|
Bongo Bill posted:I agree it's a legitimate reading, and concede it's not more far-fetched than the conventional and superficial readings according to which it's plain poo poo. The difference is that viewing Star Wars on that low level should still be enjoyable. There's a lot of non-nerds who legitimately enjoy the prequels.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
No. No! That's not true! That's impossible!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 05:54
|
|
|
Rad Valtar posted:I was always intrigued by the mystique of how we got to the OT. When I was a kid me and my friend always talked about things like how Anakin became Vader, how did the Emperor gain power, what happened to all the Jedi. I'm not sure though that I ever really wanted the answers, I always felt that the mystique of it all would be far more interesting then Lucas actually going back and piecing together the puzzle because there were always going to be things that would get messed up in the story telling. The actual problem is what he did was far worse then even I expected. This is why the PT is more popular among kids, I think. They watch them with no preconceived notions. They haven't been mulling over backstory for 30 years in their heads. After that long, ANYTHING would be disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
Hatter106 posted:This is why the PT is more popular among kids, I think. They watch them with no preconceived notions. They haven't been mulling over backstory for 30 years in their heads. After that long, ANYTHING would be disappointing. Your imagination is a better ground for the prequels, anyways. Thoughts are more nimble than film, after all. It doesn't lessen the medium, but the Jedi Order is all about mystery and promise, and showing us what they were is inevitably going to disappoint. I feel the same way with the sequels. Luke and company go on and have adventures, which is great and all, but none of them are going to live up to the original trilogy. You'd have to seriously change what you're doing with the films (see the differences between the Iliad and the Odyssey to see the oldest proof of this) because Star Wars is a pretty closed story. Sure, he could fight Thrawn or the Yog-Sothoths or anything else from the EU (doesn't Han's kid become the Emperor or something?), but that's just a new enemy to overlay into the archetype, and the OT owns that archetype. You'd have to make something that challenges the OT in some way for it to matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
Hatter106 posted:This is why the PT is more popular among kids, I think. They watch them with no preconceived notions. They haven't been mulling over backstory for 30 years in their heads. After that long, ANYTHING would be disappointing. People need to stop saying stuff like this. I was 10 years old when TPM came out. It's a garbage movie and I fell asleep in the theater watching both that movie and Attack of the Clones. I've never fallen asleep in the theater for any other movie ever. The best thing I can say about Revenge of the Sith is that I didn't fall asleep watching it. In fact it was the most fun I had with the prequels because I was laughing so hard at the NOOOOOOO thing. I wanted to love those movies. They're just so poorly made. I honestly don't care about changing the backstory. Sure it was dumb that there were so many Jedi in the prequels, considering Han Solo didn't even know what the force was, but I could deal with it if people weren't just talking about boring nothing for two and a half hours. Kids are dumb, obviously. There are movies that you loved as a kid that you should never watch again as an adult. You know why? Because those movies are awful and watching them again will only illustrate that. A lot of people were children and like the prequels, only to grow up and understand why they're awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
Yeah... My dislike the prequels has very little to do with what I thought Star Wars 'should' be. Even the midichlorians thing wouldn't have been all that bad if it wasn't just another sticking point in a sea of awful. I'm not sure I ever saw Star Wars as much more than a fun adventure movie with a neat aesthetic, and I would be very satisfied if Episode VII was just Pirates of the Caribbean in space. The prequels came off as something written by the kind of awful fanboy that SMG is talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
Precambrian posted:Your imagination is a better ground for the prequels, anyways. Thoughts are more nimble than film, after all. It doesn't lessen the medium, but the Jedi Order is all about mystery and promise, and showing us what they were is inevitably going to disappoint. Yes making a movie is inevitably less interesting than not making the movie at all. What? If you can't tell, I hate this defeatist line where somehow the prequels were destined to be horrible because telling a story will upset everyone. "Well it was always going to be one of the legendarily bad movies of all time anyway, let that be a lesson."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 09:39
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Yes making a movie is inevitably less interesting than not making the movie at all. What? The thing is, being bad wasn't inevitable, it was just bound to disappoint. And disappointing isn't necessarily a bad thing. The funny thing is, the prequels actually come close to being good by virtue of undercutting the original trilogy (which, I presume, would disappoint fans even if they enjoyed the movie). They actually say something and influence the originals. As I posted earlier, the prequels now make it possible that Obi Wan and Yoda are kind of full of poo poo. Acting all high and mighty like the Clone Wars didn't blow a hole in their mode of thinking. If you're curious about "how did Anakin Skywalker fall to the dark side?", your imagination is more qualified than film to show this- because thoughts are nimble and not committed. You can turn them around all you want, act out a story from what the original movies give you and add a considerable chunk of whatever would please yourself. Films, however, are not nimble. They're concrete. The prequels had to commit to saying something about the original trilogy. But the problem is, what can you really add to Star Wars? It's a closed story. Your imagination can satisfy your curiosity, but if you make a movie out of it, you've got to do something with the material or you're just knocking events off a checklist in a weird, ritualistic fashion. There's no mystery to resolve, no secrets to reveal. I don't care to learn what planet Anakin became Vader on, nor do I want to know about the surgeon who designed the suit. Anything you show is only good for how it engages the source material, or why bother with the Star Wars label?. Honestly, though, I think the real problem is that Star Wars isn't all that great. It deserves cynicism. Don't lump me in with SMG, I don't really see the fandom in this (though, shifting through Wookiepedia to learn they are actually called the Yuuzhan Vohn, I have grown to loathe the worthless minutiae of the EU) anymore than I see Lucas. The franchise itself is flawed- you look at it long enough and cracks show up. I cited KOTOR 2 earlier because it does the same thing: undercut Star Wars. I think there's more general problems with sequels and prequels, but ultimately, Star Wars is a brand that I enjoyed, but don't really see much more to it. That, more than anything, is where my "defeatism" comes from. You can make a good movie from anything, so, sure, it's possible there's a great Star Wars movie kicking around. I don't have much invested in the franchise, so I wouldn't be crushed if it's not. They could engage the question of what Reconstruction is like under the Rebellion. Say something about Luke's supposed "synthesis", do something with the politics of the first movie, something that engages Star Wars. There are as many options as one can imagine. But there's enough Star Wars tie-ins that show the other option: just repackage the original trilogy with a new villain, like Blizzard properties with a new corrupted hero. They're pointless, and while the prequels certainly underwhelm, at least they say something interesting, even if it disappoints.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Plan 9 From Outer Space requires a fairly unnatural reading to make enjoyable; call that reading "enlightened" or "ironic" or just plain "wrong," you must admit that it's very different from the mindset under which many people really loved the original trilogy. Who wants a successor to Plan 9 when they could have a successor to Star Wars? Should a new Star Wars movie really reveal the folly of liking the old ones? Does the mere fact of their separation in time mean that it's inappropriate to criticize them for failing to maintain tonal and thematic consistency (as "episodes" are they not in fact best interpreted as parts of a whole)? Maybe if they had been released under a different title nobody would care. The prequels aren't dissing the original Star Wars. They are dissing bad 'readings' of Star Wars that focus on the tech, the plot and the ostensible realism over such things as basic cinematic technique and symbolism. R2-D2 is not just 'a robot' but the robot, in a philosophical sense. Lucas uses him to talk about the philosophy of artificial intelligence, which is why you have the scene of him playing chess against Chewbacca. It's a fairly direct reference to the Turing test. The original Star Wars is loaded with references to Marshall McLuhan, such as the preponderance of perspective lines and references to 'tribal' cultures. There are countless scenes of characters interacting with different media. Han Solo spends like a straight minute blowing up security cameras, and then impersonates a guard over the radio. (Seriously, pay attention to how many insert shots of security cameras exploding there are). C-3P0, a translator robot, is unable to distinguish cheering from screaming over his radio. This theme of different media and their powers/limitations is so important to the film that it culminates in Luke's decision to shut off his targeting computer. It's why Vader has multiple prosthetic limbs. It's why Leia's message looks like television. This is what Star Wars is predominately 'about'. In the prequels, the media is digital photography, CGI and whatnot. As the medium is different, so is the message. Lucas does not try to disguise his effects. He foregrounds them and their artifice. The prequels were always going to be different from the original films, by sheer fact of being prequels made at the turn of the millenium with brand-new technologies. Expecting 'consistency' is exactly why the prequels were needed. Everyone demanded 'more Star Wars' and that's precisely what they got - an assload as Star Wars Brand Product, straight from the same franchise that brought you collectible Pepsi cans. I appreciate the honesty. It's the same honesty as in Transformers. What people should have demanded is 'more films like Star Wars, (e.g. films shot on film - with muppets, 'primitive' optical effects, and progressive political themes). Beyond The Black Rainbow is a good, recent example. Beyond The Black Rainbow is a retrospective on the 1980s, where the Star Wars prequels are unmistakably films about life in the early 2000s. They have absolutely nothing to do with life in the late 1970s/1980s. They could have been, but they were not. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 11:31
|
|
|
I saw the prequels first when I was still a kid. They were usually boring and there were entire scenes of dialogue I just muted out as I saw them, but the lightsaber fights were awesome. Did you see how fast the lazer swords moved? It was so cool!!! I can't believe a time has come when my favourite lightsaber fight in the entire two trilogies is the final one between Luke and Vader. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Expecting 'consistency' is exactly why the prequels were needed. Everyone demanded 'more Star Wars' and that's precisely what they got - an assload as Star Wars Brand Product, straight from the same franchise that brought you collectible Pepsi cans. I appreciate the honesty. It's the same honesty as in Transformers. Is it possible that Lucas giving people consistency might not have been in order to show them the failing of wanting consistency, and actually was his own attempt to 'be consistent'? This is an honest question - your idea of what the prequels are saying seems to rely on Lucas giving people Star Wars Brand Product to make a point, where surely it might also be the case that Lucas was just giving people Star Wars Brand Product because he wanted to make it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 13:05
|
|
|
Voodoofly related a story about Lucas in the chat thread that seems relevant to this discussion a couple months ago I hope he doesn't mind me reporting it here:Voodoofly posted:How does George Lucas crush someone's soul in two words?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
That story is proof that George Lucas has the same amount of contempt for his audience as Michael Bay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Granted if I made a film about revolutionary social change and the thing that viewers took from it is how to calculate the diameter of the Death Star and what color swords there are I'd be a bit frustrated too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Oh yeah, it's perfectly understandable, I just think it's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
Precambrian posted:KOTOR 2 does the exact same thing as the prequels do, only you have a character (Kreia) that openly comments on all these points. It's a goon favorite for calling out that the Light Side/Dark Side dichotomy is silly, that Jedi really don't make sense as anything other than a vague history, and it attacks its predecessor's simple morality. Don't get me wrong, I loved the OT, but the core story didn't scale all that well while I got older. Whether Lucas deliberately attacked them with the prequels or if Star Wars itself cannot support anything more than the first three movies, I don't know. It isn't important to me. Outside of his humanitarian work, George Lucas the man is fairly boring. I know it's not probably the best place to ask, but at least it is more on topic than Pirates chat. I've been following along the thread, and this post made me remember the Let's Play on KOTOR2 where the goon restored the cut content from the game. Except I can't find that thread anywhere. I checked the LP archives for the past 5 or 6 years, as well as the Goldmine. Anyone happen to have the link for it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
Hockles posted:I know it's not probably the best place to ask, but at least it is more on topic than Pirates chat. http://lparchive.org/Knights-of-the-Old-Republic-II/ There's a link for the SA thread at the top of the page.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
That was really quick, thanks so much!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
Lucas is an excellent storyteller, as always. I always thought it was much cooler that the ultimate fate of the heroes was up to speculation (Expanded Universe is a dogshit idea what is wrong with you people). Also, wasn't it obvious that eventually the characters would die? Like, I'm pretty sure that's life 101.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 17:54
|
|
CPFortest posted:That story is proof that George Lucas has the same amount of contempt for his audience as Michael Bay. How so? Lucas gave him a correct if somewhat snippy answer. Obviously nothing happened to the characters once the film ended, they ceased to be. They didn't grow old, or have kids, or go on any more adventures. Maybe that nerdling learned a little about film criticism that day, though its pretty unlikely. Is it less contemptuous for the EU to pump out thoughtless drivel for people to consume in their desperate attempt to escape real life?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
rakovsky maybe posted:How so? Lucas gave him a correct if somewhat snippy answer. Obviously nothing happened to the characters once the film ended, they ceased to be. They didn't grow old, or have kids, or go on any more adventures. Maybe that nerdling learned a little about film criticism that day, though its pretty unlikely. Is it less contemptuous for the EU to pump out thoughtless drivel for people to consume in their desperate attempt to escape real life? I'm kind of surprised the guy hadn't read them already. Did Lucas ever have any creative control / specific ideas for the expanded universe or was it made completely without his involvement?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The prequels aren't dissing the original Star Wars. They are dissing bad 'readings' of Star Wars that focus on the tech, the plot and the ostensible realism over such things as basic cinematic technique and symbolism. I'm not sure they actively do this so much as the criticism that's erupted since points to this gap between what Star Wars is and what fans think of it. The thing that I think makes "Star Wars" as a film series such an accomplishment is that it creates a fantasy universe that runs entirely on movie logic. Now, you might say that all movies run on movie logic, but Lucas came from a generation more aware of what movie logic was and how you use shorthand and parallels to tell a story and how the audience will always excuse certain things. Hyperdrive works because it has a nifty special effect, lightsabers work and are better than guns because it looks cool to swing a sword made of colored light, etc. (Even in the prequels, the politics people complain about are just dressing for "The bad guys invade the good guy planet" or "the bad guy becomes more powerful." It's all really just setup for the scene where the Emperor literally throws the Senate at Yoda and destroys it in the process.) You look at material in the Expanded Universe stuff, and it often tends to miss this point. You get detailed explanations of Rebel and Imperial troop formations, or how Han Solo made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs even if parsecs are a measure of distance and not time, etc. There's discussion of the Holonet and how it can be hacked and how computer "slicing" works even if computers in Star Wars are things that light up and say "the bad guys are coming this way" or "your ship is broken". Sometimes I find it appealing, because I myself am a nerd, but I hope whoever is in charge of the new movies remembers that Star Wars is about Flash Gordon adventures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I'm kind of surprised the guy hadn't read them already. People have to get his approval to write stuff, but he doesn't do any story ideas himself. Either way they're awful stories.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Lucas' talent or apparently lack there of comes down to this: He is very good at understanding the superficial, surface appearance of things. The original Star Wars films crib all sorts of superficial things from better movies, and combined with the efforts of his wife, Kasdan, etc., they became more than the sum of their parts. The same thing is true of Indiana Jones; Lucas provided the surface, he knows what a two-fisted pulp hero and his adventures should look like. That's the essence of his gifts: He knows what things should look like, but not why. Consequently, the prequels are full of the appearance of things that they do not actually contain. Episode II's first half is full of the appearance of a detective story, but there is no mystery, only surface clues that have no relationship to the solution. It's as if someone wrote a locked room mystery with a series of unconnected vignettes and the killer turns out to be rear end in a top hat McDoom whether it makes any sense or not. The latter two films contain the appearance of a love story. There are love scenes, there's a progression from stolen looks to touching and a adversarial talking and eventually bonding and kissyfaceness, but when viewed as a whole none of it makes sense. What it all boils down to is that Episode II and III look like they contain a political drama, the breakdown of a friendship, a love story, a convoluted mystery plot, and the decline and fall of a good man into evil, but they don't. There's really only two possible reasons for this. Either Lucas did it on purpose to highlight what he feels is audience members missing the forest for the trees, or he's autistic. He's either in on the joke or is the joke. The comments above ("they died") are cyphers, too. Is he being flippant to crush an obsessed nerd's hopes, or was he offering the most literal possible answer (of course they died) because he doesn't understand how human beings work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
It bears repeating that the first half of Episode 2 specifically apes Blade Runner, which was also 'not really' a detective story. One of the best bits in Episode 2 is when it's revealed that one of the characters is a shape-shifter (created using CGI effects). This fact has absolutely no plot relevance. Consequently, it is entirely of thematic relevance: the shape-shifter underlines the themes of identity, cloning and simulation. The film will later create a million copies of actor Temuera Morrison. Idiosyncratic C-3PO will have his body switched with that of a mass-produced idiot-robot. This, as well, has absolutely no plot relevance. It's entirely thematic. It's a low-brow gag that conceals some body horror - the new body begins affecting his mind and C3PO starts to enjoy killing his allies. The prequels are fairly abstract films in this respect, which is why I appreciate them. They are almost antinarrative, but the visuals are clear and concise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
The number of faux-detective stories is pretty high- actually putting together a proper mystery is its own very involved process, and it's no surprise that Lucas merely uses the "space detective" business as a hook for more cliffhanger heroics. See also- almost every Batman story ever written. (I actually speak from experience here- I tried my hand at a radio script that was part space opera part mystery, and the latter really interfered with the former to the extent that I'll have to cull most of it when I go back to rewriting.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Danger posted:Voodoofly related a story about Lucas in the chat thread that seems relevant to this discussion a couple months ago I hope he doesn't mind me reporting it here: I love that story, because it adds to my impression of Lucas as having a great sense of humour about the absurd popularity of his art. Combine this with the image of him wearing a "Han shot first" t-shirt. edit: Precambrian posted:I do like how, across the trilogy, all Fetts die like chumps. Oh yeah, it's awesome. It's interesting that this minor character with a single speaking line became so popular amongst the fanbase; a testament to whomever in the costume department of Empire put his costume together, since that seems to be the base of it - a guy with a unique helmet and sawed-offed space blaster, he must be cool! And the ridiculous amount of stuff about him in particular and "Mandolorians" in general that this look spawned, well, it sums up a lot about Star Wars. The popular fan-perception (Fett is a bad-rear end) versus what the story tells us (mercenaries are lovely men who lead sad lives until an ignoble end). Blood Boils fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Dec 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It bears repeating that the first half of Episode 2 specifically apes Blade Runner, which was also 'not really' a detective story. I have to support your interpretation only because it's more amusing than "Lucas is autistic". Since Lucas wrote the whole thing himself, I can't help but wonder if the latter two films, which are clearly divergent from Episode I in a number of ways, aren't a slap at the response to it. Clones and Revenge easily read as Lucas writing the movies the way the audience would write them as a backhanded insult, which would explain why he chose to incorporate character names and events from the expanded universe when he's notoriously either indifferent or outright hostile to it. I wish he'd write a truly honest autobiography, or a commentary piece or something explaining how he came to loathe what is universally agreed to be his greatest achievement*. How does one go from a love of the pulp so profound it produces Star Wars and Indiana Jones to the sort of casual cruelty of the "they died" response? I know nerds kill whimsy, but I'm curious to learn if Lucas directly telling Wookiepedia editors that their obsessive wankery made the man who created Star Wars hate it and everything about it. *His greatest achievement is obviously Howard the Duck, although he is only a producer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Thulsa Doom posted:I wish he'd write a truly honest autobiography, or a commentary piece or something explaining how he came to loathe what is universally agreed to be his greatest achievement*. How does one go from a love of the pulp so profound it produces Star Wars and Indiana Jones to the sort of casual cruelty of the "they died" response? I'm sure he still loves pulp adventure/fantasy, and is proud of his own work on the whole. I don't even see how his response was cruel - he's telling the young man the truth, and possibly teaching him a lesson at the same time. "They lived forever in hellish embrace of nerdom" would have been better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
I'd like to see Jimmy Smits . IN the new film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
Danger posted:Voodoofly related a story about Lucas in the chat thread that seems relevant to this discussion a couple months ago I hope he doesn't mind me reporting it here: To be honest he probably gave him such a snooty answer because he didn't ask a film question, he just asked a fan question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Art Alexakis posted:I'd like to see Jimmy Smits . IN the new film. Him or Ellen Barkin. They're basically the same person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:I'm sure he still loves pulp adventure/fantasy, and is proud of his own work on the whole. I don't even see how his response was cruel - he's telling the young man the truth, and possibly teaching him a lesson at the same time. "They lived forever in hellish embrace of nerdom" would have been better? It wasn't necessarily cruel, it's more that Lucas comes off as being a dick to one of his fans. What would have been so terrible about Lucas saying instead, "Luke starts training new Jedi in his own order, Leia becomes the head of the new Senate, Han is now the First Gentleman and gets to hang out with Lando, while Chewbacca got the Millennium Falcon and still makes delivery runs but with honest cargo."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:It wasn't necessarily cruel, it's more that Lucas comes off as being a dick to one of his fans. What would have been so terrible about Lucas saying instead, "Luke starts training new Jedi in his own order, Leia becomes the head of the new Senate, Han is now the First Gentleman and gets to hang out with Lando, while Chewbacca got the Millennium Falcon and still makes delivery runs but with honest cargo." He probably could've just said that he believes that their story ends when the movie ends, and that what they did afterwards wasn't as important as what happened in the movies themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
Or than Han and Chewie aren't people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Danger posted:Or than Han and Chewie aren't people. Well, that would've been the best response, even better than "They Died", but I was going for the most diplomatic response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:You look at material in the Expanded Universe stuff, and it often tends to miss this point. You get detailed explanations of Rebel and Imperial troop formations, or how Han Solo made the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs even if parsecs are a measure of distance and not time, etc. There's discussion of the Holonet and how it can be hacked and how computer "slicing" works even if computers in Star Wars are things that light up and say "the bad guys are coming this way" or "your ship is broken". Yeah, this has always been my problem with the EU. Turning space opera into sci-fi. Completely abandoning Joseph Campbell's archetypal "Hero's Journey" for technobabble and needless backstory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Star Wars fans reading a fairy tale today would demand a canonical explanation for how Red-Riding Hood's attacker could speak. (The answer: "Midichlorians.") Ok, there are definitely nerds in the wild, but the OCD fanbase isnt what made the original trilogy popular, the trilogy created the OCDs. Approaching if from the point that people wanted more Star Wars so we should do what the Star Wars fans want is horrendous logic, you should do what made Star Wars legendary not cater to the people that worship the legend. I don't even see how making a movie that rips away the smoke and mirrors of the universe and replaces it with midichlorians and boring councils is even vaguely in the tradition of the trilogy anyway. People like Star Wars because there was dogfighting, despite that being a horrendously flawed way to fight in space, they liked the Jedi as few and powerful. They want a universe where Imperial admirals laugh at Darth Vader's trite mythical ideas until they get their throats crushed. The prequels cant be considered "good" movies on any level because they completely break with the narrative of the Trilogy. Beyond the technical failures they presented they retconed and blew apart the magic of the original features. Which you can actually do if you make a good movie out of it, the new Star Trek gave a finger to 3/4 of the old Star Trek standbys but it was an enjoyable movie in the process and did well in its own right. The prequels on the other hand lean on the Star Wars name to even justify their own existence and would have been incredibly expensive flops if they hadn't gibbed brand recognition from better movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:People like Star Wars because there was dogfighting, despite that being a horrendously flawed way to fight in space I've heard this before, and forgive me for the minor aside, but I'm curious why this is, exactly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:18
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:It wasn't necessarily cruel, it's more that Lucas comes off as being a dick to one of his fans. What would have been so terrible about Lucas saying instead, "Luke starts training new Jedi in his own order, Leia becomes the head of the new Senate, Han is now the First Gentleman and gets to hang out with Lando, while Chewbacca got the Millennium Falcon and still makes delivery runs but with honest cargo." Because none of that happened.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
Fans don't know what they want, and what they think they want in any specific terms is usually a terrible or at least completely inapplicable idea. This holds true both for the highly obsessive fans and casual audiences, as well as anybody else who chooses to buy into the fiction. A good movie succeeds by giving the audiences what they actually want; a talented filmmaker can recognize what it was that the fans wanted about other movies, and, if he wishes, make more of it. The march of technology, socioeconomic shifts, changes in culture, or even changes to the author's place in that culture aren't so rapid or powerful as to render the fundamental appeal of Star Wars obsolete. And that's why the prequels didn't have to be the way they were, and why it's not in vain to hope for Episode 7 and beyond to be like the original trilogy. Bongo Bill fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:30
|
|
