View Full Version : Do You Think...? (copied from...

10-27-2001, 04:27 PM
...Sir Steve's "Poll Suggestions" thread):

5. Do you think Lucas ever could, or even wants to re-purify the SW concept, so that the quality of the story and production values would be the first and foremost consideration, as opposed to now - when the foremost consideration is the exploitation of the franchise via product licensing?

10-28-2001, 11:13 AM

"Your honor, let me present exhibit A: Jar Jar Binks, and now, if it pleases the court, exhibit B: an eopie graphically farting at the camera"

10-28-2001, 03:40 PM
... Exhibit C, possibly the most damning after Jar Jar; the inclusion of the Mandalorians or at least the concept of them to cater to the massive cult of Boba Fett.

Or is it just me?

Perhaps I'm cynical but in Classic SW he was a bit character - Darth Maul got more of a shot at fame than Boba Fett!


10-28-2001, 10:12 PM
Exhibit D: Midichlorians

10-28-2001, 10:55 PM
Exhibit E: Jake Lloyd.

10-29-2001, 08:13 AM
Exhibit F: The E.T Senators


good shot jansen
10-29-2001, 08:21 AM

"tee hee annie, you're such a kidder"

20 years later, cgi out the wazzo, and we get a kid in a rubber suit which makes santa clause vs. the martians appear to be its technological superior!

10-29-2001, 10:28 AM
:D:D:D:D:D GSJ, that cracked me up! And it's true! Wald looked freakish and crizappy, Pia Zadora looked more realistic and less horrifying in "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"! ;) (BTW, some studio genius is doing a big-screen remake of this so-called "kiddie classic"... yikes! :eek: )

10-29-2001, 11:26 PM
the poll question's use of the word, "re-purify", presupposes that sw once had a kind of "purity" it no longer does.
uh, what kind of purity would that be again? :rolleyes:
what i care more about is the purity of product licensing. specifically, a pure, straight line from the movie screen into mm ship packages :)

jdah: "cater to the massive cult of Boba Fett"
-given a choice between the misguided concoction of new, jarjaresque duds or stickin with a winner, personally i prefer a Catered affair :)
np: watto's wazzo, "wazoo"

10-30-2001, 12:28 AM
To put it in other terms... You know how the two Batman movies that were directed by Tim Burton were? Dark, gloomy, dull looking (not dull boring, dull like non-glossy in textures), and just all out awesome..but then the last two movies, are very lighted, flashy, glossy, bad plots, bad choice of actors/actresses... It's kinda like that. ;) The trilogy is like the first two Batman movies, with Episode 1 and 2 (from the sound of it anyways) being like Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. :D Best "in other words.." example I can come up with...

10-30-2001, 01:04 AM
Well, I do see a similarity between "Batman Returns" and ROTJ, what with them both being overindulgences by the directors and trying to fit too much into too little a space, and working within small confined sets. ;) (I don't like "Batman Returns", but I do get what you're saying Basker).

VT, you know that "magic" you felt with DS9 that you didn't with Voyager? While I'm not comparing the content of those 2 with SW, I think the concept of the "purity" of the classic trilogy over the prequels of Star Wars is that same thing.

10-30-2001, 08:35 AM
I can't find the post (it's from two or three SSG forum generations ago), but a long time ago I posted about when I first realized SW had changed from a decent film saga to a franchise - when those freakin' teddy-bears (Ewoks) toddled onto the screen. That was the end of the purity to me, as these furballs were so shamelessly pimped to child movie-goers. I thought they were supposed to be ferocious, fanged creatures, not something for 3-year olds to cuddle with at nappy-time.

10-30-2001, 10:19 AM
After 20 odd years of film making improvements and changes in procedure, plus 20 years of ignoring maxims like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" I think they did pretty well with EP1.

My other point will doubtless cause the odd utterance of "guh?" in that I actually like (a lot) Jar Jar; I just don't find him offensive.


10-30-2001, 03:13 PM
go here (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001oct/gee20011009008247.htm)