Really disliking the prequels...
Sandman
I mean, was I just very forgiving at its release because it was Star
Wars or have I become more demanding? It's not like there was a
revelation, I just found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with pretty
much all the critique at the time (of all the prequel movies); poor
actors, poor acting, poor story, stupid effects, CGI overuse and all
that. That was all in there back than and I remember that ROTS was the
prequel episode I liked the most. Pffft.
Are we back in the pre-prequel days hoping for someone to make a Star
Wars prequel story while we all try to forget all three movies? Was
there nothing there?
Maybe I just dislike the entire Anakin story starting when he was
eight years old. Maybe it should have started with Attack of the
Clones - right into the action. But Anakin being played by an actual,
you know, actor. That can act.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Ewan McGregor, but he was stale in
all the prequel movies, and I don't know if I should blame George
Lucas or the overuse of CGI, or both.
But how can this be a problem? The original trilogy was shock-filled
with bad acting by non-actors at the time. Surely Star Wars isn't
known for it's supreme acting. So it's the story then? The character
development? Lucas did direct the original movie that started it all
and while its story is simple it's still very captivating and carries
the viewer along, thirty years later. Did he just loose the ability to
direct a movie? Or was it the entire merchandise circus? But I can't
believe that either, that circus was in full-blown mode by the Empire
Strikes Back, and the only backlash back then was those hideous Ewoks
in Return of the Jedi.
Maybe it's just the combination of the astounding work of Ralph
McQuarrie and the originality of the hero saga set in space that made
the original trilogy what it was. Maybe that's not something that can
be recreated by anyone? It most surely can't be done by throwing CGI
at it, so who could take on the job? Who could direct a Star Wars
prequel trilogy that feels true to the original while still bringing
that child-like excitement you get when the Millenium Falcon takes off
from Mos Eisley?
That sort of begs the question - what space sci fi movies HAVE been
good ever since Star Wars? Pitch Black? Too stylish. I sort of liked
the new Star Trek movie - but it was probably because it was so
similar in "tone" to a Star Wars movie. I'm note sure what movies of
this calibre that can be found out there.
I just want my Star Wars back!
--
Sandman[.net]
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
Your Name
<sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com> wrote in message
news:4c7417de$0$1643$742e...@news.sonic.net...
You can of course simply ignore the Prequel Trilogy, the TV shows, and / or
the novels ... nobody is forcing you to watch them - the Original Trilogy
(or even just the original movie) do easily work as a complete story in
themselves.
The up-coming Blu-ray release will be just the Special Edition+ versions of
the movies, but it remains to be seen whether you can buy them as individual
movies, two Trilogy box sets, and / or a Saga box set.
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: The up-coming Blu-ray release will be just the Special Edition+ versions of
: the movies,
That too is cause for consternation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/aug/19/star-wars-blu-ray-lucas
Duggy
> poor actors,
Beside the Anakins they were all pretty good actors.
> poor acting,
Yes. When good actors display poor acting you've got to point at the
director.
> That was all in there back than and I remember that ROTS was the
> prequel episode I liked the most. Pffft.
All of those things were worse in TPM and AoTC. RoTS can still be
crap but better than all those.
> Maybe I just dislike the entire Anakin story starting when he was
> eight years old. Maybe it should have started with Attack of the
> Clones - right into the action. But Anakin being played by an actual,
> you know, actor. That can act.
Agreed.
> Lucas did direct the original movie that started it all
> and while its story is simple it's still very captivating and carries
> the viewer along, thirty years later. Did he just loose the ability to
> direct a movie?
Before Star Wars he directed THX1138, American Grafiti... then he
didn't direct for 20 years. If you don't use it you'll lose it.
> Who could direct a Star Wars
> prequel trilogy that feels true to the original while still bringing
> that child-like excitement you get when the Millenium Falcon takes off
> from Mos Eisley?
Problem is, you get that excitement because you were a child. Second
time I saw TPM was with kids and they were full of child-like
excitement.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> You are not alone:www.originaltrilogy.com
>
> Join the forum!
No. You get those people to post here.
===
= DUG.
===
Your Name
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:45b80be4-21ff-4eee...@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
That's because they're kids movies ... always have been always will be. :-)
Sandman
"Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote:
> <sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com> wrote in message
> news:4c7417de$0$1643$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> > You are not alone:
> > www.originaltrilogy.com
> >
> > Join the forum!
>
> You can of course simply ignore the Prequel Trilogy, the TV shows, and / or
> the novels ... nobody is forcing you to watch them - the Original Trilogy
> (or even just the original movie) do easily work as a complete story in
> themselves.
No doubt. What bugs me the most is at the time of release, I rather
enjoyed the prequel movies. Sure, Jar Jar was a major pain in the ass,
but I wasn't annoyed this much at the basics of movie making as I find
myself now
> The up-coming Blu-ray release will be just the Special Edition+ versions of
> the movies, but it remains to be seen whether you can buy them as individual
> movies, two Trilogy box sets, and / or a Saga box set.
Nah, I will buy them all of course, and do a Star Wars marathon. I
just won't enjoy the first half as much any longer :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> > Problem is, you get that excitement because you were a child. Second
> > time I saw TPM was with kids and they were full of child-like
> > excitement.
> That's because they're kids movies ... always have been always will be. :-)
Thank you Mr So-Desperate-For-Attension-That-I-Need-To-Hit-Reply-
Restate-What-Was-Obviously-Implied.
===
= DUG.
===
Sandman
<45b80be4-21ff-4eee...@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > poor actors,
>
> Beside the Anakins they were all pretty good actors.
Well, I like Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor, but no one could blame
Natalie Portman to be a good actress, really. She's done ok in the
movies she's made, but that hasn't been due to her acting abilities.
Plus, Pernilla August was atrocious, Ian McDiarmid is just silly which
makes his appearance as Sidious also silly even though he does the
exact same thing as in RotJ.
> > poor acting,
>
> Yes. When good actors display poor acting you've got to point at the
> director.
No doubt.
> > That was all in there back than and I remember that ROTS was the
> > prequel episode I liked the most. Pffft.
>
> All of those things were worse in TPM and AoTC. RoTS can still be
> crap but better than all those.
Exactly! And if I feel so disappointed by RotS, what would happen if I
watched the other two today? Mind you, I watched them maybe 1 1/2
years ago, but that was with the kids so I'm guessing that that may
not have been the same thing.
> > Maybe I just dislike the entire Anakin story starting when he was
> > eight years old. Maybe it should have started with Attack of the
> > Clones - right into the action. But Anakin being played by an actual,
> > you know, actor. That can act.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Lucas did direct the original movie that started it all
> > and while its story is simple it's still very captivating and carries
> > the viewer along, thirty years later. Did he just loose the ability to
> > direct a movie?
>
> Before Star Wars he directed THX1138, American Grafiti... then he
> didn't direct for 20 years. If you don't use it you'll lose it.
Tell that to James Cameron. Ok, maybe not 20 years, but directing has
got to be deeper than remembering how to ride a skateboard.
> > Who could direct a Star Wars
> > prequel trilogy that feels true to the original while still bringing
> > that child-like excitement you get when the Millenium Falcon takes off
> > from Mos Eisley?
>
> Problem is, you get that excitement because you were a child. Second
> time I saw TPM was with kids and they were full of child-like
> excitement.
I was very specific to mention the taking off from Mos Eisley scene
which is in fact new in the special edition, at which time I wasn't a
kid. I meant that new material that connects with that child
experience so seamlessly so that it appears to be intended all along.
I remember seeing the blue exhaust of the Millenium Falcon as it rose
above the landing bay and took off and screaming inside "Yes! This is
fucking Star Wars!"
The opening scene in RotS does a pretty decent job of this as well.
Apart from the "buzz droids" the entire scope of the space battle and
the dizzying feeling of following two small fighters through the
mayhem of battle. It was a bit too short, but still very enjoyable.
Other scenes that made me scream out (inside my head) that this is
fucking star wars:
1. End battle with Darth Maul
2. Mace Windu igniting his light sabre on Geonosis
3. Jedi Battle at Geonosis
4. Yoda/Dooku show-off
5. Clone Trooper boarding end scene of Attack of the Clones
6. Opening scene of Revenge of the Sith
7- Closing scene of Revenge of the Sith
I was thinking whether the Obi-Wan/Anakin fight would make the list
but I think it won't. Also missing is the entire Obi-Wan/Jango Fett
scene, which was silly to me.
Do you have more scenes to add to the list or do you disagree with it
entirely? :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Your Name
:-p
You know what they say about "implied" ... it makes an imp out of me and
means you lied. ;-)
Duggy
> Well, I like Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor,
And they're good actors.
> but no one could blame
> Natalie Portman to be a good actress, really.
Huh?
> She's done ok in the
> movies she's made, but that hasn't been due to her acting abilities.
I'm thought she was a great actress in The Professsional. I'm not
sure what you were thinking about her in that film...
> Plus, Pernilla August was atrocious,
In this film, sure, which as I said was bad directing. But she didn't
get a best actress award at Cannes because she's an atrocious actress.
> Ian McDiarmid is just silly which
> makes his appearance as Sidious also silly even though he does the
> exact same thing as in RotJ.
Well, fair enough.
> > > poor acting,
> > Yes. When good actors display poor acting you've got to point at the
> > director.
> No doubt.
Terrence Stamp looking like he didn't know how to act.
Samuel L Jackson all ham.
Christopher Lee looking bored.
> > Before Star Wars he directed THX1138, American Grafiti... then he
> > didn't direct for 20 years. If you don't use it you'll lose it.
> Tell that to James Cameron. Ok, maybe not 20 years, but directing has
> got to be deeper than remembering how to ride a skateboard.
8 years isn't 22.
> I was very specific to mention the taking off from Mos Eisley scene
> which is in fact new in the special edition,
What are you talking about?
> Do you have more scenes to add to the list or do you disagree with it
> entirely? :)
I really like the scene where the last of the Jedi gather together to
ambush Vader and are wiped out by him and the clone troopers.
===
= DUG.
===
Your Name
On Aug 25, 4:50 pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>>
>> Plus, Pernilla August was atrocious,
>
> In this film, sure, which as I said was bad directing. But she
> didn't get a best actress award at Cannes because she's an
> atrocious actress.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that The Phantom Menace was the first
movie she had made in English.
Duggy
> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
Probably so. Shouldn't be an issue if she can speak English well,
otherwise she was a bad choice. The director is part of that choice.
===
= DUG.
===
Your Name
<203c41c4-c0b6-4cd5...@l38g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 6:55=A0am, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
> > "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:c185dc78-aaff-4912...@l38g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 25, 4:50 pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Plus, Pernilla August was atrocious,
> > >
> > > didn't get a best actress award at Cannes because she's an
> > > atrocious actress.
> >
> > I seem to remember reading somewhere that The Phantom Menace was the
> > first movie she had made in English.
>
> Probably so. Shouldn't be an issue if she can speak English well,
> otherwise she was a bad choice. The director is part of that choice.
I had a quick look through my Episode I behind-the-scenes books, but
couldn't find where I read that. I did find something that said she had
previously appeared in the Young Indiana Jones TV show though ... it
doesn't say whether she spoke English in that though.
Sandman
<c185dc78-aaff-4912...@l38g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
<snip>
> > > Before Star Wars he directed THX1138, American Grafiti... then he
> > > didn't direct for 20 years. If you don't use it you'll lose it.
> > Tell that to James Cameron. Ok, maybe not 20 years, but directing has
> > got to be deeper than remembering how to ride a skateboard.
>
> 8 years isn't 22.
So what amount of years is required for a director that has done one
of the most well received movie in the history of movies to forget how
to direct? I'm assuming the number is somewhere between 8 and 22 then.
Is it universal? Would it apply to Stanley Kubrik? Spielberg? Cameron?
> > I was very specific to mention the taking off from Mos Eisley scene
> > which is in fact new in the special edition,
>
> What are you talking about?
When the MF rises up from the docking bay in Mos Eisley. It was a new
scene in the special edition. In the originals, the storm troopers
shoot at it and then we see it shoot out veritcally from the cityscape
while two storm troopers look at it from outside the docking bays.
> > Do you have more scenes to add to the list or do you disagree with it
> > entirely? :)
>
> I really like the scene where the last of the Jedi gather together to
> ambush Vader and are wiped out by him and the clone troopers.
When did this happen?
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
> > > > Before Star Wars he directed THX1138, American Grafiti... then he
> > > > didn't direct for 20 years. If you don't use it you'll lose it.
> > > Tell that to James Cameron. Ok, maybe not 20 years, but directing has
> > > got to be deeper than remembering how to ride a skateboard.
> > 8 years isn't 22.
> So what amount of years is required for a director that has done one
> of the most well received movie in the history of movies to forget how
> to direct?
Well, 3 or 4 films (1 massive success) and 22 years is a lot different
to 10 films (5 massive successes) and 8 years. Especially when most
of those 8 years were working on the lastest film.
> I'm assuming the number is somewhere between 8 and 22 then.
Depends from person to person. Lucas wasn't a great director and 22
years was a long time.
> Is it universal? Would it apply to Stanley Kubrik?
4 Academy Award noms for direction, 12 years between his second last
film and his most crap one.
>Spielberg?
2 Oscars for directing, 3 other noms, 4 years max between directing.
> Cameron?
An Academy Award. 8 years working on a film.
> > > I was very specific to mention the taking off from Mos Eisley scene
> > > which is in fact new in the special edition,
> > What are you talking about?
> When the MF rises up from the docking bay in Mos Eisley. It was a new
> scene in the special edition. In the originals, the storm troopers
> shoot at it and then we see it shoot out veritcally from the cityscape
> while two storm troopers look at it from outside the docking bays.
Sounds more like new FX than a new scene.
> > > Do you have more scenes to add to the list or do you disagree with it
> > > entirely? :)
> > I really like the scene where the last of the Jedi gather together to
> > ambush Vader and are wiped out by him and the clone troopers.
> When did this happen?
Star Wars: Jedi Purge.
===
= DUG.
===
Sandman
<f8b4b05c-b6eb-4ff4...@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > I was very specific to mention the taking off from Mos Eisley scene
> > > > which is in fact new in the special edition,
> > > What are you talking about?
>
> > When the MF rises up from the docking bay in Mos Eisley. It was a new
> > scene in the special edition. In the originals, the storm troopers
> > shoot at it and then we see it shoot out veritcally from the cityscape
> > while two storm troopers look at it from outside the docking bays.
>
> Sounds more like new FX than a new scene.
I'm assuming you haven't seen the special edition then...
> > > > Do you have more scenes to add to the list or do you disagree with it
> > > > entirely? :)
> > > I really like the scene where the last of the Jedi gather together to
> > > ambush Vader and are wiped out by him and the clone troopers.
> > When did this happen?
>
> Star Wars: Jedi Purge.
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
> > Sounds more like new FX than a new scene.
> I'm assuming you haven't seen the special edition then...
Just in the cinemas and DVD.
===
= DUG.
===
Travoltron
Those of us that were critical of the PT (even polite, constructive
criticism), were treated very poorly here. I doubt people would want to
return.
Ironically I don't see those self-proclaimed "true Star Wars fans"
anymore that defended every flaw of the PT.
Your Name
"Travoltron" <travo...@defender.uni> wrote in message
news:i6g2hh$kq6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
There were no "flaws". Only a complete lack of intelligence and common sense
in many of those watching.
Duggy
> Ironically I don't see those self-proclaimed "true Star Wars fans"
> anymore that defended every flaw of the PT.
Because your on medication and the voices are gone?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> There were no "flaws". Only a complete lack of intelligence and common sense
> in many of those watching.
Everything has flaws.
===
= DUG.
===
Your Name
If that's true, then it means there is a flaw in that sentence, which mrans
we can ignore it. ;-)
Travoltron
Sure, why not.
C'Pi
Because you were much more entertaining with the voices.
Pork Coffee
That's because we're off enjoying the movies when we see them and not
obsessing over films we did not make based on a story that does not
belong to us a decade after the fact.
Crap, I just negated the entire purpose of the Internet, didn't I?
Duggy
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 07:08:51 -0700, Travoltron
>
And hanging around in comic shops.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> If that's true, then it means there is a flaw in that sentence, which mrans
> we can ignore it. ;-)
You can ignore anything you want.
That sentence certainly has flaws.
Something having flaws isn't a reason to ignore it.
A rhino that is charging you because it is break damaged has flaws. I
wouldn't ignore it.
The prequel trilogy has flaws doesn't mean I can ignore it.
The original trilogy has flaws doesn't mean I want to ignore it.
===
= DUG.
===
Travoltron
> Because you were much more entertaining with the voices.
Ah, there's one of the ones I remember.
Travoltron
> That's because we're off enjoying the movies when we see them and not
> obsessing over films we did not make based on a story that does not
> belong to us a decade after the fact.
Sure, whatever. If you were enjoying them and the current product so
much you'd be talking about it here, which you're not.
C'Pi
I'm actually quite shocked to find out you were lucid enough back then to
remember.
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: That's because we're off enjoying the movies when we see them and not
: obsessing over films we did not make based on a story that does not
: belong to us a decade after the fact.
Good for you. We don't have that luxury because Mr. Lucas won't release the
movies we'd like to see: the originals that won all those Academy awards.
You're right they don't belong to me. He has the right to supress them.
But unlike you, I am not "enjoying" that.
Your Name
<sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com> wrote in message
news:4c910c14$0$1619$742e...@news.sonic.net...
The "original Original" movies have been released on VHS and DVD, but I'm
not sure if they are on the most recent release or not and they are highly
unlikely to be on the Blu-ray release (it's already been stated in
announcements that they won't).
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: The "original Original" movies have been released on VHS and DVD,
Sort of... the one DVD release was not anamorphic. Thus, it does not
properly display on a widescreen TV. It is arguably the worst quality
DVD ever made of a major motion picture, and by any reasonable modern
standards doesn't qualify as a release, let alone a preservation.
Pork Coffee
Oh, I was, *ten years ago*. Google Darth Gumby some time.
I left when people like you made this place boring.
Pork Coffee
wrote:
My copies of the originals are in great condition, I enjoy them
frequently.
Duggy
> Good for you. We don't have that luxury because Mr. Lucas won't release the
> movies we'd like to see: the originals that won all those Academy awards.
What the hell are you talking about?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I left when people like you made this place boring.
It was you leaving that made the place boring.
===
= DUG.
===
Wonders how lame someone would have to be to have created a RASSM fan
group on Facebook.
===
Duggy
> My copies of the originals are in great condition, I enjoy them
> frequently.
I only purchased mine a month ago, but the person at the shop forgot
to unlock ESB so I haven't watched it yet.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: What the hell are you talking about?
Duggy
> In rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> : What the hell are you talking about?
>
> www.savestarwars.com
I purchased DVD original releases of the original trilogy a month ago.
There's no suppression.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: I purchased DVD original releases of the original trilogy a month ago.
Which DVDs were those? I can guarantee that they are either
very poor quality, or that they are not the original versions.
Duggy
Which version came before the 1977 theatrical release?
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: On Sep 16, 11:55?pm, sgor...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
: > Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
: > : I purchased DVD original releases of the original trilogy a month ago.
: > very poor quality, or that they are not the original versions.
: Which version came before the 1977 theatrical release?
I meant which version of DVD did you just get. The ONLY version of
the original theatrical release available on DVD is the "extra" on
the 2006 set, which is from a laserdisc master and not anamorphic, so it
won't even display properly on a widescreen TV. Hardly a preservation.
Pork Coffee
VHS tapes are much easier to get out of their cases.
>===
>= DUG.
>===
Pork Coffee
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 16, 10:52 am, Pork Coffee <"E...@Joes.com"> wrote:
>> I left when people like you made this place boring.
>
>It was you leaving that made the place boring.
Oh, I've been here, the sudden noise woke me up.
That and there was a survey on Facebook that asked if I'd ever trolled
with you.
>
>===
>= DUG.
>===
>Wonders how lame someone would have to be to have created a RASSM fan
>group on Facebook.
>===
eheheheheheh....
Duggy
> VHS tapes are much easier to get out of their cases.
I don't know... I can't even get them to fit into the DVD cases.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Oh, I've been here, the sudden noise woke me up.
Never awake a sleeping Pork Coffee.
> That and there was a survey on Facebook that asked if I'd ever trolled
> with you.
That there was.
> >Wonders how lame someone would have to be to have created a RASSM fan
> >group on Facebook.
> eheheheheheh....
Ooops.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I meant which version of DVD did you just get. The ONLY version of
> the original theatrical release available on DVD is the "extra" on
> the 2006 set, which is from a laserdisc master and not anamorphic, so it
> won't even display properly on a widescreen TV. Hardly a preservation.
So, wait, are you complaining that the original version is being
suppressed or not being preserved?
Because they are not the same thing at all.
Suppressing a film is deliberately stopping any copies of it reaching
the public. The DVD release - no matter the quality - is proof that
it is not being suppressed.
Preserving a film is something that is done by archivists and doesn't
require a release at all. I see no proof it isn't being preserved.
It does seem you don't know what you're talking about. You seem to be
using words outside you vocabulary without actually knowing what they
mean.
Keep up the good work.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: So, wait, are you complaining that the original version is being
: suppressed or not being preserved?
I believe that it has been preserved, and that the properly preserved
version is being suppressed. Actually, I HOPE that it has been preserved,
I have no proof of that. If it isn't being preserved, then that would be
even worse.
: Because they are not the same thing at all.
Of course. But if the only version that is released is only marginally
watchable, and that all good quality copies are not allowed to be shown,
then that also constitutes suppression, at least of the film as was
experienced in its theatrical form. And it IS true that he does not
allow the film to be shown in theaters (or television) in its original
theatrical form - that too is suppression (there was a recent showing
that was done without his approval - technically illegal). Unless you
think that projecting the 2006 DVD extra on the big screen would
constitute the original theatrical form!?
: Suppressing a film is deliberately stopping any copies of it reaching
: the public. The DVD release - no matter the quality - is proof that
: it is not being suppressed.
That is pure semantic gymnastics. When what is released is purposely
made unwatchable, then by any practical measure it is being suppressed,
presuming he has a decent quality version.
: Preserving a film is something that is done by archivists and doesn't
: require a release at all. I see no proof it isn't being preserved.
Interesting. So you don't consider George Lucas' own claims that the
original film elements were destroyed to make the special editions, and
that he doesn't have the resources to clean up the original theatrical
versions, to be evidence that they are not being preserved? If you don't,
then do you instead believe that those claims are lies (as I do)? If so,
then we are on the same page on this point.
For that matter, since you are so into semantics, of course you see no
"proof" that it isn't being preserved... as you have worded it, it is an
unprovable thing. But it's just a mental gyration; if he HAS preserved
them (as you seem to suggest he has), then it follows that he is
suppressing the preserved versions.
Your Name
<0f9e6bee-1a89-4bb2...@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 9:58=A0am, Pork Coffee <"E...@Joes.com"> wrote:
> >
> > VHS tapes are much easier to get out of their cases.
>
> I don't know... I can't even get them to fit into the DVD cases.
Try pulling out all the tape - that might fit inside a DVD case and you
can keep just one VHS case with the reels inside to wind the tape back
onto whenever you want to watch them. ;-)
The real problem with the VHS tapes is finding a new player to watch them
on. The greedy makers are still charging rather ridiculous amounts for VHS
players. Here in New Zealand you can buy a DVD player for about NZ$50, but
buying something to play a VHS tape will set you back at least NZ$250 for
a VHS / DVD player combo box (if you can actually find one in any physical
shop) or almost twice that for a VHS / DVD recorder combo box. :-(
Sandman
Travoltron <travo...@defender.uni> wrote:
> On 8/24/2010 3:47 PM, Duggy wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 5:05 am, sgor...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> >> You are not alone:www.originaltrilogy.com
> >>
> >> Join the forum!
> >
> > No. You get those people to post here.
>
> Those of us that were critical of the PT (even polite, constructive
> criticism), were treated very poorly here. I doubt people would want to
> return.
>
> Ironically I don't see those self-proclaimed "true Star Wars fans"
> anymore that defended every flaw of the PT.
I don't remember any such fans at all...
--
Sandman[.net]
Your Name
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-EA41A6.19...@News.Individual.NET...
It's more like the other way around: people who just wanted to whine and
simply wouldn't believe ANY answers they were given ... but then that's the
typical Internet use due to the average age of 13 year old (mental age if
not physical age). :-(
John Whelan
> I mean, was I just very forgiving at its release because it was Star
> Wars or have I become more demanding?
Both, I suppose. But they really were very poor movies.
> That was all in there back than and I remember that ROTS was the
> prequel episode I liked the most. Pffft.
Many fans are less embarrassed by ROTS because it had more violence
and "dark" themes, and less childish elements. But, in the final
analysis, it really was just as poor as the others. The sad truth is
that Jar Jar really was the best thing about the films, because little
kids really do enjoy his antics. Take him away, and there's nothing
left.
> Don't get me wrong, I really like Ewan McGregor, but he was stale in
> all the prequel movies, and I don't know if I should blame George
> Lucas or the overuse of CGI, or both.
Lucas, the director, is to blame. Neeson, McGregor, Portman, Jackson
et al. have all done better elsewhere.
> But how can this be a problem? The original trilogy was shock-filled
> with bad acting by non-actors at the time.
I guess it depends on how you define "bad acting". But I disagree.
The original actors did fine. Mark Hamill did fine.
> So it's the story then?
Yup.
> The character development?
Yup.
> Lucas did direct the original movie that started it all
> and while its story is simple it's still very captivating and carries
> the viewer along, thirty years later. Did he just loose the ability to
> direct a movie?
One theory: he became a control freak and lost the ability to let the
actors do their job. I am also convinced he had more help with the
original story than he has acknowledged.
> Or was it the entire merchandise circus? But I can't
> believe that either, that circus was in full-blown mode by the Empire
> Strikes Back, and the only backlash back then was those hideous Ewoks
> in Return of the Jedi.
RoTJ was already the beginning of the end, after he had gotten rid of
much of the original team that had helped him with the first 2 movies.
> Maybe it's just the combination of the astounding work of Ralph
> McQuarrie and the originality of the hero saga set in space that made
> the original trilogy what it was. Maybe that's not something that can
> be recreated by anyone?
Yes. There was a good creative team in place. Yes, it is hard to
recreate that.
> That sort of begs the question - what space sci fi movies HAVE been
> good ever since Star Wars?
> Pitch Black?
Meh. Better than its sequel, though.
> Too stylish. I sort of liked
> the new Star Trek movie - but it was probably because it was so
> similar in "tone" to a Star Wars movie.
I thought it was pretty bad.
Your Name
"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80e869b1-ecf9-4d46...@j19g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 24, 2:53 pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > I mean, was I just very forgiving at its release because it was Star
> > Wars or have I become more demanding?
>
> Both, I suppose. But they really were very poor movies.
The "problem" for most of the whiners is that they saw the Original Trilogy
when they were young / kids, but then saw the Prequel Trilogy when they were
(supposedly) "grown up" .. .and stupidly expected the movies to have "grown
up" as well.
In reality, the movies were ALWAYS aimed at kids (basically young teen
boys), and it would have been ill-fitting and iditoically stupid for the
Prequel Trilogy to suddenly shift to a "grown up" set of movies.
> > That was all in there back than and I remember that ROTS was the
> > prequel episode I liked the most. Pffft.
>
> Many fans are less embarrassed by ROTS because it had more violence
> and "dark" themes, and less childish elements. But, in the final
> analysis, it really was just as poor as the others. The sad truth is
> that Jar Jar really was the best thing about the films, because little
> kids really do enjoy his antics. Take him away, and there's nothing
> left.
Jar Jar's "antics" are little different to the antics of the droids and the
ewoks of the Original Trilogy. It's likely Jar Jar partly existed because
the droids were separated for most of the Prequel Trilogy (C-3PO barley
existed in Episode I, literally).
> > Don't get me wrong, I really like Ewan McGregor, but he was stale in
> > all the prequel movies, and I don't know if I should blame George
> > Lucas or the overuse of CGI, or both.
>
> Lucas, the director, is to blame. Neeson, McGregor, Portman, Jackson
> et al. have all done better elsewhere.
>
> > But how can this be a problem? The original trilogy was shock-filled
> > with bad acting by non-actors at the time.
>
> I guess it depends on how you define "bad acting". But I disagree.
> The original actors did fine. Mark Hamill did fine.
Some of the Original Trilogy actors complained that George Lucas was too
vague or to exact in telling them what he wanted them to do and how he
wanted them to act.
> > So it's the story then?
>
> Yup.
Little has changed there either. Sir Alec Guiness or Harrison Ford called
the original movie something like a load of mumbo jumbo and expected it to
be a flop.
> > The character development?
>
> Yup.
Same here.
> > Lucas did direct the original movie that started it all
> > and while its story is simple it's still very captivating and carries
> > the viewer along, thirty years later. Did he just loose the ability to
> > direct a movie?
>
> One theory: he became a control freak and lost the ability to let the
> actors do their job. I am also convinced he had more help with the
> original story than he has acknowledged.
Not likely since some actors complained he was too exacting in what he
wanted them to do.
> > Too stylish. I sort of liked the new Star Trek movie - but it was
> > probably because it was so similar in "tone" to a Star Wars movie.
>
> I thought it was pretty bad.
It was "so similar in "tone"" because JJ Abrams is a Star Wars fan (to some
degree) rather than a Star Trek fan ... he had no real idea what "StarTrek"
is and nor did he really care, which is why that movie is utter ill-fitting
garbage *as a "Star Trek" movie*.
Duggy
> The "problem" for most of the whiners is that they saw the Original Trilogy
> when they were young / kids, but then saw the Prequel Trilogy when they were
> (supposedly) "grown up" .. .and stupidly expected the movies to have "grown
> up" as well.
Well, duh.
If those fans didn't go the prequels would have lost money.
===
= DUG.
===
John Whelan
> The "problem" for most of the whiners is that they saw the Original Trilogy
> when they were young / kids, but then saw the Prequel Trilogy when they were
> (supposedly) "grown up" .. .and stupidly expected the movies to have "grown
> up" as well.
..."whiners" .... "supposedly grown up" ... "stupidly expected". Are
all these insults directed at me?
> In reality, the movies were ALWAYS aimed at kids (basically young teen
> boys), and it would have been ill-fitting and iditoically stupid for the
> Prequel Trilogy to suddenly shift to a "grown up" set of movies.
I hope you noticed, when you read my post, my opinion that the
prequels were best when they aimed themselves at children, and worst
when they tried to be adult. But regardless of who they were aimed
at, they were still in my opinion bad movies, and not as good as the
first two, nor even the third (which I thought was a bad film, even
when I first saw it).
> Jar Jar's "antics" are little different to the antics of the droids and the
> ewoks of the Original Trilogy.
I was not complaining about Jar Jar's antics. But I note one
difference: the first two films managed to integrate the droid's
antics into an otherwise memorable and entertaining story.
> Little has changed there either. Sir Alec Guiness or Harrison Ford called
> the original movie something like a load of mumbo jumbo and expected it to
> be a flop.
Perhaps they had some point, even then. But are you trying to prove
that ALL the films are utter crap, by ANY standard?? If not, then
what's your point?
Your Name
<9861ea19-9b2e-49f6...@t7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, John
Whelan <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > The "problem" for most of the whiners is that they saw the Original Trilogy
> > when they were young / kids, but then saw the Prequel Trilogy when they were
> > (supposedly) "grown up" .. .and stupidly expected the movies to have "grown
> > up" as well.
>
> ..."whiners" .... "supposedly grown up" ... "stupidly expected". Are
> all these insults directed at me?
>
>
> > In reality, the movies were ALWAYS aimed at kids (basically young teen
> > boys), and it would have been ill-fitting and iditoically stupid for the
> > Prequel Trilogy to suddenly shift to a "grown up" set of movies.
>
> I hope you noticed, when you read my post, my opinion that the
> prequels were best when they aimed themselves at children, and worst
> when they tried to be adult. But regardless of who they were aimed
> at, they were still in my opinion bad movies, and not as good as the
> first two, nor even the third (which I thought was a bad film, even
> when I first saw it).
The comments weren't aimed at you in particular. I was talking about the
fools who whined on and on when the Prequel movies were being released
because they couldn't comprehend that all the movies were always aimed at
kids, plus those who were too stupid to accept commonse sense answers to
questions they asked simply because it wasn't shown on screen in front of
their spoon-fed noses.
> > Little has changed there either. Sir Alec Guiness or Harrison Ford called
> > the original movie something like a load of mumbo jumbo and expected it to
> > be a flop.
>
> Perhaps they had some point, even then. But are you trying to prove
> that ALL the films are utter crap, by ANY standard?? If not, then
> what's your point?
The point is that the Original Trilogy and Prequel Trilogy aren't really
that much different ... most of the "problems" are simply caused by
people's change in perspective.
John Whelan
Your Name wrote:
> > > Little has changed there either. Sir Alec Guiness or Harrison Ford called
> > > the original movie something like a load of mumbo jumbo and expected it to
> > > be a flop.
> >
> > Perhaps they had some point, even then. But are you trying to prove
> > that ALL the films are utter crap, by ANY standard?? If not, then
> > what's your point?
>
> The point is that the Original Trilogy and Prequel Trilogy aren't really
> that much different ... most of the "problems" are simply caused by
> people's change in perspective.
Well then, you are saying something very different from what Alec
Guinness was saying. He never saw the prequel trilogy, and therefore
never made the comparison you are making now.
In any event, I have my own opinion. And if my opinions were caused
by my "perspective" changing, it must have changed at around the time
of RoTJ, over 20 years ago. Or perhaps the movies really are kinda
different, and I just don't like the last batch.
Your Name
> Your Name wrote:
> > > > Little has changed there either. Sir Alec Guiness or Harrison Ford
called
> > > > the original movie something like a load of mumbo jumbo and expected
it to
> > > > be a flop.
> > >
> > > Perhaps they had some point, even then. But are you trying to prove
> > > that ALL the films are utter crap, by ANY standard?? If not, then
> > > what's your point?
> >
> > The point is that the Original Trilogy and Prequel Trilogy aren't really
> > that much different ... most of the "problems" are simply caused by
> > people's change in perspective.
>
> Well then, you are saying something very different from what Alec
> Guinness was saying. He never saw the prequel trilogy, and therefore
> never made the comparison you are making now.
Oh dear, here we go again needing to "explain" everything 95 times. :-(
Someone (maybe you) said the acting, directing, etc. was bad in the
Prequels, well Alec Guiness and Harrison Ford (amoung others) said exactly
the same thing about th original movie(s).
> In any event, I have my own opinion. And if my opinions were caused
> by my "perspective" changing, it must have changed at around the time
> of RoTJ, over 20 years ago. Or perhaps the movies really are kinda
> different, and I just don't like the last batch.
Witht the obvious exception of CGI instead of models, very little has really
changed at all.
Duggy
> Someone (maybe you) said the acting, directing, etc. was bad in the
> Prequels, well Alec Guiness and Harrison Ford (amoung others) said exactly
> the same thing about th original movie(s).
There were a number of really bad actors in the minor roles in Star
Wars. Unknown actors, bit players and extras. People who never
appeared on screen again.
In the prequels, some damn good actors put in bad performances.
===
= DUG.
===
John Whelan
Your Name wrote:
> > Well then, you are saying something very different from what Alec
> > Guinness was saying. He never saw the prequel trilogy, and therefore
> > never made the comparison you are making now.
>
> Oh dear, here we go again needing to "explain" everything 95 times. :-(
Oh dear! Such obnoxious condescenscion.
> Someone (maybe you) said the acting, directing, etc. was bad in the
> Prequels,
Yes, I said that.
> well Alec Guiness and Harrison Ford (amoung others) said exactly
> the same thing about th original movie(s).
First, Alec Guinness never said that the acting or the directing were
bad in the original movie(s).
Second, I am allowed to disagree with Alec Guinness. And with
Harrison Ford
Third, even if Alec Guinness had a point, in his criticisms of the
original movies (and I am inclined to think he did have a point) he
never said that they were so bad that they could not possibly be
worse.
Finally, even if Alec Guinness did say that Star Wars was so bad that
it could not possibly be worse, do you agree with him? And if not why
are you quoting him?
Case in point. I thought Return of the Jedi was HORRIBLE. The
prequels were still worse. Indeed, I had no idea how much worse they
could get.
> Witht the obvious exception of CGI instead of models, very little has really
> changed at all.
I disagree.
C'Pi
> On Sep 21, 4:13 pm, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
>> Someone (maybe you) said the acting, directing, etc. was bad in the
>> Prequels, well Alec Guiness and Harrison Ford (amoung others) said
>> exactly the same thing about th original movie(s).
>
> There were a number of really bad actors in the minor roles in Star
> Wars. Unknown actors, bit players and extras. People who never
> appeared on screen again.
Yeah, like that guy who played the stormtrooper that hit his head on the
door.
What a loser.
C'Pi
Your Name
>
>
> Your Name wrote:
> > > Well then, you are saying something very different from what Alec
> > > Guinness was saying. He never saw the prequel trilogy, and therefore
> > > never made the comparison you are making now.
> >
> > Oh dear, here we go again needing to "explain" everything 95 times. :-(
>
> Oh dear! Such obnoxious condescenscion.
Whatever you blindy want to believe ... I'm done wasting my time going
around the same circle with yet another Internet dimbulb. You might want to
try reading comprehension classes. :-\
John Whelan
> Whatever you blindy want to believe ... I'm done wasting my time going
> around the same circle with yet another Internet dimbulb. You might want to
> try reading comprehension classes. :-\
I wish you had wasted less of it. Insults are all you have to offer.
Bye now.
Duggy
> Yeah, like that guy who played the stormtrooper that hit his head on the
> door.
When did that happen?
===
= DUG.
===
Your Name
<2cf46769-28a9-4834...@g6g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 3:05=A0am, "C'Pi" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, like that guy who played the stormtrooper that hit his head on the
> > door.
>
> When did that happen?
In the Episode VII movie. ;-)
C'Pi
No, seriously, you guys. It was in Episode IV on the Death Star. These
Stormtroopers come through a doorway and one of them hits his head on the
door. It's so funny. I noticed it the last time I watched the movie. I
can't be the only one that has seen it.
Your Name
"C'Pi" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i7c0sl$kjs$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
{audience shouting as one} "Oh no he doesn't". ;-)
Unfortunately that probably goes right over most people's heads because you
would need to know about English pantomime. :-(
Sandman
<9e871d3a-bf0f-4083...@x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
Yeah, that's a bit of my point. Alec Guiness was an awesome actor and
I have nothing to say about his performance in Star Wars. He did his
thing and his thing is good.
Ewan McGregor is also a fine actor but is horrendous in the PT for
reasons unknown - maybe due to George Lucas or to heavy use of green
screens. I have no idea.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"C'Pi" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Typical C'Pi, join the discussing and make up lies about things that
never happened just to defame a very good movie. Pfft.
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
> In article
> <2cf46769-28a9-4834-845b-7d415513e...@g6g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
>
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 3:05=A0am, "C'Pi" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Yeah, like that guy who played the stormtrooper that hit his head on the
> > > door.
> > When did that happen?
> In the Episode VII movie. ;-)
Series 7: The Contenders?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> No, seriously, you guys. It was in Episode IV on the Death Star. These
> Stormtroopers come through a doorway and one of them hits his head on the
> door. It's so funny. I noticed it the last time I watched the movie. I
> can't be the only one that has seen it.
I certainly haven't seen it. But then again I've only seen the
Anthropomorphic Original Virgin.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> "C'Pi" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Unfortunately that probably goes right over most people's heads because you
> would need to know about English pantomime. :-(
Oh, no, you don't.
===
= DUG.
===
I was a cynical little kid and never yelled that or "behind you"
===
Duggy
> In article
> <9e871d3a-bf0f-4083-994e-f07db57d4...@x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Exactly.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Typical Sandman, bringing a knife to a gun fight.
===
= DUG.
===
C'Pi
It's not a lie!! I can't believe I'm the only one that has ever seen it.
C'Pi
C'Pi
She sounds hot.
Your Name
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:c1bd45c9-6a67-431f...@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 4:23 pm, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
>> "C'Pi" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> {audience shouting as one} "Oh no he doesn't". ;-)
>>
>> Unfortunately that probably goes right over most people's heads because
you
>> would need to know about English pantomime. :-(
>
> Oh, no, you don't.
{audience shouting as one} "Oh yes you do." ;-)
Your Name
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:c1bd45c9-6a67-431f...@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> "C'Pi" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> {audience shouting as one} "Oh no he doesn't". ;-)
>>
>> Unfortunately that probably goes right over most people's heads because
you
>> would need to know about English pantomime. :-(
>
> Oh, no, you don't.
{audience shouting as one} "Oh yes you do." ;-)
Duggy
> It's not a lie!! I can't believe I'm the only one that has ever seen it.
It's OK, it's just that you have A Beautiful Mind.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 4:23 pm, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
> >> "C'Pi" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> {audience shouting as one} "Oh no he doesn't". ;-)
> >> Unfortunately that probably goes right over most people's heads because
> >> you would need to know about English pantomime. :-(
> > Oh, no, you don't.
> {audience shouting as one} "Oh yes you do." ;-)
Oh, no, you don't.
===
= DUG.
===
Your Name
<5f1a3399-2836-44b6...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 7:09=A0am, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
> > "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Sep 22, 4:23 pm, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> {audience shouting as one} "Oh no he doesn't". ;-)
> > >> Unfortunately that probably goes right over most people's
> > >> heads because you would need to know about English
> > >> pantomime. :-(
> > >
> > > Oh, no, you don't.
> >
> > {audience shouting as one} "Oh yes you do." =A0 ;-)
>
> Oh, no, you don't.
{audience shouting as one} "Oh yes you do!!" ;-)
Duggy
>
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 7:09=A0am, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
> > > "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 22, 4:23 pm, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> {audience shouting as one} "Oh no he doesn't". ;-)
> > > >> Unfortunately that probably goes right over most people's
> > > >> heads because you would need to know about English
> > > >> pantomime. :-(
>
> > > > Oh, no, you don't.
>
> > > {audience shouting as one} "Oh yes you do." =A0 ;-)
>
> > Oh, no, you don't.
>
> {audience shouting as one} "Oh yes you do!!" ;-)
Oh... no... you... don't!
===
= DUG.
===
C'Pi
A saw Russell Crowe hit his head on a door in that movie.
Your Name
{audience shouting as one} "He's behind you!!" ;-)
Duggy
What made him saw?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> {audience shouting as one} "He's behind you!!" ;-)
That's Julius Ceaser, not panto.
===
= DUG.
===
C'Pi
It's his grating personality.
Your Name
<Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But he's a cut above the rest. ;-)
In reality Russell Crowe is an obnoxious moron. :-\
Duggy
> In reality Russell Crowe is an obnoxious moron. :-\
I know some one who actually met him once who says otherwise... but
everything I've ever see in the press says he was obnoxious.
===
= DUG.
===
moso199
> I just watched Revenge of the Sith, and... I really didn't like it.
>
> I mean, was I just very forgiving at its release because it was Star
> Wars or have I become more demanding? It's not like there was a
> revelation, I just found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with pretty
> much all the critique at the time (of all the prequel movies); poor
> actors, poor acting, poor story, stupid effects, CGI overuse and all
> that. That was all in there back than and I remember that ROTS was the
> prequel episode I liked the most. Pffft.
>
> Are we back in the pre-prequel days hoping for someone to make a Star
> Wars prequel story while we all try to forget all three movies? Was
> there nothing there?
>
> Maybe I just dislike the entire Anakin story starting when he was
> eight years old. Maybe it should have started with Attack of the
> Clones - right into the action. But Anakin being played by an actual,
> you know, actor. That can act.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I really like Ewan McGregor, but he was stale in
> all the prequel movies, and I don't know if I should blame George
> Lucas or the overuse of CGI, or both.
>
> But how can this be a problem? The original trilogy was shock-filled
> with bad acting by non-actors at the time. Surely Star Wars isn't
> known for it's supreme acting. So it's the story then? The character
> development? Lucas did direct the original movie that started it all
> and while its story is simple it's still very captivating and carries
> the viewer along, thirty years later. Did he just loose the ability to
> direct a movie? Or was it the entire merchandise circus? But I can't
> believe that either, that circus was in full-blown mode by the Empire
> Strikes Back, and the only backlash back then was those hideous Ewoks
> in Return of the Jedi.
>
> Maybe it's just the combination of the astounding work of Ralph
> McQuarrie and the originality of the hero saga set in space that made
> the original trilogy what it was. Maybe that's not something that can
> be recreated by anyone? It most surely can't be done by throwing CGI
> at it, so who could take on the job? Who could direct a Star Wars
> prequel trilogy that feels true to the original while still bringing
> that child-like excitement you get when the Millenium Falcon takes off
> from Mos Eisley?
>
> That sort of begs the question - what space sci fi movies HAVE been
> good ever since Star Wars? Pitch Black? Too stylish. I sort of liked
> the new Star Trek movie - but it was probably because it was so
> similar in "tone" to a Star Wars movie. I'm note sure what movies of
> this calibre that can be found out there.
>
> I just want my Star Wars back!
George Lucas had enough Flash Gordon-style material for only one movie
- Star Wars, a low-budget sci-fi sendup. The writing was amateurish,
the acting was serviceable (esp veterans Alec Guinness and Peter
Cushing), but it had a basic tried-and-true story, slam-bang film and
sound editing, great music, imaginative special effects (e.g. the chess
game), and enough heart to keep viewers happy.
It was also helped by the times - the dark days of post-Watergate,
post-Vietnam, post-energy crisis, stagflation, etc., etc., etc. In
Star Wars, the good guys won for a change, end of story.
The Empire Strikes Back was a patchwork of discarded story elements
from Star Wars (asteroid field chase, city in the clouds), a further
look at the mysterious Force, and an adaptation of the climactic
lightsaber duel from Splinter of the Mind's Eye. It worked because
Irving Kirshner allowed a collaborative effort with his actors to
maximize what was there, and he understood the movie was supposed to be
lyrical and dark, but still fun, like when Vader kept bumping off his
incompetent admirals. For me, those two are the only good movies of
the series.
The story changed when Darth Vader became Luke's father, instead of his
father's killer; bye-bye Flash Gordon. For that matter, bye-bye
Princess Leia, who no longer figured into the new father-and-son story.
By Return of the Jedi, Lucas was tired of the whole thing and ended his
9-part series after 3. Luke's long-lost sister got conveniently
reduced into a non-factor, and with it, the Gone-with-the-Wind-style
romantic triangle. The Death Star was a rehash, so was the lightsaber
duel. The Wookie slave revolt got shrunk down to cute teddy bears ala
E.T. Bring in the Emperor so that he could die and end the war. BTW -
wasn't Luke supposed to defeat the Emperor, originally, rather than get
rescued from him?
After that, the rest of the story is an exercise in more-is-not-more.
Bigger Star Wars universe, with more special effects, toys, and budget.
And, it tried to take itself too seriously. Unfortunately, the lack
of story, writing, and serviceable acting and directing didn't improve
with the budget. I think it would have worked much better as a low
budget flick made for fun, like the original movie.
I'll get off my soapbox, now. Thanks.