# Do you really like Star Wars?



## Psychic Warrior (Dec 30, 2004)

What I mean is - I like A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back but the rest of the movies really leave me flat.  Ewoks, Jar-Jars, Clowns-er- Clones etc. just don't thrill me.  The Expanded Universe had a mild appeal to me in the form of Zahn's trilogy (which he made the mistake of making a two book sequel to - bleh) but the vast majority of books in it are pure crap.

So what is it about Star Wars _you_ like? Why?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 30, 2004)

There's actually very little in Star Wars that I DON'T like. Sure, there's some I don't like as much as others(Jar Jar, etc), but I don't dislike them.

The things I do reach the point of despising are a few of the novels, namely the Black Fleet Trilogy. I loved pretty much all of the novels, then read these and had to force myself through them. Heck, I didn't even mind the Jedi Academy books all that much, but the Black Fleet stuff was just painful. Hmm...maybe the reason I liked the Jedi Academy book is my being a Jacen Solo fan. 

And on the note of Zahn's Hand of Thrawn Duology, those were insanely far from 'bleh', IMO. Amazingly good books that took it all to another level. Also was a good point for the NJO to jump off of. Though I won't talk about the NJO, as that's really a love it or hate it deal, and most of the people that hated it haven't actually read the books...(key word = most, not all)

Honestly, sometimes I feel very alone in actually liking Star Wars these days. It seems like its just become so trendy to bash Star Wars. I guess its just a vocal minority...or at least, the success of each of the prequels despite constant bashing seems to hint that.


----------



## beeber (Dec 30, 2004)

just ep. 4 & 5 for me, mostly.  i also liked some of the novels & comics but due to the sheer volume of them have steered away.  

movie-wise, only those two are any good as a whole.  the remaining ones (we'll see about ep. 3) have great visuals but really lame dialogue & plot elements (little anakin blows up the droid command ship!  primitive ewoks defeat stormtroopers!).  

there's also just too much hype around it.  it doesn't appeal that much to me anymore.  if others dig it & eat all of it up, that's fine tho. :\


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 30, 2004)

Every movie has a few blemishes on them, although Empire has virtually none and Star Wars has only a minor quibble or two.  Jedi has some less enjoyable snippets...but still is a great film.  The new trilogy isn't bad, it's just not awesome....which is regrettable when they have to stand side-by-side with some of the titans of the genre, their older siblings.

 You forgot to include things like the video and computer games, too...or are they included inside of the expanded universe?  And how about the Clone Wars TV series (third season due soon, btw)?

 Stuff like Knights of the Old Republic and Tartofsky's Clone Wars series reminded me why I love the Star Wars universe so much, after the last two movies took it for granted.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Dec 30, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> There's actually very little in Star Wars that I DON'T like. Sure, there's some I don't like as much as others(Jar Jar, etc), but I don't dislike them.
> 
> The things I do reach the point of despising are a few of the novels, namely the Black Fleet Trilogy. I loved pretty much all of the novels, then read these and had to force myself through them. Heck, I didn't even mind the Jedi Academy books all that much, but the Black Fleet stuff was just painful. Hmm...maybe the reason I liked the Jedi Academy book is my being a Jacen Solo fan.




Never read the Black Fleet novels.  But I did read Jedi Academy.  That was where I discovered the hack writer known as Kevin J Anderson.  I will hate him forever.  The man is truly talentless.  I assume he has naked photos opf Lucas with goats or something to keep writing SW novels.



> And on the note of Zahn's Hand of Thrawn Duology, those were insanely far from 'bleh', IMO. Amazingly good books that took it all to another level. Also was a good point for the NJO to jump off of. Though I won't talk about the NJO, as that's really a love it or hate it deal, and most of the people that hated it haven't actually read the books...(key word = most, not all)




No tension.  No drama.  No peril.  these are the things that killed the duology (is that really a word?).  Thrawn was a clone - ana poorly trained one at that.  He never had any menace like the original.   I repeat - bleh.



> Honestly, sometimes I feel very alone in actually liking Star Wars these days. It seems like its just become so trendy to bash Star Wars. I guess its just a vocal minority...or at least, the success of each of the prequels despite constant bashing seems to hint that.




Whoa!  Slow down the victimization train there, Tex!   I'm not trying to make anyone feel bashed upon.  Up until very recently I thought I loved Star Wars.  It is only in the last few months that I discovered what I really liked about it.  And it turned out, much to my surprise, to be very little.  As far as a vocal 'minority' goes given the huge drop in revenue Attack of the Clones experienced over Phantom Menace I would say it sits at about 30%.  From www.boxofficemojo.com

Phantom Menace total gross worldwide- $924 million
Attack fo the Clones total gross worldwide - $649 million

Noone can say that both of these movies weren't financial sucesses - but that is a staggering 30% drop in revenue from one movie to the next.  That could very well be the potion of the fan base alienated by the first movie - I don't know this of course but it might be a valid point.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 30, 2004)

I've enjoyed the movies, but the books were mostly awful.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 30, 2004)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> No tension.  No drama.  No peril.  these are the things that killed the duology (is that really a word?).  Thrawn was a clone - ana poorly trained one at that.  He never had any menace like the original.   I repeat - bleh.




Well, it was more a mystery type story than the 'typical' Star Wars. They were honestly two of the best books out there for Star Wars, but hey, its all a matter of personal opinion and taste. And actually: 



Spoiler



Thrawn's clone never woke up. There was an actor impersonating him to assist in getting the two Imperials some power. Mara and Luke encountered one of the clones in Vision of the Future, but it was still in its growing tube





> Whoa!  Slow down the victimization train there, Tex!   I'm not trying to make anyone feel bashed upon.




It was more a general comment than anything directed at you.  I don't feel bashed at all, but sometimes I really do feel lonely in my enjoyment of Star Wars.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Dec 30, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Every movie has a few blemishes on them, although Empire has virtually none and Star Wars has only a minor quibble or two.  Jedi has some less enjoyable snippets...but still is a great film.  The new trilogy isn't bad, it's just not awesome....which is regrettable when they have to stand side-by-side with some of the titans of the genre, their older siblings.
> 
> You forgot to include things like the video and computer games, too...or are they included inside of the expanded universe?  And how about the Clone Wars TV series (third season due soon, btw)?
> 
> Stuff like Knights of the Old Republic and Tartofsky's Clone Wars series reminded me why I love the Star Wars universe so much, after the last two movies took it for granted.




\Never really though of the computer games or Clone Wars TV series but I would probably have lumped them under the Expanded Universe.  basically anything outside of the core 5 (soon to be 6) movies would be Expanded Universe under this poll's terminology.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 30, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Stuff like Knights of the Old Republic and Tartofsky's Clone Wars series reminded me why I love the Star Wars universe so much, after the last two movies took it for granted.




A good point. Though I'm probably the only person out there that is bugged by KotOR. But that's just my love of the old Tales of the Jedi Comics, probably. I still can't place the game very well timeline wise, and after hearing that Bastila was originally going to be Vima Sunrider, I nearly cried.

Guess I just liked the old Jedi Order that was so much less like the Jedi in the prequels. You could really see how much had changed and what was going wrong...but KotOR took a more prequel-esque view of the Jedi. Ah well, can't really blame them.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Dec 30, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Well, it was more a mystery type story than the 'typical' Star Wars. They were honestly two of the best books out there for Star Wars, but hey, its all a matter of personal opinion and taste. And actually:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's been so long since I'd read them I had forgotten that.  You're right.  I still didn't like them but on the question of Tharn's clone you're right 




> It was more a general comment than anything directed at you.  I don't feel bashed at all, but sometimes I really do feel lonely in my enjoyment of Star Wars.




OK.  Good - you'd know if I was bashing you, believe me (for one thing there would be a nice custom avatar that said 'banned' under my name....
  ).  Don't let anything dull your enjoyment of Star Wars.  that wasn't really the intention of this thread (really!) it was more to do with my realization of what I do/don't like about Star Wars and how much of it fell under the 'don't' side of things.


----------



## Templetroll (Dec 30, 2004)

I loved the first trilogy.  Phantom Menace lost me with that medichloran .... stuff.   It was just a mistake, along with characters added to be Happy Meals toys (Jar-Jar).  They didn't need it.  

I went to see the Clone one, I'll go see the next, but I no longer have the _need _ to be there the first day.  I'm looking forward to seeing the creation of Darth Vader, so long as that is cool the movie will be okay.

I never had interest in reading the novels, no opinion beyond that.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Dec 30, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I've enjoyed the movies, but the books were mostly awful.





Eh, I think awful is a bit too strong of a word to use for the books. I can remember only a few that stuck out as bad in my mind, and for the most part they were at least enjoyable reads to pass the time through middle and high school.


----------



## Ferret (Dec 30, 2004)

I voted for the new ones, I thought it meant the redo of them not the new films.  I actully like all of them, I've only seen the new ones once, maybe twice, but the old ones 2-3 times. And that was all a while ago. But i like them all, _but_ I've never seen any of the other stuff, books, t-shirts any of it. Apart from Clone Wars, the cartoon.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Dec 31, 2004)

I like the original trilogy.  I like the mythos of Star Wars.  The Jedi, the Force, the evil Empire of stark Black and White devouring the galaxy.  The death's head Darth Vader.  The lightsabers.  Luke starting to become a machine, just like his father.  The symbolism of it all.

The new movies have great fight scenes.  Clearly George could afford better choreographers this time around.  But other than that (and Natalie Portman. ) they don't do anything for me.  I don't really think George himself _understands_ why some of us loved the original trilogy.  He stumbled across something brilliant with the original trilogy.  Now he's just stumbling.

Midichlorians?  _*sigh*_


----------



## JackGiantkiller (Dec 31, 2004)

Hate: midichlorians, Jar Jar, little Annie, Hayden Christensen's wooden acting, Natalie Portman's wooden acting, all the secondary character's wooden acting (I blame the director, i don't think he allowed enough rehearsals and takes to get the right feel). I especially hate that they manage to make the great Christopher Lee look stupid several times. I hate that the great villain potential of Darth Maul was prematurely crushed.  I hate the overly cartoony nature of some of the alien villains, like the Trade Federation.

Love: Liam Neeson as Qui Gon, Ewan MacGregor as Obi Wan. Mace Windu is a cool character, and I wish Samuel L. Jackson had been given sufficient takes to portray him. It is sad that the best played character in the prequels is Yoda...but that is to be expected from Frank Oz.  I love the special effects, and the lightsaber battles are good, good, good. The starfighter battles are better in the second of the prequels than the first. 

I wish that all of the Jedi had spent more time with lightsaber and battle practice...many of the secondary characters look like kids with toy sabers, not Jedi. The over dependance on CGI battle droids made it very hard for the actors to portray the fight...it looks like they were directed to do a set of movements...and then the action wasn't really matched to it all that well.

Lord Pendragon, we are in accord. Except about Portman.


----------



## Wombat (Dec 31, 2004)

I so clearly remember seeing _Star Wars _ on it's first run.  Back then it wasn't _A New Hope_, it had its proper name -- *STAR WARS*.  

That movie was so much fun!  I mean, after about five years no absolutely no decent hero films, here it was -- good guys, bad guys, minimal plot, questionable acting, whopping great special effects.  It was a very simple film.  A great one?  No, not really, but a lot of fun, perfect popcorn fair.  And I, like most of the audience that first time, stood and applauded when the Death Star was destroyed.

Then came The Empire Strikes Back.  Man, it pushed Star Wars to 11!  Deeper plot, better acting, fantastic effects and scenery, that film had everything!  And because of that there was a lot of hope for all future films.

...then came the ewoks...

Talk about a massive disappointment!  Stone Age Teddy Bears versus the Empire?  And holding their own?  And George wanted me to believe this?  Forget it.  As long as the movie was on Vader's ship and the new Death Star, it was great, but when it was planetside (Tatooine and Endor both), the whole thing just got childish and silly.

But to frost me, he had to go and make "Episode I".  Episode I?  I had seen Episode I!  It was called _Star Wars_!  But no, now _Star Wars _ was _A New Hope_, George's ideas had run dry (ho hum, yet another Death Star destroyed, this time by accident), The Force was now tied to bugs in the veins instead of mystical training, etc., etc.  

Star Wars has burnt me too often.  Yes, I read the novelizations of the first three books.  They were so-so.  I read another one involving organized crime -- I found it nearly unreadable.  For me, there are the first two-and-a-half movies and that is it.  Everything else is merely a faded imitation of the glory that was.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 31, 2004)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Eh, I think awful is a bit too strong of a word to use for the books. I can remember only a few that stuck out as bad in my mind, and for the most part they were at least enjoyable reads to pass the time through middle and high school.




I think awful fits really well.  There were a few that I liked but some of the Star Wars books become the first that I wouldn't even finsih reading.  And that was when I was much younger, I'm sure if I read them I'd have evena lower opinion of them now.


----------



## haiiro (Dec 31, 2004)

I like the original trilogy (yes, even Jedi), and to a lesser extent Episode II, as well as most of the toys, and all of the Lego that doesn't stem from Episode I.  I've read maybe one of the books, and none of the famous ones (like Zahn's), and not seen any of the TV specials or other spinoffs.

I didn't see a poll option that reflected this mix, so I didn't vote.


----------



## Qlippoth (Dec 31, 2004)

Never read the fiction beyond the novelization of Eps. 4-6; haven't played any of the video games (though Battlegrounds interests me). When _Star Wars_ first came out, I was 7 years old and couldn't wait for that happy day when I'd be driving cars without wheels. Loved _Empire_ (despite its requisite Lucasity, I still think it's the best of the bunch); liked _Jedi_ mostly for Jabba's scenes, the space battle scenes, & especially the speeder bike chase. 

I've found that with the prequels, it's more of a pick-and-choose affair; when _Phantom Menace_ came out, I (being older & jaded, I guess) HATED Superboy Anakin, the midchlorians sell-out of (what I'd previously thought) a non-science-fictional mysticism, and of course, the Gungan Who Will Not Be Named. However, I LOVED Palpatine's plotting, Ewan MacGregor as Obi-Wan, the lightsaber duels, and the pod race (the Tusken Raiders' taking potshots at the racers more than made up for the Jeff Foxworthy race announcer). 

_Attack of the Clones_? HATED the wooden performances (though Anakin and Padme are lovely to look at), the diner, and the godawful Romantic Dialogue. LOVED Palpatine's plotting, Ewan MacGregor as Obi-Wan, the lightsaber duels (go Yoda!), and that wonderful, awful feeling when the Imperial March plays at the end as the proto-Empire begins.

All said? I'm 35, and still finding myself HATING *and* LOVING movies (instead of saying, "whatever"). I'll be in line for Ep. 3.


----------



## Zulithe (Dec 31, 2004)

I like most things Star Wars, and some of it I love. Very little, if any, do I hate, but the stuff I like least tends to be from the Expanded Universe.

For starters, I don't dislike the midichlorian explaination like a lot of fans do. You have to see where Lucas is coming from with that idea. When writing Star Wars, Lucas was HUGELY inspired by the writings of Joseph Campbell. You could say one of the underlying themes of Campbell's research is finding explaination to things that most people don't delve into much, instead just blindly and ignorantly accepting it. Lucas is definitely not that sort of person, and wanted to put a logical face to the force, explain why it was stronger in some than others, etc. To me, this works better than having the Force be something extraordinary or mystical since I do not believe such things anyway. Everything is natural or can be explained, and in Star Wars, so is the force.

At the same time, I understand why many _are_ upset. But it makes me wonder how upset people would be if other things, like God, or how the universe was created, or how humans came to be what we are today were explained. They would lose a lot of their appeal and magesty I suppose once people see that it isn't as grand as they had it worked out in their imagination, which is exactly what happened to The Force to some fans. It's unfortunate, but this is Lucas' world and I approve of his choice.

I read the Zhan trilogy, and tried reading The New Jedi Order, but there are things about Star Wars which can never translate well to the page, and this is coming from a book lover. The music, the sound effects, the moody and gritty sets. This is why I am so looking forward to the new TV series. Television is a format much more appropriate for expanding the Star Wars mythos than books, IMO.

I loved the Clone Wars tv series, if for nothing other than the fight sequences. I think a more realistic animation style would have been better, but I still enjoyed it. No complaints.

I really bought into the hype of Episode I that started around the time of the Special Edition theatrical release. I went to a packed midnight showing with 5 or 6 friends, it was a blast. I wasn't let down one bit. There are things I would have done differenty but so would anyone. To get into those changes would be a thread unto itself, but I will say that I wouldn't have darkened the film (much) and I agree with Lucas that the story of Darth Vader needed to start on a lighter note. To have him be the "evil" character we see in Vader in the original trilogy from the get go would have been a mistake.

Like a lot of people, my favorite Star Wars film is Episode V. We were promised a lot about Episode II, and how it was supposed to be more "Empire" like, being the second movie of the second trilogy and all. In that respect, it was a real failure, but on its own, I still like it. I think the reason it faired less at the box office than Episode I was simply becuase the hype about "Hey, Star Wars is back! Yayy!" had ran its course, not becuase it was a bad movie or that fans were fedup and rejected it. That's a bunch of bull. Most fans enjoyed Episode II more than Episode I anyway, if anyone bailed, it was Joe Public, not the fans.


----------



## cybertalus (Dec 31, 2004)

I liked the original trilogy, ewoks and all (but I have a high tolerance for cute).  I haven't cared for the prequel trilogy at all.  The books, comics, and games I've liked to varying degrees.  Games seem to fare better for me than anything else.  I still drag out the Win98 remake of 1993's _X-Wing_ every once in a while to blow of some steam by blowing up TIE fighters in my A-Wing.  I also get a lot of replayability out of the Kyle Katarn games.  Knights of the Old Republic was fun (and is the reason I now own SW d20), but not a game I've so far wanted to play more than once.

My least favorite non-movie product would be that comic book series where the Emperor comes back as a clone and Luke intentionally turns to the Dark Side because of some stupid idea about trying to defeat the Dark Side from the inside.  Not even Splinter of the Mind's Eye was that bad.  Though I haven't read any of the much-maligned Yuzhon Vong books yet, so my personal least favorite could change.  I also didn't care for Tatooine Ghost, as it seemed to try too hard to be yet another bridge between the two movie trilogies.

If there's anything in broad terms that bothers me about Star Wars it's the way the Expanded Universe has led to the original Trilogy heroes lingering past their act of great heroism which transformed the world.  The Knights of the Round Table, the Fellowship of the Ring, and probably a few others that people can name did their great epic deeds, changed the world, and then died, retired, or went off to some mystical place.  The heroes of Star Wars keep hanging around, racking up a resume of heroism that threatens to encroach on that of long-running comic book superheroes.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 31, 2004)

cybertalus said:
			
		

> If there's anything in broad terms that bothers me about Star Wars it's the way the Expanded Universe has led to the original Trilogy heroes lingering past their act of great heroism which transformed the world.  The Knights of the Round Table, the Fellowship of the Ring, and probably a few others that people can name did their great epic deeds, changed the world, and then died, retired, or went off to some mystical place.  The heroes of Star Wars keep hanging around, racking up a resume of heroism that threatens to encroach on that of long-running comic book superheroes.




That is one thing that started to bug me with some of the novels. A few just felt like the same old thing happening again and again without any chance of fear or drama.

Its why I love the NJO. It put real fear that the outcome might not be perfect for once back into Star Wars. And at the same time, handed over the reigns of the galaxy to the new generation. Even though the old heroes won't be hanging up the towels(as reported by some of the previews of the next post-NJO book series), the center of them is on the Solo twins and their generation.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 31, 2004)

Wombat said:
			
		

> I so clearly remember seeing _Star Wars _ on it's first run.  Back then it wasn't _A New Hope_, it had its proper name -- *STAR WARS*.
> 
> That movie was so much fun! I mean, after about five years no absolutely no decent hero films, here it was -- good guys, bad guys, minimal plot, questionable acting, whopping great special effects.



 I, too, dislike and resist the labeling of Star Wars as 'Episode 4' and 'A New Hope'. 

 However, five years of no decent hero films?  I don't think I'd agree with that.

 What about the Three Musketeers, the Four Muskeeters, King Kong, and Logan's Run.  For pity's sake man, what about the GOLDEN VOYAGE of SINBAD?


----------



## D+1 (Dec 31, 2004)

Original trilogy.  I read and enjoyed the Han Solo trilogy but no other SW ficiton.  The whole of Star Wars kind of skewed off into directions I had no interest in.  Even the original trilogy became harder and harder to really get into.  For example, I saw Star Wars IN THE THEATER perhaps 150 times.  I LOVED it.  Empire, I lost accurate count at around 60 but well under 100.  Jedi, only a few times in theaters and I found it VERY difficult to willingly accept it.  There was a great deal I just did NOT like about Jedi, having a lot to do with Ewoks and a perceived targetting of SMALL children as the audience for the franchise, not the audience who originally latched onto SW and then grew older.  But after a few years I suppose I made a certain peace with it.

But the rest of it?  I ran the WEG SW RPG a few times.  A good time was had by all (I put a LOT of energy into those campaign sessions and it burned me out), but I found it difficult to decide where/when to place the campaign in association with the events of the movies.  The universe felt too tied to the events of the movies and the RPG material catered to the movies more than attempted to define a greater galaxy to run a campaign in.

I read none of the novels beyond the Solo books.  They just didn't interest me, in part because I felt that they were NOT canon.  They were all just someone elses RPG speculation.

And when the prequels finally came along... well it's difficult to put my disappointment into words.  Suffice to say that they were NOT the same SW as the original trilogy, much as they wanted to be.  There was none of the banter and adventurousness, it was somber, overcast for the viewer by knowledge of what was to come, and NOT well-plotted or paced.  II was better than I, which gives me hope for III - but I'm going into III expecting disappointment so that I can be pleasantly surprised, rather than going in expecting greatness so that I can be bitterly disappointed - again.

SW was a great franchise that could have been Earth-shattering, but was instead sqandered by... lack of vision if you can believe it.  I still recall reading an interview with Lucas after SW first came out.  He was talking about how he was giving up a certain amount of control to others.  Something along the lines of, "I've put up the basic castle walls and now I'm going to let others draw in all the gargoyles and stuff."  At the time I thought that was a cool attitude.  Now I see it as biggest mistake he could have made.  SOMEBODY needed to maintain TOTAL creative control of the franchise and MOVE IT FORWARD, if it was indeed to be a worthwhile franchise.

I'd liken it to Rick Berman having control of Star Trek.  Much as I have cried in the past that somebody ELSE needed to try to take Trek in a few new directions I have to give kudos to Paramount for understanding that you ultimately need to have ONE vision to follow and not allow it to be UNguided, or worse, guided by committee.  Same with their fascist/Nazi protection of the Trek intellectual property.  It may have been obnoxious at times but it DID keep the Trek universe in their full control, not to be muddied by casual licensing of the characters and settings.  If Lucas did not want to maintain a position of full creative control of all things Star Wars, then he should have chosen someone else and handed over all his notebooks and said, "Let it be YOUR vision that defines Star Wars from this point onward."

I don't DISLIKE what Star Wars is, or has become, but I am rather disappointed in that it could have been so much better than a lot of it has been.  The soul of Star Wars was sold for the money from merchandising tie-ins.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 31, 2004)

D+1 said:
			
		

> ]Suffice to say that they were NOT the same SW as the original trilogy, much as they wanted to be.




They were never SUPPOSED to be the same SW as the original trilogy, and IMO, they never tried to be. THAT is what most people's problem roots in. Everyone excepted the same kind of SW movies as the OT, but that's just not at all what they were ever going to be. Its such a completely different time in the SW Galaxy, that the same type of story is simply not even possible. Of course, as many have mentioned, the hype for it really caused much of the problems, but that was equally the fan's fault as it was for Lucasfilm.

The thing is, though, you CAN'T compare the prequels with the originals. They weren't meant to be, because they're completely different kinds of stories in a completely different time. Its like having a movie in the Dark Ages and then another movie after that about the Roman Empire and its fall. Sure, same world, probably some families and people are the same, but the time itself is so very different.


----------



## npiccini (Dec 31, 2004)

I have had this argument/discussion again and again with a few of my friends that were OT fans only.  As im sure many of you have had.  One of the things that helps me accept (but not love) the new trilogy is the realization and not denial of the fact that New Hope was not a great movie.  Many of us, assuming certain ages, saw New Hope when we were kids, maybe not 7 but maybe 12-15.  That adolescent love affair with a groundbreaking movie really allowed us to forgive many of the shortcomings of that film.  Consequently, we internalized the idea of how good the movie was (for us) and we compare the new films to that unreaslitic standard.  

The wooden acting of Ep I and II stands right alongside the wooden acting of Luke Skywalker in Ep I. The Ewoks and Jar Jar Binks go hand in hand with the kid appeal of the Jawas and R2 and 3PO.  IMO many people just brush this comparison off and point to acting like Han Solo's.  Remember, we are talking about finding a relative unknown like Ford who went on to become an accomplished actor.  What are the odds of that happening again? i think Lucas has tried to do that, albeit without success using Portman and Christianson.  

I think hands down, Ep V is the best.  There is no comparison anywhere to the drama that plays out between luke and vader in cloud city alongside the capture and freezing of Han, betrayal of Lando and overall gloom in the feeling at the end of that film. WOW.  

One of the problems with the new trilogy IMO, is the lack of clear villian.  The films do not have them, adn the one shot at them is cut in half at the bottom of a reactor.  This makes the film more about the looming potential of the future villian, anakin, and it makes any drama involved in the climax battles fall short.  Did anyone really care about the Dooku/Yoda duel?  I know they tried to get us involved by telling us (in the middle of the battle btw) that Yoda was his trainer.  But really, no one cared.  We were more in awe at Yoda's saber skills (whole other thread).  I expect that drama to get better in Ep III when anakin and obi-wan finally have it out.  That will have some real drama to it.  Lets jsut hope that Lucas doesnt job us out on that and make it a thirty second lightsaber battle.  It should be a full twenty minutes like the luke vader duel in Ep VI.  If its not, I for one, will feel completely ripped off.  

One of my friends, an OT enthusiast, believes Lucas is a "one trick pony" and the luck he had hitting it with the first film is now obvious as each film gets more and more away from the drama and feel of the OT.  Im not in agreement with that.  But its strange isnt it that the one film most fans agree was the best, was not directed by Lucas?

Well, sorry for the rambling, but I have to admit, I normally wouldnt post to something like this, but all the previous posts were in such a good spirit and not bashing that I felt people could actually post their views without being attacked as flaming.  

Looking forward to May 19, 2005!


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 31, 2004)

Star Wars is dull. It's pap. There's nothing interesting about it other than shiny images and loud noises.

Oh, and the best darn fight scene ever put in a film directed by a white guy (Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon versus Darth Maul).

Oh, and the first movie utterly transformed my entire life. I was nine. Being nine in 1977 was a pretty good thing to be.

Oh, and I will forever get shivers when I hear the Imperial March. Damn you, John Williams.

Oh, and the first movie rocked. And the second one has great dialogue ("I am NOT a committee!"). And the asteroid chase. And the third one has speeder bikes, and if you don't think speeder bikes are teh 1337, I don't understand you.

But I'm done with Star Wars. I'll wait and see what the reviews are like for Episode -1 (or should that be Episode 0?) -- if people who's tastes match mine like it, then I'll go. But honestly, after seeing "FrankenVader" in the trailer, I just can't get excited about this. It's a shallow world of shallow stories. There's fun here and there, and the first movie, taken in isolation, is a fine example of pulp fun, but the whole thing just isn't strong enough to support the weight that's placed upon it. There's no tragedy, there's no drama, there's no power to it.

There was when I was nine. There was when I nineteen. But there's not anymore.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Dec 31, 2004)

npiccini said:
			
		

> Lets jsut hope that Lucas doesnt job us out on that and make it a thirty second lightsaber battle.  It should be a full twenty minutes like the luke vader duel in Ep VI.  If its not, I for one, will feel completely ripped off.




Note that the Luke/Vader duel in Cloud City is much much shorter than twenty minutes, but the intercutting with other scenes makes it seem much longer. With Anakin/Obi-Wan(from all reports) there won't be cutting away to other scenes. We will have the longest lightsaber duel ever. As of the last report I remember, the Anakin/Obi-Wan fight clocks in around 12 to 14 minutes straight.

And if you don't mind spoilers, follow this link:

http://www.theforce.net/episode3/jtf/duel.asp


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 31, 2004)

As far as new trilogy hype is concerened, let's be honest: the trailer for episode I was AWESOME.  Don't deny it.  People watched it over and over again, dissecting it for subtle nuance, minute images and every nook and cranny.  It knew it's target audience, and it catered to it with a laser-sharp talent.

 The original Star Wars is a good film, and a good homage.  Empire is easily the best of all them, to me, with its excellent character drama, and ewok or no ewoks, Jedi has what is quite likely the most spectacular visuals for a space battle ever commited to film.  

 The new trilogy lacks the same power...but it isn't without punch.  The problem seems to be the lack of a commonality with the original trilogy, and the understanding that he owes the community nothing in regards to story expectations.  My problem, such as it is, is that the ending of the first three episodes is something of a foregone conclusion, and the presentation of that conflict, up until this point, has been somewhat...lacking.

 The new trilogy lacks the emotional cohesiveness of the old...and I think that npiccini nails it right on the head...there is NO clear villain.  Douku is a good one, and the emperorer would be...if we actually saw him BEING a villain.  So far, we've seen him manipulate slightly from behind the scenes...but that's not the same thing as Vader's in-your-face opposition.  You FEARED Vader.  He had Power.  He intimidated men, killed them with HIS FREAKING MIND.  Darth Maul was just a violent monster.  Count Douku seemed more like a political rival to Yoda than an actual villain.  He was just too darned charismatic.  I love his portrayl in the Clone Wars TV show, though.

 In short, I love Star Wars...but I'm not always thrilled with how Lucas seems to have forgotten WHAT I love about it.  Ah well.  The third trilogy will be over soon enough, and then life goes on.


----------



## Dakkareth (Dec 31, 2004)

Being a 'young one' I have never fallen to the original Star Wars hype. I read the novelizations at some point and liked them enough to go and watch the movies. From the PoV of today the effects are not that inspiring, nor would I expect them to be, but after reading the story, the movies at many points failed to evoke the same reaction. _The Empire Strikes Back_ is the best in that regard and IMO the best of the original trilogy. The new movies work for me, to a big degree because of the effects. I'm not a fan, but they're nice, solid fantasy movies. In short, they're just another movie taking place in a very interesting setting.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 31, 2004)

Heheheh. If George Lucas had known now what he should have known in 1998. He should have stuck with his earlier credo and not do any more _Star Wars_ no matter how much those fans in the 90's wanted it so terribly much.

But NOOOOOO! He HAD to listen to his fans.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

All I can say to those fans that wanted and are now disappointed by the Prequel so far: deal with it.

And to those handful of fans who are satisfied with the Original Trilogy and didn't want anymore _Star Wars_ films beyond that, you should be lauded with the right to say, "I told you so."

[image placeholder: devil smiley]


----------



## CrusaderX (Jan 1, 2005)

Zulithe said:
			
		

> For starters, I don't dislike the midichlorian explaination like a lot of fans do. You have to see where Lucas is coming from with that idea. When writing Star Wars, Lucas was HUGELY inspired by the writings of Joseph Campbell. You could say one of the underlying themes of Campbell's research is finding explaination to things that most people don't delve into much, instead just blindly and ignorantly accepting it. Lucas is definitely not that sort of person, and wanted to put a logical face to the force...




Well, Lucas has specifically stated that the Force is analogous to spiritual faith:

_"I put the Force into the movie in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people--more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system. I wanted to make it so that young people would begin to ask questions about the mystery. Not having enough interest in the mysteries of life to ask the question, "Is there a God or is there not a God?"--that is for me the worst thing that can happen. I think you should have an opinion about that. Or you should be saying, "I'm looking. I'm very curious about this, and I am going to continue to look until I can find an answer, and if I can't find an answer, then I'll die trying." I think it's important to have a belief system and to have faith."_

Lucas then goes on to say that he believes in God.  Though this thread really shouldn't turn into a religious debate...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 1, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> Well, Lucas has specifically stated that the Force is analogous to spiritual faith:



If according to Lucas, that the Force is analogous to spiritual faith, then what the heck is the midichlorian count supposed to represent? Can one devise a system of measurement to determine the strength of spiritual faith?

That's what you get for trying to use science -- or should I say, superscience -- to explain the unnatural.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 1, 2005)

I've been trying to stay out of the "old trilogy vs. new trilogy" debates recently, because I can't usually add anything to them that hasn't been said by the time I got there.

(Well, that's not entirely true. I have a whole essay in my head about why the "Special Editions of the OT are worse than the originals, not only on a personal opinion level, but by accepted standards of storytelling and movie-making. But this isn't the time and place for it; I'm not sure there will ever be a time and place for it. But I digress... )

I do, however, have to jump in and comment on npiccini's comment. Specifically:



> The wooden acting of Ep I and II stands right alongside the wooden acting of Luke Skywalker in Ep I.




I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. There's no comparison at all.

No, I'm not going to claim that Mark Hamill's acting in ANH was great. It wasn't. Very few of the performances in the first film were very good. Even Harrison Ford's performance wasn't fantastic, though it improved by leaps and bounds from ESB onward. (So did the others, but not as much.)

But they stand _head and shoulders_ above most of what we've seen from the new movies. Ewan McGregor's done very well, so let's leave him out. We'll leave out Hayden too, for reasons I'll come back to.

But Jake Lloyd and Natalie Portman are lead weights around the necks of these movies. Mark Hammil may not have been the world's greatest actor in ANH, but at least I got the impression he was truly _trying_ to act. His heart was in the right place. But with Portman, well... I've seen more emotion from people reading off a teleprompter. (For the record, I blame Lucas, not her. I know she _can_ act, so I have to assume she's not being permitted to do so.)

This, BTW, is why I can excuse Hayden's performance--he's clearly giving it his all, and I think he actually did quite well, given the abysmal dialogue he had to work with. I know I'm in the minority, but I like him as Annakin. I just don't like the way Annakin's written.

Bottom line? I'll take mediocre actors who actually try to act (ANH) over actors, good or bad, who can't be bothered to emote (PM/AotC) any day of the week. That, as much as anything else, is the nebulous "soul" that people say is missing from the new trilogy.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 1, 2005)

I don't blame Jake Lloyd. I blame George for casting him as an 8-year old Anakin when it should have been Hayden all along playing a 16-year old Anakin. Cases in point:

- Anakin's love of "cars", which harken back to the original SW's script with Luke's love of "cars".
- Anakin's working hard as a slave, taking the brunt of Watto's work off his mother's shoulders.
- Anakin being "too old" to begin training. Jake Lloyd was barely older than the Younglings in Ep. II. Seeing they turn down a 16-year old would be more credible.
- The sly smile Anakin and Padmé exchange at the end of TPM. Were it Hayden, it could be a hint of what's to come. With Lloyd there, it's just creepy...
- Only Anakin ages between Ep. I and II. Were Hayden, just a little make-up trick and he could look a bit older. Padme, specially, seems frozen in time.
- No time to rescue Shmi. If Hayden were Anakin in Ep. I, we could buy into an intensive training period (say, 5 years), and there wasn't time to go after his mom. But the age gap between Lloyd and Hayden makes it hard to believe.

As for the lack of a true villain, Darth Maul had the iconic appearance to rivel Vader's status, were he given three movies to shine. And having Anakin strike him down and take his place would have a great meaning, paralelling the Vader/Luke duel in RotJ.

As for the fighting, I was underwhelmed by the Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan/Maul triel (three-person duel), but not as much as with the Obi-Wan/Jango Fett battle and the almost casual Mace Windu/Jango Fett battle.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Jan 1, 2005)

D+1 said:
			
		

> I don't DISLIKE what Star Wars is, or has become, but I am rather disappointed in that it could have been so much better than a lot of it has been.  The soul of Star Wars was sold for the money from merchandising tie-ins.




Oh my.  Did you not see the glut of toys in 1978?  The 'soul' of Star Wars was sold a long, long, long time ago (practically from the outset) to merchandising tie-ins.  What do you think the canteen scene was?  Lots of quick glimpses of aliens that later became action figures - despite not taking any real part in the movie!  I can see your point but this just seems like too much "rose-coloured glasses syndrome" to me.

Ahnk-Morpork - yes, we certainly _can_ compare the first trilogy and the second.  The second trilogy is about the series of events that lead to the first.  They are linked on a fundamental level far more than comparing Dark Ages to Roman Empire events.  Surely you must see that?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 1, 2005)

I liked the 4,5,6 trilogy greatly, and liked the Zhan novel trilogy. I didn't even notice they were making more SW novels until suddenly they had 400 of them.
I read the Boba Fett trilogy of novels, and they were beyond horrible, so I never bothered with more.

Ep 1 & 2 have been fine. I don't think Portman was that bad in Ep1, but in Ep2, she was very wooden and vacant. Ep 1 she was either the controlled demeanor of the Queen, or the somewhat submissive maid act. Ep2, she was just Portman standing around trying to appear in character.

What bugs me about 1 & 2 is the reliance on CGI... and it's horrible CGI! Compare to Lord of the Rings, Jar-Jar vs Gollum. The AT-AT's in Empire were one of my fondest childhood memories, but if they were done in Ep1 & 2's style, I'd probably not even notice them.
The alien races are horrible looking, and I specifically detest alien languages based around accents. Why is Anakin wasting his time building a translator droid if everyone speaks the same language?

KotOR1 is great, and captures some of the adventure of the original series, though the cortosis weave weapons are a little out of place, I understand why they exist. KotOR2 is not as good, but still has a good feeling of adventure IMO.

Ep 1 & 2 just don't capture that adventure, nothing happens based on main characters skills to me.

Jango Fett was horrible. Boba Fett's main contribution may have been to fall into a big pit, but he still ranks higher than Jango!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 1, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I don't blame Jake Lloyd. I blame George for casting him as an 8-year old Anakin when it should have been Hayden all along playing a 16-year old Anakin.




Oh, I agree completely that seeing Anakin as a kid was an awful idea. In fact, the original script for PH called for Anakin to be 13 or so--_far_ more believable.

That said, Lloyd was still a bad choice. It's a proven fact that some 8-year-olds can act--witness The 6th Sense--so I don't consider Lloyd's age an excuse for the performance.

Although I suppose, since we've already established that Lucas didn't let some of the other actors actually act to their potential (Portman), it's not fair to assume that it was any different with Jake Lloyd. For all I know, he's the best child actor in the world, and was dragged down by poor directing.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 1, 2005)

The original trilogy is still great, even after so many years.

The Empire Strikes Back is by far my favorite from all the Star Wars movies. 
I also liked Attack of the Clones, much better than Shadow Menace.
I hope the third one will be another improvement. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 1, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Bottom line? I'll take mediocre actors who actually try to act (ANH) over actors, good or bad, who can't be bothered to emote (PM/AotC) any day of the week. That, as much as anything else, is the nebulous "soul" that people say is missing from the new trilogy.



Are you saying that George Lucas work well with mediocre actors?

As you said, the fault do not lie with the actors but the director.


----------



## Orius (Jan 2, 2005)

I generally like most of it.  I don't think Lucas is as bad as some would say.  I don't hate the new movies either.  The EU tends to be a mixed bag because there's different writers involved, so there's conflicting styles and all that.  Some stuff is great, like Zahn's trilogy, but there's a lot of junk too.  For example, Kevin Anderson has some good ideas, but he throws in a lot of crap and silly villains, and his style really doesn't seem to mesh well with Star Wars.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 2, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Are you saying that George Lucas work well with mediocre actors?
> 
> As you said, the fault do not lie with the actors but the director.




I can't say with any certainty how much is Lucas and how much is the actors. All I know is that I never got the impression that Natalie Portman (to go back to the most egregious example) was even trying, whereas I always got the impression that Mark Hamill was at least giving it his all.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 2, 2005)

I don't know if she could express well as Queen Amidala, but as Padme, she could have expressed more. I guessed it grossed her out that her character is supposed to fall in love with such a young kid portrayed by Jake Lloyd.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jan 3, 2005)

The original trilogy is clearly superior - and _The Empire Strikes Back_, which lacks either Lucas' dubious directorial touch nor marketing-derived cutesy teddy-bear people, is clearly the superior of the three.

That said - I don't mind the prequels. True, I'm unlikely to ever watch _The Phantom Menace_ seriously again, it being much better suited to be thrown on at parties for mocking purposes (and I'm not entirely joking when I suggest that a DVD of Weird Al Yankovic's "The Saga Begins" video clip would be a better version of the film); however, I'd still rate both prequels released so far as being rather a cut above the general run of Hollywood action movies.

It's a shame they don't measure up to the stature of the originals, but I was never so fanatical about them as to be hanging out for twenty years for more _Star Wars_. I never got into the novels or other media as substitutes, so clearly my hunger was not great.

I'm also unsurprised by the pandering to the lowest common denominator of childish entertainment Lucas has done in the prequels. How could I be, after the Ewoks? Besides, it's a well-known fact that entertainers in general "pussify" in their old age - Eddie Murphy produced _Delirious_ when he was 22, for example, but by the age of 35 he was starring in family-friendly pap like _The Nutty Professor_, and it's all downhill from there. That Lucas has followed the same regrettable trajectory comes as no surprise.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 3, 2005)

Let us not forget that Ewoks are savage cannibals and one of them dies on-screen (in a very "Awwww..." moment, to boot!).

Hmm... Wonder what happened to the Imperial soldiers after the battle ended. All we saw were those empty helmets...


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 3, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> Besides, it's a well-known fact that entertainers in general "pussify" in their old age - Eddie Murphy produced _Delirious_ when he was 22, for example, but by the age of 35 he was starring in family-friendly pap like _The Nutty Professor_, and it's all downhill from there. That Lucas has followed the same regrettable trajectory comes as no surprise.



 Liam Neeson, Jack Nicholson, Bill Murray, Sean Connery, Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson, James Cromwell, Martin Scorsese, Milos Forman, Donald Sutherland, Peter O'Toole, Al Pacino and William Friedkin holding on line one, for you.  Diane Wiest, Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Glenn Close, CCH Pounder and Monica Bellucci on line two.

 I'd say it's a well-known fact that Lucas knows that kids buy toys in much larger numbers than aging geeks buy toys.  Economies of scale, and all that.  But getting older hardly means getting 'soft'.  It does mean that sometimes you want to make a production you can share with your kids or grand-kids....hence Richard Harris' contribution to Harry Potter.  But just a couple of years earlier he'd been in 'The Field', 'Unforgiven', 'Smilla's Sense of Snow' and 'Gladiator'.  Another problem, of course, is that fewer roles are offered to older actors, as they get marginalized.  Sean Connery's pretty rare in being able to get action hero roles through his 60s into his 70s.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 4, 2005)

Wait, _Monica Bellucci_? On Line Two?

Quick, how do I get to Line Two?



I just watched my VHS copy of _Star Wars_ last night. You know what? It's AWESOME. Lucas is a gifted cinematic story-teller. I mean it. Just think of the opening shot. It tells you everything you need to know, it makes your jaw drop straight into your lap, and it's utterly thrilling from the get-go. And it's like nothing ever seen before.

I think we forget what a shock _Star Wars_ was when it first appeared. There'd never been ANYTHING like it. So much in that film is so astoundingly original, even as it's all being ripped off from old-time serials and Akira Kurosawa's classic adventure films. So much is now stuff that's passed into our modern lexicon, we forget that _Star Wars_ is the first place we ever saw it. Did a hero ever walk into a bar full of bizarre aliens before? Did a sword ever flash and glow on screen before? Was there ever a space battle like the struggle above the Death Star? An idea like the Force guiding heroes? Tractor beams and blasters and space smugglers and Jedi mind tricks and Star Destroyers and the good Rebellion agains the Evil Empire...

Did ANYTHING ever sound like a frickin' TIE fighter before?

Sure, it was all a pastiche of zillions of sources. But the cinematic storytelling of it -- you can turn off the sound of _Star Wars_ it's nearly as exciting -- you don't need to hear the dialog to understand what's happening. Likewise, you can just listen to it and it's exciting -- the soundtrack is so amazing, so detailed and so unique it carries you along with it. It's amazing, it really is.

_Star Wars_ was a work of genius every bit as surely as was _The Seven Samurai_. But whereas Kurosawa kept pulling up new ideas and new images and new ways of telling stories, Lucas has been content to simply milk this one cow for the rest of his career, continually diluting any content that might be slightest bit offensive.

Consider: In _Star Wars_, Princess Leia is TORTURED by a giant black floating nightmare ball with a HUGE NEEDLE, Darth Vader kills a guy in a conference room just for being uppity (after we've watched him murder a Rebel commander for a similar reason), dozens of Rebel soldiers die painful, horrible deaths on screen, as do dozens of stormtroopers (many with smoking holes burned through their bodies), a barfly gets his arm hacked off (with blood all over the floor), a greedy alien gets blown away by a cocky pilot (who shot first), our hero's foster parents are shown as black, smoking corpses twisted in their death agonies, dozens of bodies of innocent Jawas are heaped on a smouldering fire, Rebel pilots scream in agony as they are enveloped in flames, and an entire planet (which are led to believe is prosperous and well-populated) is destroyed by the bad guys -- which, far from being glossed over, is pointed out specifically as involving millions of souls crying out and being extinguished.

You just don't get bad guys like that anymore. Jabba the Hutt? Spare me. Darth Maul? Whatever. Until he kills Qui-Gon (in what looks to me like a pretty fair fight, considering he's outnumbered), Maul doesn't do anything all that bad. Neither does anyone else these days. Oh, except Sebulba. Boy, there's a villain. Even the Emperor in the old movies never accomplished what Grand Moff Tarkin did as a villain. Tarkin and Vader were the ultimate bad guys. Vader was never really the same afterwards. Sort of like Simon and Garfunkel.

NONE of the following movies accomplished anything like what the first does, artistically, and that's largely because Lucas got more and more and more cautious. _Empire_ is pretty good, and has MUCH better dialog, but it lacks the mythic beauty of the original. People like it better because of the superior dialog and the great work Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford do of pretending they're in a romantic comedy. _Jedi_ has little to recommend it, and the later films even less.

I kind of liked TPM when it first came out. MacGregor and Neeson tried really hard, and their friendship rings true. And Portman worked for me -- I see a queen in her performance, though maybe it's just those freaky costumes she's wearing. Those rocked. But on repeat viewings, the creakiness of the plot and the lack of any emotional cost to the heroes make it worthless.

And you know, you can see this trend even in the first film -- in the landing after the Death Star battle and the subsequent throne room scene, there's no sense that any cost has been paid to purchase this victory. Nobody mourns the fallen, nobody is wondering if it was worth it in the end.

Compare that with Kurosawa's endings -- _The Seven Samurai_ with the graves and the singing farmers, _The Hidden Fortress_ with the terror of Tahei and Matsushichi and their subsequent reformation, _Yojimbo_ with the lone samurai still on his way. Kurosawa is superior because he makes grand adventure tales that nevertheless acknowledge the price paid by the heroes. Lucas' growing unwillingness to portray the real cost of the struggle is robbing his films of their power.

Says me.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 4, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Lucas' growing unwillingness to portray the real cost of the struggle is robbing his films of their power.




I'd say that's the part that's not at all influenced by Kurosawa, but the other major influence on Star Wars: Saturday Matinee/Flash Godon type things.


----------



## Jamdin (Jan 4, 2005)

I like some of the characters (Han, Chewie, Ben and Vader)  but I do not like Star Wars as a whole. The movies are entertaining and I have only read a few of the books. To me, I enjoy the original trilogy over the newer movies.


----------



## Klaus (Jan 4, 2005)

Barsoomcore -> Let us not forget Lucas' ultimate screw up in the end of Star Wars: Chewie gets no medal!!!


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 4, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Wait, _Monica Bellucci_? On Line Two?
> 
> Quick, how do I get to Line Two?



 Pffft!  Like I'd share. 


I'm in agreement with you in a lot of places.  I enjoy Empire more not just for the dialogue, though, but because we're on a roller-coaster ride that's hitting all the good parts.  Star Wars was great for all the reasons you cited (and many folks don't remember or weren't here to know what a craze it actually was...whole families seeing the movie 11 times was noteworthy, but not unknown, for example).

 Yes, Lucas cobbled stuff together, but much of modern cinema's technical wizardry is a debt owed to Lucas and ILM.  No one...NO ONE had done the f/x they had done.  Quick, look at any sci-fi movie prior to 1977.  Look, not just as the models, but at the sound effects and visual choices.  The sound of the star wars blaster was a revelation...the sound of a light-saber is still unique and distinctive today...tie fighters screaming past evokes a chill.  It was astounding.  And the visuals?  No film had EVER created such believable sets, such varied locales and such detailed settings for a fantasy world.  The death star has a stark look that's arresting; Mos Eisley station feels like a backworld; the millenium falcon is both high-tech wonder and African Queen steamer, all at once.  

 No, I think Star Wars has some slight technical flaws  in editing...but it's still a masterwork.  If only Lucas had had some success in other ideas, I'd be thrilled.  But much like Coppola, he's trapped by his masterwork...unlike Coppola, though, he's swept along by it much more.

 It says something about Star Wars that I can still get captivated by it, over 25 years later, whether on TV, video or elsewhere.  Few films can make that claim, for me.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 4, 2005)

My favorite is the original trilogy. The new movies pale in comparison, IMO, but I enjoy them well enough, I think.

I have no love for or interest in the 'Expanded Universe'.


----------



## Maerdwyn (Jan 4, 2005)

I love the first movie for what it was when I was a kid, and that, despite not being a fantastic movie in it's own right, I can still watch it and get all nostalgic and goose bumby, and watch it doing the same thing to my young son.  

Empire is great on that level too, though still a bit over my son's head.  Better movie.

Return of the Jedi is enjoyable, and still has most of the Star Wars cache for me.

I loved Knights of the Old Republic, and it was more inspiring, and gave me more of that Star Wars feeling than either of the newer movies, which I thought were passable, except for the midichlorians.

I've never read any of the books.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 4, 2005)

I love Star Wars.   The OT is the best trilogy in the history of movie making by far, and three of my favorite movies of all time.  I still get swept up in the majesty of them.  When Luke is shooting down the trench in New Hope I am breathless, when Vader & Luke fight in Return Of The Jedi I get chills up and down my spine.   It's magic IMO.   I think I'll probably wear out my OT DVD set in a year.    

I love the prequels as well.  Phantom Menace isn't as good as the other flicks, but I enjoy it.  The jedi action, and the beginnings of Palpatines rise to power are done very well.  The Attack of The Clones is great.  Palpy really shines in this flick, as his power grab mimics real life situations quite closely.  Obi-Wan is done amazingly well in the first two flicks, I can see this guy turning into the character in the OT.  The battles with Darth Tyrannus are excellent and seeing Yoda fight with his saber had me amazed at the theater, the whole place when nuts when he popped his saber and started TCB.   I loved it.  The acting is pretty much at the level the whole series has been at, not that great but good enough.  Teen Anakin is whiney and moans a lot...so do 99% of the teens I know!  I thought that was pretty much in character for a teenager, I don't know why it bothers so many other people.  Jar-Jar is the only downer in the first two movies for me, but I'm not a kid so I can deal with it. 

As for the EU.  I liked the first trilogy that Zhan wrote, and Shadows Of The Empire.  The NJO is NOT STAR WARS!  I read up until Dark Journey and then I couldn't take anymore.   The whole SW feel is killed by the Vong.  God do I hate the Vong.   
I thought KotOR was great and I am eagerly awaiting the sequal to hit PC's so I can reimmerse myself in the SW universe again.  

Star Wars...Nothing but Star Wars...


----------



## The_Universe (Jan 4, 2005)

I love the original trilogy (and the special editions), and the expanded universe (except Dark Horse Comics' _Dark Empire_ I and II and the _New Jedi Order_, both of which I loathe).

Return of the Jedi is my favorite, ewoks and all (although I prefer the special edition, which ends with a less-ridiculous song).

Epsiodes I and II pretty much suck.  I can't even stand to watch all of 2.  I have to skip nearly half of it to make it watchable.


----------



## Zog (Jan 4, 2005)

The original movie remains fantastic.  And every time I hear the theme song a massive smile leaps onto my face.  I will love Star Wars until the day I die.

I've never understood why so many people prefer the Empire strikes back to return of the Jedi.  Jedi is the climax of the entire series and to me will always be the best.  Ewoks and all, after all the victory of the Ewoks over the storm troopers is one of the central themes of the series: that force and power and technology will not necessarily always triumph.  That there is another way.

Episode two, while visually impressive, suffer mainly from one flaw.  It is one known to all good game masters, as something to avoid.  They are not hero centric.  Think about it.  The main characters of the story do not succeed or triumph or even lose in an interesting way.  In gaming terms an NPC, first Mace Windu and then Yoda arrived to save them.  If I were playing in that game, I'd be annoyed.  Episode one is better in this regard, but instead you have the kid save the day.  Totally unnecessary.  It negates the heroics of the other characters.

And for everyone who rightly so, dislikes the romance in the second film, look on the DVD or borrow it from someone who has it, at the deleted scenes.  There are two scenes where Anakin meets Padme's family.  They are very well done, and add a lot of character development.  Eliminating them was a major mistake.
I do like the story of the second film, and trying to understand all of the machinations that go on behind the scenes.  It actually makes the watchers think if they want to understand what is going on.  That part was well done.

I've not read any of the books, I prefer a simple "and they lived happily ever after..."


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 5, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Compare that with Kurosawa's endings -- _The Seven Samurai_ with the graves and the singing farmers, _The Hidden Fortress_ with the terror of Tahei and Matsushichi and their subsequent reformation, _Yojimbo_ with the lone samurai still on his way. Kurosawa is superior because he makes grand adventure tales that nevertheless acknowledge the price paid by the heroes. Lucas' growing unwillingness to portray the real cost of the struggle is robbing his films of their power.
> 
> Says me.



It's a difference in culture, really.

We Westerners like happy endings. Japan prefer anticlimactic tragic stories, such as "The 47 Ronins."


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 5, 2005)

Um, those Kurosawa movies all HAVE happy endings. So no, maybe not so much a culture thing.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jan 5, 2005)

Well, Star Wars had it's high points - 

1.  Bea Arthur singing in the Cantina during the Star Wars Christmas Special
2.  The multi-part comic book story back in 1977 that had Han Solo leading a team that included a giant green rabbit.
3.  The Ewoks movie and animated series
4.  George Lucas's refusal to do any metchandising tie-ins to the films
5.  And everybody's favorite character, Jar Jar Binks

But then again, it also had its major weaknesses -

1.  The mediocre villain Darth Vader who nobody seems to remember
2.  The substandard visual special effects, far below 1977 standards
3.  A truly forgetable film score, especially the title song
4.  A lack of fan following
5.  And the predictabilty of the films, especially the Empire Strike Back, that didn't have a single unexpected plot twist. 

So all in all I guess we'd have to call it a toss up


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 5, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Um, those Kurosawa movies all HAVE happy endings. So no, maybe not so much a culture thing.




The "good guys" win in those movies, but I wouldnt exactly call those endings "happy". The cost of the victory in SEVEN SAMURAI is way high and for what? It was a noble thing for the Samurai to make the sacrifice that they didi to protect the village but the cost was high, more than half of thier original number dead. 

Yojimbo definitely wasnt a happy story to being with. I mean anytime you have a film where the  main character walks into a town and the first thing that he sees is a dog trotting by with a severed hand in it's mouth, well, it sets a certain tone you know. 

But overall I agree with you about Lucas and Star Wars. I was watching the documentary Empire of Dreams and both Harrison Ford and Lawrence Kasdan (writer) thought that there should be a sacrifice and that sacrifice should have been Han Solo. the impression that I got was that if he died that the audience would know that the stakes would be raised and that anyone could go. Also Hans story arc was bascially completed, there was really nowhere else to go with his character, but lucas refused to kill his character because he wanted to show that good always triumphs at the end.

I like movies where the battle is hard fought and the good guys win, but there's a cost. One of the reason the I absolutely love the original DIE HARD is that every encounter that John MClaine has with the "terrorists" cost him something. He gets banged up so that at the end of the movie he's literally the walking wounded, he's been shot, slammed into the side of a building, burnt, pummeled, cut with broken glass, I mean he's a mess and it shows. He feels that pain. The only one of the Star Warrs movies that comes close to this kind of thing is EMPIRE, because the good guys arre on the defensive from the beginning and remain so throughout the entire movie. I mean not for nothing, Luke gets the CRAP beat out of him by Vader in that duel and it's cool because Luke came into that fight thinking that he was actually going to be effective and was simply outclassed.


----------



## David Howery (Jan 5, 2005)

I was a teenager when Star Wars came out, and I can still remember the impressions I had of it back then.  Basically, it reminded me of a lot of old movies.. in a good way.  Finally, there was a nice simple action movie with good guys (who were simply good guys and not suffering from great emotional angst or murky ethics) and bad guys (who were reaaaally bad guys, not just misunderstood), and a ton of (at the time) absolutely astounding special effects.  It was a simple story of heroes and villains... no great sociological debates, no wrenching emotional drama, nothing too cerebral or wordy.  It had been a long time since I had seen a movie so simple and fun to watch....


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jan 5, 2005)

I like the original trilogy, and I can even see where Lucas was going with the Ewoks, though it would have meant a lot more if it had been the Wookies, I think.  Still, RotJ is a bit of a let down, and you can see where Lucas started to pander as opposed to tell a story (Lando's un-death, Ewoks, and so on).

I think the new trilogy has some great moments... I love the depiction of the Jedi, and you can really see why they fell.  Hell, even midichlorians ties into that... in a society of science, the Jedi Counsel refuses to believe in the power of the human spirit.  The Jedi are robots at this point, having sacrified their humanity to the Force.  It's why it's _Luke_ that can defeat the Sith when they take out the Old Order.  He still has his humanity, and it's his strength.

While I do blame the director for wooden performances, I think Lucas and whoever his casting director is made some terrible choices.  And the writing for much of II is atrocious.  At least the original trilogy managed a certain degree of hokey charm, but in this ultra-sanitary method of film-making it just falls flat.

Still, when all is said and done, I feel the same about the new trilogy as I do about Matrix: Reloaded... great action movie, if you ignore the pretentious crap.

Zahn's books are great, and while I never expect it to happen, I would love to see them be made into Episodes 7-9.  I pretty much consider them as much anyway.  I've only read a little of the rest of the stuff, but I wasn't too impressed with it.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 5, 2005)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> I like the original trilogy, and I can even see where Lucas was going with the Ewoks, though it would have meant a lot more if it had been the Wookies, I think. Still, RotJ is a bit of a let down, and you can see where Lucas started to pander as opposed to tell a story (Lando's un-death, Ewoks, and so on).



 Interesting, about the Lando thing...apparently some people believe it, and others think its the SW equivalent of an urban myth.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jan 5, 2005)

According to IMDb's Trivia Page about Return of the Jedi:

- It was originally intended for the Millennium Falcon to not make it out of the exploding Death Star. While this was eventually dropped, a fragment of the idea remains when Han says, "I just got a funny feeling, like I'm not gonna see her again."

- The primitive warrior tribe at the end of this film was originally supposed to be a tribe of Wookiees. In pre-production, though, the decision was made to go to short creatures with short fur rather than very tall creatures with longer fur and, hence, the Ewoks were created (Ewok may very well have been created by rearranging the sounds in the word "Wookiee").

- Harrison Ford suggested that Han Solo die by sacrificing his life to save one of his friends to give the film more dramatic weight, but George Lucas disagreed with him.

-  The word "Ewok" is never used in the film.

And something for the guys:

-  The dancer that Jabba drops into the Rancor pit loses her top as she falls in.


----------



## ragboy (Jan 5, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think awful fits really well. There were a few that I liked but some of the Star Wars books become the first that I wouldn't even finsih reading. And that was when I was much younger, I'm sure if I read them I'd have evena lower opinion of them now.



I'd go with 'God Awful.' I just got burned again with the 'Bounty Hunter Series.' I just happen to pick up the first one from a garage sale or something, and thought 'This will be exciting...Boba, Dengar, Bossk, etc.' It was crap! 3/4 of the way into the book not a single pulp action thing had happened. It was all bounty hunters plotting and scheming and doing not a thing. So, I'm not a fan of the books. 

The problem I have with the new movies is that they aren't Star Wars movies so much as super hero movies. All the main characters are icons of their age, for the most part, and you never really consider them in danger, with a few exceptions (the Maul lightsaber battle was the best of the entire series, bar none). The original trilogy had menace and fear and danger. The battle on Hoth, running through the Death Star with stormtroopers on your tail, Jabba's palace and the pirate adventure in the desert...even the ewok battle had elements of humor, danger, surprise, etc. The new series is flat. When the main character can jump out of an air car in the middle of a busy Coruscant airway and land on the exact car he wishes....how can you really get a sense of wonder from that? 

Also, I haven't seen it mentioned, but I really enjoy the stories that are coming out of Dark Horse Comics' various series right now. The _Republic_ series has more emotion in a handful of panels than EP1 and 2 combined. The _Empire_ series I'm still warming up to. And _Tales_ has some great non-sequiter stories set in the SW universe.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 5, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I kind of liked TPM when it first came out. MacGregor and Neeson tried really hard, and their friendship rings true. And Portman worked for me -- I see a queen in her performance, though maybe it's just those freaky costumes she's wearing. Those rocked. But on repeat viewings, the creakiness of the plot and the lack of any emotional cost to the heroes make it worthless.




For myself, Portman's queen performce was good because of her vocal control. This is similar to Liv Tyler in LotR. Both have somewhat distinctive voices, and did good jobs in the early filming of controlling their voices for the role, making them different and fitting the role.
As both series continued though, the actresses became more "comfortable" and just sound like themselves. Portman doesn't act in Ep2, she just stands there reciting lines.


----------



## Laurel (Jan 5, 2005)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> So what is it about Star Wars _you_ like? Why?



I really like the original trilogy and I really like the books by Timothy Zahn.
Other then that I just kinda like some more of the books and the other movies.
Not a huge fan of the TV special, cartoon and some of the expanded universe strangeness.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jan 6, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Liam Neeson



I don't think that Neeson, as fine an actor as he is, really was ever all that "hot" the way the young Eddie Murphy was.


> Jack Nicholson



A parody of himself.


> Bill Murray



Your first good point. The other route entertainers can take as they age is to reinvent themselves entirely, which Murray has done.


> Sean Connery



Hmm . . . a less obvious decline, but I don't know how you can look at _King Arthur_, _The Avengers_, _Entrapment_ and _The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_ and deny that he's not the figure he once was.


> Clint Eastwood



If he hadn't successfully reinvented himself as a director we'd be left with his joke of an acting career. _The Bridges of Madison County_? _Absolute Power_?


> Mel Gibson



On the way down. Note _What Women Want_ and that he's revisiting the scene of his hot young self's success with *another* _Mad Max_ sequel.


> James Cromwell



See Liam Neeson. I mean, are you just picking old actors and directors? That wasn't my argument.


> Martin Scorsese, Milos Forman, Donald Sutherland, Peter O'Toole, Al Pacino and William Friedkin holding on line one, for you.  Diane Wiest, Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Glenn Close, CCH Pounder and Monica Bellucci on line two.



You must just be picking people over forty.

Not what I was arguing.

Crazy, groundbreaking, outrageous, innovative - Murphy and Lucas were these things when they were young. Even true legends like Scorcese, Pacino, and the like never broke the mold like _Star Wars_ did. Consistent mounting greatness such as theirs is different. I acknowledge that I phrased myself poorly, however.


----------



## ddvmor (Jan 6, 2005)

I like the relatively light hearted banter in the original trilogy.  The new movies are far too serious.  I mean how can you beat 'I'd rather kiss a Wookie'?

That said - I liked the two new ones and am really looking forward to ROTS.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 6, 2005)

mhacdebhandia said:
			
		

> See Liam Neeson. I mean, are you just picking old actors and directors? That wasn't my argument.
> 
> You must just be picking people over forty.
> 
> ...



 Well, I was responding directly to your quote that it was a well-known fact that stars grow 'pussified' as they get older.  And my point was that many stars choose challenging or adult work as they grow older.  On that list you'll find plenty of people who are still making very mature films, some that are very cutting edge.  Is Nicholson a parody of himself?  He's certainly played a parody of himself on occasion.  But I would say that the man who's made "About Schmidt" and "The Crossing Guard" has suddenly shied away from making challenging fare.    Sean Connery has always done some pretty questionable movies, for that matter.  For every "The Offense" there was a "Zardoz"...I mean, "Darby O'Gill and the Little People"?  Hello? 

 Personally, I wonder how much of the perceived 'pussification' of said actors is more to do with Hollywood and movie-going preference than on the part of the actor.  Folks like Richard Harris and Micheal Caine certainly aren't examples of going out quietly, for example.  

 Star Wars was a synthesis, I think, of stuff.  No one thought it was ground-breaking in story...but it was Epic on a grand scale, a DeMille scale, and its groundbreaking use of tech and sound drove it home.  It just hit all the right notes, at just the right time.


----------



## MonsterMash (Jan 12, 2005)

A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back  - good, Return of the Jedi - so so, The Phantom Menace - poor, Attack of the Clones - didn't bother (says it all really)


----------



## Turanil (Jan 13, 2005)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> What I mean is - I like A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back but the rest of the movies really leave me flat.  Ewoks, Jar-Jars, Clowns-er- Clones etc. just don't thrill me.



I also like the first trilogy best. Especially the latest remasterization in DVD. I am still trying to guess why I much less like the more resent movies (I and II). Maybe because it was done with the children audience in mind (here also a guess)?


----------

