PDA

View Full Version : What's your P.O.V. and why?



stillakid
05-10-2003, 11:49 PM
I'm just curious about something:

Fellow forumite, MiniRock, has offered up an interesting new opinion concerning the Star Wars Saga that I personally haven't heard before. By all appearances, he could fairly be labeled as "pro-Prequels," but his recent postings have been decidedly "anti-Original Trilogy" as evidenced in the following from this past week:


Originally posted by mini-rock
Exactly! He needed a ship which most likely consisted of the pilots and that's it. Yoda was going to take care of Jedi business, and no reason to pull troops from the battle when he already had Obi-Wan & Anakin there.

It's not a screw up like when Vader sensed Obi-Wans presence after the falcon was pulled into the Death Star hanger bay. If Vader sensed Obi-Wan then why didn't he board the ship instead of running to Tarkin? Or like when the Death Star went to blow up Yavin, why didn't they just blow up both planets, and put an end to the Rebellion once and for all? That's just sloppy.

Luckily the prequels so far offer a more believeable story 'cause the OT need serious help.


If I may sum his p.o.v. up, he thinks that the Prequels are about the most well-written and produced films every made while the Original Trilogy is right up there with Showgirls. Clearly to like or dislike something is absolutely the right of any individual so the question doesn't deign to suggest that he is right or wrong in that regard. However, when it comes to backing up a claim, or stating reasoning based on certain tangible elements, those kinds of things can be reasonably argued.

In any case, if we are to place any credence in box-office numbers as any kind of barometer of quality and/or popularity, we can easily see ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted ) that the original Star Wars film still sits at #2 in the All Time Box Office tally right behind Gone With the Wind. The Empire Strikes Back sits at #12 and Return of the Jedi follows closely at #14. The only films made since the original Star Wars to beat out ROTJ are Titanic, ET, and Jaws. The rest are pre-ANH.

The Phantom Menace managed to hit #19 while Attack of the Clones broke the top 100 at #74.

These numbers are very telling, in my opinion. The story they tell me is that in 1977, audiences were hit broadside with a story and a type of film that they had never seen before. They responded by keeping it in theaters for over a year in many locales. While there was some falloff, the next two films clearly define that the core audience for the saga was solidified and held fast through 1983.

With the anouncement of a new addition to the story, excitement built based upon the strong fanbase that held together throughout the previous 20 year drought. It manifested itself by showing up at the box-office enough to put TPM into the top 50 of All Time. Were the numbers to stop there, one could safely assume that TPM was pretty much just as good as the previous three and write the disparity of dollars off to time. However, the AOTC numbers tell a different story altogether. ESB showed some decline from ANH, but the AOTC box office dropped severely from TPM. Only a few films that appear on the list between TPM and AOTC were made and released in that short interim, which means that no excuses (like time) can be attributed to the lost audience. Clearly, for some reason (which can be debated), A) the number of people who went to see TPM dropped for Episode II, and B) nowhere near the audience from the Original Trilogy has wanted to see (or give repeat business to) the Prequels.


So, with poll questions on SSG looming about how well Episode III can tie together the two trilogies and the likes of MiniRock posting about, I have become genuinely curious about the current prevailing attitudes towards the first three films. Are they dated? Are the stories really "simple" as MiniRock suggests? Do the Prequels have much stronger story lines (that apparently are too subtle for the moment but which will be brought to everyone's attention with Episode III)? Should the Prequels now "set the standard" as MiniRock suggests, and set the stage for a wholesale change of the Original Trilogy films (despite the story the box-office numbers tell us)?

No fights. Just opinions. Just curious. (criminy, I used to think Logan's Run was a great movie! :crazed: Of course I was only 7 years old ;) )

DarthChuckMc
05-11-2003, 12:12 AM
In a round about way, I agree with his Minirocks statements about the OT. They are a tad bit dated. My opinion is that when we (most of us) saw the OT, we were kids looking at something never seen in a movie before. We'd seen spaceships, and gunfights, and dogfights, but never before in this scope or scale. Now, 20+ years later, we are jaded to the hoopla that Hollywood throws at us. Since the OT, there have been tons of movies that have ran with the style that the SW movies were originally made. Anything Lucas does now (PT), fails in comparisson (ours, the critical fans), because we've seen it all. He hasn't done anything to WOW us. Sure, JarJar, Watto, and Yoda are doing things that have never been accomplished in films before, but to us, they're just "eyecandy", which is all the OT really was when you break it down to basics.....an intergalactic western with eyecandy.
SW will never be to us what it once was, no matter how good EpIII turns out...it'll never be TESB or ANH. An example...stupid..but an example. Did you ever eat a cereal EVERYDAY as a kid.....your favorite in the world..nothing else better? Now....a few years later...you're an adult..you see it in the grocery store...so you buy it..take it home...and it's the most VILE thing you've ever eaten.
Like I said...not a great example, but I think you guys get the jist of what I'm saying.

NOW...as far as $$$$ MONEY $$$$ goes......people today are too busy to go to the movies everytime a NEW HOT movie comes out...They know if they just sit it out...it'll be on DVD within a few months..or on Kazaa in a week...Why bother standing in line? We have all the modern convieniences. The 70s..even the 80s were very different from today. Families did things together, like go to movies. There wasn't much choice back then. VCR weren't $49....DVD players weren't around. No computers to download...HBO was a BIG deal. Movies will never make what they used to in an "Adjusted for Inflation" world because of the things we have available to us everyday.

stillakid
05-11-2003, 12:39 AM
Good points. Thank you for that. :)


Another addendum to the question occurred to me, particularly in regards to the suggestion that the Prequels should set the new standard. If so, then should we consider Terminator 3 to be the "new standard", then judge the original and T2 by it, and then expect changes to those to fall in line with what T3 winds up doing? Essentially it boils down to me not truly understanding that train of thought in regards to Star Wars. Why should anyone expect something that comes later to set the precedent for something that caused it to happen in the first place? In other words, where is the logic in saying that the Prequels should override the creative decisions made in the quantifiably more popular Original Trilogy? Any help there?

2-1B
05-11-2003, 12:44 AM
Yes, I think they (the OT films) are dated and I don't think as highly of them as I once did. Allow me to explain.

I was born in 1978 and have been in love with this Saga since I was a kid. After it wasn't "cool" to like SW anymore, I still did ! I remember the late 1980s, nobody in my school was a fan save for myself and a few others.
So, I'll never stop loving the OT. :)

Fast forward to 1999, I was SUPER EXCITED for TPM and I must say I fully enjoyed it and still do enjoy it. Where do/did I rank it ? Well, as much as I enjoyed it, I didn't think it was "better" than the OT so it would probably rank 4th (mind you, that's an overall ranking as my moods change from time to time - but overall, it was 4th). I know a lot of people were let down or flat out hate the movie, I see why and don't blame them. Personally, I like it. :)

AOTC was a different story for me, I loved it so much that it was an instant favorite and the reasons I love it . . . well, most people seem to laugh at. :D Ewan McGregor has been described as "flat and boring" in this film but I think he is pretty damn awesome. Hayden Christensen has been ridiculed in this movie (Razzie noms, pretty boy comparisons, etc.) but to me, it's my favorite performance by any SW actor in any movie. I know most of you think I'm nuts, but I'm just being honest. Well, maybe he ties with Ewan in AOTC as my favorite. ;) Natalie Portman, I guess she could have been better in some scenes but overall I think she's doing well. Add in memorable turns by Temuera Morrison, Ian McDiarmid, Christopher Lee, even the Kaminoans, and I just love it. :happy:

I for one enjoyed the "love story" and don't think it sucked at all.
I just wish they had more scenes. I know most people think it's too corny, flat, unreal, unbelievable, etc. but I think it's fine for the few scenes it has -- I don't think it's "rushed" so much as it is an abridgement of a quick romance since there was not much time to spend on it. :) Regardless, I think it's fun and different. Not soap operaish at all. Same with Anakin losing his mother, I just love that part of the story, it's so painful. :(

Some people point to the Han/Leia "romance" as being so well done . . . oh pleeeeease it's not that great. It's pretty cool and I love it, but it's overrated IMO.

If anything, I would prefer it if AOTC was Episode I -- just start it off with Obi and Ani arriving to protect the senator, we don't need to see Ani "discovered" or anything, just start it off with Anakin at 19 and have him fall for Padme. This way, they could have SOME romance in AOTC without the "rushed" wedding. Save that for the next one so we have a 2 part love story, and then have the tragic fall in the third film. I don't know if other people would like that, it's just a thought I had. No offense to Jake Lloyd, I just think it would help a bit to have the same Anakin - allow the actor to play the role over 3 films and get a more natural arc out of the character. I don't know . . .

Okay, back to me saying that the OT is "dated" and that I don't think as "highly" of them anymore . . .
I don't say that as a pro-prequel statement because like I said, I don't like TPM more than the OT. It's just that I don't think the OT is all that great to begin with. Fans who love the OT but hate the prequels like to point out the inferior quality . . . which is quite alright to do, I just think it's a sliding scale since the OT isn't that great to begin with. These are and always will be my favorite movies, but they are by no means the "best" movies I've ever seen . . .that's for sure. ESB is revered so highly by so many people, I love it too. Yet by itself I don't think it's THAT great when compared to other non-SW films.

Amongst ourselves, we debate the pros and cons of each film, but to many non-fans I know, it's just one big franchise . . . and a lot of people think it sucks, regardless of any particular episode. :)

Ahhh, what do I know anyway ? :crazed: I like ROTJ better than ANH which is not a traditional fanboy stance either.

I remember the excitement a year ago after AOTC was released, and somebody (wisely) pointed out that it might be too early to gauge reactions since people are prone to be really excited and then come down from there. Well for me that wasn't the case at all . . . . I loved TPM but as excited as I was, it wasn't my "favorite" right after I saw it. With AOTC, it WAS my favorite right afterward, and it's the same a year later. Time will tell what Episode III will bring. :)

You know, we like to break the discussion up along OT / Prequel lines, but I don't think that's totally accurate. I've seen at least 3 distinct fan groupings --
OT vs. Prequels
ANH/ESB vs. ROTJ
ANH/ESB vs. ROTJ and the Prequels.

For me, it's not "either/or" or "this vs. that" . . . when I find fault with something in the prequels, I don't do so in comparison to the OT. There are things I love and dislike in all 5 movies, so I'll critique them that way. I mean, if you don't like the AOTC love story, just say that it stinks and explain why. Why bother whining about how "ehhh, it's not as good as Han/Leia ehhhhhh" ? :rolleyes:
Yeah, it ISN'T Han/Leia, if you want that then put in ESB. :)

Sorry for the rant, but that's my POV.

I agree with Chuck about the explosion of entertainment avenues and the non-stop blockbusters. Big movies used to be a HUGE event, and they dragged on forever. Now, you've usually got 2 big weeks and that's it. Look at how many people (myself included) loved X2. Well, 2 weeks after its release, the Matrix will be EVERYWHERE, and X2 will be forgotten to the general public.

2-1B
05-11-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
Another addendum to the question occurred to me, particularly in regards to the suggestion that the Prequels should set the new standard. If so, then should we consider Terminator 3 to be the "new standard", then judge the original and T2 by it, and then expect changes to those to fall in line with what T3 winds up doing? Essentially it boils down to me not truly understanding that train of thought in regards to Star Wars. Why should anyone expect something that comes later to set the precedent for something that caused it to happen in the first place? In other words, where is the logic in saying that the Prequels should override the creative decisions made in the quantifiably more popular Original Trilogy? Any help there?

Well, I see what you're saying and I totally agree. :)
No, the prequels should not set the precedent, that's technically impossible.

However, look at ANH. So many people loved it, and then thought ESB was even better. It's SUPPOSED to be better, most sequels are just cash ins and aren't as good, but in the case of ESB it's lauded for SURPASSING the original. Now look at ROTJ. That film took some heat, and it's generally considered to be less than ESB. In that regard, it's a failure, "not as good" as the predecessor. If someone genuinely loves TPM and AOTC and finds them to be the best films in the series . . . well, I think that's what is MEANT by saying they should "set the precedent" -- it's not technically logical, but with that interpretation, I think I see the point.

Many fans are critical of the Prequels for not living up to the OT, so you have to look at the flip side - if someone likes the prequels more than the OT, then it makes sense to wish the OT was done better and more "up to par" with the prequels . . . see what I'm saying? :)

PoggleTheGreater
05-11-2003, 01:36 AM
I think the CT is as good now as it ever was. I consider the SW Saga as a whole to be the best film of all time. (ANH being my favorite, and even though E3 isn't released yet, I believe it will also be great.) Some might consider SW to be too simple to be that great, but I think the most important things are pretty simple and SW is about some of the most important things. You might think that I don't truly appreciate great movies, but I do. What you think of any movie depends on what you think a great movie should be. My defenition of a great movie is :A movie that tells a great story in a great way. That definition is simple and complicated, and so is Star Wars, and reality.

jjreason
05-11-2003, 02:16 AM
Im in agreance (hehehehe) with Caesar. I think it's a little odd for people to be aligned with one trilogy or the other. They're chapters in one story to me, with things that warrant griping about in each chapter as well as story wide.

There are things I would have definitely done differently were I making the prequels. I don't like the use of colloquial english in the dialogue, as I find contemporary slang english very indicative of it's era. Imagine if in ANH someone had said "groovy" along the same lines as Fode/Beed's "That's gotta hurt!" and it would have done damage to that movies ability to stay timeless. IN that aspect, the OT will win in the end. FX wise, when we compare theatre versions only every film was groundbreaking, but each one led to a better next movie. You can't compare ANH with AOTC, they're apples and oranges (and yes, I like both apples and oranges, thanks).

It's too bad people always have to pick sides whenver there's even the slightest opportunity to do so. Watch what you like, I say, and spend more time enjoying your favourite than you do trying to convince every one else it's the best movie/scene/romance or whatever. In the immortal words of Jay-Z, "It's all good."

Tonysmo
05-11-2003, 05:43 AM
I think there are two major differences between the the OT and the prequels.. the FX ( favors prequels ) and the acting ( favors OT ). The FX are certainly outstanding. CGI n all. It just doesnt match up with what they had to work with, so of course the new movies look wonderful. As for the acting... well .. lemme rephrase that. It isnt the acting. Its the writing for the characters.. Is it me or do they each get 4 lines per scene?? In the OT you just couldnt beat the dialouge between Han and Luke as they fought over who was gonna date Lukes sister. I mean, Cmon! THEY HAD SOOOOO MANY lines.. and in EPI we get Qui Gon Jinn with.. : "I dont know", " I'm not sure" ...
To me I guess there is no clear winner... I love the originals. still.. to this day I get excited when they run Star Wars on TV.. and I recite it line by line ( annoying to those around me yes.. but so what )
The prequels are in another boat.. I enjoy them tremdously because they carry on what I enjoy the most.. but the writing for these characters seems to well... just plain suck. I have never been one to pick the films apart because of all the mistakes, the flipped images or anything of that nature.. but PLEASE bring in a good writer to give these characters some GOOD dialouge..

I think he tries to hard to throw up as many images as possible without any REAL character development..

I dunno... maybe Im just way off base with this.. but thats my POV

plasticfetish
05-11-2003, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
Are they dated? Are the stories really "simple" as MiniRock suggests? Do the Prequels have much stronger story lines ... Should the Prequels now "set the standard" ... and set the stage for a wholesale change of the Original Trilogy films (despite the story the box-office numbers tell us)?
I think, that the strength and longevity of the OT comes from the simplicity of its stories. They're basic myths and at the time that they were released, they were unique because of their subject matter (the space stuff) as well as the underlying mythic qualities. The reason I turn on the VCR to watch these films time and time again is that I find the "flaws" as charming as the strengths and in many cases they are what made these films unique in the first place. I remember being conscious of the elements in the OT that get criticized now, back when the films were new ... but I also remember being stunned by the imagination that went into creating all of it and today I realize the strong effect that it had (has?) on my life. Remember ... as kids we forgave the fact that a lot of the stuff in the cantina was shlocky because we were just simply excited that someone was trying to bring us to that other world ... to show us aliens, spacemen and robots just going about their business like they might if they were real. We were charmed into suspending our disbelief ... I am personally still charmed enough to enjoy it, Ewoks and all.

As for the prequels ... I'll wait until I've seen them all and had a few years to digest before I start making hard critical comparisons. I agree with the sentiment that it's apples and oranges when it comes to the OT and the (un-OT) newer films. I agree that there are many great elements in the prequels and I think it's a little hasty to be looking at them and comparing the business that they've each done and thinking that it has anything to do with them being fun to watch or not. As for setting new "standards", I'm not sure what this means because as I see it, the standards change constantly. The focus on technical standards should be secondary to locking down a good solid story. jjreason mentioned language dating and weakening the overall story ... super super point. That's something I've been subconsciously holding against these past two movies and I for certain think it's a weakness. If Lucas ever needed to remake a movie, he could start by weeding the cute video game dialog out of these last two films. (More myth and less mouth.)

.. and ...


Originally posted by caeser
Hayden Christensen has been ridiculed in this movie ... but to me, it's my favorite performance by any SW actor in any movie.
I think, considering what he had to work with, he did a great job ... very charming.


Originally posted by stillakid
No fights. Just opinions. Just curious. (criminy, I used to think Logan's Run was a great movie! Of course I was only 7 years old )
Hey, hey, hey! I'm more than willing to fight with you over how great this movie was and is! ;)

Kidhuman
05-11-2003, 09:55 AM
To me the main difference in the two trilogies isn't that much. While I agree with alot said in the messages above. Caesar made some good popints. I full-heartedly agree with Tonysmo about the FX and acting. I like the new trilogy. I just think the acting could be a little better. I think Hayden whined his way through AOTC, but Luke whined his way through ANH. They are all good movies. I asked the question in another thread, I wonder what people would think of the PT if the OT was never made?

I guess if you wanted to group me in, I would be a pro-prequel guy. The more I watch them the better they get. When I first saw EP1, Iwas like (to quote a good person) "meh". But I saw it two days l;ater again and thought it was really good. Don't compare the 2. Don't sit and say a muppet Yoda looked better than a CGI Yoda.Just enjoy the movies for what they are. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I for one love all five movies and am looking foward to EP3.


As far as the total gross for the movies, DarthChuckMc brought up some good points and all about Kazaa and how fast they come to DVD and VHS. Also the OT has been released quite a few times which also adds to the total gross of the movie. Who cares where it ends up on an all time list. It matters where it ends up in your hearts and minds. I mean Titanic sucked, I could care less if it beat out ROTJ.

Darth Jax
05-11-2003, 11:25 AM
since it's all based on one's own opinion there will never be an answer to which is better OT or PT. while i fall on the OT side of things, i'd rather watch the newer films than sit through the special edition of the OT. watching people fight over which is better makes me regret all those things i had to say about star trek geeks fighting over the new generation versus the original. i'd laugh at them thinking, it's all star trek, what's it matter. and now this same debate is raging in my beloved star wars universe .

personally my favorite film is whichever i've seen most recently. i can't rank them truly because each has strengths and each has weaknesses and depending on my mood any can be my favorite.

i think that since star wars introduced so many new characters, locales, and even ideas (the force, jedi, galactic Empire) you had nothing really to compare it too. fast forward to release of TPM which goes back in time rather than forward. therefore you have an idea of the characters, settings, and more importantly what will happen in the future. episode III has the potential to be the biggest/best of the entire series. or because it may not fit the way you had imagined the storyline would be tied together could be the worst. regardless of where it fits its still star wars and i'm sure i'll love it.

one last thought before i ramble out the door. amongst those so innured by the star wars universe there are bound to be disagreements and sides to things. EU vs movies only, CT vs SE, OT vs PT. as long as its star wars i think i'll always enjoy it.

Jargo
05-11-2003, 01:31 PM
My POV is that the origial movie is the one. The sequels are alright but but ultimately the original is the one and only. I also prefer the OT for a sense of honesty of purpose and integrity in endeavour. For really pushing the boundaries of what could and couldn't be done on film by blood sweat and tears and hard graft. The OT is a little rough around the edges so you feel like you're watching a film. Film has a quality all of it's own that digital can't touch. The OT has a style and feel that seems real. but also the editing of the movies is right. There's no awkward pauses between dialog lines like you get in the PT. The PT relies so heavily on all things digital it has no soul and feels empty and cold. The PT feels like the actors are marking time and everything is just painted in around them regardless. By their very nature the PT movies are contrived to fit and feel like it. The OT just paved the way forward with each step and it made sense. The PT is self conscious and bumblingly awkward about its imagery. Vistas are all grand, battles are bigger and more complex, costumes are all outrageous, and it seems too much. Too much like they felt the need to be bigger and better each time, and that is just stupid. rather than tell a good yarn it's all about out wowing the last movie. ROTJ was a little like that and i accept that it's probably not the best movie ever made, But at least it showed some restraint. The PT is just shameless show-off stuff to prove a point about digital cameras. Personally speaking i wish the PT had never been made now. I would accept a further special edition of the OT that tweaked the few scenes that need it like the Emperior in ESB and the black matte lines around the Rancor. The death star trench needs some work too. That's all about fixing FX though. helping them to become the effects they were intended to be but technology didn't allow. I think the movies themselves stand up to time perfectly just as It's a wonderful life does or the wizard of oz. Of course they're marked in time by a style of the period, TPM and AOTC will also date. The style of movie making changes, people's acting style and the attitude they put across changes over time. Society has changed so much in the last twenty odd years there's a gulf that can not be crossed. The world is a different place now than in 77 and nothing lucas comes up with will either match or surplant the movies of the past IMO. I shall watch all six movies together just once and then afterwards both trilogies will be viewed as seperate entities which is what they are.

scruffziller
05-11-2003, 02:40 PM
You can also do this with music. Like Jimmy Hendrix compared to Metallica.

QLD
05-11-2003, 03:13 PM
Here is my two cents I suppose......


I feel that the Original Trilogy is superior in many ways. Though the film quality and FX of the prequels is better, I find everything else extremely lacking.

Like Jargo said, I find the fact that there are virtually no real sets or backgrounds makes everything seem cold, and unreal. Nothing looks or feels natural at all, and it made it difficult for the actors to show emotion properly.

I find the acting of the OT MUCH better than the prequels. Sure some of the dialogue was cheesy in the OT, but man, the prequels seem like they all never got scripts and they are reading off cue cards.

I also feel that the story for the prequels is all over the place. Now I do acknowledge that I went in to the prequels with my hopes way too high. 15 years of anticipation will do that I suppose. But even when I compare the prequels to movies like The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers, X-Men2, well, there is no comparison.

And I also realize that my disappointment with the prequels is stronger because it IS Star Wars. So honestly, I am more bitter about them sucking (IMO) than I would be other movies. Now there are bright spots in each of two prequels. However, I just don't find them fulfilling in the least. In fact, after my second viewing of AOTC, I can't bear to watch it again. In my personal opinion, the performance of Hayden is sooo bad, it's mind boggling.

I was disappointed with E1. But I had hopes that E2 and 3 would make up for that slow start, with a great finish. After seeing AOTC, well, I now know, that in MY opinion, that there is no hope for a good prequel trilogy, but just the chance that they may salvage the last installment.

Now I don't pretend to have the answers to the problems. There is no way he could have pleased everyone with these newer movies. But something about them doesn't "feel" right, and when I compare the flaws of the prequels to the flaws of the OT, well.....it's no comparison, the OT has far few, which should NOT be the case, IMO.

I hope that rambling made a little sense to someone.

EricRG
05-11-2003, 03:22 PM
My POV:
I think the main reason that people have trouble with "liking" the Prequels as much as the OT, is that the OT is way more BELIEVEABLE. When the OT came out, a lot of people, especially kids, could very easily fall into believing that the movies could really happen "in a galaxy far, far away". That's why people fell so madly in love with the movies...they literally became a part of many people's lives...REAL in every sense of the word. The Prequels are all colorful and have incredible levels of detail...but when you look up at the screen and watch them, they don't seem REAL. I think a lot of it DOES have to do with the "inhumanness" of the computer generated characters and scenery. As well as characters like JarJar and Yoda are done, I feel it's still infinitely far from real human-derived characters making real movements. The human eye and brain can easily recognize the difference, and it makes for a strange, UNREAL feel. It makes one slightly uncomfortable. Maybe some day CGI characters might be up to par, but to me, they still are not even close. (When that technology becomes available, look for EpI-III Special Editions to appear.;)) People are generally not inspired to dress up as prequel characters for example...even at the EpII opening, I saw Jawas and Stormtroopers and Vaders and Chewbaccas...but relatively few Mauls and Obi-wans. The new characters have not become a part of people's lives because they are a bit intangible and unreal. For me, I swear I spent a good deal of my childhood calling my brother Han, and he calling me Luke. We LIVED Star Wars just about every day in so many ways. And it was more than just kids. Adults were just as willing to dress up for the OT and to make them a part of their everyday lives. Most of it comes down to not only the OT having a far superior story, but that that story was presented in such a way that it DOES seem real, even with (or perhaps also because of) the inconsistancies and technical glitches. Life is far from perfect, so why strive to create a technically perfect movie? One of Lucas' critical strokes of genius with the OT was when he realized that things should look old and beat up...USED. Not perfect. When to me (and many others) ESB is as close to perfection as one can come when all things are considered. Even if you don't prefer ESB, by far and away, fans and people in general prefer the OT by a significant margin. I do hold out hope that EpIII might be great, but it's all going to be about whether or not Lucas is willing to pull back and show restraint in his use of computer-driven special effects and infinite detail, and put more effort into what the characters are actually saying and doing. It's his SW swan song, so let's hope he does.

LandoIMP-
That "rambling" obviously makes sense to me...we were writing basically the same sentiment at the same time.

DarthChuckMc
05-11-2003, 05:02 PM
Ok...I've read a few more POVs, and one thing alot of OT over PT comments tend to be based on the fact that the PT is "animated".

BUT.......try to imagine THIS...

What if we NEVER knew how the effects were made? What if we never saw a matte painting (digital or otherwise), blue/green screen, stop motion/CGI characters being created?

If we never saw what was "BEHIND the MAGIC", do you think it would change our opinions on the movies?

PoggleTheGreater
05-11-2003, 05:06 PM
Yeah, there are so many behind the scenes shows even before the movies are released.

EricRG
05-11-2003, 07:25 PM
It is SO very easy to tell what parts are computer animated and which are not. They just don't look natural in any way...and hence are not believeable. That's the thing. I'm not in any way "anti-animation", but I do feel that at this stage, animation should be used for minor embellishment, not for major stuff like central characters and entire worlds. As I've said, Lucas' time would be better spent getting good dialoge delivered in an impacting way rather then puzzling over the 10,000th tiny CGI character from a 1/2 second shot.

Yoda and R2 are great examples because they appear in both sets of movies. Yoda in ESB is the single greatest feat of puppetry (IMHO) ever accomplished. Yoda, even to my adult mind today, from ESB, is as real as any live creature I've ever seen in a movie. On the other hand, CGI Yoda is not. He doesn't move quite right, we don't get many closeups of him fighting and it's all at lightning speed because it looks stilted. Shots of him walking make me want to look away from the screen, they seem so unnatural. CGI works GREAT for R2, on the other hand. Why? Because he is inorganic and doesn't require that human touch to lend believeability.

I just think that Lucas is putting all his eggs in the basket of infinite detail and sacrificing just about everything else in the process.

plasticfetish
05-11-2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by EMPEROR JARGO
Film has a quality all of it's own that digital can't touch.
This is an interesting point that I see many of you bringing up.

I was recently at a birthday party for one of the kids in my son's kindergarten class ... while the kids ran around playing I got to talking to three of the other fathers that were there. The usual "so what do you do" thing started and I learned that all three of them were involved in film editing. One of them had just been laid off from a long term job (he did color correcting I think) and was quick to commiserate with me about how things have changed in Hollywood over the past ten years. The main point of the conversation was that a few years ago Hollywood had ten big film editing houses ... and now there are three. Digital is wiping out film and with it the industry as it existed when the OT was made is becoming a memory. Now, I'm a big fan of all things digital ... I use computers to make art, but I'm very conscious of completely eliminating the "human element." My conversation with the three film editors concluded with us all agreeing that the thing which makes us interested in digital but in love with analog is that we as humans are analog. We identify on a personal level with the warmness, the scratches and the organic "flaws" that come from film. Digital is different, so it grabs our attention, but in the long run it may not hold it the way films of the past have.

stillakid
05-12-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
Okay, back to me saying that the OT is "dated" and that I don't think as "highly" of them anymore . . .
I don't say that as a pro-prequel statement because like I said, I don't like TPM more than the OT. It's just that I don't think the OT is all that great to begin with. Fans who love the OT but hate the prequels like to point out the inferior quality . . . which is quite alright to do, I just think it's a sliding scale since the OT isn't that great to begin with. These are and always will be my favorite movies, but they are by no means the "best" movies I've ever seen . . .that's for sure. ESB is revered so highly by so many people, I love it too. Yet by itself I don't think it's THAT great when compared to other non-SW films.

Amongst ourselves, we debate the pros and cons of each film, but to many non-fans I know, it's just one big franchise . . . and a lot of people think it sucks, regardless of any particular episode. :)




Originally posted by kidhuman

I guess if you wanted to group me in, I would be a pro-prequel guy. The more I watch them the better they get. When I first saw EP1, Iwas like (to quote a good person) "meh". But I saw it two days l;ater again and thought it was really good. Don't compare the 2. Don't sit and say a muppet Yoda looked better than a CGI Yoda.Just enjoy the movies for what they are. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I for one love all five movies and am looking foward to EP3.



Originally posted by jjreason
Im in agreance (hehehehe) with Caesar. I think it's a little odd for people to be aligned with one trilogy or the other. They're chapters in one story to me, with things that warrant griping about in each chapter as well as story wide.


Yes, sort of. Let's go back to the Terminator franchise for a second. T1 was essentially a horror chase film with some rudimentary and bad fx by today's standards. The story was simple but it got it's point across with very few question marks. In the end, it was so entertaining and successful, that any problems it had were overridden by it's popularity to spawn T2.

Unquestionably, the FX for T2 were improved over T1. Also, it can be reasonably argued that the story, if not "better," was much "deeper" as we dove into what you might consider meaningful character development.

Time will tell with T3, but (ehem, my sources) the advanced word on T3 is that with Cameron gone, we might not be as pleased as we could hope.

Anyway, the point is these are all part of ONE story. ONE. Yes, there is a time-lag between the EPISODES, and the realities of modern day filmmaking necessitate that such a large story be broken into tiny 2 hour pieces, but they are supposed to be CONSISTENT in LOOK (aesthetically) and in STORY and CHARACTER. This doesn't preclude advancements in technical ability, but in order for the filmmaker to create the illusion that this is all ONE story, certain allowances need to be made to smooth over the differences.

For instance, in the Harry Potter series, the second two stories were filmed back to back to allow for the onset of puberty in the lead characters.

Lord of the Rings filmed concurrently for budgetary and other like reasons.

The Alien series is a good example of CONSISTENCY. Just like T1, ALIEN was a horror film with rudimentary fx. ALIENS was an action film with better technology to tell the story. Regardless of the differences, you could sit down with both those films in 50 years and not be able to tell the difference in time that they were made.

HOWEVER!, when sitting down with the Star Wars episodes, there are vast differences between the OT and the Prequel films, both in LOOK and in STORY and the way CHARACTER's were developed. The result is that while these are supposed to be of ONE EPIC, the overall FEELING that one takes away from each is too vastly different. They have the same main title, some of the same music, and some of the same character names, but that LINKING (due to physical production time and technology advances) isn't being made. Story aside, without a wholesale re-do of EVERY effect in the OT, these two trilogies will always FEEL as if they are NOT part of ONE saga.

Storywise, we could (and have) debate forever, but the fact that there is a debate in the first place illustrates without a doubt that there is a difference between the trilogies.

This is why I suggest that Lucas is screwing this up. Yes, we could (and can) judge each trilogy (and each film for that matter) on it's own merits. Nothing wrong with that. But because George is creating this to be ONE EPIC SAGA, the comparisons are naturally part of the discussion.





Originally posted by Caesar
Many fans are critical of the Prequels for not living up to the OT, so you have to look at the flip side - if someone likes the prequels more than the OT, then it makes sense to wish the OT was done better and more "up to par" with the prequels . . . see what I'm saying?
Originally posted by PoggleTheGreater
I think the CT is as good now as it ever was. I consider the SW Saga as a whole to be the best film of all time. (ANH being my favorite, and even though E3 isn't released yet, I believe it will also be great.) Some might consider SW to be too simple to be that great, but I think the most important things are pretty simple and SW is about some of the most important things. You might think that I don't truly appreciate great movies, but I do. What you think of any movie depends on what you think a great movie should be. My defenition of a great movie is :A movie that tells a great story in a great way. That definition is simple and complicated, and so is Star Wars, and reality.
Yes, Caesar, I see what you're saying. It's like I mentioned above with Terminator. "It's too bad Terminator wasn't as good as T2, so T1 now sucks in my ever-changing sliding scale of what determines quality storytelling." Right? T1 was such a simple story in comparison that any story that is even slightly more complex (or at least gives off that appearance) must be better. That's the message that MiniRock appears to be sending anyhow. Though I wholeheartedly disagree with him, he believes that the Prequels are meticulous and expertly drawn stories with such fine acting and fx that the OT now appears to be something on par with a 1950's schlocky Harryhausen B-Movie.

(In the interest of full disclosure, my opinion is exactly 180 degrees opposite. I find that the OT has so many layers of myth and character development that even the most cynically anti-scifi adults find some pleasure in it even though they might not be fully aware of what they are watching. The Prequels are nothing more than surface candy ripoffs of the OT itself, and the rest of current pop-culture in a half-hearted attempt to capture the newest generation of video game afficienados and urban youth. Check out the Mega-man sequence in AOTC for just one example of that).

Anyway, as I mentioned elsewhere, the OT came out at a time when everything on the screen was new (to the screen anyway). All those myths and legends were in storybooks from history. The influences of look from around the world when combined within a space environment was innovation beyond belief. What audiences saw in 1977 was brand new to them! Fast forward to today and the past 20 years have seen ripoffs of what Star Wars did in every genre. That "clean" look of space was gone as well as the campy electronic space music. Lucas showed audiences a new way to look at the universe around us and was quickly copied by everyone. That's the movie-going environment that most present day kids have grown up in. So no, the look has been done to death. He's not breaking any new ground and quite frankly he shouldn't really. He's still supposed to be making episodes from ONE epic, not creating something totally brand new.


Originally posted by Lando In My Pants
Now I don't pretend to have the answers to the problems. There is no way he could have pleased everyone with these newer movies. But something about them doesn't "feel" right, and when I compare the flaws of the prequels to the flaws of the OT, well.....it's no comparison, the OT has far few, which should NOT be the case, IMO.

He COULD HAVE pleased EVERYONE had he just continued doing what he was doing back in 1975-1983. Undoubtedly, Lucas is a great visionary, but he has always had help with conceptual art, music, and special fx. But he's no writer and by his own admission, he's not fond of directing either. The elements are all there in the Prequels, but without that help in polishing those ideas as he did in the old days, the new films come off as amateurish shades of what was.



Originally posted by DarthChuckMc
Ok...I've read a few more POVs, and one thing alot of OT over PT comments tend to be based on the fact that the PT is "animated".

BUT.......try to imagine THIS...

What if we NEVER knew how the effects were made? What if we never saw a matte painting (digital or otherwise), blue/green screen, stop motion/CGI characters being created?

If we never saw what was "BEHIND the MAGIC", do you think it would change our opinions on the movies?
No, I don't think that the general public really reacts that adamantly due to the special fx. It usually comes back to story. If the story isn't good enough, they'll speak up. FX are one of those things that people let slide as long as the story is entertaining enough (to them). It's just like sound. I can almost guarantee you that people will put up with a screening of a film that is either too dim or out of focus before they'll sit there for two-hours straining to hear a soundtrack that is too soft or distorted.


Originally posted by plasticfetish
Digital is different, so it grabs our attention, but in the long run it may not hold it the way films of the past have.
I think that what Lucas has forgotten is that Digital is just a tool. Just like any special effect, or any camera, just like the Steadicam or a radio-mic, these are all just tools to help tell the story. Heck, a soundstage is a tool. By blocking out the natural and uncontrollable sun as it crosses the sky, a filmmaker can have daytime or nighttime or rain or another planet whenever he wants. The greenscreen can also give that convenience to the filmmaker. But no matter how much rain is "replaced" onto the green screen later on, the actor still has to be doused with real water to complete the effect. Maybe some actors can "imagine" rain so much that they don't need anything real to act "against," but most can't. Same with other actors or real sets. There's only so much "imagining" a person can do realistically. Lucas forgot this and the Star Wars saga is paying the price. :cry:

keith koth
05-12-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Clearly, for some reason (which can be debated), A) the number of people who went to see TPM dropped for Episode II, and B) nowhere near the audience from the Original Trilogy has wanted to see (or give repeat business to) the Prequels.

Okay, I'll throw my 2 cents in. Now, I'm not a mind reader so this is just my theory on the matter.

During the time of the classic trilogy, VCRs were a luxury afforded by few and DVDs were a mere dream for the future. Because "home theaters" were not so prevalent, the "hardcore" fan base of the SW movies went repeatedly to the theaters to experience the SW saga as many times as they could before the movies were gone from theaters, thus removing access to those great stories.

Now days, with VCRs and DVD players in most homes, it is all too common for people to go to the theater to see a movie once, and then just sit back and wait for the VHS/DVD release to enjoy the film a second time around (that is what I did anyway). Other factors include the relatively high cost of viewing a movie in the theater (especially when there are kids running/screaming wildly and so many rude people talking on cell phones and to eachother all throughout the movie)...also, we know that we will not have to wait many years for the movie to see it's video release, rather we know it will only be a few months before it will be available on the retail shelves.

TPM did significantly better than AOTC because of that "childhood" nostalgic feeling of going repeatedly to the theaters to see the SW movies. However, after thinking rationally as "adults" most of us realized that one time at the theater was enough and it would be more cost efficient to wait for the video release to see the film a second time; therefore, AOTC did not fare as well with the box office take.

Now, I submit that the fan base of SW is the same as it has always been, it just does not reflect that in the box office numbers. While some movies like Titanic draw a considerably larger take at the box office window, it is only because it appeals to a much larger audience. Granted, the fan base for the prequal trilogy is mostly adults that grew up with SW, that is mainly because times are different now and kids are not so much into Sci-fi unless there are explosions, gratuitous violence, blood, death, gore, etc. (I like to refer to these kids as the "short attention span" generation)

I truly believe that if these prequals had been released "back in the day" (i.e., 1977-1983) then they would have been just as big of a box office draw as the original trilogy.

mabudonicus
05-12-2003, 01:44 PM
This is a question posed to me by a person who has NEVER seen a single SW film, and it kinda fits in with the current duscucssion, or at least gives a different tack on it-
If you were to watch SW films now, what order would you watch them in?? I really couldn't figure what would be best, and I had assumed the question was an easy one til I really thought about it.....

The Overlord Returns
05-12-2003, 01:59 PM
Man this whole thing is getting worse than the "Hal Jordan vs. Kyle rayner" debates...........

keith koth
05-12-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by mabudon
This is a question posed to me by a person who has NEVER seen a single SW film, and it kinda fits in with the current duscucssion, or at least gives a different tack on it-
If you were to watch SW films now, what order would you watch them in?? I really couldn't figure what would be best, and I had assumed the question was an easy one til I really thought about it.....

As it currently stands, I would say the proper order should be Episodes 4, 5, and 6...then Episodes 1 and 2...but only because watching them in numerical order at this point would leave a BIG gaping hole in the middle of the story.

After the EIII is released, I would have to say that the logical order to watch the films in would be in numerical sequence...of course that is all dependent upon how well the OT is tied in with the PT with EIII.

El Chuxter
05-12-2003, 02:41 PM
Hal could kick Kyle's little punk. . . bum!! When has Kyle ever been in a story on par with either of the Emerald Dawn mini-series or the classic Hard-Travelin' Heroes storyline? :p

I think, overall, the PT is inferior to the CT in a lot of ways, and one of the main reasons is what several folks have said already: the CT used effects to tell a story, and the PT seems at time to use story to justify effects. Also, both TPM and AOTC could use a good editing. After ten viewings, there are whole sections you just want to skip.

I think the blame goes mainly to Lucas for the difference. When he made Star Wars, he was virtually an unknown director with a story to tell. Now, he's a giant who surrounds himself with yes-men. On the first two films, he had friends and co-workers telling him what was wrong, so we don't have the heroes whistling through the Death Star. Now, with no one to disagree with him, we get Jar Jar spouting, "How wude!" (Not that I want to pull them from other projects, but imagine Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, Irvin Kershner, or Bryan Singer tackling E3. Wow.)

Lucas has a story in mind that he's revising constantly. This isn't a problem with linear stories, but jumping from chapter 6 to chapter 1 while still revising causes problems. Despite what George wants to think, the series will always be structured 4-5-6-1-2-3. Otherwise the greatest surprises of the original movies are lost. (Because, like it or not, we're gonna see Hayden in the Vader suit.)

Almost any fan will tell you ESB is the best of the five. It's also the chapter where another director had more control than Lucas. Coincidence? I think not.

However, with that said, I still love the prequel trilogy. As with most franchise movies, the sequels are generally not as good as the original (X2, ESB, Aliens, and (so I hear) Godfather 2 being the exceptions), but that doesn't necessarily mean they're bad.

In fairness to George, he is trying. No matter what he says about ignoring fans and critics, he listened to complaints about TPM. That's why, despite its shortcomings, AOTC is on par with ANH and ESB. Hopefully he'll try even harder for E3 and completely floor everyone. If nothing else, you've got to admit he's a master of symbolism and giving us a backstory completely unlike what we thought we knew.

QLD
05-12-2003, 02:42 PM
Horse!......Mule!...... HORSE!.......MULE!.......HORSE!!!!!...MULE!!!!!!TR ADITIONnnnNNNNN!!!!! TRADITION!

Let's see how many people get that one. ;)

stillakid
05-12-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by El Chuxter
I think, overall, the PT is inferior to the CT in a lot of ways, and one of the main reasons is what several folks have said already: the CT used effects to tell a story, and the PT seems at time to use story to justify effects. Also, both TPM and AOTC could use a good editing. After ten viewings, there are whole sections you just want to skip.
This is why I actually like (not love) the IMAX cut of AOTC over the original theatrical. Most of the over-the-top and gratuitous garbage was cut out. By whom, I don't know, but I assume that it wasn't Lucas himself. This is what I meant when I suggested that Lucas has been close on these attempts, but not quite there. The elements are just fine, but the final execution with them has been in dire need of third party influence, both in the writing stage and in editing.



Originally posted by El Chuxter
In fairness to George, he is trying. No matter what he says about ignoring fans and critics, he listened to complaints about TPM. That's why, despite its shortcomings, AOTC is on par with ANH and ESB. Hopefully he'll try even harder for E3 and completely floor everyone. If nothing else, you've got to admit he's a master of symbolism and giving us a backstory completely unlike what we thought we knew.
Again, that's what I meant when I said that he is undoubtedly a visionary. He seems to have the knack for pulling together elements which appear to have nothing to do with one another and know that it'll all come out in the wash. What he clearly can't do is weave the myriad of elements together in a way that makes sense in the traditionally accepted norms of filmmaking. For that, he needed a writer back then and he desperately needs one still today. Episode III will again have everything we enjoy seeing, but without help, it'll probably just be another film in desperate need of a good polishing.

JediTricks
05-12-2003, 09:01 PM
Everybody, keep in mind that when you state an opinion as fact, you're negating those that hold opposing opinions whether you mean to or not.



Originally posted by keith koth
During the time of the classic trilogy, VCRs were a luxury afforded by few and DVDs were a mere dream for the future. Because "home theaters" were not so prevalent, the "hardcore" fan base of the SW movies went repeatedly to the theaters to experience the SW saga as many times as they could before the movies were gone from theaters, thus removing access to those great stories.

Now days, with VCRs and DVD players in most homes, it is all too common for people to go to the theater to see a movie once, and then just sit back and wait for the VHS/DVD release to enjoy the film a second time around (that is what I did anyway). Other factors include the relatively high cost of viewing a movie in the theater ...also, we know that we will not have to wait many years for the movie to see it's video release, rather we know it will only be a few months before it will be available on the retail shelves. I truly believe Lucas did the prequels a disservice by making them readily available on home video so soon after their intial release.

While you do make some good points, I don't know if that reflects upon those who went to ANH on opening weekend and literally came out of the theater and got back in 4-hour-long lines. Even without home market, they could have waited until the lines died down in a few days or went to a cheaper matinee, but instead chose to see it again immediately.



Most of you guys who read the forums know my POV, a lot of good posts have contained things I really agree with so I won't bother to type up my own version of those comments. I will say that as it stands right now, I still love ANH and ESB, and I still have fondness and nostalgia for ROTJ, but despite seeing TPM in theaters nearly a dozen times including both digital projection processes and seeing AOTC 3 times in theaters in traditional, digital, and IMAX projection styles, I don't have much love for these films - I don't enjoy them much as Star Wars and I don't enjoy them much as regular entertainment.

I feel that George Lucas is a dispassionate director for his actors, he has no interest in helping them properly emote and gives them few or no tools to let them set up that level of emoting on their own; Lucas is a grand master at the technical level, but I no longer feel the passion he once had for telling great and magical myths. I also feel Lucas' choice in Rick McCallum as producer is a massive mistake as the man seems to think that his task is only to make things easier for Lucas rather than challenging - no matter how much he dislikes it, I believe Lucas needs challenge in his filmmaking in order to raise the quality and push the envelope even when it risks having Lucas be wrong (lest we have an ANH with whistling in the Death Star corridors like a Bugs Bunny cartoon or totally pointless inserts like Lil' Flash Gordon). I think that while some of the digital systems have enhanced Lucas' ability to make a good scene and come off great (like exterior Coruscant shots or the Naboo Royal starships), the massive use of computers for CG characters, editing multiple live takes together, and a near-total abandonment of practical sets and effects have detracted from my moviegoing experience with the prequels.

From the interest in the technical, while I'm still interested in "the little things" of the SW universe like lightsaber clips and starship designs, I don't enjoy the general aesthetic of the prequels so far in costumes, buildings, and technology - which are largely affected by Doug Chiang - and I especially don't like the Ep 2 half-hearted attempts to tie Prequel technology into OT tech.

That's my nutshell take on my POV.

keith koth
05-13-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
I truly believe Lucas did the prequels a disservice by making them readily available on home video so soon after their intial release.

I totally agree.


Originally posted by JediTricks
While you do make some good points, I don't know if that reflects upon those who went to ANH on opening weekend and literally came out of the theater and got back in 4-hour-long lines. Even without home market, they could have waited until the lines died down in a few days or went to a cheaper matinee, but instead chose to see it again immediately.

I can easily see the validity of your statement about people coming out of the theater and getting back in 4-hour-long lines. However, as I see it, there is no longer such a thing as the 4-hour line.

Back in 1977, there was usually only 1 or 2 movie theaters per city/town and each theater generally provided one screen per movie due to the smaller size of theaters. Now days, there are multiple theaters in most cities/towns and most of these theaters are of the "megaplex" style where they are afforded the luxury of having multiple showings of the same film simultaneously on 2 or more screens.

There are still many people who get right back in the ticket line immediately after viewing the movie, they just don't have to wait 4 hours for their second viewing (although I believe that the diehard fans would certainly wait the 4 hours if need be...one need only look at the diehards who camp out for months just to be the first to see the movie to realize that the 4 hour "waiters" are still out there).

Although I can see your POV, and I certainly respect it, I can't help but believe IMO that SW is as strong as ever; however, it's box office take has been ruined by the premature video release.

stillakid
05-13-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by keith koth
Although I can see your POV, and I certainly respect it, I can't help but believe IMO that SW is as strong as ever; however, it's box office take has been ruined by the premature video release.

I agree and don't think that the movie is dated one bit. It is an example of timeless storytelling that isn't marred by pop music or contemporary dialogue or references the same way that the Prequels are.

mabudonicus
05-14-2003, 02:06 PM
Godzilla is a good example of how effects can come up short... I love every Godzilla film (except "son of", that was a stinker) ever made by Toho, even the old black and white ones, pretty much equally... the newer ones, with better effects etc. are fine, it IS fun to see better SE when possible, it's like chocolate sauce on vanilla ice cream.....
Possibly the greatest effects ever to grace a Godzilla-related film, however, couldn't save it.... I saw "Godziller" in the theatres and have never wanted to see it again.... the film got it ALL SO WRONG it was outright terrible, one of the crowning insults was the inclusion of the baby zilla's, seemingly for no other reason than the fact that someone had written a the motion sequences for such things already and re-using them would cost less than doing something new..
Before this gets too long, I'll wrap up.... (and I AM backing you up, stilla, though the whole "recording technology" angle is also an important factor in the way films are viewed and made these days) The US "godzilla" looked pretty darn good, very exciting and all, licensed and everything, but in all ways it was a flaming piece of trash, since (and here's my actual point, if you're still reading) the people making them had no clue about the property other than the fact that Godzilla was some type of huge reptile.. that's all the movie turned out to be, a special-effects demo of a huge reptile, motivation-none needed
It did seem to me that (and remember I really didn't like TPM, so that's what this is mostly aimed at) all of the right elements were included as if from a shopping list to make TPM, and the movie was judged, by it's creator's, solely on the completeness of said list.... it really felt to me like, during the screening (and the lame space scene made it the most obvious), Lucas just checked the stuff off, and when it was done, he said "well, it's all there, it must be good".. I mean, for all of the talking GL does about myth and why humans identify with certain stories and all the thinking he did whilst making SW, why was TPM such a (to me, anyways) poorly thought out, weightless, gutless piece of dreck?? I thought SW was calculated to perfection over many years?!?!
Aiyeeeee!!! I gotta stay out of these here "philosophical" threads...

JediTricks
05-14-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by keith koth
I can easily see the validity of your statement about people coming out of the theater and getting back in 4-hour-long lines. However, as I see it, there is no longer such a thing as the 4-hour line. I still see my SW movies at the Chinese theater on opening day, so there definitely is a 4-hour+ line in my neighborhood. ;) However, that's mostly the line that comes out a week ahead of time to get the tickets a week early, so it's *somewhat* different, but we definitely waited for Ep 2 for 2 hours to get not-crappy seats. I think the way ticket sales have changed and multiplexes have taken over have affected that overall, but there are still some pretty big lines on the opening weekend (well, Wed and Thurs too since SW opens during the week).


I think the multiplexes, the tickets over the phone, the high prices, and the quick home-market releases have really torpedoed the quality theater experience.


Originally posted by stillakid
I agree and don't think that the movie is dated one bit. It is an example of timeless storytelling that isn't marred by pop music or contemporary dialogue or references the same way that the Prequels are. I think Keith was referring to Star Wars as a whole, including the prequels.

stillakid
05-14-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
I think Keith was referring to Star Wars as a whole, including the prequels.

Oh, well that would be a problem then, wouldn't it? ;)

keith koth
05-15-2003, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
I think Keith was referring to Star Wars as a whole, including the prequels.

I was. :)

Some people prefer the Original Trilogy over the Prequal Trilogy, but even those who don't really care too much for the PT still go see them...and rent them...and buy them...Same goes for those who prefer the PT over the OT.

To sum my opinion up in short...The SW saga (OT and PT) is as big as ever...if released in 1977, the PT would have done just as well as the OT; however, the PT box office take has been ruined by a combination of multiplex theaters and quick video release...making it seem (on paper) as though the OT was highly preferred over the PT.

The fan base is still there...and probably would be for a 3rd trilogy...many people say "let it go, it is time for the SW saga to come to an end...6 movies is enough"...but I am willing to bet that those same people would line up at the theaters to see Episodes 7, 8, and 9 (or Episodes -3, -2, and -1) :D

Darkross
05-15-2003, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by keith koth
I was. :)

Some people prefer the Original Trilogy over the Prequal Trilogy, but even those who don't really care too much for the PT still go see them...and rent them...and buy them...Same goes for those who prefer the PT over the OT.

To sum my opinion up in short...The SW saga (OT and PT) is as big as ever...if released in 1977, the PT would have done just as well as the OT; however, the PT box office take has been ruined by a combination of multiplex theaters and quick video release...making it seem (on paper) as though the OT was highly preferred over the PT.

The fan base is still there...and probably would be for a 3rd trilogy...many people say "let it go, it is time for the SW saga to come to an end...6 movies is enough"...but I am willing to bet that those same people would line up at the theaters to see Episodes 7, 8, and 9 (or Episodes -3, -2, and -1) :D

So true! I prefer the OT myself...but like you said...I'm still lining up to see the PT...because why???? it's STAR WARS...need I say more? For me six movies isn't enough...I would love it if STAR WARS eventually became a weekly show like the STAR TREK series...but have STAR WARS set way back before the fall of the Sith.

plasticfetish
05-15-2003, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by keith koth
if released in 1977, the PT would have done just as well as the OT
So, wait ... I'm not sure where you guys are going with this. Are you trying to figure out if - say - The Phantom Menace would have been as big a deal in 1977 as A New Hope was? Hmmm, well ... after everyone got over the fact that the movie was made using technology that won't exist for just a few decades, then maybe it would be pretty popular. But again, isn't this a little like saying "If that apple was an orange, would it be as tasty as the other oranges?" Doesn't make sense.

If what you're saying is that the OT owes its popularity simply to timing, then I only agree with you in part.

As far as "fan base" goes ... well remember, before 1977 Star Wars had no fan base. The OT made that happen and what I suppose you could be asking is, "Has the PT built up or enhanced that fan base?" And the answer would have to be YES. This community is a pretty good testament to the lasting power of the series. Things are different nowadays for sure, but I'll bet that come episode 3 we'll all be as fired up for that one as we've ever been for any of them. (And I remember waiting with intense nerd/fan boy anticipation for all of the OT.)

stillakid
05-15-2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
So, wait ... I'm not sure where you guys are going with this. Are you trying to figure out if - say - The Phantom Menace would have been as big a deal in 1977 as A New Hope was? Hmmm, well ... after everyone got over the fact that the movie was made using technology that won't exist for just a few decades, then maybe it would be pretty popular. But again, isn't this a little like saying "If that apple was an orange, would it be as tasty as the other oranges?" Doesn't make sense.

If what you're saying is that the OT owes its popularity simply to timing, then I only agree with you in part.

As far as "fan base" goes ... well remember, before 1977 Star Wars had no fan base. The OT made that happen and what I suppose you could be asking is, "Has the PT built up or enhanced that fan base?" And the answer would have to be YES. This community is a pretty good testament to the lasting power of the series. Things are different nowadays for sure, but I'll bet that come episode 3 we'll all be as fired up for that one as we've ever been for any of them. (And I remember waiting with intense nerd/fan boy anticipation for all of the OT.)

I pretty much agree with what you're saying here. The OT (ANH specifically) showed audiences something entirely new. More than that, it set the stage for the "dirty/used" sci fi that came afterwards. Did TPM have the same elements? Could it have had the same impact as ANH if it had been made first in 1977? I doubt it. For what they both have in fx and great production design, TPM lacks the timeless and universal mythologies that audiences either consciously or unconsciously recognized and loved. The story of TPM wasn't like that at all. It tried, but in a very heavy-handed and clumsy way. Besides that, TPM was just an example of a poorly written and badly edited film. With a snip and a cut here and there in the script, it might have risen to the level that ANH set for the saga, but it didn't. Bygones. Missed opportunity. So sad for what could have been.

mini-rock
05-15-2003, 11:09 AM
I agree with kieth koth, Darkross, and plasticfetish on some points there. I couldn't say though if the Prequels would have done as well as the OT back in the day. It's fun to speculate, but really who knows? I do know however that GL made the final 3 films of the saga (Eps.4, 5, 6) first b/c he felt there was no way he could accomplish his vision with the limitations of technology at the time for the prequels. I remember interviews with Mark Hamill, and Harrison Ford in '78 and '79 where they even mentioned this while discussing ANH and ESB.

I do not care how much the PT makes in the theaters or the OT for that matter. What matters to me is that I like the prequels, and MUCH better than the originals, but it doesn't mean I hate the originals, I just prefer the prequels so far regardless of how much it made. Like Darkross said though "It's STAR WARS...need I say more?"

keith koth
05-15-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Did TPM have the same elements? Could it have had the same impact as ANH if it had been made first in 1977? I doubt it.

I somewhat agree. I say somewhat, because we will never know what the outcome of the SW saga would have been if it had started with Episode I (there may have never been an Episode 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6). IMO the portion of the SW story told in ANH was better than that of TPM (but that is why GL started with ANH).

When I say that in 1977 TPM would have done as good as ANH in regards to box office take, I was not implying that TPM would have done as good if it had been released before ANH...I was trying to imply that if released "back in the day" (i.e., 1977-1983) the box office take would have been much higher for TPM and AOTC...making them seem more successful "on paper".

I'm really trying to drive home the point of box office take, because most people seem to base the success of a movie on it's total earnings. While ANH is one of the top grossing movies of all time, is has much to do with the time period when it was released (before megaplex theaters, before vcr/dvd players were common, before premature video releases).

Given the same movie (ANH) with the same actors with current movie production technology (i.e., CGI)...or without the current movie production technology (however you think the movie would be more popular)...I would bet that in todays market ANH would not gross very much more money at the box office than TPM or AOTC, but "back in the day" TPM and AOTC would have earned quite a bit more money than they did in the current market.

The fans are still there (probably more than ever), but "back in the day" the box office numbers were inflated by repeat business. I went and saw ANH, ESB, and ROTJ approximately 15 each...but only saw TPM 2 times and AOTC 1 time at theaters. Why? Not because they are inferior films, but because I knew that I would only have to wait 5 or 6 months to own them on video...It was more cost efficient for me to just wait for the video release...plus, I could watch the movie in the comfort of my own home (no screaming babies...no cell phones)...I could pause, rewind, and zoom in at my leisure.

Well, I think I've beat this dead horse enough...I'm starting to repeat myself. :D

stillakid
05-16-2003, 02:29 AM
First off, if MiniRock has me on his "ignore" list, then how can he join this discussion if he has absolutely no idea what it's all about?


Originally posted by mini-rock
I agree with kieth koth, Darkross, and plasticfetish on some points there.
Which means that MiniRock agrees with me. :rolleyes:



Originally posted by mini-rock
I couldn't say though if the Prequels would have done as well as the OT back in the day. It's fun to speculate, but really who knows? I do know however that GL made the final 3 films of the saga (Eps.4, 5, 6) first b/c he felt there was no way he could accomplish his vision with the limitations of technology at the time for the prequels. I remember interviews with Mark Hamill, and Harrison Ford in '78 and '79 where they even mentioned this while discussing ANH and ESB.
Wrong as usual. The stated reason for beginning in the middle of the saga was that George felt that the initial films were going to be too slow and political while the middle films (of the 9) would be inherently more action packed thus more likely to draw an audience. If Episode IV did well enough, George had the idea of moving on with further episodes and then maybe returning to the first three at some point. This decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the technology. Such an assertion is ludicrous as his people were inventing the technology as they went and no one knew what was even going to be possible in the years to come.

Now the interesting question is how different Episode I would have been had George actually started with this in 1975. Clearly it would have looked far differently. Plus it's easy to see the inherent differences between the filmmaking tendencies of the younger Lucas compared to the older. While it will always remain an unknown, based on what we actually know about Lucas and the films, it's safe to say that Episode's I and II would have been much better (as he would have allowed help with the screenplays and the directing). This of course opens the door for that alternate universe in which Episodes IV through VI were being made today. Would they now suck badly as George shunned all help with the scripts and direction?

plasticfetish
05-16-2003, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
Wrong as usual.
Gee .. be nice. No wonder he has you on his ignore list.

I don't know if episode 1 or 2 would have been "better" if they were made 25 years ago. They would have been different and that's about all you can say for sure. Would Lucas have had to be a little more clever in trying to tell his story because of budget and technology limitations ... sure, I don't doubt it. But, I really do think that the OT was a hit in the '70s because of the "space" stuff and the PT is more relevant to today because of the politics and emphasis on ground battles, etc. (Mmm, smells like current events.) I don't really think Lucas had a clue about what he was going to do with the PT back then. I'd be surprised if he's got episode 3 figured out completely right now. I do agree with you about Lucas needing help and decent people to bounce his ideas off of ... he's not Kubrick or Scorsese ... and perhaps their strengths have (had) to do with the people that they choose to collaborate with.

stillakid
05-16-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
Gee .. be nice. No wonder he has you on his ignore list. The chicken came before the egg in this case. I am admittedly very specific in my critique of Star Wars and allow it very little slack in judging quality. MiniRock chose early on that he would prefer to not hear anything that even remotely sounded negative regarding the Saga. For some reason, despite others often agreeing with me, I was chosen to be his symbol of negativity. I can only assume that by choosing to ignore what I have to say, he can somehow feel better about his own opinions by shutting out any (in his mind) opposing viewpoints or facts that might shake his belief that every element of Star Wars is pristine (except the OT now, which is more or less the point of this thread). He can put blinders on all he wants. Doesn't bother me. But spouting off historic inaccuracies because he feels that he's under a protective shell of some kind won't go without correction when the situation arises. :)

But more and more I think that MiniRock is deliberately and insincerely attempting to "get my goat" or gain attention because many of his recent posts sound surprisingly similiar, like this one:

Originally posted by mini-rock
For me it is no matter how "special" GL tries to make the OT, it will never be equal to the EP 1&2. It's still the same old tired trilogy. He may come close, but he has set the bar to high with the prequels, which is why he is revamping the OT for the AE's, and it will still be mediocre at best. I think the best thing would be to a) make the OT completely over from scratch or b) leave it as is. I wish it could be "a", but know that would never happen. That's ok though, I have lived with the OT for many years, and I can live with it for the rest of my life letting the DVD's sit on my shelf collecting duat as I watch the superior prequels.:)

IMHO of course.:D

As he states, he's entitled to his own opinion. I think it's great that he knows what kind of entertainment fulfills his needs. But just because a person likes a thing, doesn't mean that that thing is empirically "good" and has inherent quality within it's genre. The question of the hour is, is the OT a tired old worn out example of dated storytelling as he suggests? Or is it exactly the opposite, a timeless example of mythology full of all the heroic wonder that exists in all of us? Do the Prequels match the OT (whichever way you see it)? Or do the two trilogies exist as disfunctional cousins sharing only a name?



Originally posted by plasticfetish
I don't know if episode 1 or 2 would have been "better" if they were made 25 years ago. They would have been different and that's about all you can say for sure. Would Lucas have had to be a little more clever in trying to tell his story because of budget and technology limitations ... sure, I don't doubt it. But, I really do think that the OT was a hit in the '70s because of the "space" stuff and the PT is more relevant to today because of the politics and emphasis on ground battles, etc. (Mmm, smells like current events.) I don't really think Lucas had a clue about what he was going to do with the PT back then. I'd be surprised if he's got episode 3 figured out completely right now. I do agree with you about Lucas needing help and decent people to bounce his ideas off of ... he's not Kubrick or Scorsese ... and perhaps their strengths have (had) to do with the people that they choose to collaborate with.

Agreed. :) The way that I understand it is that he had a pretty loose outline and a hodge-podge of concepts and ideas that he wanted to "weave" into this epic story somehow. The details for each episode were always sketchy until a screenplay was developed, but he more or less knew where point A and point B was. How to get from one to the other in a story that made sense fell to Huyck, Katz, and Kasdan. Returning to the Prequels should have been a fairly easy matter. He already had much of the history implied or set up outright in the OT, not to mention oodles of "EU" stuff that would work in without compromising continuity or fan expectations. Any third rate screenwriter could have churned out 6 hours of story that got us from zero to the events in Episode IV while fulfilling all the necessary requirements for a well-told story that fit perfectly with the OT. But what the heck happened?

mini-rock
05-16-2003, 12:15 PM
HAHAHAHAHA!:p:p I'm guessing the quote you made of stillas was in response to my post. That's funny he's still addressing me even though he knows I won't read it, and it's not b/c he's rude, but simple b/c I just don't value his opinion like the rest of the members on this forum. Anyway, just thought I'd respond to that quote.

Plasticfetish maybe you can answer this, didn't GL screen EP1 with Copolla and a few others? I remember reading something about that, but can't remember where.

stillakid
05-16-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
HAHAHAHAHA!:p:p I'm guessing the quote you made of stillas was in response to my post. That's funny he's still addressing me even though he knows I won't read it, and it's not b/c he's rude, but simple b/c I just don't value his opinion like the rest of the members on this forum. Anyway, just thought I'd respond to that quote.

Funny. :) It's because he could never rationally back up his positions whenever I challenged him and he decided to not stand up for what he believes in. So ignoring the challenges was ultimately easier than dealing with them head on. It's akin to saying your piece then holding your hands over your ears like a three year old might. Simple as that. :cry:

I'll respond to his posts as long as he makes them in a public forum. Hiding behind the facade of "ignore" doesn't render his opinions invisible. His opinions deserve to be recognized and addressed just as much as anyone else's. :rolleyes:

plasticfetish
05-16-2003, 08:06 PM
As I gently slip into my mid 30s this summer I find my range of immediate acquaintances that want to endlessly debate the merit of things like Star Wars to be narrowing. (But, I suppose that's another good reason to have had a kid.) I frankly don't "get" the ignore feature ... to agree or disagree (strongly or not) that's pretty much the point of all this.

Anyway.


Originally posted by stillakid
The question of the hour is, is the OT a tired old worn out example of dated storytelling as he suggests? Or is it exactly the opposite, a timeless example of mythology full of all the heroic wonder that exists in all of us? Do the Prequels match the OT (whichever way you see it)? Or do the two trilogies exist as dysfunctional cousins sharing only a name?
NO.
Yes. I'm a big fan of Joseph Campbell and I always loved seeing how he related to these movies. It would have been interesting to hear what he'd have to say about the prequels.
Yes and No. But, given the gap in time ... I think it's amazing that they tie together at all. Lucas (as I see it) is still a great and creative guy ... but after 25 years I'm sure his perspective is a little myopic. Imagine the amount of ideas that have been rumbling through his head since the OT ... and it's not surprising to see how much of a blitz the PT is on screen.
And ... yeah, I think they're a little dysfunctional ... but, I don't have a problem loving one and simply liking the others. (Just like my relationship with my own cousins.)

I really hope though, that this weird need to make the series tie together perfectly doesn't end up ruining all of it. The idea that the OT will have scenes edited into it that tie into the PT sucks immensely to me. That would pretty much be the last straw. (Then Lucas will find the bag of burning cow "flop" on his door step at the ranch ... and there are plenty of cows near him there.)


Originally posted by mini-rock
didn't GL screen EP1 with Copolla and a few others? I remember reading something about that, but can't remember where.
Yeah ... I dunno, something like that sounds familiar, but I can't remember. I wouldn't doubt it ... I wouldn't doubt that he's had a few friends over to "casually" watch the new films. It would be interesting to see how his friends like Copolla or Spielberg interact with him, but sometimes I wonder if (and this contradicts what I said before) too much feedback from his "friends" isn't a problem. Considering what Spielberg did with E.T. I'd hate to hear the conversation they might have had about Greedo shooting first. Or, how all of the heat that Lucas has taken over the years about "the force" being a kind "witchcraft" can be fixed by introducing some tiny little creatures as substitutes for the spirituality thing. Yep, sometimes I suppose it is a good idea to just ignore your friends ... maybe just a little.

(ooh, look I bookended my post. genius.)

mini-rock
05-16-2003, 09:56 PM
I agree that's why we are all here plasticfetish, but if you find no value in someones opinion then why bother to read it? That is one of the reasons the ignore feature is there. It's not even ignore to me, it's more of a "don't care" feature. Why read through pointless dreck when there are plenty of other quality posts to read. MO anyway.

The reason I had asked about Copolla is b/c he must have given his own "POV" of EP1 to GL, and if was as bad as some people think, then GL may have changed it. He, as far as I know, didn't change it. Why? B/c they are perfect the way they are. If the OT was so perfect and timeless then why is GL having changes made? Three words, out of date or old and tired. I really can't wait till the OT AE's come out on DVD, and that the old original trilogy is gone forever.

stillakid
05-17-2003, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
I agree that's why we are all here plasticfetish, but if you find no value in someones opinion then why bother to read it? That is one of the reasons the ignore feature is there. It's not even ignore to me, it's more of a "don't care" feature. Why read through pointless dreck when there are plenty of other quality posts to read. MO anyway.
Even when many of those other posts are in agreement with what I say? Explain that away, smart boy. :rolleyes:



Originally posted by mini-rock
The reason I had asked about Copolla is b/c he must have given his own "POV" of EP1 to GL, and if was as bad as some people think, then GL may have changed it. He, as far as I know, didn't change it. Why? B/c they are perfect the way they are. If the OT was so perfect and timeless then why is GL having changes made? Three words, out of date or old and tired. I really can't wait till the OT AE's come out on DVD, and that the old original trilogy is gone forever.
The answer to that is not what MiniRock suggests. Instead, Lucas has primarily gone back, first to save a disintegrating negative, and second, to improve any special fx that he felt didn't tell the story correctly the first time. That was the main point of the Special Editions.

During that process, Lucas's aging personality got in the way which gave us a scene like "greedo firing first." We also got other additions and alterations because they would give the story an excuse to have extraneous "new" scenes (ie, Vader telling his men to prepare the shuttle in ESB so that Lucas could shoehorn in the extra footage from ROTJ). Stuff like that.

On the whole, he hasn't yet really directly altered the foundation of the Original Trilogy storyline or the characters (too much, Han Solo being the exception).

Indirectly, though, through his blatant disregard for continuity, he is altering the way the Original Trilogy was meant to be viewed in it's original state.

While a person like MiniRock might want to believe that Lucas intends to alter the OT in this way, I'm far more inclined to believe that Lucas has written the Prequels without fully comprehending the ramifications upon the story and characters in the OT. Only when Episode III is in the can and Lucas sits down to think about how to package the OT for DVD will the problems become apparent to him. Then the option is to somehow fix the problems that he introduced in the Prequels and leave the OT alone, or jump head first into the OT and completely chop it up so that it barely resembles the trilogy that just about everyone on the planet loves as is. What a predicament he's put himself into.



Originally posted by plasticfetish
And ... yeah, I think they're a little dysfunctional ... but, I don't have a problem loving one and simply liking the others. (Just like my relationship with my own cousins.)
Which cousin do you love? ;)

JediTricks
05-17-2003, 02:52 AM
First off, these personal attacks have to stop. I can't have the mod staff editing a fight between people all day long, so that leaves 4 options:
1) Those continuing to fight get suspended and risk banning;
2) Close the thread and disallow those who were fighting to post in the section again;
3) Total purging of the posts by those who continue to fight;
4) Cut it out, be the adult and let it drop, then discuss the merits and arguments of the topic at hand or avoid the thread altogether.



Originally posted by mini-rock
I couldn't say though if the Prequels would have done as well as the OT back in the day. It's fun to speculate, but really who knows? I do know however that GL made the final 3 films of the saga (Eps.4, 5, 6) first b/c he felt there was no way he could accomplish his vision with the limitations of technology at the time for the prequels. As I understand it, Lucas chose the part of the story we now know as "A New Hope" to go first because its story stood alone the strongest.


I think we can safely say that BO take itself is fairly pointless in this discussion, but they do point to ticket counts themselves which is equally pointless to the original topic I think since this thread was supposed to be about YOUR points of view, but the direction it seems to have meandered into does take tickets counts under its umbrella a bit I think. (Certainly you can compare tickets sold from TPM to AOTC though in either BO or ticket counts as a solid indicator between those 2 though, I think they're on even footing in most ways.) IIRC, in general ticket counts have dropped off from film to film in a chronological order anyway, diminishing returns.

stillakid
05-17-2003, 03:19 AM
Who's fighting? :confused: I'm simply trying to explain MR's actions to those who might not be aware of the situation. And he can't hear me anyway. :rolleyes: It's hard to fight when one of the parties "involved", well, isn't. Right?

Anyhow, many of his posts include statements that just are not historically accurate, at least as far as the biographies and numerous articles since the '70s portray it. I don't see where correcting his erroneous statements falls into the area of inappropriate. As I've heard many times before, simply stating a thing does not make it true. In MR's case, he doesn't even have the courage to listen to a rebuttal that just might shake his own opinions. That's his own business, but it shouldn't preclude others from responding to his posts in the same manner that any others would. He is free to believe as he wishes, but placing those thoughts in a public forum automatically invites critique, good or bad. He is also free to listen to the critique, good or bad, but simply ignoring the critique paints him as an individual in a certain light which will go undefined at this time. ;)

Going one step further to the point of the thread, MR uses such inaccuracies to "back up" his own point of view regarding the films. To truly answer the questions at hand requires an examination of MiniRock's motives for seeing the Original Trilogy as he claims. Failure on our part to question him concerning said statements would be in injustice to the respect his unique point of view deserves. Of course, his own lack of desire to defend his position with well-grounded and accurate statements undermines his own credibility and any "support" he might have garnered from interested parties.

:)



Originally posted by JediTricks
I think we can safely say that BO take itself is fairly pointless in this discussion, but they do point to ticket counts themselves which is equally pointless to the original topic I think since this thread was supposed to be about YOUR points of view, but the direction it seems to have meandered into does take tickets counts under its umbrella a bit I think. (Certainly you can compare tickets sold from TPM to AOTC though in either BO or ticket counts as a solid indicator between those 2 though, I think they're on even footing in most ways.) IIRC, in general ticket counts have dropped off from film to film in a chronological order anyway, diminishing returns.

I only brought up box office take because it is the only quantifiable measure we have to base the popularity of the saga on. Everything else is purely subjective. But that's the underlying definition of "your pov" you say? ;) Yes, but the thread was framed within the context of MiniRock's (as far as I can tell) very unique opinion that the Original Trilogy films are inherently bad in every way and pale in comparison, (his words) "to the superior Prequel films." With such a "unique" outlook, it only seemed appropriate to also examine the mass populace's point of view towards the saga and the only way to really accomplish that was to find some kind of quantifiable measurement. Ergo, boxoffice. :)

JediTricks
05-17-2003, 04:12 AM
I say you're making personal attacks which is forum fighting. You don't get to explain another forumite's actions or opinions, it's not your place to do so - you can argue their points or ask them to clarify their take. And obviously there are still words between you both so it's fighting. Don't like it? Convince me otherwise in PM or email (preferably email right now, my PM box is filling up) but don't waste public board space on this stuff.

If you want to discuss the historical inaccuracies of someone else's statement, that's a different matter, but the both of you still harp on each other's person and motives in your posts and THAT is what's not allowed.


BTW, obviously that is not mini-rock's total opinion on that - look at his post history and you'll see him occasionally speak highly of the OT. So either this whole thread and loud bickering are just more pawns in the big stupid flamewar between you both or there is more to it than just MR's current most-vocal opinion and your thread has more than just a singular focus. I'm sick of it all, you both need to back the hell off from each other in direct manners and those snide backhanded remarks before you both get suspended. I've had enough, I'm sick of spending all my forum time and the rest of the mod staff's time babysitting mini-rock and stillakid. Let it go, move on, support discussion of the theme rather than the persons or just avoid discussion altogether with eachother, but act like civilized adults rather than web-brats because I'm coming to the end of line on this crap.

mini-rock
05-17-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
As I understand it, Lucas chose the part of the story we now know as "A New Hope" to go first because its story stood alone the strongest.

Yeah, I remember GL saying that, but I also remember him saying he couldn't make the first 3 films due to current technology. I won't say it's fact, but I do remember him saying that.

stillakid
05-17-2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
I say you're making personal attacks which is forum fighting. You don't get to explain another forumite's actions or opinions, it's not your place to do so - you can argue their points or ask them to clarify their take. And obviously there are still words between you both so it's fighting. Don't like it? Convince me otherwise in PM or email (preferably email right now, my PM box is filling up) but don't waste public board space on this stuff.

If you want to discuss the historical inaccuracies of someone else's statement, that's a different matter, but the both of you still harp on each other's person and motives in your posts and THAT is what's not allowed.


BTW, obviously that is not mini-rock's total opinion on that - look at his post history and you'll see him occasionally speak highly of the OT. So either this whole thread and loud bickering are just more pawns in the big stupid flamewar between you both or there is more to it than just MR's current most-vocal opinion and your thread has more than just a singular focus. I'm sick of it all, you both need to back the hell off from each other in direct manners and those snide backhanded remarks before you both get suspended. I've had enough, I'm sick of spending all my forum time and the rest of the mod staff's time babysitting mini-rock and stillakid. Let it go, move on, support discussion of the theme rather than the persons or just avoid discussion altogether with eachother, but act like civilized adults rather than web-brats because I'm coming to the end of line on this crap.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, however I see the situation differently. The point of the thread is to discuss the point of view that each of us has as it is the foundation for how we react to and discuss almost every topic here. Merely expressing an "opinion" regarding the films is not the same as explaining your point-of-view. The point of view explains where those opinions come from in the first place. As such, it can appear on a superficial level that the discussion is a "personal attack." Not so.

Besides, even if I scream at the top of my lungs at a guy in a soundproof booth, and he doesn't hear it, how can that be defined as an argument? I don't get it.

But based on the reaction here, I'd wager that we are not permitted to delve too deeply into the reasons why we all feel the way we do or, more to the point, to inquire about why others do. So no political, religious, or "personal" inquiries either I suppose. Oh well.

But it's not my opinion that counts as I don't have the superpowers of a moderator. :)


Then again, I'm probably 100% wrong. :)

Tonysmo
05-18-2003, 04:02 AM
at least the one consistancy GL has with all his movies old or new... is to find the one who can exploit a main reactor, blow it up, and have a parade.. well.. except ESB... no... wait! They blew up the main reactor on HOTH!! Whoooo HOOOOOO!! CONSISTANCY!! hmmm.. but yet there was no parade.. gurrr..

mini-rock
05-18-2003, 04:18 AM
AOTC doesn't fall in that catagory either. No reactor & no parade.:)

Tonysmo
05-18-2003, 05:12 AM
DAMN YOU!!

mini-rock
05-18-2003, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Tonysmo
DAMN YOU!!

I know :eek:

stillakid
05-18-2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Tonysmo
at least the one consistancy GL has with all his movies old or new... is to find the one who can exploit a main reactor, blow it up, and have a parade.. well.. except ESB... no... wait! They blew up the main reactor on HOTH!! Whoooo HOOOOOO!! CONSISTANCY!! hmmm.. but yet there was no parade.. gurrr..

Perhaps you're still correct. Both ESB and AOTC are the middle films of their respective trilogies. So that's pretty consistent so far. EpIII should safely return you to your regularly scheduled reactor explosion and parade sequence. :)

2-1B
05-18-2003, 04:33 PM
Well, Boba Fett had a bit of a parade on Bespin as Lobot and those security guards marched through the hallways with the floating carbonite block. :crazed:

Exhaust Port
05-18-2003, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
AOTC doesn't fall in that catagory either. No reactor & no parade.:)

There's the parade of Clonetroopers as they march onto the ships past the viewing platform on which the Chancellor is standing. I'd be willing to call that a parade.

I can't think of a AOTC reactor though.

mini-rock
05-18-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
There's the parade of Clonetroopers as they march onto the ships past the viewing platform on which the Chancellor is standing. I'd be willing to call that a parade.

I can't think of a AOTC reactor though.

Yeah, your right. I though about that as I had posted it, but didn't consider it a celebration parade like ANH, ROTJ, and TPM which I believe (not for sure) what Tonysmo was getting at.:)

TheDarthVader
05-18-2003, 07:11 PM
Good observation about the reactor, parade thing. That's cool. Anyways, I feel that the prequels are great movies. (I know, many disagree but that is okay). And Lucas DID say that he didn't have the technology to do the first three films. I remember hearing that...somewhere...but I can't remember where...:confused:

stillakid
05-18-2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Perhaps you're still correct. Both ESB and AOTC are the middle films of their respective trilogies. So that's pretty consistent so far. EpIII should safely return you to your regularly scheduled reactor explosion and parade sequence. :)

I figured out what the Episode III "explosion" and "parade" will be: Somewhere in the middle of the third act, the Clone Army will attack the Jedi Council building by air and blow it to smithereens. After the final "wrapups" of all the characters and the final deathblow to Mace, the final sequence will show an arrogant Palpatine lording over a marching Clone Army on Coruscant as they head back out into the galaxy. This is a victory parade, at least for the side of evil. :evil:

Tonysmo
05-19-2003, 02:31 AM
ahh nice... blowin up the Jedi temple.. but to be consistant, it has to have a reactor in there somewhere... and yeah, the parade has to be a celebration.. of some sort..

is it 2005 yet?

and in AOTC, maybe we can consider " just above the fuel cells " to be the main explosion. not really a reactor... but it kinda works...

mini-rock
05-19-2003, 03:06 AM
Or the Trade Federation Core ship that was destroyed could be it, and the "parade" celebration could be the geonosians in the arena. ?????

Nah! ANH, ROTJ, and TPM are the only ones that we can really consider celebration type endings. ESB end's with Luke, Leia, R2 & 3-PO. AOTC ended the same way except with Anakin & Padme instead. So I guess we can expect EP3 to end in some type of celebration ending as well. Maybe.:D

stillakid
05-19-2003, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Or the Trade Federation Core ship that was destroyed could be it, and the "parade" celebration could be the geonosians in the arena. ?????

Nah! ANH, ROTJ, and TPM are the only ones that we can really consider celebration type endings. ESB end's with Luke, Leia, R2 & 3-PO. AOTC ended the same way except with Anakin & Padme instead. So I guess we can expect EP3 to end in some type of celebration ending as well. Maybe.:D

Oh, there you are agreeing with me again! ;) Thank you!

mini-rock
05-19-2003, 02:05 PM
Now that I remember GL had said (I think it was the ET interview) EP3 would be the darkest film of the saga, and that it would end very small. To me that suggests no celebration ending in EP3. So I guess there is no pattern, but either way it ends is cool with me.:)

PoggleTheGreater
05-19-2003, 02:16 PM
I think it will end like no other SW film. It'll probably end with Obi-wan on Tattooine watching over Luke from afar.

TheDarthVader
05-19-2003, 03:01 PM
But if there is a parade before the ending? That would still count as having a parade...just not at the end. It would be cool to have Palpatine parading around on Coruscant with his army.

keith koth
05-19-2003, 03:48 PM
If you look at the definition of parade in the dictionary, one of the possible meanings is: the ceremonial formation of a body of troops before a superior officer

This type of parade was shown at the end of AOTC as masses of clone troopers assembled for war. This same type of "parade" will probably be shown in EIII. The question is where was the "parade" in ESB?...perhaps the formation of the Imperial fleet around Hoth...although that was not ceremonial...Ah, I'll let someone else figure this out...I just wanted to point out the fact that "parade" has other meanings outside the traditionally accepted definition.

stillakid
05-19-2003, 10:41 PM
Just by chance, I happened across this article in the LA TIMES on May 17th:

A New Slice on Physics: Is the world we see trapped on a thin membrane separating us from vast other realms? Some scientists say that would explain a lot. (http://www.latimes.com/la-sci-branes17may17,1,2934926.story)

It's an interesting article, but the part that intrigued me the most and seemed quite germaine to this topic was one of the photos printed with the article (not in the online version unfortunately). However, through the miracle of modern science, I scanned it and attached it to this post. Please take a look at it before continuing....


Thanks! Nice to have you back. So what does a floating ice cream cone have to do with Star Wars? Specifically, the thread topic has to do with your point of view regarding the story. That point of view colors the way you evaluate every detail conceivable. Take another look at the attached photo. It's one ice cream cone, but it produces two entirely different shadows. Depending upon your vantage point, you may see the triangle shadow or you may only see the circle shadow. Which one is correct? Well, both and neither at the same time. Why? Because the shadows are not the ice cream cone. There is only one TRUTH, and that is the object itself. Depending upon how open-minded and objective a person is, he/she will have the ability to see the entire picture, the object and the shadows simultaneously.

So when some of us watch the Star Wars saga, we allow various obstacles to get in the way of our objectivity so that we only see one shadow or the other, but not the object itself.

For me, I'd like to think that I'm open minded enough to see the entire picture, but I'm also smart enough to know that the truth can be evasive. Maybe only George Lucas has the ability to see the actual ice cream cone being that he's the one "creating" all of this. Maybe. But my own personal opinion is that even his vision is clouded. He may actually see what the saga should be in theory, but his execution of it isn't happening. As they say, never the twain shall meet.

So, how 'bout you? Do you think you see one of the shadows on the wall or the ice cream cone itself?:)



Here's the article for anyone who's interested:


A New Slice on Physics: Is the world we see trapped on a thin membrane separating us from vast other realms? Some scientists say that would explain a lot. May 17, 2003

By K.C. Cole, Times Staff Writer


Plato considered it first.

What if everything we hold dear is but a thin slice of some larger, unreachable reality, like a flickering shadow cast on the craggy wall of a cave? What if the moon and stars, your home, your thoughts, your cat, are but projections on this wall -- mere suggestions of unfathomable realms beyond?

In the last few years, a mathematically rigorous version of Plato's 2,000-year-old thought experiment has been refashioning the way physicists think about everything from subatomic particles to the Big Bang. The universe we see, according to this scenario, is stuck on a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, wiggle, connect and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions. Physicists call this new frontier the "brane world."

The idea could help solve a long list of outstanding mysteries. Among them: What is the "dark matter" that seems to make up 90% of the universe? And why is gravity trillions of times weaker than electromagnetism?

The revolution was set off in the mid-1990s when UC Santa Barbara physicist Joe Polchinski determined through mathematics that branes were a surface to which things attach, like hair to skin -- except the "things" in this case were the minuscule "strings" that may well be the fundamental ingredients of the universe.

"I was just fiddling around with mathematics.... Within a week or two [other physicists] had done things with it I hadn't envisioned. It was like taking the stopper out of the dam. Things poured through."

Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, creator of the currently accepted version of the Big Bang, said recently he felt a little like Rip Van Winkle -- picking up his head from a long sleep only to notice that the landscape of physics he thought he knew had suddenly, drastically, changed.

Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, among others, envisions brane worlds bubbling up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes. He ends his latest book, "The Universe in a Nutshell," with a call to explore this "brane new world."

One might well wonder why such a seemingly bizarre concept has attracted so many well-established physicists. The short answer is: desperation.

The laws of nature that describe the large-scale universe to an astonishing degree of precision (Einstein's general relativity) are incompatible with the laws that describe the small-scale universe with the same astonishing exactness (quantum theory). This means either that one of these well-tested theories is wrong (all but inconceivable) or that there is some larger, more encompassing theory that somehow accommodates both.

To date, the only theory that comes close to marrying the two is "string theory" -- a mathematically elegant set of ideas that has swept the world of physics over the last few decades. According to string theory, the basic ingredients of the universe are not point-like particles, but tiny strings vibrating in 10-dimensional space. Although still untested, string theory has scored a spectacular series of theoretical successes, earning it an ever-widening circle of admirers.

And yet string theory remains a realm apart from day-to-day physics -- lovely to behold but innately aloof.

For one thing, the strings are so small that it would take a particle accelerator larger than the solar system to create the energies needed to "see" them. This means, in effect, that strings can never be detected.

For another, the complex mathematics required to deal with the tortured 10-dimensional landscape is beyond the reach of most physicists.

Brane models change all that: Unlike in string theory, the extra dimensions in brane worlds can be big, infinitely big. "It led to a whole new bunch of possibilities that could be experimentally tested," said physicist Jim Cline of McGill University in Montreal.

What's more, branes don't require the full range of mathematical tools required for string theory, opening the door to new groups of scientists. "You can use methods that are part and parcel of more traditional physics," said Columbia University physicist Brian Greene. "So a person who's not a string theorist can jump into the field and make contributions."

This sense of promise was palpable last summer at the Aspen Center for Physics, where string theorists and cosmologists -- the scientists who study the origin and structure of the universe -- gathered for a workshop to explore links between the smallest scales in the universe and the largest. Brane scenarios popped up everywhere, enveloped in the thick fog of uncertainty that clouds the birth of new worlds.

The setting was strangely church-like. The faithful sat in rows under spires of white-barked aspens, their round leaves fluttering in the wind.

In front, a maestro in sneakers tapped out symbols on a blackboard, chalk flying like fairy dust, black jeans covered in white handprints. There was lots of talk about the infinite. Lots of recitation and response. Everyone strained to channel some larger reality through equations.

"Your bulk could contain many 3-branes," one physicist said.

"The 9-branes could still annihilate."

"I'm lost."

This was not your grandmother's physics. There were no objects in the usual sense. No matter, no particles. Not even numbers. Only "instantons," "alpha vacua" and multidimensional membranes wrapping around one another, traveling down throats of black holes and bouncing back, transformed.

Even to physicists, much of this seems unbearably strange. But in physics, strangeness comes with the territory. "When I first learned about quantum physics as an undergraduate, it just about destroyed my mind," said Stanford post-doctoral fellow Stephon Alexander. "And now, 12 years later, it's just a tool."

There's actually nothing particularly new about the idea that space may extend into unseen dimensions, or even that the world we know is somehow trapped on a membrane.

Extra dimensions were such a hot topic in the 19th century that Victorian schoolmaster Edwin Abbott wrote a famous science fiction novel, "Flatland," based on the notion that our limited perceptions prevented us from seeing worlds existing right in front of our three-dimensional noses. Albert Einstein made extra dimensions an integral part of physics when he used a fourth dimension, time, in his theory of relativity in 1905. Ten years later, he showed that this interwoven fabric of space-time could warp under the influence of massive objects -- "causing" the force we know as gravity.

Extra-dimensional membranes were kicking around in string theory since at least the mid-1980s, but no one took them very seriously. One of the first suggestions that the world we know might be stuck to such a membrane appeared in a 1985 paper that was a parody of string theory titled "The Super G-String" by V. Gates, et al., from the University of Cauliflower (actually, physicist Warren Siegel of State University of New York, Stony Brook). "It was based on a serious paper that was totally overlooked because it was before its time," Polchinski said.

The branes playing such a large role in physics today are richer and more mathematically rigorous than early versions.

Essentially, a brane is a discontinuity in space-time, a boundary where things meet, like the surface of a pond where the water meets the sky.

"It's a defect in the quantum fabric," said Ruth Gregory of the University of Durham in Britain. On one side of the defect would be the vacuum of empty space. A vacuum with somewhat different properties might exist on the other side.

Imagine our brane as pond scum -- a thin film that divides the air above from a deep (perhaps infinitely deep) body of water below. Most of what we experience is trapped in the scum. But beyond is a whole other world of currents swirling beneath the surface. Their motion might tug on our scum. We'd feel it as nothing but a gentle disturbance, never dreaming of what lurks below.

A brane doesn't always divide one thing from another. It may just be a condensation of stuff, "a localized lump of energy and curvature that likes to hang together," Stanford University physicist Steve Shenker said.

Either way, it's a place where things get stuck -- like the scum on the pond. "That was the revolution," said Harvard University physicist Lisa Randall. "To realize that branes were honest-to-goodness objects."

Randall played a pivotal role in the revolution when she and Johns Hopkins University physicist Raman Sundrum realized that branes could be infinitely large and yet remain invisible.

The reason: We can't see anything outside our brane, because light can't escape or enter it. We can't hear anything outside, because sound travels through matter, and matter is stuck to our brane. We can't use radioactivity to sense what's beyond, or even break through with nuclear bombs, because nuclear forces are also firmly nailed to our brane. There could be a big blue elephant sitting not a millimeter away in another dimension, but we wouldn't know it's there because everything we use to "see" is stuck to our brane.

Only gravity can't be glued to a particular brane. Gravity, as Einstein revealed, is the curving of space-time itself, so it wanders willy-nilly where it will, leaking off our brane into what physicists call "the bulk" -- the rest of space-time.

Brane scenarios offer an elegant explanation for why gravity is such a weakling: Maybe it's not any weaker than the other forces. Maybe it's just concentrated somewhere else in the bulk, or on another brane.

Explaining the wimpiness of gravity is but a taste of what this Brane New World might do.

Consider another embarrassing problem that has stumped astronomers for decades. At least 90% of the matter in the universe is AWOL. Or more precisely, it is known to exist because of its gravitational pull (without it, galaxies wouldn't hold together) but can't be detected by any other means. The standard approach has been to populate the universe with exotic new forms of matter, too elusive to be readily seen.

If our brane is but a small slice of a much larger cosmos, however, the "dark matter" might be nothing but ordinary matter trapped on another brane.

Such a shadow world, Hawking speculates, might contain "shadow human beings wondering about the mass that seems to be missing from their world."

Or take the mystery of why elementary particles always appear in triplets, each set heavier than the next.

One possibility is that each triplet is the same particle repeating itself on three layers of branes. They would have different masses on our brane for the same reason as shadows on a wall can be different sizes depending on the distance of the object that casts them.

"One of the neat things about the whole extra-dimensional idea," Polchinski said, "is that all the physics that we see -- all the kinds of particles and their detailed properties -- are reflections of some inner geometry."

As in real estate, value depends on location, location, location.

The physicists most entranced with brane worlds are cosmologists. Over the last decade, a new array of telescopes and satellites has provided them with sophisticated tools for taking the measure of the universe. What was once little more than navel gazing is fast becoming a data-drenched science.

But cosmologists need string theory to understand the origin of the universe, because laws of physics break down at the tiny distances and immense gravity at play in the Big Bang. For now, cosmologists can see back in time only so far, and no farther.

Consider the Big Bang. According to current theory, the universe sprang from an infinitely small speck of space-time known as a "singularity" -- a paradox in the accepted laws of physics, which hold that nothing can be infinitely small.

"A singularity is a euphemism for: 'Things have gone haywire.... Things make no sense,' " said Greene, one of the coordinators of the Aspen workshop. "The Big Bang singularity is an 'It doesn't make sense' on the most important problem -- namely, how did it all begin."

Branes can enclose the Big Bang singularity like a sheet of cellophane -- avoiding the problem of the infinitely small by giving the singularity some dimension.

Not surprisingly, the string-cosmology connection that brane worlds brought about is also producing something of a culture clash. Until recently, string theorists have remained skeptical of the grand theories of cosmologists. String theory is mathematically rigorous. Cosmologists are a wilder bunch, willing to try out almost any model of the universe and see where it leads.

"We know how branes work," said string theorist Nathan Seiberg of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. "We know what are properties of branes, and what are not properties of branes. [Cosmologists] violate all the rules. Is this good or bad? I'm not sure. Because if they come up with something which violates the rules of string theory but does all sorts of other wonderful things, then maybe we in string theory will have a motivation to look into it."

Branes already have brought a whole new zoo of exotic species into the world of physics. There are skinny branes and fat branes; empty branes and full; active and still.

"A brane which is wiggling a lot would translate to a brane that has excitations on it, particles on it," said McGill's Cline. That would be a brane with atoms, forces, us. "But I could also have a cold brane," he said. "That would be like a cold, empty universe. The brane still has some energy density, but there's no particles living there."

And while the term brane derives from membrane -- a two-dimensional surface -- branes could also exist in every possible dimension. A string is a "1-brane," for one-dimensional object. Brane worlds (like the one we might live in) must by necessity be "3 plus 1" branes -- three dimensions of space plus one of time. But you can just as easily have a pair of 10-dimensional branes bounding an 11-dimensional universe.

For now, no one knows whether the building blocks of the ultimate theory will be strings or branes. "You can't really say," Polchinski said. "It's kind of Zen-like, but in a very precise way."

Ultimately, brane worlds will stand or fall, like all science, on the twin tests of consistency and experiment. Whatever bizarre brane worlds may exist in some larger dimensional landscape, they can't change what we perceive. The stars can't slip off into hyperspace. The cat can't be disturbed from the couch. Physics has to answer to nature as we know it.

Experimental evidence could come in the next decade from two very different realms. A new particle collider under construction in Europe could reach high-enough energies to produce, say, a five-dimensional "particle" of gravity -- a telltale sign of brane worlds beyond. This particle might be detected as energy missing from a collision because it "leaks" into an extra dimension.

At the same time, cosmologists are figuring out ways to read the signature of extra dimensions in the microwaves that pervade space as the afterglow of the Big Bang; the effects would be subtle but detectable, with a new generation of satellites.

"We just have to keep hoping that nature will be kind," Cline said.

In the end, there's always the chance that all these ideas will turn out to be too, well, off-the-wall. "Who knows?" said University of Chicago physicist Sean Carroll. But even if brane worlds aren't real, Carroll said, "they will have taught us a useful lesson that we should have known all along, which is that we don't have a clue to what's going on."

Polchinski, for one, believes that branes are probably real, even though he isn't sure where the idea will lead. "It's possible that nature doesn't work that way," he said. "But it's so rich with possibilities, if it's not good for this, it's probably good for something else."

mini-rock
05-19-2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by keith koth
If you look at the definition of parade in the dictionary, one of the possible meanings is: the ceremonial formation of a body of troops before a superior officer

This type of parade was shown at the end of AOTC as masses of clone troopers assembled for war. This same type of "parade" will probably be shown in EIII. The question is where was the "parade" in ESB?...perhaps the formation of the Imperial fleet around Hoth...although that was not ceremonial...Ah, I'll let someone else figure this out...I just wanted to point out the fact that "parade" has other meanings outside the traditionally accepted definition.


Right kieth, EP said the same thing pretty much about the ending of AOTC. I believe the point Tonysmo was trying to make though (I'm not speaking for him, just my interpretation) was that after the "reactor" explosion (ANH, ROTJ, TPM) a celebration followed also. ESB, and AOTC did not have these two things happen. :)

LOL, this is kind of a funny debate. But it's cool to get everyones take. :D

Tonysmo
05-20-2003, 02:03 AM
THATS NO ICE CREAM CONE!!!



THATS A SPACE STATION!!






Yes, again... My view of the parade is purely in the celebration sense..

PLEASE! PLEASE! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Lets not bicker and argue over who killed who...

2-1B
05-20-2003, 02:49 AM
Ehhhhh, I don't know if you can compare Star Wars to the Ice Cream Cone . . . they're movies, they're supposed to be subjective. The shadows of the cone/film ARE the reality because everyone interprets it differently. NO ONE can see the pure "cone" of Star Wars, we all take different biases with us.

I've seen this argument put into play before. ;) Specifically, the idea that someone who likes the Prequels CAN'T be liking the films for being inherently good - no, they MUST be blind to the factual problems or obvious mistakes, either incapable of or unwilling to see the films for "what they are." ;)

mini-rock
05-20-2003, 02:57 AM
Are we comparing Star Wars to ice cream cones now? :confused: WHAT THE?!

plasticfetish
05-20-2003, 03:14 AM
Yeah! Hello Mr. "I Ignore stillakid" ... you missed a very long quote that seemed to have something to do with ice cream cones and the nature of the universe ... or something like that.


Originally posted by Caesar
I've seen this argument put into play before. Specifically, the idea that someone who likes the Prequels CAN'T be liking the films for being inherently good - no, they MUST be blind to the factual problems or obvious mistakes, either incapable of or unwilling to see the films for "what they are."
Or they're simply drunk!
Oh, I'm sorry ... you said "Prequels" ... I thought it said "NyQuils", my mistake.

2-1B
05-20-2003, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
Ehhhhh, I don't know if you can compare Star Wars to the Ice Cream Cone . . . they're movies, they're supposed to be subjective. The shadows of the cone/film ARE the reality because everyone interprets it differently. NO ONE can see the pure "cone" of Star Wars, we all take different biases with us.

I've seen this argument put into play before. ;) Specifically, the idea that someone who likes the Prequels CAN'T be liking the films for being inherently good - no, they MUST be blind to the factual problems or obvious mistakes, either incapable of or unwilling to see the films for "what they are." ;)

Awwwwwwwwwww, whaddya know ? ;)
A short time after making that post, I found this part of an essay from the Washington Times (via TFN) -- the article deals mainly with The Matrix and people attending the theater but it mentions other hit fantasy movies as well . . .


By Hank Stuever
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 17, 2003; Page C01
This is how it happens now: The last of the "Star Wars" devotees -- the Lucasites -- continue to deny the heartache of the prequels, insisting that films about galactic tax codes are as good as the originals. The Tolkienists have enjoyed a swelling of their ranks, thanks to the sprawling "Lord of the Rings" films, which, for all their florid dragons and drama, have an inviting, earthy appeal.

Wow, it is just like I said earlier ! :rolleyes:
This jackass "Hank" apparently doesn't like the new films, so anyone who does MUST be "in denial." Whatever. :stupid:

mini-rock
05-20-2003, 03:33 AM
Gee, I sure feel like I cheated myself. Nnnnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!:)

JediTricks
05-20-2003, 09:41 PM
Stilla, because it's not a soundproof room, the rest of us CAN read your posts.


Originally posted by Exhaust Port
There's the parade of Clonetroopers as they march onto the ships past the viewing platform on which the Chancellor is standing. I'd be willing to call that a parade.

I can't think of a AOTC reactor though. I'd call it a parade too.

As for the reactor, I'm willing to take Anakin's "aim above the fuel cells" as that sort of thing.

stillakid
05-21-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
Ehhhhh, I don't know if you can compare Star Wars to the Ice Cream Cone . . . they're movies, they're supposed to be subjective. The shadows of the cone/film ARE the reality because everyone interprets it differently. NO ONE can see the pure "cone" of Star Wars, we all take different biases with us.

I've seen this argument put into play before. ;) Specifically, the idea that someone who likes the Prequels CAN'T be liking the films for being inherently good - no, they MUST be blind to the factual problems or obvious mistakes, either incapable of or unwilling to see the films for "what they are." ;)

As is the case between us, I hope we can agree to disagree on this. :) This is a rather long post, so I hope you can forgive me for that. I just need you to understand completely where I’m coming from so that we can better communicate and arrive at a mutual understanding. That said…

I have to agree with Hank. Though “in denial” isn’t the way I’d characterize it, I do think he’s on the right track.

Why would I think something like that, you ask? Before my tires get slashed, I’d like to at least explain…

I think that the main point of contention begins right here:

Originally posted by Caesar
they're movies, they're supposed to be subjective.

Who ever said that was the case?

I can only speak for myself definitively, but when I sit down to write a story or screenplay, I in fact usually have very specific ideas in mind of what I’d like the audience to take away from it.

That might not happen for two reasons:

1)the audience “misinterprets” what the filmmaker (storyteller) created. This might be caused for a number of reasons, including the audience member’s own prejudices and “baggage” that he interjects into the piece. Or,

2)the audience actually interprets the story correctly, but the writer (filmmaker) did it wrong. Meaning that what he had in mind wasn’t executed correctly enough to mirror the intention. So the audience is seeing the work for what it is in its final form, but the filmmaker screwed up whether he realizes it or not (or is brave enough to admit it).

Or the third option in which a writer (filmmaker) sloshes a bunch of random ideas onto the screen and launches a deliberate free-for-all wherein everybody “is allowed” to go away from the story with whatever they feel like.

In my dealings with screenwriters, wanna-be screenwriters, and other “creative” folk, I’m inclined to say that most do not aim for option C up above. Most seem to have very specific ideas in mind when sitting down to write. For the aspiring writers, the process gets frustrating as #2 above is a prominent element in the rewriting process. They have ideas in mind but the screenplays just don’t reflect the intention. The ultimate goal is to put the words down on the page that absolutely reflect the full potential of the core idea. Then, with any luck at all, the additional creative staff that attaches itself to the script also see the core idea for what it wants to be without dumping their own extraneous baggage onto it. (i.e., an actor wants a bigger part for himself, at the detriment to the rest of the story.) Oddly enough, you kind of express this very thought in your post above, but contradict it with the statement prior when you say:

Originally posted by Caesar
they're movies, they're supposed to be subjective. The shadows of the cone/film ARE the reality because everyone interprets it differently. NO ONE can see the pure "cone" of Star Wars, we all take different biases with us.
On one hand, you've suggested that there is no "one cone of truth," but on the other you've suggested that in fact there is one but none of us can really see it due to our individual bias's. Perhaps I "misinterpreted" what you meant to say so I'll need a clarification to truly understand your intention. (what a perfect example of what I'm talking about.)

In my opinion, Lucas never achieved #1 and didn’t intend for that third option either, as most storytellers don’t. So, to answer the question, yes, there is a definite “ice cream cone” of truth and fact when it comes to what the artist intended. Whether or not the audience sees it (and the filmmaker too) is what’s in question. Sometimes the core idea never makes it to screen as the writer misses, the director misses, all those involved miss, and the audience never grasps it either. Sadly enough, it happens. Just like your statement that I addressed in the above paragraph, you had a very specific idea that you most likely intended to impart, but because I chose to "interpret" your words (because the way the statement was written was confusing to me), your (most likely) specific message didn't get through.

But this idea that somehow art is inherently open to any interpretation that someone can conjure up is odd to me. I suppose it can be applied to something like a Warhol, but to someone sitting down to tell a specific story, the thought that it is open season on his or her work is frightening.

Answer me this: Hypothetically of course, if I came away from the Star Wars Saga with the interpretation that it is an allegory for the adhesive tape industry in its dealings with the Metro Transit Authority of Greater Los Angeles and its relationship with Occidental Oil in Colombia, would my “interpretation” be valid? Granted, that’s an admittedly extreme example, but I’d wager that George Lucas would not only get a real kick out of reading such a moronic “interpretation” of Star Wars, but on some level would be a little disturbed that someone, anyone could have possibly gotten that out of watching his space epic. Point being, I’d put money on it that he, like most writers before him, sat down to tell a story and filled it with plot points that were not intended to be open for random and personal interpretation. Instead, he knew what kind of characters he wanted, he knew what kind of story they would be involved in, and he put them in situations that advanced to a specific goal.

One more quick situation: I don’t know what it is you do for a living, so I’ll use a different career off the top of my head. Let’s say “welding.” We could pick anything but we’ll run with that for now. I’m not a welder. In fact I know nothing about welding aside from the fact that welding joins two pieces of metal together and that I’m not supposed to look at the light. What do you suppose the welder would say to me if I wandered up to him and told him that I didn’t think that he was doing it right? First, if he didn’t tell me to get the F out of there, he’d probably say “what the he** are you talking about?” I then explain to him that I’ve interpreted his work differently and that I think that perhaps he could do it better a different way. Now he tells me to get lost. Welding is welding and there is no room for “interpretation.” You either do it the right way or else the metal doesn’t stick together. Period. Now let’s look at filmmaking. Why is there an open season on this “job” which suggests that there are no “rules” and that everything is open to “interpretation”? What’s wrong with the idea that it is possible to “do it wrong.” George himself admitted on the Episode I DVD that “it is possible to screw this stuff up.” Don’t get me wrong, and I’ve said this many many times before, but I don’t think that there is anything wrong at all with liking anything you choose to like. But it’s the suggestion that “art” is immune from being inherently “screwed up” that confuses me to no end. “Artists” F up all the time. Animators sit down to draw something, screw it up, crumple up the paper and start over. Writers type the wrong words or get lost in a character arc, erase it and start over. Composers work and rework the notes on the page until they sound better. So why is filmmaking, and the Star Wars Prequel films specifically, immune from the same chance of being inherently screwed up? So yes, my own take on the situation is that the Prequels are "screwed up," George might be aware of it but may or may not be inclined to do anything about it, and that a few core fans would rather not admit that these films have inherent flaws to them and don't live up to the expectations built by the first couple of films. I can, and have, explained why I believe the first, that the films are screwed up. I can't explain the second about George but I have some possible ideas. And the third reason for some fans believing these films to be inherently flawless (at least enough to be as good or better than the first 3) lives within each individual as those bias's that you yourself brought up previously.

I’ll call all of that above “my opinion,” but I’m genuinely at a loss on how the craft of screenwriting and filmmaking could be considered differently. :confused: Don’t get me wrong, I truly wish to understand your point of view on this, so I look forward to hearing it. It would go a long way in my quest to not only becoming a more understanding and tolerant person, but to also become a better writer so that my work doesn't invite such sweeping, divergent, and potentially negative "interpretation." :) Thank you! Sincerely.

PoggleTheGreater
05-21-2003, 02:42 AM
Stillakid, I understand what you are saying. What a film should be is the writer or director's true vision of it, and he either realizes that or he doesn't. But I don't know if you, or anyone but Lucas, knows what the films really should be. I think the PT are different types of films than the CT, and are meant to be that way. I think the preqeuls are quite true to Lucas' vision of the PT and the Saga. The SW Saga is similar to The Godfather I and II in how they are different types of films but are part of the same saga.

2-1B
05-21-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
I think that the main point of contention begins right here:


Originally posted by Caesar
they're movies, they're supposed to be subjective.


Originally posted by stillakid
Who ever said that was the case?

Well . . . I said that was case. ;) That's why I don't like the Ice Cream Cone comparison.


Originally posted by stillakid
I can only speak for myself definitively, but when I sit down to write a story or screenplay, I in fact usually have very specific ideas in mind of what I’d like the audience to take away from it.

That might not happen for two reasons:

1)the audience “misinterprets” what the filmmaker (storyteller) created. This might be caused for a number of reasons, including the audience member’s own prejudices and “baggage” that he interjects into the piece. Or,

2)the audience actually interprets the story correctly, but the writer (filmmaker) did it wrong. Meaning that what he had in mind wasn’t executed correctly enough to mirror the intention. So the audience is seeing the work for what it is in its final form, but the filmmaker screwed up whether he realizes it or not (or is brave enough to admit it).

Or the third option in which a writer (filmmaker) sloshes a bunch of random ideas onto the screen and launches a deliberate free-for-all wherein everybody “is allowed” to go away from the story with whatever they feel like.

In my dealings with screenwriters, wanna-be screenwriters, and other “creative” folk, I’m inclined to say that most do not aim for option C up above. Most seem to have very specific ideas in mind when sitting down to write. For the aspiring writers, the process gets frustrating as #2 above is a prominent element in the rewriting process. They have ideas in mind but the screenplays just don’t reflect the intention. The ultimate goal is to put the words down on the page that absolutely reflect the full potential of the core idea. Then, with any luck at all, the additional creative staff that attaches itself to the script also see the core idea for what it wants to be without dumping their own extraneous baggage onto it. (i.e., an actor wants a bigger part for himself, at the detriment to the rest of the story.)

Of course I believe that filmmakers have a desired effect they are trying to reach. When I say films are meant to be subjective, I don't mean to imply that something should just be thrown up on the screen for everyone to interpret however they see fit.
My POV is that when you make a movie, it has a potential audience of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people. I'm sorry, but you will never get the same desired response from everybody. Does that make a film a failure? No, not to me it doesn't. It is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to see a film the same way, we all have different experiences on which we base our reactions.



Originally posted by stillakid
Oddly enough, you kind of express this very thought in your post above, but contradict it with the statement prior when you say:


Originally posted by Caesar
they're movies, they're supposed to be subjective. The shadows of the cone/film ARE the reality because everyone interprets it differently. NO ONE can see the pure "cone" of Star Wars, we all take different biases with us.


Originally posted by stillakid
On one hand, you've suggested that there is no "one cone of truth," but on the other you've suggested that in fact there is one but none of us can really see it due to our individual bias's. Perhaps I "misinterpreted" what you meant to say so I'll need a clarification to truly understand your intention. (what a perfect example of what I'm talking about.)

Yes, there is a "cone of truth" as to what the filmmaker intended, what I'm arguing against is that certain elitists are able to declare their reaction to the film as anything more than his or her opinion. :mad:
I think Lucas succeeded in MANY of his intentions while you think he succeeded in very few - so, there is a Truth as to what he intended but whether or not you and I think he succeeded is a whole different matter.


Hank :rolleyes: up there would argue that I am somehow "duped" into liking a bad movie . . . an INHERENTLY bad movie. Well guess what Hank, I can say the same thing in reverse - "you're an idiot who is just unwilling or uncapable of appreciating or 'getting' the beauty of--


Hank
films about galactic tax codes

--but I WON'T say that because I understand that Hank and I both have different TASTES.

Oh my, even further than that, I could declare with absolute truth that Hank is a complete moron for not knowing that these movies are SOOOOOO much more than films about galactic tax codes.
Nope, I guess that's impossible since Hank has spoken with infallibility. :rolleyes:


stillakid
In my opinion, Lucas never achieved #1 and didn’t intend for that third option either, as most storytellers don’t. So, to answer the question, yes, there is a definite “ice cream cone” of truth and fact when it comes to what the artist intended. Whether or not the audience sees it (and the filmmaker too) is what’s in question. Sometimes the core idea never makes it to screen as the writer misses, the director misses, all those involved miss, and the audience never grasps it either. Sadly enough, it happens. Just like your statement that I addressed in the above paragraph, you had a very specific idea that you most likely intended to impart, but because I chose to "interpret" your words (because the way the statement was written was confusing to me), your (most likely) specific message didn't get through.

Yes, exactly - in your opinion Lucas never achieved number 1. FOR YOU and many other people who complain . . . I don't deny that. But what about the people who it DOES work for? I'm just tired of reading elitist views that if a person does like these movies, they are somehow hoodwinked or uncapable of realizing how wrong they are for liking something.


stillakid
But this idea that somehow art is inherently open to any interpretation that someone can conjure up is odd to me. I suppose it can be applied to something like a Warhol, but to someone sitting down to tell a specific story, the thought that it is open season on his or her work is frightening.

Answer me this: Hypothetically of course, if I came away from the Star Wars Saga with the interpretation that it is an allegory for the adhesive tape industry in its dealings with the Metro Transit Authority of Greater Los Angeles and its relationship with Occidental Oil in Colombia, would my “interpretation” be valid? Granted, that’s an admittedly extreme example, but I’d wager that George Lucas would not only get a real kick out of reading such a moronic “interpretation” of Star Wars, but on some level would be a little disturbed that someone, anyone could have possibly gotten that out of watching his space epic. Point being, I’d put money on it that he, like most writers before him, sat down to tell a story and filled it with plot points that were not intended to be open for random and personal interpretation. Instead, he knew what kind of characters he wanted, he knew what kind of story they would be involved in, and he put them in situations that advanced to a specific goal.

Sorry, but that's a poor example to use.
Here's a better one - remember that other thread in which we recently debated Luke's "heroicism" ? You argue that Luke is a selfish character, all of his actions are based on his own desires. I flat out disagree with you on that, so we have interpreted his actions differently. I see things in the films which lead me to believe in Luke as a selfless person interested in the greater good. So who's interpretation is "right" ? Well, it's hard to say . . . two people watching a movie have different past experiences and beliefs on which they base their definitions and understandings. So of course you are going to find different "interpretations" --- you yourself just said Lucas had certain goals in mind with his characters, so why can't you see Luke for how he really is? I mean, "I" understand it, why can't you? It's right up there on the screen, I think Lucas' intention came through just fine. But you can't see it . . . curious. :D


stillakid
One more quick situation: I don’t know what it is you do for a living, so I’ll use a different career off the top of my head. Let’s say “welding.” We could pick anything but we’ll run with that for now. I’m not a welder. In fact I know nothing about welding aside from the fact that welding joins two pieces of metal together and that I’m not supposed to look at the light. What do you suppose the welder would say to me if I wandered up to him and told him that I didn’t think that he was doing it right? First, if he didn’t tell me to get the F out of there, he’d probably say “what the he** are you talking about?” I then explain to him that I’ve interpreted his work differently and that I think that perhaps he could do it better a different way. Now he tells me to get lost. Welding is welding and there is no room for “interpretation.” You either do it the right way or else the metal doesn’t stick together. Period.

Now let’s look at filmmaking. Why is there an open season on this “job” which suggests that there are no “rules” and that everything is open to “interpretation”?

There are many ingredients in a film.
People react differently to them.
That's the difference.
There is an emotional reaction to films not found in welding. Please stop using poor examples like that ! :D


Originally posted by stillakid
What’s wrong with the idea that it is possible to “do it wrong.”

NOTHING is wrong with that idea, just the idea that you can say with absolute certainty that your opinion is fact. What one person defines as foolishness (midichlorians, for example ;) ) might not be a big deal to someone else.

I think Sam Raimi "did it wrong" in many ways with Spider-Man. Too bad, because millions of people saw that movie and loved it. I guess my tastes differ from them . . .


Originally posted by stillakid
George himself admitted on the Episode I DVD that “it is possible to screw this stuff up.”
Don’t get me wrong, and I’ve said this many many times before, but I don’t think that there is anything wrong at all with liking anything you choose to like.

Yes, you have said that many times before but it's usually clarified to mean that you "don’t think that there is anything wrong at all with liking anything you choose to like despite its obvious and indisputable misgivings."

I mentioned earlier that films have many elements to which people react differently. I've said before that my favorite SW character is Anakin in AOTC. I think Hayden Christensen is nearly perfect as Anakin but a lot of people didn't like him in the role. Fine, I respect that opinion. :) You have criticized the character as being poorly written with no justifiable reasons for the actions he makes and the "tantrums" he throws.

So I have to ask you this hypothetical question . . . . "What the heck is wrong with you that you can't see how inherently well done that character is" ? ;)
I get it, so why don't you? :confused:
Why don't you react to Anakin the same way I do ? :confused:
George set out to write the character in a certain way and Hayden Christensen set out to portray him in a certain way. I mean, I see what they were trying to do, I see the brilliance in that aspect of the movie - so why can't you? :confused: It's right up there on screen for you to see just like me - shouldn't you be able to identify it?

Same with Luke's "selfishness" that I talked about earlier - we watched the same movie, so why don't you see it like me? :confused:

You talk about how we can choose to like whatever we want but we should also be open to criticism. Of course we should. But you also say that we should be able to back up our opinions with examples from the movies . . . well I've done that in explaining why I love AOTC Ani and why I admire Luke as a (usually) selfless hero. Yet it's not good enough . . . I must be continuing in denial because I'm obviously missing the truth of the matter. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by stillakid
But it’s the suggestion that “art” is immune from being inherently “screwed up” that confuses me to no end. “Artists” F up all the time. Animators sit down to draw something, screw it up, crumple up the paper and start over.

Why didn't they keep crumpling up those Clone Wars cartoon drawings ? :confused: I think this Samurai Jack style of drawing is crazy, I don't like it. That's based on my taste. Other people (George Lucas included) think it is a fantastic style. George might find some appeal in that way of drawing but I certainly don't - and he's not going to convince me that it is inherently well drawn. Am I allowed to think it's sloppy ?


Originally posted by stillakid
Writers type the wrong words or get lost in a character arc, erase it and start over.

I'm sure George did that many times in the writing processes of these last 2 films, in fact I know he did because of new scenes added with reshoots and all the mentions of different drafts.
I know you don't think he ended up with very positive results. So what does it matter if he erased anything and started over ? :confused:



Originally posted by stillakid
Composers work and rework the notes on the page until they sound better. So why is filmmaking, and the Star Wars Prequel films specifically, immune from the same chance of being inherently screwed up? So yes, my own take on the situation is that the Prequels are "screwed up,"

Yes, your own take. :)


Originally posted by stillakid
George might be aware of it but may or may not be inclined to do anything about it, and that a few core fans would rather not admit that these films have inherent flaws to them and don't live up to the expectations built by the first couple of films.

I thought TPM was a fun movie and AOTC exceeded my expectations since it is my favorite SW movie. :) I certainly admit they didn't live up to others' expectations, that's obvious from all of the *****ing I've heard over the years. Frankly, I don't care about the expectations of others and I don't base my opinions on movies around their overall acceptance by the fans. However, I'm always interested to hear others' opinions and why they did or did not like it. It just doesn't mean that I will always be enlightened about how wrong I am.

I saw House of 1000 Corpses twice in the theater and will buy the DVD immediately - that film is derided by many in the horror community for being "a complete mess" but I could care less ! I know what I like and why I like it.


Originally posted by stillakid
I can, and have, explained why I believe the first, that the films are screwed up.

I can and am always willing to explain why I DON'T think the films are screwed up (overall). As for the things I don't like about them, I can explain why as well. There are things in all 5 movies which bug me, some of the films have more bothersome elements than the others.


Originally posted by stillakid
I can't explain the second about George but I have some possible ideas. And the third reason for some fans believing these films to be inherently flawless (at least enough to be as good or better than the first 3) lives within each individual as those bias's that you yourself brought up previously.

Yes, indeed. :) Then what about your own biases ? Some fans believe these films are inherently flawed as well - so I guess the same applies here? Is it possible that your own biases lead you to believe that the films are inherently flawed? That's never the impression I get . . . it seems to work this way:

if you think the films are inherently flawed, then you are able to see that as a matter of truth.

if you think the films are inherently flawless, then you are biased and prohibited from seeing The Truth. :rolleyes:

I've said before (in this same thread I believe) that I hate this either/or approach. It leads to the OT vs. PT schism and I just don't think it is realistic.
Myself, I think all 5 of the films have flaws. So is it okay for me to find flaws in the prequels but not in the OT ? It seems that way, since it always has to boil down to "prequels vs. classics."

JediTricks
05-21-2003, 10:12 PM
First off, I feel sorry for your keyboards. My goodness those are LONG posts.


Annnyway, in my opinion ANH and ESB seem fairly specific in their messages, there is no moral ambiguity about the nature of the messages of these films, the Empire and its minions are badder than bad, and Luke and his rebel friends are gooder than good. Some folks like Lando get caught in the middle, some folks like Boba Fett succeed in exploiting that middle ground. Many people die because the evil Empire is an evil empire. Lucas made ANH with a very "black vs white" center, the hero's journey to learn how to face off against an ultimate evil and then do that amidst a galactic civil war.

ROTJ, on the other hand, seems to have some ambiguity about the intent of the "good guy" mentors Yoda and Obi-Wan and exploits this to create a bit of roadblock for our hero. The film doesn't stray far from the "black vs white" center, but it does add enough "gray area" to either create or simulate story depth - and your opinion on that would be an issue of this being "subjective".

stillakid
05-22-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by PoggleTheGreater
Stillakid, I understand what you are saying. What a film should be is the writer or director's true vision of it, and he either realizes that or he doesn't. But I don't know if you, or anyone but Lucas, knows what the films really should be. I think the PT are different types of films than the CT, and are meant to be that way. I think the preqeuls are quite true to Lucas' vision of the PT and the Saga. The SW Saga is similar to The Godfather I and II in how they are different types of films but are part of the same saga.

I suppose you could be correct. I am going off the assumption that all 6 films are intended to be of the same type and feel. While I don't understand what the motivation would be to create entirely different types of films within the same "storyline," nor have I specifically heard Lucas state that this was his intention, anything is possible. :)



And Caesar, thank you for your very measured and well spoken response. :) Most of your replies centered around the idea of what each of us bring to the table, as in:


Originally posted by Caesar
[quote]It is IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to see a film the same way, we all have different experiences on which we base our reactions.
My only reply to that would be what I wrote to Poggle up above. While indeed our individual reactions are of course shaped by our own experiences and expectations, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking or disliking something based on those things, the primary point I'm trying to make is that despite that kind of baggage we each have, there are definitive expectations based on storytelling and filmmaking conventions that we should all be aware of. Having said that, should we allow those comparisons to influence how we "feel" about what we see? Maybe, but not necessarily.

For instance, I've got a pretty good idea how "real" people talk. Not only that, I've seen a couple George Lucas movies in the past where that kind of realistic dialogue takes place on screen. So, when I'm confronted with dialogue that does not fit the previously established precedent that the filmmaker himself created (mimicking "real" dialogue from our world on the screen), then I have a reasonable argument to say that this new "campy" dialogue doesn't fit into the film properly. I'm thinking specifically about the love story sequence in AOTC. The dialogue spoken by those characters isn't indicative of the kind of interchanges that George (Huyck, Katz, Kasdan) previously established for what is "normal" in the Star Wars universe. If this was EVITA, then it would not only be alright, but Anakin and Padme could also break into song and it would be alright. But it isn't. The dialogue they do speak is more reminiscent of Dawson's Creek than anything from Star Wars. So knowing that, am I suggesting at all that you or anyone else shouldn't enjoy it? No, not in the least. But, you brought up the magic word :), :


Originally posted by Caesar
[quote]Yes, you have said that many times before but it's usually clarified to mean that you "don’t think that there is anything wrong at all with liking anything you choose to like despite its obvious and indisputable misgivings."


Yes, you finished that thought off precisely. I too like ANH, despite being fully aware that R5D4 has magical teleportation powers. I like ESB despite being aware that a spaceship with no hyperdrive can't possibly make it to the Lando System ;) before the occupants are long dead. For the better part of the Prequels, I am forced to replace the word "despite" with the phrase "because of," as in "I don't like The Phantom Menace because of its addition of a new character which necessitates significant amounts of explanation and/or rationalization to justify his existence. I could have just as easily have reversed any of those and said something like "I don't like ANH because of the fact that R5D4 jumps back and forth through time and space with no explanation." However, it is at this point that I use my personal judgment to determine the significance of each infraction and what the cause might be. The R5D4 incident most likely was caused by the need for another close-up of R2 D2 which they didn't have "clean." That stuff happens all the time, so I let it go. Is it still factually a "wrong" event in the film? Without a doubt, yes! Can I admit that and still like the film despite being aware of it? Of course.


The other major element is the topic of "interpretation." Granted, there are of course gray areas, as in the example that you illustated regarding Luke Skywalker and his level of selfishness. That example, though, is nebulus for the saga as it exists. I only, and admittedly, interpreted Luke's character that way to admittedly rationalize and justify a potential storyline for Episodes 7-9. I believe that I even began that post with a statement to the effect of "this depends on how literally you believe...." etc. So, that example, as you say, is a poor one as I admitted that it was definitely an opinion and secondly, that the result of the opinion would change nothing within the existing episodes of the saga.

I better example might be the one we talked about before regarding Shmi Skywalker just "conveniently" living long enough so that she could die in Anakin's arms. That's the way I put it originally. That thought was met with a flurry of alternate explanations which stated that she "obviously" was being left alive to be tortured and that the official www.starswars.com explanation was a whole essay about how the young Sandpeople are tested and trained to be brutal, etc etc. All that after-the-fact "well-this-is-what-we-meant-by-this" explanation is great and all, but a well written sequence would have required no additional materials to help explain and justify the events.

This is not a request for every detail to be "explained" onscreen. However, talented writers are able to craft the words and events that characters go through in such way as to paint the desired picture for the audience so that there are no questions at all.

For instance, this is just off the top of my head, but maybe right before Anakin bolts off into the desert, Elder Lars could have said simply, "even if she's still being tortured, there's no way you'll be able to save her on your own." Wallah! Now the audience knows exactly what might be happening to her, the audience has a perfectly viable explanation built-in to justify why she's just laying there all tied up after all this time, and the bonus of Anakin being able to "arrogantly show off" his Jedi abilities in a kind of "man to man challenge," which would go miles and miles to building this image of a falling-Jedi that George so desperately is trying to do in his own clumsy way.



Originally posted by Caesar
[quote]NOTHING is wrong with that idea, just the idea that you can say with absolute certainty that your opinion is fact. What one person defines as foolishness (midichlorians, for example ;) ) might not be a big deal to someone else. And this is exactly the point. Something like the Midichlorians might not be a big deal to anyone, just like the bouncing R5D4 wasn't. But R5D4's actions didn't impact the overall story either. Midichlorians do. (And if you're going to argue that they don't, then why include them at all? If they have no impact on the story, then why are they there?) In the same way I can explain away why R5 D4 jumps from one shot to the next (production error necessitating the need to use a "wrong" shot), I can suggest some possible reason why Midichlorians are included in the film. Whether I liked them or not, I still would have wondered about it no matter the conclusion. Who knows, with a bit of set-up in the OT, it might have made perfect sense. Just like, say, Chewbacca, for example. Why is he there? It's a simple answer not necessitating the need for EU or other side reading: he's the sidekick. We don't need any additional information to justify Chewbacca being in the film. So apply the same logical train of thought to something like Midichlorians, or Qui Gon, or Naboo Starfighters, or lightsabers, or anything at all. Some answers will make emperical factual sense when thought out completely. Others won't. Some can be explained away by published reasoning (the Shmi death), but that doesn't make the execution of that scene on film any better, or more to the point, any more "correct" within the parameters of modern storytelling convention.


Originally posted by Caesar
[quote]Myself, I think all 5 of the films have flaws. So is it okay for me to find flaws in the prequels but not in the OT ? It seems that way, since it always has to boil down to "prequels vs. classics." Yes, all five films have flaws, but as stated, the flaws in the OT were relatively minor and for the most part had little to no impact upon the character arcs or the storyline. Additionally, the OT set the precedent for whatever came later. So it's not a matter of the OT vs. the Prequels. It's a matter of each film building upon the last. So had ROTJ broken away from the conventions that ANH and ESB established, then it too would be worthy of widespread derision. But it didn't in the same way that TPM ignored established continuity and the way that the Prequels will influence the original intentions for how the OT films were meant to disperse information.


I believe I've already answered this indirectly, but because you asked, I'd like to address it specifically:

Originally posted by Caesar
[quote]So I have to ask you this hypothetical question . . . . "What the heck is wrong with you that you can't see how inherently well done that character is" ? ;)
I get it, so why don't you? :confused:
Why don't you react to Anakin the same way I do ? :confused I don't see the Anakin character being particularly well A) written and B) acted. Why?

Let's start with A. For starters, I use the OT as the springboard for what we have been setup to expect for all 6 films. Between Episodes IV and VI, we see Darth Vader (Anakin) go through a pretty definitive and well-drawn character arc. At first, he's a driven guy, hell-bent on destroying all vestiges of the Rebellion without pause. As the episodes progress, we see his focus move away from that specific mission and settle in to the desire to "deal" with his son. That being said, he has reasons for both that initial mission (destroy the Republic) and his later one (deal with, in some way, his son).

The Prequels, being prior to the OT, naturally should explain why he is the way he is in the OT. So what we should be seeing is a character with very justified reasons for hating the Republic and the Jedi. None have been given, yet he continues to have sudden and irrational outbursts which tend to be directed at Obi Wan. Why Obi? As AOTC tries to paint the picture, it's because Obi is "holding Ani back." Is that a viable explanation? Well, it would have been had Padme not questioned Anakin's outburst and then Anakin agreeing with her, "I know." If he knows that he's being irrational in his outbursts, why does he keep doing it? I've suggested he's bipolar. Certainly the wild mood swings would support that notion, however it is just conjecture on my part because no such disorder is mentioned onscreen. Realistically, again my conjecture as I am not in the brain of Lucas, I think that Lucas just doesn't have the subtle writing skill to craft a character that is supposed to be troubled the way Anakin should be. In fact, I would put money on the idea that Mr. Lucas say the film "Life As A House," saw this troubled teenager who exhibited characteristics similar to what a young Anakin should be going through, and just so happened to be, ehem, an actor by the name of Hayden Christianson, and cast the actor in Attack of the Clones figuring that somehow magically, that those character traits from "Life As A House" were inherent in Hayden and would carry over to Attack of the Clones. Again, that's conjecture, but it sure seems to fit in the puzzle awfully well. This segues into "B" above and the quality of actor that George bought for his movie. Okay, that's subjective. I'm sure some people really think that Elizabeth Berkley did a fine job in "Showgirls" as well. Who's to say and more to the point, how can you argue that? But what I can look at is the material that Hayden had to work with and how his performance "fit" with the previously established performances from the previous films in the saga and elsewhere in AOTC. His individual performance might be considered good or bad by anyone, but if it doesn't 1) tell the story of how Darth Vader got to be Darth Vader, and 2) fit within the established manner of performance for the saga, then I think that it's fair to say that Hayden was not a good actor for this role in this film and/or series. He may be a fine actor with different material, however, which would then again indict the original screenplay for AOTC and/or the director of the same. Does this preclude someone from liking Hayden and his performance in AOTC? Again, no. But that troublesome word "despite" crops up again as in, "I like Hayden's performance, despite the inferior material he had to work with and the way he acted it out in this film."

What's wrong with saying it that way given the parameters I've described above? I'm not saying what Hank is, that you've been "duped" into liking something because of "Lucas worship," (although that might be the case for some people...see personal bias's and influences above). What I am suggesting is that there is a right way to tell a story and there are many ways to screw it up, meaning that the original core idea is not expressed accurately to its full potential. Choosing to "ignore" the problems does not mean a person is "duped" (aside from Star Wars or Lucas worship). Rather, it is a choice to enjoy a story anyway, despite being aware of and accepting that there are inherent problems.

And just perhaps, the desire to want to like something so much leads us to explain-away anything that might even hint at a problem or in the case of someone like MiniRock, who has made the choice to not even consider or listen to the potential for problems. Let me put it another way: why would I sit in the movie theater and look for problems in the Star Wars movies? What possible motivation could I possibly have to invent and/or conjure up mistakes so that I can talk about them endlessly on a fan forum to people I've never met? To put the question into context, I won't say that it was 100% the cause, but Star Wars is a major factor in why I chose my career in the film business. It isn't a side hobby, like NASCAR or Bowling where I go to the events and put a sticker in my window. No, I joined the industry itself and participate in it actively. Why? Because in Star Wars (the OT), I saw movie-making for what it could be and had the desire to emulate that someday. Of all people on this planet, I've got the least motivation (okay, maybe aside from Lucas) to not enjoy these films. They helped put me here today. The "training" and experience that I've had in making movies and in writing them since the OT came out has allowed me the ability to see those films on a far more detailed level than I ever could before. Instead of just saying, "Yeah, Darth Maul was cool," I'm able to (and have the desire to) dig into the topic and figure out A) why I think Darth Maul is cool, and B) how the character was written and presented to make me think that way. So when I look at a Star Wars film now, old or new, I not only can get that "gut feeling" of what I like or dislike (subjective), but I can dig in and find out the reasons for it (objective). So again, I ask, given what you know about me, I'm inviting you to speculate about me. :) What possible motivation could a person like me have for inventing and "rationalizing" all sorts of problems with these films? Why would I do such a thing when it's so obvious to you, anyway, that the films are fine just as they are? I WANTED to like the Phantom Menace. I even saw it a gazillion times just to prove to myself that I did see what I thought I saw on screen (and couldn't believe this was from George Lucas). Why would I do such a thing unless the films were inherently and empirically flawed? Why do that to myself? Why? :confused:


Originally posted by JediTricks
First off, I feel sorry for your keyboards. My goodness those are LONG posts.
Yes, you're right and I profusely apologize again. The advantage to this forum format is that one can take the time to (try to) explain their point of view a)without interruption, and b)after taking time to think about the other person's thoughts. The downside is that in order to accurately describe such intricate thoughts and explain things fully, the post get long and (potentially) boring. It's a soundbite world and we're just livin' in it. :D

rbaumhauer
05-28-2003, 02:28 PM
Not wishing to stir things back up again, but I wanted to bring one more factor into the discussion. While I basically agree with Stillakid in most ways (while the Prequels may be outstanding technically, Lucas has completely failed to tell the story that he seemed capable of 25 years ago), others have made good points about why the boxoffice numbers for Ep1 & 2 aren't as impressive as they might be, because of changes in the marketplace.

However, there is still the central fallacy of Hollywood's fixation on boxoffice DOLLARS as a messure of success, with no accounting for inflation. The only honest way to report the success of a movie, if this is a popularity contest, is to tell us how many TICKETS were sold. This would at least remove the problem of movies getting 3-4 times the dollars per ticket sold today than in the late 70s/early 80s.

Again, this doesn't change the fact that the marketplace has changed a great deal in the last 25 years in ways that will effect repeat business at theaters, but it would at least remove the 1 ticket>3 tickets issue from the equation.

Dar Basra
06-05-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
It's not a screw up ... like when the Death Star went to blow up Yavin, why didn't they just blow up both planets, and put an end to the Rebellion once and for all? That's just sloppy.
Perhaps the power consumption to fire the planet-destroyer was such that it took a great deal of time to recharge, thus making an orbit of Yavin the swifter and more logical choice. Or if you meant "blow up both" with one shot, perhaps the physics of the planet destroyer do not work that way. Surely, the destruction of Yavin would have damaged the moon (perhaps even destroying it), but it would have been a safer bet to destroy the moon itself in order to be sure that all traces of the Rebel base were destroyed.

stillakid
06-05-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Dar Basra
Perhaps the power consumption to fire the planet-destroyer was such that it took a great deal of time to recharge, thus making an orbit of Yavin the swifter and more logical choice. Or if you meant "blow up both" with one shot, perhaps the physics of the planet destroyer do not work that way. Surely, the destruction of Yavin would have damaged the moon (perhaps even destroying it), but it would have been a safer bet to destroy the moon itself in order to be sure that all traces of the Rebel base were destroyed.

I want to say that I heard the "official" explanation for that, but I can't remember it offhand.

If I might offer my own rationalization and conjecture about this, I might suggest that Yavin was too big for Death Star version 1.0 to blow up. Perhaps the Empire recognized this very problem (which ultimately led to giving the Rebels the time they needed to succeed) and began work on constructing the new and "more powerful" space station we see in ROTJ so that it wouldn't happen again.

So, it's not sloppy, as was theorized. Just a quick look at the events of ROTJ offer all the support this conjecture needs. ;)

El Chuxter
06-05-2003, 01:06 PM
Yavin is a gas giant, so the superlaser wouldn't have worked the same as on a solid planet. And the energy consumption to blow up two planets would've been far too great.

mini-rock
06-05-2003, 02:09 PM
"This station is the ULTIMATE POWER in the universe." Heh, yeah right.

Anyway those are some good explanations. Yeah, I guess I can buy those.:)

Dar Basra
06-05-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
"This station is the ULTIMATE POWER in the universe." Heh, yeah right. Well, we all know it pales in comparison to the power of the Force.

mini-rock
06-05-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Dar Basra
Well, we all know it pales in comparison to the power of the Force.

Right.:)

stillakid
06-06-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
"This station is the ULTIMATE POWER in the universe." Heh, yeah right.

Um, that was really the point, of that scene...to show the arrogance of the Empire. In fact, for those not listening very closely :rolleyes: , Lucas even has Vader SAY the words which explain this even though the major set pieces of the story show it to us pretty clearly (that all the hardware and technology in the world pales next to the undying spirit and perserverence of humanity).

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 03:48 AM
Watching the scene again, with a friend, he asked me the same thing. Why didn't the just blow up both planets? Ultimate power in the universe my ***. Thank God GL made the prequels, and that the OT (in it's original form) will never see the light of day on DVD. The events in the prequels are more believable than that OT crap.:p

2-1B
06-06-2003, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Ultimate power in the universe my ***.

Exactly . . . but the idea here is that it ISN'T the ultimate power. A good number of the imperial suits THINK it is the ultimate power but one of the main ideas behind the story is the underdog winning and overcoming the odds. Technically speaking the Empire should have had a clean victory at Yavin but instead they got too sloppy and "didn't consider a small craft to be any threat."
They were wrong and got what they had coming. Their sloppiness is shown onscreen when that one guy tells Tarkin "we've analyzed their attack and there is a danger."
Well, if they had done the legwork in the first place there wouldn't have been those exhaust ports in place to allow for the chain reactions to blow up the station. They would have anticipated such an attack and not left themselves exposed.

Why didn't they blow through 2 planets at once? Why would they?
As stated earlier the Empire felt no risk on their way into town, why not savor the moment and enjoy the "moment of triumph" as Tarkin referred to it?

This reminds me of the ROTJ 20th anniversary Insider and my learning about the original idea of Jerjerrod aiming the Death Star II at Endor when he realized the battle was lost. THAT would make sense since the bad guy knows he is going down - so he may as well kill whomever he can take with him. It is different with Tarkin because he felt 100% confident and never at risk.

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Watching the scene again, with a friend, he asked me the same thing. Why didn't the just blow up both planets? Ultimate power in the universe my ***. Thank God GL made the prequels, and that the OT (in it's original form) will never see the light of day on DVD. The events in the prequels are more believable than that OT crap.:p


"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed...." Darth Vader, ANH.

The whole bloody point of that scene is to show the folly of the empire..........

Mini.... I really think you need to go and watch the OT again.

Dar Basra
06-06-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Watching the scene again, with a friend, he asked me the same thing. Why didn't the just blow up both planets? Ultimate power in the universe my ***. Thank God GL made the prequels, and that the OT (in it's original form) will never see the light of day on DVD. The events in the prequels are more believable than that OT crap.:p
As Caesar said, hindsight is 20-20. At the time, Tarkin really didn't think he had anything to worry about.

Why didn't Vice-Admiral François de Brueys, in the so called Battle of the Nile, anchor his ships closer together and right against the shoals, to prevent Nelson from flanking him, or for that matter even clear for action his port-side guns? Because he was supremely confident that Nelson would/could only attack him from the front. Needless to say, de Brueys also didn't recognize the danger, in his moment of triumph, and paid the ultimate price for his short-sightedness.

So are the waters of history littered with the flotsam of human error.

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 10:58 AM
LOL! No, I get it guy's. I have "gotten it" for years. I can go watch it again, I mean, I have plenty of time on my hands these days, but I'll still come away with the same POV. That type of story telling, and action sequnece's may have worked back in the '70s, but next to todays films the OT (as I've said before) is Old & Tired. That is why we have the better prequels, and that is why GL is revamping the OT. If you guy's want to sit here and think to yourselves "Hmm, maybe he just doesn't get it" is ok with me. Whatever makes it easier for you to cope with everyone preferring the prequels to the OT.:)

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
LOL! No, I get it guy's. I have "gotten it" for years. I can go watch it again, I mean, I have plenty of time on my hands these days, but I'll still come away with the same POV. That type of story telling, and action sequnece's may have worked back in the '70s, but next to todays films the OT (as I've said before) is Old & Tired. That is why we have the better prequels, and that is why GL is revamping the OT. If you guy's want to sit here and think to yourselves "Hmm, maybe he just doesn't get it" is ok with me. Whatever makes it easier for you to cope with everyone preferring the prequels to the OT.:)

But you've clearly shown that you missed the point of that entire scene.....

Dar Basra
06-06-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Whatever makes it easier for you to cope with everyone preferring the prequels to the OT.:)

Mini -
I'm not trying to say that your POV is wrong, or mine is right - there is no absolute truth at stake here, only individual preferences.

However, without knowing much about you, I would hazard a guess that you were not yet born in 1977, when Star Wars was released in theatres. I don't say that with the meaning of "these kids today, with their fancy video games" type of eye-rolling. What I mean by that, is for those of us who experienced these movies first in the context of the actual time they were released, we seem to have a much greater affection and respect for them. On the other hand, someone born after that time, raised in an extremely modernized period of movie-making, would find it extremely difficult to view those OT movies for the first time with the same eyes.

I'll give you another example. I was too young to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in the theatres. Despite it's being hailed as a "masterpeice", I have never found it to be anything more than incredibly boring.

Of course, if you want to tell me that you were in fact alive in the old days and did in fact see the OT when they came out in the theater, then I'll just have to think you're a whacko! ;)

Edit: Just looked at your bio, where you state that you are 31, so perhaps it's not the age/timing theory after all. Guess I'll have to start going with the "whacko" theory. :)

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
But you've clearly shown that you missed the point of that entire scene.....

No, I don't think so. Like I said though if that's how you want to rationalize someone not seeing the OT the way you do then by all means.:)

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
No, I don't think so. Like I said though if that's how you want to rationalize someone not seeing the OT the way you do then by all means.:)

Well, why don;t you detail what you think is going on in that scene then?

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Dar Basra
Mini -
I'm not trying to say that your POV is wrong, or mine is right - there is no absolute truth at stake here, only individual preferences.

However, without knowing much about you, I would hazard a guess that you were not yet born in 1977, when Star Wars was released in theatres. I don't say that with the meaning of "these kids today, with their fancy video games" type of eye-rolling. What I mean by that, is for those of us who experienced these movies first in the context of the actual time they were released, we seem to have a much greater affection and respect for them. On the other hand, someone born after that time, raised in an extremely modernized period of movie-making, would find it extremely difficult to view those OT movies for the first time with the same eyes.

I see where you are coming from, and can agree with you on this.


Originally posted by Dar Basra
I'll give you another example. I was too young to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in the theatres. Despite it's being hailed as a "masterpeice", I have never found it to be anything more than incredibly boring.

You, me, and almost everyone else I know.


Originally posted by Dar Basra
Of course, if you want to tell me that you were in fact alive in the old days and did in fact see the OT when they came out in the theater, then I'll just have to think you're a whacko! ;)

Yeah, I can't argue with that.;):)

But yeah, I was born in '72, and did see SW in the theater in '77. I had the toy's, the remote control R2-D2, and just about everything else. I have loved those films almost my whole life, but when TPM came out it all changed. It wasn't till then that I knew what the SW universe was all about. The OT gave us some campy stories, and yeah it was fun, but the prequels give us so much more. GL feels the same way otherwise he wouldn't be updating the OT so it doesn't feel so out of date.:)

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Well, why don;t you detail what you think is going on in that scene then?

Why? Haven't you seen the movie? Or is it that way you can still say my POV is wrong? Hmm?

stillakid
06-06-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Why? Haven't you seen the movie? Or is it that way you can still say my POV is wrong? Hmm?

You know, there are moments in stories which have just one intended point-of-view and this particular discussion is one of them. George clearly was illustrating exactly what everyone here, except MiniRock, is saying.

So yes, MiniRock, not only is your "point-of-view" absolutely completely and entirely incorrect, I can safely say that your entire outlook is suspect as it hasn't escaped notice that you refuse to explain what that point-of-view actually is.

You can have your own opinion of whether or not you like something, but that same license of opinion does not always carry over to accurately deciphering an author's intentions. In this case, as in many others, you've illustrated a complete lack of comprehension concerning what the Star Wars films (all 5) are all about, and until you pony up your own "interpretations," I'd wager that your "opinions" will never be taken seriously.

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 12:02 PM
Hey, thanks for your deer in the headlights POV.;)

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Why? Haven't you seen the movie? Or is it that way you can still say my POV is wrong? Hmm?

LOL............

I was offering you a chance to explain what you think is going on in that scene...I would like to hear your opinion on what was going on there.

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
LOL............

I was offering you a chance to explain what you think is going on in that scene...I would like to hear your opinion on what was going on there.

OK, sure. You go into the Matrix Reloaded Discussion thread, and explain what was going on in the film, and I'd be happy to do this for ya. That work? :)

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
OK, sure. You go into the Matrix Reloaded Discussion thread, and explain what was going on in the film, and I'd be happy to do this for ya. That work? :)

I've already explained my opinions on that film several times. If you are incapable of expressing an opinion about that specific scene....just say so.

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
I've already explained my opinions on that film several times.

So have I.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
If you are incapable of expressing an opinion about that specific scene....just say so.

If you are incapable of READING my previous posts in this thread to interpret my POV about the movies then right back at ya.

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock

If you are incapable of READING my previous posts in this thread to interpret my POV about the movies then right back at ya.

We aren't talking about the "movies". You have expressed, very vaguely, an idea about a particular scene that many of us feel indicates a lack of understanding about what was going on in that scene. I was simply asking if you would care to expand on your ideas....plain and simple.

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 04:09 PM
I have made it perfectly clear how I feel about this scene and the movies also. I don't see the need to expand on my POV of this scene or the films when my displeasure of these has been made apparent.

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 04:30 PM
So you agree then that the scene where the Death Star is described as "The ultimate power in the galaxy" is used to show the arrogance of the empire that would eventually be their downfall?

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
So you agree then that the scene where the Death Star is described as "The ultimate power in the galaxy" is used to show the arrogance of the empire that would eventually be their downfall?

I never said it wasn't. You guy's really need to take the blinders off, and really read other peoples posts before you get your panties in a bunch just b/c someone has an unfavorable opinion about the OT.

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
"This station is the ULTIMATE POWER in the universe." Heh, yeah right.



This statement is the basis for the argument we are now having.

So, what hidden meaning did you intend that I, and everyone else, seemed to miss?

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
This statement is the basis for the argument we are now having.

Well, was it the "ULTIMATE POWER IN THE UNIVERSE?"




Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
So, what hidden meaning did you intend that I, and everyone else, seemed to miss?

EVERYONE? I only see 2 people who have made an arguement of this, and 2 who just stated their opinions.

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Well, was it the "ULTIMATE POWER IN THE UNIVERSE?"


Yes, and the point we are all making is how that is the POINT OF THE SCENE. You scoffing at the idea gives you the appearance of someone who took the line as a flaw in the trilogy. Your failure to make your opinion clear only made things worse, hence my asking you to explain.....

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Well, was it the "ULTIMATE POWER IN THE UNIVERSE?"


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Yes

It was :confused:? I think I'll give you another chance to answer the question.

The Overlord Returns
06-06-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
It was :confused:? I think I'll give you another chance to answer the question.

LOL....ooh......you caught me in a grammar error.....hmm....should I go dig through your posts and do the same thing??? :rolleyes:

YOU already know that I understand that scene fully. What I am seeing here is a direct desire to antagonize, however, you clearly don't have the mental chops, or Original Trilogy knowledge to back up your ridiculous statements when you are called on them.

OR

You know you were unclear and that your posts was construed as uninformed, yet you felt the need to get all proud considering who was calling you on it....... ;)

plasticfetish
06-06-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Well, was it the "ULTIMATE POWER IN THE UNIVERSE?"
Obviously it was not ... I think we all know that George Lucas is the ultimate power in the universe.

stillakid
06-06-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
I never said it wasn't. You guy's really need to take the blinders off, and really read other peoples posts before you get your panties in a bunch just b/c someone has an unfavorable opinion about the OT.

Thanks Overlord for taking this guy on, as I am not allowed. Why? Because I previously requested similar information from him regarding his "opinions." Never complying with the request, he chose to "ignore" any further similar requests for clarification from me in an attempt to evade the questions. But if you ask him, he is "ignoring" me because he isn't interested in hearing anything negative about Star Wars at all...which is quite hypocrytical considering the lambasting he is giving the original films.

Bottom line? He'll never answer the questions posed to him because he doesn't have good answers for them that can't be taken apart piece by piece. First he'll attack your arguments unsuccessfully...then he'll attack you. Kinda sad reflection of a person if you ask me. :(

stillakid
06-06-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by plasticfetish
Obviously it was not ... I think we all know that George Lucas is the ultimate power in the universe.

I thought it was Bill Gates?

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
LOL....ooh......you caught me in a grammar error.....hmm....should I go dig through your posts and do the same thing???

I guess. If you have the time. I'm sure you'll find a ton of'em. BTW I had an unfair advantage since yor post directly followed mine I didn't have to go "digging" but by all means feel free to "dig up" whatever you want.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
:rolleyes:

Here it comes again, the rolleyes smiley. Whats next? The crying smiley?


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
YOU already know that I understand that scene fully.

That's an assumption, and when you do that you making an *** outta U and mption.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
What I am seeing here is a direct desire to antagonize, however, you clearly don't have the mental chops, or Original Trilogy knowledge to back up your ridiculous statements when you are called on them.

OR

You know you were unclear and that your posts was construed as uninformed, yet you felt the need to get all proud considering who was calling you on it....... ;)

Yawn. Well, since you can't answer my simple question (LOL! Who lacks the mental chops? LOL!) allow me to answer it for you. The answer is no, it wasn't the ULTIMATE POWER IN THE UNIVERSE. You getting this TOR? Hence the "yeah right."

I hope you're not bent TOR. I have enjoyed this little arguement we have had, and hope you aren't taking anything personally. Yeah, it got a little heated...so what. Yeah, I caught you on something...BFD. I'm sure there will be plenty of chances for you to do the same to me. :)

mini-rock
06-06-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Thanks Overlord for taking this guy on, as I am not allowed. Why? Because I previously requested similar information from him regarding his "opinions." Never complying with the request, he chose to "ignore" any further similar requests for clarification from me in an attempt to evade the questions. But if you ask him, he is "ignoring" me because he isn't interested in hearing anything negative about Star Wars at all...which is quite hypocrytical considering the lambasting he is giving the original films.

Bottom line? He'll never answer the questions posed to him because he doesn't have good answers for them that can't be taken apart piece by piece. First he'll attack your arguments unsuccessfully...then he'll attack you. Kinda sad reflection of a person if you ask me. :(

ROTFLMAO!! Your last post was at what...9 this morning? And you have just NOW finished posting a reply? 6 hours later? GEEZ no wonder nobody bothers reading your screenplay's. By the time you get one done your idea has already been used and made into a movie by someone else. You may want to jot down your ideas a little faster....if that's possible.

plasticfetish
06-06-2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
I thought it was Bill Gates?
I think Bill rules the nether world now.

stillakid
06-09-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
ROTFLMAO!! Your last post was at what...9 this morning? And you have just NOW finished posting a reply? 6 hours later? GEEZ no wonder nobody bothers reading your screenplay's. By the time you get one done your idea has already been used and made into a movie by someone else. You may want to jot down your ideas a little faster....if that's possible.

Not that one word of that post above made any sense whatsoever, but I'd like to address the issue of time. What on god's green earth does the posting time have to do with anything at all? Not only do most of us have real jobs, unlike Mr. "Retired" at 31 years old here, but we also have real things to do. Sitting on the forums, monitoring them for quick exchanges in order to join in isn't part of my priority list. :rolleyes:

And who ever said that my writing doesn't get read? :confused:


Get a job.

And then don't come back until you can stop avoiding direct questions.

mini-rock
06-09-2003, 10:41 AM
Mailroom was backed up over the weekend huh? :p

Doesn't matter, you're to late.;)

James Boba Fettfield
06-09-2003, 10:43 AM
So, uh, I guess getting this thread closed is a top priority for today, eh?

mini-rock
06-09-2003, 10:45 AM
If it had been up to me, it would have been closed day one.:)

stillakid
06-09-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by mini-rock
Mailroom was backed up over the weekend huh? :p

Doesn't matter, you're to late.;)

:D My weekend has been just wonderful, thank you! I've been shooting a short film which will be seen at the Key Arts Awards later this month. We finish later today.

I also managed to get home just in time to take the kids to the Dodger game on Saturday.

I had other work to finish up after I got home last night and I head out in a couple of hours for work today.

Mailroom!? :rolleyes:


And "to" in your above statement is "too." Get a dictionary.

What does that "to late" statement have to do with anything anyway? Too late for what?

Do you have a POV regarding Star Wars that you'd like to share, expand upon, and explain fully, or do you intend to just splatter random non-sensical thoughts across the forums? Please remove your subscription to this thread if that is the case so the rest of us can continue an actual discussion. Thank you for your cooperation. :)

2-1B
06-09-2003, 12:14 PM
Easy guys, don't get this closed. :(
I still have a post from stillakid a few pages back that I intend to reply to.

El Chuxter
06-09-2003, 01:07 PM
"This is getting out of hand!"

This bickering is getting to be beyond tiresome. My finger is hovering right on the "Close Thread" button, and I'm looking for an excuse.

Seriously, though, I'd like to keep this open, but if the insults and arguing don't stop and this thread get back on topic within the next 24 hours, I'm going to shut it down.

The Overlord Returns
06-09-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
I guess. If you have the time. I'm sure you'll find a ton of'em. BTW I had an unfair advantage since yor post directly followed mine I didn't have to go "digging" but by all means feel free to "dig up" whatever you want.


I'd rather discuss the issue at hand.



Originally posted by mini-rock

That's an assumption, and when you do that you making an *** outta me.


;)



Originally posted by mini-rock


Yawn. Well, since you can't answer my simple question (LOL! Who lacks the mental chops? LOL!) allow me to answer it for you. The answer is no, it wasn't the ULTIMATE POWER IN THE UNIVERSE. You getting this TOR? Hence the "yeah right."


You are a big advocate of having people "go back and read your previous posts. If YOU do that, you will clearly see that I fully understand that scene, and that the whole point is how the imperials arrogance comes through in the death star NOT being the ultimate power...yada yada yada...see, I get it, the discussion here was wether or not you did. But, since you won't answer direct questions, I guess we will never know ;)



Originally posted by mini-rock


I hope you're not bent TOR. I have enjoyed this little arguement we have had, and hope you aren't taking anything personally. Yeah, it got a little heated...so what. Yeah, I caught you on something...BFD. I'm sure there will be plenty of chances for you to do the same to me. :)

You caught me on something?

As for catching you in something, I don't realy care to. Currently you appear to have a very limited understanding of what was going on in several scenes in the OT. Until you decide to clearly explain your point of view, that appearance will remain.

No, I never get "bent" when I argue on these boards. I see no reason to take an argument over a movie personally, so no worries there:)

mini-rock
06-09-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
:D My weekend has been just wonderful, thank you! I've been shooting a short film which will be seen at the Key Arts Awards later this month. We finish later today.

So it's a film on mailroom workers? :confused: I believe it has already been done kid. Michael J. Fox was in it, can't remember the name though. But hey don't worry. You just keep trying b/c even a dog has it's day, anyone can win the lottery.


Originally posted by stillakid

And "to" in your above statement is "too." Get a dictionary.

Yeah, "to" was a typo. Where's TOR? That would have been a perfect opportunity for him. Oh well, but hey who needs a dictionary when we all know you have nothing else better to do with your time. Keep up the good work kid. If your good you may earn yourself a gold star.;)

I'm done here so Mods do not have to close this thread. Making kid look stupid is become to easy so I'll move on regardless what he has to come back with. It won't matter anyway since it takes him the better part of a day to think of something original. :p:p:p:p

I'm out -MR

The Overlord Returns
06-09-2003, 01:55 PM
Run off and still no explanation to show that you undetstand that scene..........

I'm sorry, but I have not once seen you make stilla look stupid......I have to ask what brand of rose coloured blinders you put on before you come in to these threads, mini?

stillakid
06-09-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by mini-rock
So it's a film on mailroom workers? :confused: I believe it has already been done kid. Michael J. Fox was in it, can't remember the name though. But hey don't worry. You just keep trying b/c even a dog has it's day, anyone can win the lottery.


Synapsis firing randomly above. Making no sense. I can't make heads or tails of this nonsensical silliness. Signing off. :confused:




Originally posted by Caesar
I still have a post from stillakid a few pages back that I intend to reply to.

Thanks, Caesar. :) Though I know we disagree on some fundamental issues, I also know that we can have a conversation that is intelligible. As always, I look forward to hearing your point-of-view and continuing a meaningful dialogue. :)