theprequelsrule

My Neighbor Totoro. I was crying constantly throughout it. Just a wonderful film.

skyjedi2005 said:

Lucas also liked the Famous Funnies covers done by Frazetta, the Buck Rogers covers. He wanted to use some of his favorite fantasies of his youth in a way that was not silly.

Make a be movie in an with an A movie budget and create a believable secondary world or universe.

Yeah he liked larry buster crabbes Flash Gordon serials, but if he really wanted to recreate that sillyness star wars would have not even broke even.

He expected it to do no better or worse than planet of the apes, but hoped it would not bomb like 2001 and take a long time to recoup costs and investment.

From what you wrote it looks like the prequels turned out like he was afraid the original would. Yet he praises the prequels! Maddening.

skyjedi2005 said:

He made a film which was very much inspired by Alex Raymond comics, and AL Williamson EC comics work.

Its no coincidence it became one of Al's favorite films, sadly Al passed away.

Interesting. Tell me more.

skyjedi2005 said:

I would even be fine with just Lucas scanning his technicolor print of sw 77 and releasing it barebones with no extras except the 3 sound mixes.

I agree.

Also; the purple sabre looks like ass.

Bingowings said:

Not that much work went into the other bounty hunters.

Bossk it the head of one Cantina denizen in the space suit of another.

Dengar is mostly cloth with some oversized stormtrooper armour.

4LOM is a an insect head on a protocol droid body.

Zuckuss is basically the same head over a brown robe, even IG88 is partly made from re-cycled airplane parts (already used in the first film as a drinks dispenser).

None of them had custom ships and none of them had the same amount of air time and not much of them was designed from scratch.

Fair enough. The irony here is that they looked just as cool as Fett. No wonder Empire went overbudget.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

The menus were quite neat and creative, but seriously, they looked 5 times more fake than the worst cases of CG in EpII.

You bastard Frink. I was hoping I would never have to see these images again!

Gay Mandalorians are definitely the highlight of the EU. I can't wait for the movies.

Now that I think about it how do Lightsabers stop the beam when they are activated? What we definitely need is for Lucass to film a 5 minutes monologue of Kenobi explaining the tech to us for the 3D edition of Star Wars.

"This was the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster. An elegant weapon...for a more civilized age. You see Luke, the power-cell emits an energy beam that is focused via either a natural or synthetic crystal..."

Much better. Then I can sleep at night. After I rub one out.

Bingowings said:

The two headed pod announcer and the Munch Bunch Sweetcorn guy in the non-starting pod weren't just fake they were infantile.

Ugh. Did you have to remind me of them!

TheBoost said:

From "topic" to "I still hate the prequals" in less than one post.

That has to be a new record, even for us.

Unless, to be fair, "I hate the prequals" WAS the real topic, and the thread title was a clever ruse.

No ruse, but it is how my mind works when thinking about Star Wars. Unfortunately. I cannot think about how good the originals were without thinking of the prequels and how much they disappointed me.

I just find it fascinating the way the originals seemed to hit the mark in so many areas (themes, special effects, audio, narrative drive etc. etc. etc. etc.) and then the prequels failed to do so. In 1999 I would have at least said the special effects were great, but as it turns out they have not stood the test of time.

Bingowings said:

For me some of the fresh introductions in ESB felt like they were going to go somewhere but didn't in ROTJ (presumably because Lucas felt out of love with Star Wars and what it over and done with).

One obvious example is Boba Fett.

A lot of work went into designing him.

His armour and his ship have the sort of detailing a comic book creator would put into a major new title.

He is clearly designed to be Solo through a mirror darkly.

If Solo was really as mercenary and cynical as he pretended in ANH he would be Fett.

He knows Solo's tricks and uses them to track him.

He truly is solo (he hasn't even got a sidekick like Chewie to keep him company).

It's a shame really he wasn't conceived as such when the first film was written.

He could have conned Greedo into confronting Solo in the cantina, he could have tipped the Stormtroopers off knowing that Solo would escape but just to be a thorn in his side.

When he turned up again in ESB the audience would then be tempted to ask, what's the beef between these two? It's not just a common bounty/hunter relationship here. Has he got some sort of personal grudge?

I know some people will find this galaxy shrinking but ROTJ had a opportunity to show how far Solo had grown and where he may be going (joining the Rebels full time, contemplating settling down with Leia etc) by showing what he could have become through Fett.

I suggested a fan edit scenario where instead of being a bodyguard waiting around to get killed in Jabba's palace Fett worked the Rebels and Empire off each other.

He is hired by Vader to lure the Rebels to the Death Star trap and hired by the Rebels to track the Emperor's movements.

Both gigs giving Fett the information he needs to pick up both paychecks.

If it were actually filmed back in the eighties rather than dropped in a fan-edit insert you could have a confrontation where Solo gets a chance to get even with Fett but doesn't.

Solo could instead (in his smart mouth way) question Fett about what the money is all for, which would mirror Luke trying to get Han to help the Rebels in ANH.

Something like :

Han : "That's a lot of cash Fett, what do you need it for alimony?"

Fett could walk off but without looking at him say "Yes".

You make too many assumptions here Bingo. A lot of work went into a lot of characters (like the other bounty hunters) and nothing more was planned for them. Sure, Fett looks cool, but let's not wank all over him like TFNers.

People forget Luke was the main character of these films - which of course is why they work (unlike say...Anakin Skywalker and the prequels). But in our modern era I guess Han Solo types are more "cool".

timdiggerm said:

The ending celebration. I was skeptical at first, but I've come to realize it's a much better ending than "Celebrate the loooooooooove" and the galactic perspective is really nice, particularly in light of the prequels.

NEVER!!!!!

TheBoost said:

theprequelsrule said:

TV's Frink said:

theprequelsrule said:

She excels at playing two types; waifs and jail-bait.

Wut?

Did you see Garden State?  Did you see Black Swan?

Yes. She plays waif types in both those films.

I quirky mentally handicapped receptionis and an obsessive possibly psychotic dancer are waif types?

"I do not think that word means what you think it means."

It's less her roles, than the manner she seems to play them - always vulnerable, the puppy-dog eyes etc. But, that's how she earns her bread...and then some.

twooffour said:

Alexrd said:

theprequelsrule said:

He was not able to achieve this in the prequels.

To each his own.

The prequels weren't as much tacky (save for some cases of childish humor or sappiness) as they were artificial and boring.
The dialogues at their worst weren't campy and naive, they were fake and dreadful.

Um, the Gungans? The cheesy vehicle designs? "Hit the nose!"
The "buzz droids"? The Gungans? "Super-ninja Yoda"? I though there was plenty of tackiness in the prequels. And when there wasn't, yes, it was artificial and boring.

Star Wars:

- Millennium Falcon escape from Mos Eisley

- Dogfight footage during the deathstar attack (including the faster speed of the Death Star AA guns)

Empire:

- umm... maybe the wampa. someone else decide for me

Return:

- the bantha herd

Well, I think that's it. Overall they sucked. But not as much as the prequels.

TV's Frink said:

theprequelsrule said:

I think I was more disappointed in her than MacGregor or Neeson.

Definitely agree with that.  But I think she delivered exactly what George asked for.

*resigned sigh of a disappointed Star Wars fan*

Nah Frink, I'm just being a jerk. I'm bitter about her performance in the prequels, since she was very impressive in her prior films. I think I was more disappointed in her than MacGregor or Neeson.

Alexrd said:

theprequelsrule said:

He was not able to achieve this in the prequels.

To each his own.

Indeed sir, indeed.

TV's Frink said:

theprequelsrule said:

She excels at playing two types; waifs and jail-bait.

Wut?

Did you see Garden State?  Did you see Black Swan?

Yes. She plays waif types in both those films.

TV's Frink said:

Oh no, now hating on Nat?

:-(

Not hating. Sometimes she is very good. She just does not seem (IMHO) to have the unlimited range that some "Nat gushers" ascribe to her.

Mmmm. Nat gushers.

http://www.craigbe.com/movieblog/2005/04/original_1977_s.html

Maybe the most important quote is at the end: "One of Mr. Lucas's particular achievements is the manner in which he is able to recall the tackiness of the old comic strips and serials he loves without making a movie that is, itself, tacky."

He was not able to achieve this in the prequels.

LexX said:

I remember Portman saying when TPM came out that she hadn't seen any of the films and only watched them when she was cast in TPM.

There is no doubt in my mind  that Portman only agreed to the films because she and her parents thought it would be good for her career. She seemed to have zero interest in the themes and magic of the original trilogy.

I think she is also somewhat overrated as an actress. She does not have the unlimited range of the truly great actors/actresses. She excels at playing two types; waifs and jail-bait.

Were there not rumours that Lucas seriously considered replacing her with Keira Knightly for ROTS?

twooffour said:

The problem is, in many cases they neither show nor tell ;)

Bingo. You just gave an insightful review of the prequels in one sentence!

It's probably not a good sign if you are saying "huh?" or "what?" to yourself while viewing a Star Wars movie. During the prequels we were saying these things constantly. When we were awake.

twooffour said:

Well, the prequels and explanations... they don't explain what the TF wants, they don't explain what Separatists want, they don't explain the Syfo-Dias nonsense or whatever... they're just really sloppy about providing exposition where it's needed.

Yes. George's 1970s films were always structured to require minimal exposition. Show don't tell was his philosophy - one that was inline with his skill-set as a director.

grisan said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

grisan said:

 (never understood why a few seconds of force lightning should kill him).

Because the lightning caused his breathing apparatus to malfunction.

I have read that explanation several times and it makes sense, but I still think it should have been mentioned better in the movies or the damage by the emporer shoudl have been made more obvious. That's why I listed it as one of my main flaws of ROTJ.

No. This is stupid prequel logic: "We need to explain everything!"

I never questioned that the full powers of an evil, powerful, sorcerer could kill even Darth Vader.

People forget the impact of that scene at the time - the lightning came out of nowhere. You were not expecting it. Force lightning was badass...until ruined by AOTC.