George Lucas is giving up moviemaking because critics did not like the Star Wars prequels:
QuoteFor any fans awaiting future "Star Wars" films from George Lucas, it's going to be a long wait. The creator of the famed series says he's not going to make any more of these movies and that he's essentially retiring. And for that he blames the harsh feedback from certain fans.
"Why would I make any more when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?" he tells The New York Times.
Lucas continues to bash these critics despite the fact that their appreciation for the series helped it generate $4.4 billion in worldwide box-office sales.
"On the Internet, all those same guys that are complaining I made a change are completely changing the movie," Lucas says. "I'm saying: 'Fine. But my movie, with my name on it, that says I did it, needs to be the way I want it.'"
Lucas drew strong attacks from "Star Wars" fans for characters like Jar Jar Binks and for digital additions to the DVDs and re-releases of the six-part series.
"I'm moving away from the business, from the company, from all this kind of stuff," he says.
Lucas is a guy that had some cool ideas, and some really shitty ones. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference. Also: nut the fuck up, George. :bowler:
Damn and here I thought he was laughing all the way to the bank.
Didn't he recently claim the world was going to end in 2012?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 18, 2012, 09:18:46 PM
Didn't he recently claim the world was going to end in 2012?
In his head I think the two are linked.
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
The older ones were okay movies. I enjoyed them. Beyond that, not much. Lucas Arts made some good video and PC games based on them. And some really shitty ones.
So the equivalent of I'm taking my ball home with me?
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
How old are you?
Quote from: Josephus on January 18, 2012, 09:49:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
How old are you?
*cough* *cough* *cough* *cough*
Old enough to have had other interests by that stage in my life, not D&D, but not drugs. :ph34r:
My God, the Internet achieved something.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
You're fucking British. You're not supposed to understand.
Just know that Sir Alec Guiness could be bought in a fucking heartbeat, what what.
I've got a bad feeling about this.
The prequels would have been good if Lucas had understood that while he is a visionary and a good storyteller, he is an amateurish movie director. He should have let more competent directors (like Kershner for TESB and Kasdan for ROTJ) do the job to handle the actors, and keep himself at the script and set design level.
That, and real-life decors and props, and not the overdose of green and blue screens for CGI effects.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
What is there to get? What do you find culturally important? Can you tell me why?
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:42:32 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
What is there to get? What do you find culturally important?
Breaking Away.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 10:09:32 PM
Quote from: Josephus on January 18, 2012, 09:49:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
*cough* *cough* *cough* *cough*
Old enough to have had other interests by that stage in my life, not D&D, but not drugs. :ph34r:
How old are you?
Well I'm in my 40s. And I find that most men of my generation grew up on a healthy dose of Star Wars and Star Wars toys. It--for better or worse--was a huge part of our culture, and in that respect continues to be, though we've outgrown the toys.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 02:06:01 AM
Breaking Away.
I :wub: that film, one of my childhood favourites.
Isn't it about time someone "re-imagined" A New Hope?
Not everyone. :(
Quote from: Josephus on January 19, 2012, 08:07:07 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 10:09:32 PM
Quote from: Josephus on January 18, 2012, 09:49:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
*cough* *cough* *cough* *cough*
Old enough to have had other interests by that stage in my life, not D&D, but not drugs. :ph34r:
How old are you?
Well I'm in my 40s. And I find that most men of my generation grew up on a healthy dose of Star Wars and Star Wars toys. It--for better or worse--was a huge part of our culture, and in that respect continues to be, though we've outgrown the toys.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 19, 2012, 08:40:35 AM
Not everyone. :(Quote from: Josephus on January 19, 2012, 08:07:07 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 10:09:32 PM
Quote from: Josephus on January 18, 2012, 09:49:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
*cough* *cough* *cough* *cough*
Old enough to have had other interests by that stage in my life, not D&D, but not drugs. :ph34r:
How old are you?
Well I'm in my 40s. And I find that most men of my generation grew up on a healthy dose of Star Wars and Star Wars toys. It--for better or worse--was a huge part of our culture, and in that respect continues to be, though we've outgrown the toys.
"Not everyone" as in you were deprived of the toys during your childhood, or as in you haven't outgrown them?
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in joy and were suddenly silenced. I fear something great has happened.
The feedback from Ep 1 is only now reaching Lucas? Well the parade of racist stereotypes in that movie certainly shows how completely isolated Lucas is from normal society. He actually thought that Der Stürmer and minstrel show caricatures were good, fresh ideas.
I'm not a big fan, but I like the Star Wars movies,including the prequels. Lucas is in a very tough industry, lots of critics. There will always be plenty of people who dislike movies, actors, directors, etc. It's very subjective, obviously. Some love the same things others dislike. He obviously must know that, as it's a part of his artistic type business. So I just find it odd how he's pointing to bad critiques as a reason to leave the industry, given all he's done successfully.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
That's because when you take nostalgia out of the picture they were all at about the same mediocre level.
I was pretty much obsessed with Star Wars from around 1978 to 1984. I didn't even see A New Hope in its entirety until 1980, but my older brother saw it during its first run in the theater and of course I was always into whatever he thought was cool. I can remember when pretty much all Star Wars merchandise on the market was listed in a small Kenner brochure.
So anyway, Star Wars has been ingrained in my consciousness since age 4. I'm not so much into it now, apart from my kid forcing me to play Lego Star Wars with him, but it's one of those things that sort of stays with you whether you realize it or not.
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 11:18:40 AM
That's because when you take nostalgia out of the picture they were all at about the same mediocre level.
Ok if the first two movies were mediocrity what is excellence in Sci Fi movies?
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 11:23:24 AM
So anyway, Star Wars has been ingrained in my consciousness since age 4. I'm not so much into it now, apart from my kid forcing me to play Lego Star Wars with him, but it's one of those things that sort of stays with you whether you realize it or not.
Well I was pretty obsessed with transformers and GI Joe and all that as a kid but I can look back now and see that it was pretty crap entertainment. I do not know if just because I liked something as a kid I am going to like as an adult and consider it culturally important.
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
That's because when you take nostalgia out of the picture they were all at about the same mediocre level.
I'd say the first one was a fun adventure movie, something that was increasingly rare during the 1970's. This was during the "New Hollywood era", which produced some dull and dreadful films. Star Wars was a bit of throwback, with simple morality and swashbuckling fun. I think this is why is was so popular and why it resonated with audiences. The second film was a bit darker and more complex, but still had many of those simple themes that audiences craved. The third one kinda went off the rails after the first act. The rest of Hollywood followed suit after the Star Wars films, and you got many of the same type of films.
By the the time of the prequels the market was already saturated with that kind of film so it had less impact. It didn't help that the prequels weren't that well made. They had lousy writing, terrible acting and awful direction. The first films weren't spectacular in these departments but they got the job done.
Lol, you got trolled, Lucas.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 11:27:12 AM
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 11:18:40 AM
That's because when you take nostalgia out of the picture they were all at about the same mediocre level.
Ok if the first two movies were mediocrity what is excellence in Sci Fi movies?
Blade Runner, Alien, 2001 (and, I think, Moon) and I'd argue for Children of Men too.
Not that I'm judging Star Wars, but I think those are excellent sci fi films.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
I'd say the first one was a fun adventure movie, something that was increasingly rare during the 1970's. This was during the "New Hollywood era", which produced some dull and dreadful films. Star Wars was a bit of throwback, with simple morality and swashbuckling fun. I think this is why is was so popular and why it resonated with audiences. The second film was a bit darker and more complex, but still had many of those simple themes that audiences craved. The third one kinda went off the rails after the first act. The rest of Hollywood followed suit after the Star Wars films, and you got many of the same type of films.
By the the time of the prequels the market was already saturated with that kind of film so it had less impact. It didn't help that the prequels weren't that well made. They had lousy writing, terrible acting and awful direction. The first films weren't spectacular in these departments but they got the job done.
What you said, plus for the time the special effects were mind-boggling.
This is all I am going to say on the first two films: they are good movies and for whatever reason their themes and characters resonate. As to why it does is hard to say. I mean the Wizard of Oz has a ridiculous amount of cultural impact, and it was a good book and film, but why it resonates so much is hard to say.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
I'd say the first one was a fun adventure movie, something that was increasingly rare during the 1970's. This was during the "New Hollywood era", which produced some dull and dreadful films. Star Wars was a bit of throwback, with simple morality and swashbuckling fun. I think this is why is was so popular and why it resonated with audiences. The second film was a bit darker and more complex, but still had many of those simple themes that audiences craved. The third one kinda went off the rails after the first act. The rest of Hollywood followed suit after the Star Wars films, and you got many of the same type of films.
By the the time of the prequels the market was already saturated with that kind of film so it had less impact. It didn't help that the prequels weren't that well made. They had lousy writing, terrible acting and awful direction. The first films weren't spectacular in these departments but they got the job done.
It's easy to forget now, but remember that for the 1970s the special effects blew everything else out of the water. From the opening scene with the looming Star Destroyer, to the final epic space battle, the special effects were outstanding, and continue to hold up very well to this day.
Edit: Damn you Yi!
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 11:39:46 AM
(and, I think, Moon)
Love that film. Sam Rockwell is fantastic.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 11:28:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 11:23:24 AM
So anyway, Star Wars has been ingrained in my consciousness since age 4. I'm not so much into it now, apart from my kid forcing me to play Lego Star Wars with him, but it's one of those things that sort of stays with you whether you realize it or not.
Well I was pretty obsessed with transformers and GI Joe and all that as a kid but I can look back now and see that it was pretty crap entertainment. I do not know if just because I liked something as a kid I am going to like as an adult and consider it culturally important.
Sure, but Transformers and GI Joe only really ever had appeal for kids. The original Star Wars pics were "fun for the whole family"--really, some of the only movies to ever live up to that billing. FWIW, the first one was the last movie I ever saw in the theater with my parents.
Don't forget the Christmas Special.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 11:28:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 11:23:24 AM
So anyway, Star Wars has been ingrained in my consciousness since age 4. I'm not so much into it now, apart from my kid forcing me to play Lego Star Wars with him, but it's one of those things that sort of stays with you whether you realize it or not.
Well I was pretty obsessed with transformers and GI Joe and all that as a kid but I can look back now and see that it was pretty crap entertainment. I do not know if just because I liked something as a kid I am going to like as an adult and consider it culturally important.
GI Joe and Transformers both were bad TV shows designed to sell toys. Totally different from Star Wars, at least the original trilogy.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 11:27:12 AM
Ok if the first two movies were mediocrity what is excellence in Sci Fi movies?
Something with decent acting and a compelling plot.
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 12:04:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 11:27:12 AM
Ok if the first two movies were mediocrity what is excellence in Sci Fi movies?
Something with decent acting and a compelling plot.
Acting was pretty good - outstanding considering some of the dialogue they had to work with. I mean Alec Guiness, Harrison Ford - okay MArk Hammill wasn't outstanding, but that's about it.
And a "compelling" plot? It's a simple plot, but how on earth is it not compelling?
I think you're just playing the movie snob card - it's popular entertainment, not highbrow in the least. But it's still one of the few 10/10 movies ever made.
The thing the first movies had and the competition did not was awesome special effects. Other space/fantasy movies from the era looked like crap.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 12:11:10 PM
Acting was pretty good - outstanding considering some of the dialogue they had to work with. I mean Alec Guiness, Harrison Ford - okay MArk Hammill wasn't outstanding, but that's about it.
And a "compelling" plot? It's a simple plot, but how on earth is it not compelling?
I think you're just playing the movie snob card - it's popular entertainment, not highbrow in the least. But it's still one of the few 10/10 movies ever made.
I'm the furthest thing from a movie snob. I've seen very few movies compared to most people. What I am doing is viewing it without the nostalgic baggage. Phantom Menace was the first Star Wars movie I saw, that was in 2000.
From that point of view it is a horribly cliche plot. Poor backwater kid discovers he has some magical power that can save the world and does so, discovering along the way his long lost family etc. The kind of story teenage girls write.
And Harrison Ford couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Carrie Fisher wasn't much better, and of course Hamill was much worse.
I bent my wookie
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 11:40:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
I'd say the first one was a fun adventure movie, something that was increasingly rare during the 1970's. This was during the "New Hollywood era", which produced some dull and dreadful films. Star Wars was a bit of throwback, with simple morality and swashbuckling fun. I think this is why is was so popular and why it resonated with audiences. The second film was a bit darker and more complex, but still had many of those simple themes that audiences craved. The third one kinda went off the rails after the first act. The rest of Hollywood followed suit after the Star Wars films, and you got many of the same type of films.
By the the time of the prequels the market was already saturated with that kind of film so it had less impact. It didn't help that the prequels weren't that well made. They had lousy writing, terrible acting and awful direction. The first films weren't spectacular in these departments but they got the job done.
What you said, plus for the time the special effects were mind-boggling.
Yeah, the special effects were impressive for the time (and I think the they still hold up today), but I think the swashbuckling fun and simple themes are what made last. Many of the films of the 1970's were simply dreadful. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg began to produce movies with simpler themes and story lines and people were eating it up. They remembered what so many had forgotten at the time. People go to the movies to have
fun.
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 12:00:37 PM
GI Joe and Transformers both were bad TV shows designed to sell toys.
There weren't many 80s cartoons better than Transformers.
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 12:21:21 PM
I'm the furthest thing from a movie snob. I've seen very few movies compared to most people. What I am doing is viewing it without the nostalgic baggage. Phantom Menace was the first Star Wars movie I saw, that was in 2000.
From that point of view it is a horribly cliche plot. Poor backwater kid discovers he has some magical power that can save the world and does so, discovering along the way his long lost family etc. The kind of story teenage girls write.
And Harrison Ford couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Carrie Fisher wasn't much better, and of course Hamill was much worse.
Ah, but what you aren't recognizing is the time period this film was made in. Some thing that is endlessly copied looks cliched from hindsight.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 12:00:37 PM
GI Joe and Transformers both were bad TV shows designed to sell toys.
There weren't many 80s cartoons better than Transformers.
Robotech :wub:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 12:00:37 PM
GI Joe and Transformers both were bad TV shows designed to sell toys.
There weren't many 80s cartoons better than Transformers.
Never got into Transformers. I liked He-man and GI-Joe. Also some the Disney ones like Ducktales and Talespin.
Duck Tales was awesome. :cool:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:28:22 PM
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 12:21:21 PM
I'm the furthest thing from a movie snob. I've seen very few movies compared to most people. What I am doing is viewing it without the nostalgic baggage. Phantom Menace was the first Star Wars movie I saw, that was in 2000.
From that point of view it is a horribly cliche plot. Poor backwater kid discovers he has some magical power that can save the world and does so, discovering along the way his long lost family etc. The kind of story teenage girls write.
And Harrison Ford couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Carrie Fisher wasn't much better, and of course Hamill was much worse.
Ah, but what you aren't recognizing is the time period this film was made in. Some thing that is endlessly copied looks cliched from hindsight.
Well, one man's cliche is another man's iconic story. But that's what made me question Max when he said there was no compelling plot. It is a tale told numerous times, but it's been told numerous times precisely because it is a compelling one.
I find it unlikely that it wasn't a cliche story in the early 70s, but it's possible.
Honestly, I didn't have a critical problem with the prequels until Episode II. I actually liked The Phantom Menace. Attack of the Clones was full of so many deus ex machinae and quick writing cop-outs that I completely lost faith in George Lucas' ability to write a problem-solving chain of events.
As far as turning me away from a rabid fan of the franchise, it's not really Lucas' fault- ironically, it's the amount he let other people muck around with his stuff. I really blame the Yuuzhan Vong story arc for that one. It felt like the whole purpose was just to show that our favorite characters could lose, and lose in a big way.
It's a cliched fantasy story but off the top of my head I can't think of a time it was applied to syfy.
We have had this discussion before. It is hard to explain to the youngsters what a huge cultural impact Star Wars had. The music track was number one - all the cool kids had the Stars Wars record. Everyone was saying "May the force be with you". The idea of the Force tapped into the positive thinking selve help hippy craze at the time and so it was also very popular with adults.
There have been few movies that have ever had that kind of impact.
I remember standing line for it. And standing. And standing. AND STANDING.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 19, 2012, 12:43:08 PM
Honestly, I didn't have a critical problem with the prequels until Episode II.
I had a problem with an all powerful Jedi Knight allowing a young boy to risk his life in a crazy race so the Knight could acquire a spare part for his broken down spaceship and then when it is time to leave tells the boy - I am not here to save your mother. And then the learned council turns the training of this boy, who normally would not be admitted due to his age and who is very powerful in the force, over to one of their most inexperienced members.
The prequels went downhill from there.
Poochie Binks was awesome.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 12:52:27 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 19, 2012, 12:43:08 PM
Honestly, I didn't have a critical problem with the prequels until Episode II.
I had a problem with an all powerful Jedi Knight allowing a young boy to risk his life in a crazy race so the Knight could acquire a spare part for his broken down spaceship and then when it is time to leave tells the boy - I am not here to save your mother. And then the learned council turns the training of this boy, who normally would not be admitted due to his age and who is very powerful in the force, over to one of their most inexperienced members.
The prequels went downhill from there.
Yeah, the whole broken spaceship / pod race was the most transparent effort to get an action scene in mid-story. It had plot holes you could drive a sandcrawler through.
My biggest frustration was that at the end of the day it didn't move the story forward in any appreciable fashion. He had to move the story forward 10 years when it came time to make Ep II. It seems to me you could have started the whole prequels at the time Ep II started and explained Anakin's origins on Tatooine either through dialogue or a flashback.
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 12:42:34 PM
I find it unlikely that it wasn't a cliche story in the early 70s, but it's possible.
Actually, there were sociological papers looking at how Lucas used and combined classic elements in a new way...
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 12:52:27 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 19, 2012, 12:43:08 PM
Honestly, I didn't have a critical problem with the prequels until Episode II.
I had a problem with an all powerful Jedi Knight allowing a young boy to risk his life in a crazy race so the Knight could acquire a spare part for his broken down spaceship and then when it is time to leave tells the boy - I am not here to save your mother. And then the learned council turns the training of this boy, who normally would not be admitted due to his age and who is very powerful in the force, over to one of their most inexperienced members.
The prequels went downhill from there.
I felt the biggest problem was that it was
boring. Stuff happens, but it's so divorced from the actual actors as to make it dull. It's like having a light show going on in the background. Distracting for a moment, but loses it's impact pretty quick. This could have been solved with better directing and acting, but it just doesn't cut it. As it is, the film has characters recite dull dialogue at one another between taking shots of Valium.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 19, 2012, 12:43:08 PM
As far as turning me away from a rabid fan of the franchise, it's not really Lucas' fault- ironically, it's the amount he let other people muck around with his stuff. I really blame the Yuuzhan Vong story arc for that one. It felt like the whole purpose was just to show that our favorite characters could lose, and lose in a big way.
I agree with that. But on the other hand, everything that has come out that was great since about that time has also been by people who are not Lucas. I'm thinking mainly of the KOTOR-type stuff. The problem is he was so loose with it. Too much crap was written, and too little of it should have been. And the stuff Lucas himself wrote in the time period does not qualify for the latter either.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2012, 01:33:00 PM
I'm thinking mainly of the KOTOR-type stuff.
If only there had been a KOTOR III. Or heck if only Obsidian had been able to finish KOTOR II.
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 12:42:34 PM
I find it unlikely that it wasn't a cliche story in the early 70s, but it's possible.
Actually, there were sociological papers looking at how Lucas used and combined classic elements in a new way...
Yeah I was about to say alot of ink has been spilled over all the classic images and archtypes and so forth in academia over the first couple Star Wars movies.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:53:09 PM
Yeah I was about to say alot of ink has been spilled over all the classic images and archtypes and so forth in academia over the first couple Star Wars movies.
Which underlines their impact - the new has become the cliche.
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 01:56:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:53:09 PM
Yeah I was about to say alot of ink has been spilled over all the classic images and archtypes and so forth in academia over the first couple Star Wars movies.
Which underlines their impact - the new has become the cliche.
Elaborate.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:53:09 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 01:05:11 PM
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 12:42:34 PM
I find it unlikely that it wasn't a cliche story in the early 70s, but it's possible.
Actually, there were sociological papers looking at how Lucas used and combined classic elements in a new way...
Yeah I was about to say alot of ink has been spilled over all the classic images and archtypes and so forth in academia over the first couple Star Wars movies.
Yep,
Joseph Campbell was interviewed by PBS shortly before his death. During those interviews Campbell had a wide ranging discussion regarding the power of myth in which he frequently made references to the use of mythological archetypes in the original Star Wars trilogy.
I know its a classic appeal to authority. But if it was good enough for Campbell...
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 01:58:58 PM
Elaborate.
I think Casablanca has the worst writing ever, every line is some cliche.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 02:01:12 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 01:58:58 PM
Elaborate.
I think Casablanca has the worst writing ever, every line is some cliche.
The archetypes that were used in Star Wars became new somehow?
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 01:05:11 PM
Actually, there were sociological papers looking at how Lucas used and combined classic elements in a new way...
One of the greatest irritations of the Star Wars setting to me is that is is this sort of frankensteinic mishmash of fantasy and science fiction. (Incidentally I have the same problem with Dune).
I can see how that would be interesting to those who study storytelling.
Time to obfuscate.
There are mythic archetypes that run throughout Indo-European narratives. They have impact because they are fundamentally/essentially true stories that culturally stay relevant. These basic elements can be recombined in new ways, and when they are they often become catalysts to new thoughts, expressions, ways of explaining the world, etc.
Star Wars took basic myth elements and recombined them in such a way at to appeal. While I am not equating them to fundamentally important myths, they were impactful enough that the method became common.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 12:52:27 PM
I had a problem with an all powerful Jedi Knight allowing a young boy to risk his life in a crazy race so the Knight could acquire a spare part for his broken down spaceship and then when it is time to leave tells the boy - I am not here to save your mother. And then the learned council turns the training of this boy, who normally would not be admitted due to his age and who is very powerful in the force, over to one of their most inexperienced members.
Plus, you know, midichlorians. :bleeding:
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 02:09:53 PM
Time to obfuscate.
There are mythic archetypes that run throughout Indo-European narratives. They have impact because they are fundamentally/essentially true stories that culturally stay relevant. These basic elements can be recombined in new ways, and when they are they often become catalysts to new thoughts, expressions, ways of explaining the world, etc.
Star Wars took basic myth elements and recombined them in such a way at to appeal. While I am not equating them to fundamentally important myths, they were impactful enough that the method became common.
The only thing new was putting them in space. Which is not nothing, but not a lot either. Lightsabers and starships had a wee bit more to do with the appeal than any archetype combinations.
I am not saying the effects were not what drew me in as a 10 year old in the mid 1970s, however some of the appeal (and the fanboi reaction to changes of the cannon) strike me as much more about the mythic element and the appeal of the combinations Lucas used.
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 02:19:20 PM
I am not saying the effects were not what drew me in as a 10 year old in the mid 1970s, however some of the appeal (and the fanboi reaction to changes of the cannon) strike me as much more about the mythic element and the appeal of the combinations Lucas used.
Yep, and you forgot to obfuscate that time.
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 02:19:20 PM
I am not saying the effects were not what drew me in as a 10 year old in the mid 1970s, however some of the appeal (and the fanboi reaction to changes of the cannon) strike me as much more about the mythic element and the appeal of the combinations Lucas used.
The archetypes are powerful story parts, that's why they've been around so long. I just don't see Star Wars doing anything new with them (except the "hey what if... we put Mentor in space? With a lightsaber? Cool!").
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 02:13:12 PM
The only thing new was putting them in space. Which is not nothing, but not a lot either. Lightsabers and starships had a wee bit more to do with the appeal than any archetype combinations.
Not really. Tons of movies have great special effects. Besides those effects are pretty dated now but the movies are still good films.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 02:26:36 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 02:13:12 PM
The only thing new was putting them in space. Which is not nothing, but not a lot either. Lightsabers and starships had a wee bit more to do with the appeal than any archetype combinations.
Not really. Tons of movies have great special effects. Besides those effects are pretty dated now but the movies are still good films.
How many 70s space/fantasy movies had special effects that were as good as Star Wars (non-rhetorical)?
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 02:26:36 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 02:13:12 PM
The only thing new was putting them in space. Which is not nothing, but not a lot either. Lightsabers and starships had a wee bit more to do with the appeal than any archetype combinations.
Not really. Tons of movies have great special effects. Besides those effects are pretty dated now but the movies are still good films.
What The Brain said. Now, in 2012, filmmakers seem to think that the only thing necessary to have a big blockbuster are elaborate special effects. That wasn't what they thought in the 1970s. Star Wars effects were groundbreaking at the time - and incedentaly helped establish Lucas' ILM as the kings of movie special effects.
Close Encounters, 2001, Alien, Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 12:00:37 PM
GI Joe and Transformers both were bad TV shows designed to sell toys.
There weren't many 80s cartoons better than Transformers.
Talk about damning with faint praise.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 02:28:37 PM
How many 70s space/fantasy movies had special effects that were as good as Star Wars (non-rhetorical)?
I am sorry I thought we were talking about their cultural importance now. I was not around in the 70s (well I was but I was too young to pay any attention) so I cannot really judge the extent that the special effects alone played a role.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 02:36:11 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 12:00:37 PM
GI Joe and Transformers both were bad TV shows designed to sell toys.
There weren't many 80s cartoons better than Transformers.
Talk about damning with faint praise.
Heh no kidding. Now when people wax eloquenlty about Transformers and buy DVDs and so forth that is pure nostalgia.
The special effects were great. But that was not why Star Wars had the cultural impact it did. There were other movies like ET and Close Encouters of the Third Kind that had great special effects but not nearly the kind impact Star Wars had.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 02:37:47 PM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 02:36:11 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 12:00:37 PM
GI Joe and Transformers both were bad TV shows designed to sell toys.
There weren't many 80s cartoons better than Transformers.
Talk about damning with faint praise.
Heh no kidding. Now when people wax eloquenlty about Transformers and buy DVDs and so forth that is pure nostalgia.
Indeed. I mean - I could tell it was crap when I was nine years old.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 02:35:52 PM
Close Encounters, 2001, Alien, Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
AFAIK three of those were released after Star Wars. 2001 is certainly one of the giants in special effects before Star Wars.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 02:38:53 PM
The special effects were great. But that was not why Star Wars had the cultural impact it did. There were other movies like ET and Close Encouters of the Third Kind that had great special effects but not nearly the kind impact Star Wars had.
Unlike ET or Close Encounters Star Wars had really cool gadgets and environments and was completely set in space or exotic planets and had cool aliens etc. An escapist's dream. Plus when Star Wars already had made its huge splash getting a new extreme pop culture phenomenon out of ET or Close Encounters faced an uphill battle.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2012, 12:32:55 PM
Duck Tales was awesome. :cool:
Dark Wing Duck was better.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 02:49:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 02:38:53 PM
The special effects were great. But that was not why Star Wars had the cultural impact it did. There were other movies like ET and Close Encouters of the Third Kind that had great special effects but not nearly the kind impact Star Wars had.
Unlike ET or Close Encounters Star Wars had really cool gadgets and environments and was completely set in space or exotic planets and had cool aliens etc. An escapist's dream. Plus when Star Wars already had made its huge splash getting a new extreme pop culture phenomenon out of ET or Close Encounters faced an uphill battle.
So now you appear to be agreeing with the concept that Star Wars had something more than just great special effects. This was no cliche. It had powerful mythical archetypes set in and used in competely new ways.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 02:36:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 02:28:37 PM
How many 70s space/fantasy movies had special effects that were as good as Star Wars (non-rhetorical)?
I am sorry I thought we were talking about their cultural importance now. I was not around in the 70s (well I was but I was too young to pay any attention) so I cannot really judge the extent that the special effects alone played a role.
I am convinced that the cultural importance of Star Wars today is firmly based on what happened when it was released.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 02:52:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 02:49:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 02:38:53 PM
The special effects were great. But that was not why Star Wars had the cultural impact it did. There were other movies like ET and Close Encouters of the Third Kind that had great special effects but not nearly the kind impact Star Wars had.
Unlike ET or Close Encounters Star Wars had really cool gadgets and environments and was completely set in space or exotic planets and had cool aliens etc. An escapist's dream. Plus when Star Wars already had made its huge splash getting a new extreme pop culture phenomenon out of ET or Close Encounters faced an uphill battle.
So now you appear to be agreeing with the concept that Star Wars had something more than just great special effects. This was no cliche. It had powerful mythical archetypes set in and used in competely new ways.
I don't follow. I have never said that the only thing Star Wars had was special effects. I have said in this thread that Star Wars used powerful archetypes. The only new thing I've seen about them in Star Wars though is that they are in space. Completely new ways? I just don't see it.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 02:36:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 02:28:37 PM
How many 70s space/fantasy movies had special effects that were as good as Star Wars (non-rhetorical)?
I am sorry I thought we were talking about their cultural importance now. I was not around in the 70s (well I was but I was too young to pay any attention) so I cannot really judge the extent that the special effects alone played a role.
I am convinced that the cultural importance of Star Wars today is firmly based on what happened when it was released.
I was talking about the cultural imporance it had when it was released...
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
That's because when you take nostalgia out of the picture they were all at about the same mediocre level.
I'd say the first one was a fun adventure movie, something that was increasingly rare during the 1970's. This was during the "New Hollywood era", which produced some dull and dreadful films. Star Wars was a bit of throwback, with simple morality and swashbuckling fun. I think this is why is was so popular and why it resonated with audiences. The second film was a bit darker and more complex, but still had many of those simple themes that audiences craved. The third one kinda went off the rails after the first act.
If I had to pick only two films from the OT to survive, Star Wars wouldn't make it. I like it, but Jedi is awesome; it is, unfortunately, misunderstood.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 12:00:37 PM
GI Joe and Transformers both were bad TV shows designed to sell toys.
There weren't many 80s cartoons better than Transformers.
Transformers: The Movie redeems any crappiness inherent in the series. By God, it may be the finest animated film ever made. It is also amongst the ballsiest films ever made. It would be like if Star Trek: The Motion Picture had killed Kirk ten minutes in and the movie was actually about Decker. Also, it had an outstanding voice cast; tremendous imagination went into the various settings; it looked fucking awesome; the ending is suitably epic; and it had a most excellent soundtrack. It's very close to a perfect film.
The only criticism I can see landing is that they don't pay much attention to physical scale, but fuck it, it's a kid's movie.
Yes, it was the first movie I ever saw in the theater. What of it? -_-
Tell me Ide, how is it to be so full of fail?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:15:21 PM
Transformers: The Movie redeems any crappiness inherent in the series. By God, it may be the finest animated film ever made.
:lol: It is terrible. Granted I do like the 80s stadium rock.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:13:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
That's because when you take nostalgia out of the picture they were all at about the same mediocre level.
I'd say the first one was a fun adventure movie, something that was increasingly rare during the 1970's. This was during the "New Hollywood era", which produced some dull and dreadful films. Star Wars was a bit of throwback, with simple morality and swashbuckling fun. I think this is why is was so popular and why it resonated with audiences. The second film was a bit darker and more complex, but still had many of those simple themes that audiences craved. The third one kinda went off the rails after the first act.
If I had to pick only two films from the OT to survive, Star Wars wouldn't make it. I like it, but Jedi is awesome; it is, unfortunately, misunderstood.
Yeah. Awesomely STUPID.
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2012, 03:16:27 PM
Tell me Ide, how is it to be so full of fail?
In regards to Jedi or Transformers? I need to know just how aesthetically retarded you are before I respond.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 03:18:15 PM
Yeah. Awesomely STUPID.
Finally The Brain and I agree.
Though as a kid seeing Jedi I just remember being baffled by it. 'Wait WTF just happened here?'
On both counts.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 03:22:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 03:18:15 PM
Yeah. Awesomely STUPID.
Finally The Brain and I agree.
Though as a kid seeing Jedi I just remember being baffled by it. 'Wait WTF just happened here?'
The Force is weak in this one.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:13:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
That's because when you take nostalgia out of the picture they were all at about the same mediocre level.
I'd say the first one was a fun adventure movie, something that was increasingly rare during the 1970's. This was during the "New Hollywood era", which produced some dull and dreadful films. Star Wars was a bit of throwback, with simple morality and swashbuckling fun. I think this is why is was so popular and why it resonated with audiences. The second film was a bit darker and more complex, but still had many of those simple themes that audiences craved. The third one kinda went off the rails after the first act.
If I had to pick only two films from the OT to survive, Star Wars wouldn't make it. I like it, but Jedi is awesome; it is, unfortunately, misunderstood.
Yeah. Awesomely STUPID.
That applies to pretty much the entire Star Wars trilogy.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:25:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:13:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
That's because when you take nostalgia out of the picture they were all at about the same mediocre level.
I'd say the first one was a fun adventure movie, something that was increasingly rare during the 1970's. This was during the "New Hollywood era", which produced some dull and dreadful films. Star Wars was a bit of throwback, with simple morality and swashbuckling fun. I think this is why is was so popular and why it resonated with audiences. The second film was a bit darker and more complex, but still had many of those simple themes that audiences craved. The third one kinda went off the rails after the first act.
If I had to pick only two films from the OT to survive, Star Wars wouldn't make it. I like it, but Jedi is awesome; it is, unfortunately, misunderstood.
Yeah. Awesomely STUPID.
That applies to pretty much the entire Star Wars trilogy.
Ewoks were even more stupider.
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2012, 03:22:28 PM
On both counts.
So "exceptionally." :(
Like, I sort of see being annoyed by Jedi. A lot of people hate on the Ewoks, focusing particularly the implausibility of their victory (yeah, because the Empire had previously been depicted as being competent?), and the division of the film into basically two parts (Tatooine and Endor) has some structural problems if you take it by itself and not with Empire as an indivisible set. I think they overlook the really great parts--namely the exceptional effects work involved in the space battle, the excellence of the final lightsaber duel--that whole scene really--and the close of Luke's character arc. Also, "Yub Nub" is a really fun song.
(Even more annoying is that the really major problem with Jedi tends to be ignored or celebrated, that is, its problematic depiction of a sexual assault--although granted this is more of a problem with people who were 14 when they saw it for the first time and don't understand that a giant talking penis stripping a woman down, making her wear fetish gear and trying to murder her is not hot. I mean, what's up, proto-Lettow?)
I've explained why Transformers is great. It's undeniable. Yet you deny it. Why do you hate art, and perhaps life itself?
I've never gotten the Jedi hate. So it has cute furry ewoks - when did Star Wars ever pretend to not play to the kids? Perhaps it's because I like a good ending, and Jedi is a quite satisfactor ending to all the lose storylines - empire is defeated, Han rescued, anakin redeemed, Luke finds his family and Han finds his love. The end.
But since I'm uncomfortable geing anywhere near Ideo in thei conversation, I will say he's smoking crack if he thinks Jedi is better than Star Wars (Ep IV).
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 11:39:46 AM
Blade Runner, Alien, 2001 (and, I think, Moon) and I'd argue for Children of Men too.
Well, you got three of four right! :P
Chicken of Men was horrible. Unwatchable bad. 300 bad.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 03:41:38 PM
I've never gotten the Jedi hate. So it has cute furry ewoks - when did Star Wars ever pretend to not play to the kids? Perhaps it's because I like a good ending, and Jedi is a quite satisfactor ending to all the lose storylines - empire is defeated, Han rescued, anakin redeemed, Luke finds his family and Han finds his love. The end.
But since I'm uncomfortable geing anywhere near Ideo in thei conversation, I will say he's smoking crack if he thinks Jedi is better than Star Wars (Ep IV).
This is crux of my disagreement with the Palmetto yokel
Ide should be sent to gaol.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 03:41:38 PM
So it has cute furry ewoks - when did Star Wars ever pretend to not play to the kids?
Well that was the thing. It had a plot that was hard for me, as a kid, to follow. It was convoluted and confusing. This is a kid's movie for godsake.
But this problem was far worse in the prequels. I mean the Phantom Menace has no obvious protagonist and no obvious antagonist.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 03:41:38 PM
I've never gotten the Jedi hate. So it has cute furry ewoks - when did Star Wars ever pretend to not play to the kids? Perhaps it's because I like a good ending, and Jedi is a quite satisfactor ending to all the lose storylines - empire is defeated, Han rescued, anakin redeemed, Luke finds his family and Han finds his love. The end.
But since I'm uncomfortable geing anywhere near Ideo in thei conversation, I will say he's smoking crack if he thinks Jedi is better than Star Wars (Ep IV).
Return of the Jedi was a Three Stooges film set in the Star Wars universe. It was not the worst SW movie ever made, but was such a huge change of pace and let-down after the mature movies in the series.
Considered as part of the juvie run of SW movies, it is all right. Better, certainly, than the two movies that followed it. I can't speak about it compared to the last SW movies, because I haven't seen that one (nor the last half of the fifth movie).
I tend to like endings better than beginnings. Star Wars is very good (although its effects work suffers in comparison to Empire and Jedi, I try not to hold that against it). However, think about it: you can only keep two of the three in existence. If you save Hope and Empire, you lose the ending; future audiences will never know what happened in that universe. If you save Empire and Jedi, you have two films that tell a complete story and the history can be figured out.
P.S. FU Beeb.
P.P.S.: Sheilbh and fahdiz are good guys, as Moon is the bestest movie made in the past decade or two.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:48:19 PM
I tend to like endings better than beginnings. Star Wars is very good (although its effects work suffers in comparison to Empire and Jedi, I try not to hold that against it). However, think about it: you can only keep two of the three in existence. If you save Hope and Empire, you lose the ending; future audiences will never know what happened in that universe. If you save Empire and Jedi, you have two films that tell a complete story and the history can be figured out.
P.S. FU Beeb.
P.P.S.: Sheilbh and fahdiz are good guys, as Moon is the bestest movie made in the past decade or two.
I hear you, I'm an ass man myself. But I'd definitely keep Hope and Empire. The ending is that the empire wins, which is win.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:48:19 PM
I tend to like endings better than beginnings. Star Wars is very good (although its effects work suffers in comparison to Empire and Jedi, I try not to hold that against it). However, think about it: you can only keep two of the three in existence. If you save Hope and Empire, you lose the ending; future audiences will never know what happened in that universe. If you save Empire and Jedi, you have two films that tell a complete story and the history can be figured out.
Why would we not be able to watch a movie that has already been made? :huh: That it occupies the last-place position in the chronological order seems a stupid reason for saying a movie is better.
If, instead, you could remake the weakest movie of the first three SW movies, it is obvious to me that you would remake the third one. If you injected a plot, some characters, the originally-planned Wokies, and hired a professional to write the dialogue, you could make a really good movie out of it that could end the story in a non-absurd way.
That's how I would measure the quality of the movie; not by its place in the series of three movies, but by its quality.
Godfather 3 is Ide's favorite movie.
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2012, 03:55:36 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 03:48:19 PM
I tend to like endings better than beginnings. Star Wars is very good (although its effects work suffers in comparison to Empire and Jedi, I try not to hold that against it). However, think about it: you can only keep two of the three in existence. If you save Hope and Empire, you lose the ending; future audiences will never know what happened in that universe. If you save Empire and Jedi, you have two films that tell a complete story and the history can be figured out.
Why would we not be able to watch a movie that has already been made? :huh:
Well you're unable to watch Ep III. As am I.
Quote from: Kleves on January 19, 2012, 03:57:08 PM
Godfather 3 is Ide's favorite movie.
At least it has Eli Wallach. Eli would have owned in Jedi.
It's a hypothetical situation, g.
In any event, it's not the only reason I like Jedi better--that probably comes down to the space battle--but it is the most compelling reason to pick Jedi within the bounds of what I originally said, and the fact that it is the resolution does indeed make it a more enjoyable watch, for me.
Changing the rules per your post, if I were going to remake any given Star Wars OT film, it'd still be Hope. But that's because of the effects, and the difference in quality between the three films--outside of effects--is, imo, minimal.
Quote from: Kleves on January 19, 2012, 03:57:08 PM
Godfather 3 is Ide's favorite movie.
I've never seen any of the Godfather movies, except parts of the first.
Temple of Doom and Last Crusade trade places regularly as to which is my favorite Indy film though. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 04:00:23 PM
Temple of Doom and Last Crusade trade places regularly as to which is my favorite Indy film though. :P
:o
And I liked Crystal Skull okay too. :secret:
Is it too late to abort ide?
I think a lot of people went into that movie with a bad attitude. Understandable, given the prequel trilogy, and, sure, it's weaker than any of the other Indy films, and the use of greenscreen is occasionally distracting, and YES THE FRIDGE I KNOW, but overall I enjoyed it. Blanchett was totally hot.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2012, 03:44:47 PM
Ide should be sent to gaol.
No, we love him too much for that. He should be thrown into the Great Pit of Carkoon and slowly consumed by the Sarlacc.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 04:03:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 04:00:23 PM
Temple of Doom and Last Crusade trade places regularly as to which is my favorite Indy film though. :P
:o
That's not too bad, all 3 are in my top 10 or 20.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 04:00:23 PM
I've never seen any of the Godfather movies, except parts of the first.
:huh: Really? You need to do something about that. The first two are some of the best cinema ever made.
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2012, 03:47:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 03:41:38 PM
I've never gotten the Jedi hate. So it has cute furry ewoks - when did Star Wars ever pretend to not play to the kids? Perhaps it's because I like a good ending, and Jedi is a quite satisfactor ending to all the lose storylines - empire is defeated, Han rescued, anakin redeemed, Luke finds his family and Han finds his love. The end.
But since I'm uncomfortable geing anywhere near Ideo in thei conversation, I will say he's smoking crack if he thinks Jedi is better than Star Wars (Ep IV).
Return of the Jedi was a Three Stooges film set in the Star Wars universe. It was not the worst SW movie ever made, but was such a huge change of pace and let-down after the mature movies in the series.
Considered as part of the juvie run of SW movies, it is all right. Better, certainly, than the two movies that followed it.
Agree 100%. At the time I saw it, I thought it was better than Hope and Empire. Part of that was due to the fact that I was in 4th grade, and the other part was due to the excitement of seeing it the day it was released (my mom showed up at school unexpectedly right before lunch and pulled me and my best friend out of class to go to the theater for the first showing-- I still can't get over how cool that was).
Didn't take long for the Ewoks' cuteness to run thin though, and the next time I saw Empire on TV I realized how much better it was.
Ide's opinion on movies is even worse than his taste in women and his judgment on political and social issues. Who could have thought that would even be possible?
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 05:20:08 PM
Ide's opinion on movies is even worse than his taste in women and his judgment on political and social issues. Who could have thought that would even be possible?
I think the all reese's diet has damaged his brain.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 03:41:38 PM
I've never gotten the Jedi hate. So it has cute furry ewoks - when did Star Wars ever pretend to not play to the kids? Perhaps it's because I like a good ending, and Jedi is a quite satisfactor ending to all the lose storylines - empire is defeated, Han rescued, anakin redeemed, Luke finds his family and Han finds his love. The end.
But since I'm uncomfortable geing anywhere near Ideo in thei conversation, I will say he's smoking crack if he thinks Jedi is better than Star Wars (Ep IV).
I felt it started strong, but ended up repeating itself. Why have the Death Star come back? Couldn't they think of something new?
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 05:02:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 04:00:23 PM
I've never seen any of the Godfather movies, except parts of the first.
:huh: Really? You need to do something about that. The first two are the best cinema ever made.
fyp
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 05:56:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2012, 03:41:38 PM
I've never gotten the Jedi hate. So it has cute furry ewoks - when did Star Wars ever pretend to not play to the kids? Perhaps it's because I like a good ending, and Jedi is a quite satisfactor ending to all the lose storylines - empire is defeated, Han rescued, anakin redeemed, Luke finds his family and Han finds his love. The end.
But since I'm uncomfortable geing anywhere near Ideo in thei conversation, I will say he's smoking crack if he thinks Jedi is better than Star Wars (Ep IV).
I felt it started strong, but ended up repeating itself. Why have the Death Star come back? Couldn't they think of something new?
No, because Lucas had already run out of good ideas.
The Death Star was iconic by then. I think it was part of the Emperor's identity in Lucas' mind too.
Quote from: Maximus on January 19, 2012, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
That's because when you take nostalgia out of the picture they were all at about the same mediocre level.
I didn't get into Star Wars until my late teens, so I vociferously disagree.
The Ewoks weren't any worse than Wookies.
Quote from: Josephus on January 19, 2012, 08:07:07 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 10:09:32 PM
Quote from: Josephus on January 18, 2012, 09:49:14 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2012, 09:31:59 PM
I don't get the apparent cultural importance of Star Wars films amongst some languishites.
I just recall them as some sci-fi films, I can't think of any of my friends, current or childhood, who made a big thing of them.
*cough* *cough* *cough* *cough*
Old enough to have had other interests by that stage in my life, not D&D, but not drugs. :ph34r:
How old are you?
Well I'm in my 40s. And I find that most men of my generation grew up on a healthy dose of Star Wars and Star Wars toys. It--for better or worse--was a huge part of our culture, and in that respect continues to be, though we've outgrown the toys.
This.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2012, 07:11:44 PM
I didn't get into Star Wars until my late teens, so I vociferously disagree.
Yeah, but your 'late teens' are analogous to most peoples 'childhoods'. Bambiesque, and whatnot.
Heh.
Quote from: derspiess on January 19, 2012, 05:02:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 04:00:23 PM
I've never seen any of the Godfather movies, except parts of the first.
:huh: Really? You need to do something about that. The first two are some of the best cinema ever made.
Interestingly, I actually purchased than giant DVD collector's edition they had, but only as a gift for my dad.
Thing is, I'd not been a huge Coppola fan. I hadn't liked the (original) Apocalypse Now, so I avoided The Godfather films, which seemed likely to be worse--organized crime movies < war movies. But I really, really liked Redux, and his claret is delightful. Thus, at some point, you're quite right, I do need to watch at least the first two Godfathers.
I watched The Godfather 1 and 2 on the same day. I think I had watched that horrible Amelia movie earlier that day. :(
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2012, 08:43:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2012, 07:11:44 PM
I didn't get into Star Wars until my late teens, so I vociferously disagree.
Yeah, but your 'late teens' are analogous to most peoples 'childhoods'. Bambiesque, and whatnot.
I still don't understand his statement as per my recollection, I'm younger than Tim and when I watched the Star Wars films in my early teens...I was behind the curve as everyone had seen them before.
Perhaps leukemia is more time-consuming than generally thought.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:12:04 PM
Perhaps leukemia is more time-consuming than generally thought.
I don't really see why he'd use himself as evidence - if that was the reason. He's point of view would be irrelevant, no?
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 11:13:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:12:04 PM
Perhaps leukemia is more time-consuming than generally thought.
I don't really see why he'd use himself as evidence - if that was the reason. He's point of view would be irrelevant, no?
I'm saying my opinion is not tainted by childhood nostalgia.
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 11:13:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:12:04 PM
Perhaps leukemia is more time-consuming than generally thought.
I don't really see why he'd use himself as evidence - if that was the reason. He's point of view would be irrelevant, no?
Well, regardless of his unpleasant childhood, in theory Tim would have more experience of fiction in his late teens than a five and six year old, and would therefore be able to judge the Star Wars films from the point of view of a young adult, if perhaps one with a shorter film-watching history than others. Thus his opinion is germane to a greater or lesser degree.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 19, 2012, 11:18:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 11:13:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:12:04 PM
Perhaps leukemia is more time-consuming than generally thought.
I don't really see why he'd use himself as evidence - if that was the reason. He's point of view would be irrelevant, no?
I'm saying my opinion is not tainted by childhood nostalgia.
It is tained by Timness. :mellow:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:19:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 11:13:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:12:04 PM
Perhaps leukemia is more time-consuming than generally thought.
I don't really see why he'd use himself as evidence - if that was the reason. He's point of view would be irrelevant, no?
Well, regardless of his unpleasant childhood, in theory Tim would have more experience of fiction in his late teens than a five and six year old, and would therefore be able to judge the Star Wars films from the point of view of a young adult, if perhaps one with a shorter film-watching history than others. Thus his opinion is germane to a greater or lesser degree.
Wait a minute... Haven't we already had this discussion? Doesn't it end with Tim being an asshole because he hates ESB or something like that?
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2012, 11:46:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:19:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 11:13:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:12:04 PM
Perhaps leukemia is more time-consuming than generally thought.
I don't really see why he'd use himself as evidence - if that was the reason. He's point of view would be irrelevant, no?
Well, regardless of his unpleasant childhood, in theory Tim would have more experience of fiction in his late teens than a five and six year old, and would therefore be able to judge the Star Wars films from the point of view of a young adult, if perhaps one with a shorter film-watching history than others. Thus his opinion is germane to a greater or lesser degree.
Wait a minute... Haven't we already had this discussion? Doesn't it end with Tim being an asshole because he hates ESB or something like that?
I don't remember that. But if so, boo.
Quote from: Neil on January 19, 2012, 08:36:14 PM
The Ewoks weren't any worse than Wookies.
In what sense? The Ewoks main failing was as a plot device. There was only one Wookie and he was not a plot device but a supporting character.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:19:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2012, 11:13:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 11:12:04 PM
Perhaps leukemia is more time-consuming than generally thought.
I don't really see why he'd use himself as evidence - if that was the reason. He's point of view would be irrelevant, no?
Well, regardless of his unpleasant childhood, in theory Tim would have more experience of fiction in his late teens than a five and six year old, and would therefore be able to judge the Star Wars films from the point of view of a young adult, if perhaps one with a shorter film-watching history than others. Thus his opinion is germane to a greater or lesser degree.
I was already in high school when the original came out and had graduated by the time
The Empire Strikes Back was released. Grumbler is older than I am. I don't think our opinions are particularly tainted by childhood memories, either.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 19, 2012, 09:40:20 PM
Thing is, I'd not been a huge Coppola fan. I hadn't liked the (original) Apocalypse Now, so I avoided The Godfather films, which seemed likely to be worse--organized crime movies < war movies.
There are dozens of better war movies than Apocalypse Now. The Godfather is *the* mob movie to see if you only see one(though I personally enjoy Pulp Fiction more).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 07:26:54 AM
There are dozens of better war movies than Apocalypse Now. The Godfather is *the* mob movie to see if you only see one(though I personally enjoy Pulp Fiction more).
Goodfellas. :contract:
Goodfellas is the Yale of mob movies.
Quote from: Kleves on January 20, 2012, 10:15:14 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 07:26:54 AM
There are dozens of better war movies than Apocalypse Now. The Godfather is *the* mob movie to see if you only see one(though I personally enjoy Pulp Fiction more).
Goodfellas. :contract:
Goodfellas was an interesting character in a forgettable story. The Godfather movies have more than one interesting character and a much more memorable set of stories.
Oh, and Miller's Crossing is the gangster flick to see after you watch the first two Godfather movies.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2012, 10:37:37 AM
Oh, and Miller's Crossing is the gangster flick to see after you watch the first two Godfather movies.
:contract:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2012, 07:26:54 AM
There are dozens of better war movies than Apocalypse Now.
It's probably still my favorite, after all these years. It's more than just a war movie, though.
QuoteThe Godfather is *the* mob movie to see if you only see one(though I personally enjoy Pulp Fiction more).
Both are excellent, but The Godfather is the gold standard IMO. Strictly in terms of mob movies, I'd put Reservoir Dogs ahead of Pulp Fiction (which is arguably a better overall movie, just less of a mob movie IMO).
The Godfather is the gold standard, as derfoetus states. It probably has more references in popular culture than any other film short of the Wizard of Oz, Casablanca or Gone With The Wind.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2012, 10:37:37 AM
Oh, and Miller's Crossing is the gangster flick to see after you watch the first two Godfather movies.
Miller's Crossing's great. But then I'm a Coen Bros. fan.
ET: Apocalypse Now or Apocalypse Now Redux? There aren't a whole lot that I've seen that are better than the latter.
I haven't seen Redux.
I have no desire to see Redux.
IIRC the only thing different about redux is that the crew of the SS Minnow runs into the sexy dancer ladies on another stretch of the river where they've been recruited as hoors.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2012, 07:01:55 PM
IIRC the only thing different about redux is that the crew of the SS Minnow runs into the sexy dancer ladies on another stretch of the river where they've been recruited as hoors.
There are a lot more differences than that. It's 49 minutes longer. It's not just 49 minutes of additional rape.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 20, 2012, 07:06:34 PM
There are a lot more differences than that. It's 49 minutes longer. It's not just 49 minutes of additional rape.
Consensual sex. :contract:
I dunno man, they spend a lot of time with the sexy dancer ladies.
There's also alot more screen time for the French colonial crazies.
Quote from: citizen k on January 20, 2012, 07:12:07 PM
There's also alot more screen time for the French colonial crazies.
Yeah, that's where I think most of that 49 minutes goes.