect 1, but was somewhat disappointed in 2 for the following reasons:
ME2 was still a good game with some really slick presentation with great voice acting (at times), and a few interesting characters, but it felt like the soul of the first game was sacrificed to create it. I think there was a lot of missed potential - the game would have been much more interesting if Cerberus had been shown to be undoubtedly evil and they had created a compelling reason for you to join them.
Having said all this; do you think I will like ME3?
I'm stunned at how much this news hurts me. The man was certainly one of the main creators of the Star Wars we know and love.
RIP Mr. McQuarrie.
zombie84 said:
I think a large part of this has to do with the fact that George Lucas isn't a regular, integrated part of society. The world he lives in is not the same as yours and mine. He can't go check out a movie theatre saturday night, or take the subway downtown. He can't just go with a friend to a comedy club, or take a walk around the neighbourhood when he is feeling restless. He can't go window shop on sunday afternoon with his girlfriend, or take his kids to the local baseball game. He's not going to have a conversation with the guy standing next to him in line at the bank, because he doesn't line up at the bank in the first place, and he can't walk into a comic book shop and see what's out this week.
These are all things normal people do, and things that people here do. Mostly, Lucas doesn't go out at all, and when he does it's usually just for work purposes.
Think about that. Think about what that does to a person, and how it affects the way they see the world and how they understand their own culture.
But, in fact, George Lucas the person is hardly a part of 21st century American culture (or any culture, really). He has a sense of it, and memories from the 70s when he could be a free member within it, but he doesn't experience or understand it the way normal people do. It simply isn't possible.
I think that's a big reason why a lot of his views in the last decade or two have become increasingly warped. He's not a lunatic--he just doesn't have a clue. In a way, it's not really his fault, it's simply what happened, and he tried to resist for so long, to his credit--he tried to be ordinary, to not let the fame and fortune change him. He bought a Corvette, but it was used, he built a mansion, but it was for work, and he still walked around in tennis sneakers and flannel. People in the late 70s used to compliment him on how ordinary he remained in spite of great wealth--and Lucas used to say that is why his films were successful. "I'm ordinary, and its the same ordinary of my viewers, so I understand them and how to entertain them," he (paraphrasing here) said around 1980, and it was probably largely true. He said in 1981, Star Wars is just a movie and people shouldn't get so hung up on it. He could say such a thing back then. It was a fad, with lots of merchandising and a cultural footprint, but it hadn't been enshrined in history, it still was, largely, just a popular film.
But there is only so long you can resist against such a lifestyle. After three or four years, sure, he seemed the same. But after eight years, twelve years, twenty years--with each year bringing him even more wealth and fame than the one before it (except 1984-1990)--it catches up.
So now, you have him saying people want Han to be coldblooded and nonesense like that, ascribing various motives and thoughts to some fans. But he has no clue really. He may log on the internet from time to time and spend an hour browsing around, he probably still reads the daily newspaper, and he surely get reports from his staff and marketing guys about "the buzz", a sort of briefing on what people are saying and what's happening. But its not like he could know anything from experience. He lives in his own world, and he convinces himself of certain things, plus the brief glimpses he gets from sources like meetings and the internet. But all that stuff I mentioned at the beginning? The subways, the shopping, the movie theatres? He largely doesn't do that. He doesn't exist in our culture anymore, in the regular sense. He has his own culture, and his own world, with its own population of staff and such, plus a small circle of family and a few friends who are also mainly celebrities of some kind.
I think that explains a lot of this disconnect not only in his statements but also the disconnect in his films. He's this super-powerful billionaire who has led a life of relative isolation for the better part of 30 years now, apart from the normal world. How could he have a clue about what the 21st century is like for all of us reading this? How could he make a meaningful film for such audiences? He tried, and it's not like it was a total failure, but the huge shortcomings come from the shortcomings of Lucas the human being, and I'm not talking about his skills with grammar or lack of directing panache. And because he is the one who often dictates company policy, a lot of things Lucasfilm does these days is equally out of whack.
I guess that is the downside of not having to have a care in the world and being able to do pretty much anything.
As usual, great insights from Zombie. Ultimately when a person amasses enough power that he can isolate himself from his fellows, he will soon lose the ability to relate to them, and vice versa. That is what Peter Green said of Alexander the Great's status following his conquest of the Perisan Empire, but I think it applies equally well to George Lucas.
I disagree with the OP. But...
George Lucas thought that Star Wars was just going to be another movie in a long line of films he would make. Like he has said before, he hoped it would make enough money so he could make his next movie. He never thought it would be his legacy, and probably never wanted it to be. So on some level he must resent Star Wars at least a little.
The success of Star Wars also set him on a path that contributed to the dissolution of his marriage and the loss of a huge part of his fortune.
I think at one point he really wanted to make the prequels - you know, the one's about Obi wan Kenobi's hubris resulting in the seduction of Anakin Skywalker to the darkside and the eventual fall of the Republic. It's too bad those movies never got make
I think by the time the 90s rolled around he was lukewarm on the idea of prequels. It had been a longtime after all. What got him excited again for them again was, unfortunately, the special effects revolution exemplified in Jurassic Park. Coupled with the success of Heir to the Empire and it's sequels, George must have released that Star Wars was still a goldmine that was not being tapped and could help rebuild his fortune. "And why shouldn't it?", George must have thought. "I made people really happy with these films. Don't I have a right to profit from them?" So ultimately the entire prequel trilogy does not work because:
Actually, the OP made me stop and think. I certainly don't love it the way I used to. And l'm definitely with georgec in hating the franchise and refusing to spend another dime on it. I've come to the point where I really don't care anymore - I have my cruddy GOUT versions (which I watch more and more infrequently) and I guess I'll just live with them. It's too bad that a culturally important piece of art has been destroyed and suppressed, but whatever. They are only movies.
I guess I'm at the point where it is more enjoyable to rip into the garbage than to praise the gold - not a good spot to be in.
Sorry guys, GL has just worn me down.
I think I'll go over to the bioware forums now and bitch about how they ruined the Dragon Age series with Dragon Age 2. At least it took 22 years to destroy Star Wars...
I can never make my mind up about this film. Amazing art direction and puppetry (old school special effects for the win!) but a little weak story wise I guess.
Darth Bizarro said:
Almost as bad as the transfer were the fans in attendance...the guy who was shouting, clapping, and cheering over enthusiastically at everything from Jar Jar, to "yippee!", to "are you and angel?" (that kids a pimp he said) and basically every shot Darth Maul was in. Seriously, the guy started shouting "fuck yeah" and "fuck him up" during the final duel while there were CHILDREN present.
Sorry DB, I just got m'self a little excited is all!
You know, RLM hit the nail on the head when they said George Lucas had become somewhat of a real life Citizen Kane. It is sad that the man who helped create 3 pretty great movies in the 70s is reduced to blaming his fans for forcing (pun intended) him out of the business.
“He will have completed his task as a man and a filmmaker.”
Good old Rick is always good for a laugh.
Anchorhead said:
FanFiltration said:
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
I don't dislike the film, far from it. However, I recognize the poor production. I read a book about the production from start to release. With Paramount continually cutting the budget even after green-lighting the project and the writers' guild strike at the time, it's a wonder it came out at all.
That said; My positive take on it is that the story of the film - someone high-jacks a star ship so they can go see God - is an awesome idea for a science fiction film. Too bad things worked against its being handled as well as it could have been.
+1
Sounds like a porno.
I can't believe that TPM came out almost 13 years ago.
I like the "music" in the trailer - very reminiscent (almost identical actually) of that used in the original trailer for Alien.
I will assume the movie sucks, as I do with all movies now. I'm especially unenthusiastic about an apparent scene where people are running from what appears to be The Derelict crashing onto the planet. Got to get those teenagers in the seats I guess.
DuracellEnergizer said:
I'm not happy being a misanthrope, a pessimist, or - I'm sad to say - a nihilist. But that's the way the dice rolled, and short of some higher power showing up to prove me wrong, there's nothing that can be done to change how I feel.
Nihilism is the beginning of wisdom. But don't remain there.
TV's Frink said:
Yeah, what a bunch of jerks.
The jerks like myself are posting in the Abortion thread in off-topic Frink.
Mrebo said:
There is no denying the general right of a person to exercise autonomy over their body. But like all rights - it is not absolute.
Actually, I think it is absolute. Hence my pro-choice stance. Again, I'm not saying it is a pleasant event. But my own values are not typical of many people.
Look, it is an emotional issue, but the fact of the matter is that we value the lives of children because of sentimental and not logical reasons. What is more tragic, when an intelligent adult, whom his parents and society have invested incredible amounts of time and money in dies or when an unborn and unwanted child dies? Well, it depends on how you value human life. All of us value human life, but I guess I differ in how I determine that value.
I guess when it comes down to it, I don't believe that life holds intrinsic value, so a child basically has no value other than the happiness it brings to it's parents. So if they are not going to be happy, and the child is going to be miserable as a result, maybe an abortion is the right decision.
I'll stop there and see if anyone wants further elaboration on my point. It looks like I won't be making many friends around here anymore.
I love that crazed TPM Yoda.