Post by Heineken Skywalker on May 27, 2005 10:58:09 GMT -5
Whew! There's a lot to cover here. Please bare with me.
I was 10 when STAR WARS (A NEW HOPE, if you will) was released in '77. Kids around my age were the target audience Lucas had in mind. We went back to see the movie over and over again, we bought the comic books, trading cards and especially the action figures. (DON'T call them dolls!!) When I say "First Generation" fans, I'm talking about the adults and kids, at least 6 years old, who saw it in a theater in '77. The kids who in '77, were old enough to understand exactly what it was they were seeing without having to have it explained to them by a parent. If you saw it for the first time in '81 at the age of four, I wouldn't consider that "exactly" First Generation. Close, but not quite. You're more of a First Generation RETURN OF THE JEDI fan. You would've been about 6 when that one was released in '83. For comparison, the original PLANET OF THE APES was released in '68 when I was about two. I first saw it about '73 or '74 on tv when I was about 5 or 6. Though I love it and can say I grew up with it, I wouldn't call myself a First Generation fan. I hope that clarifies what I mean. I'm not trying to get into a "Who are the real or biggest fans?" debate. Besides, you'd ALL lose.
And what the heck were you doing watching the R-rated TERMINATOR at the age of 7 or 8??
Bart, you should known by now to lower your expectations when seeing ANY movie. Expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed. Does that make me a "The glass is always half empty" kind of guy? I can live with that.
Smitty brings up a lot of good points. Some I agree with: The effects in the O.T. were groundbreaking. The last major sci-fi/fantasy movie before STAR WARS was LOGAN'S RUN a year before. The f/x in these two movies look almost a decade apart. The effects in the prequels, while very good, are kind of the standard now. They're really good, but very few movies nowadays have weak effects.
Some I don't agree with: There definitely was some questionable dialogue and acting in the O.T. and Lucas has never been an actor's director. Harrison Ford is often quoted as having said to Lucas, "George, you can type this shit, but you sure can't say it." And most of the cast has gone on record that Lucas' favorite direction to the actors was, "Faster, more intense." It's well known that Lucas' favorite part of filmmaking is editing. That's where he feels the movie really comes together. EMPIRE probably had the best dialogue of all of them and we all know Lucas didn't write that one.
It's no secret around here that I'm a huge STAR WARS fan. I love to talk about the films, I have a huge collection of memorabilia that I started back in '77, I've seen the various movies numerous times, etc. The difference between me and a lot of other hardcore fans is that while I love the movies (to varying degrees), I have no problem admitting that the originals aren't perfect, Episode IV comes the closest IMO because it was the first and fastest paced, and the prequels aren't nearly as bad as some people would have you believe.
Forget that they're SW movies and just compare them to the numerous other summer movies that are released every year. Somehow, the SW movies have been elevated to something more than just movies and because of that they seem to be scrutinized, critiqued and generally ripped apart, far more than just about anything else that you can find in a theater. While I didn't love PHANTOM MENACE, and it's my least favorite SW movie, I was shocked by some of the reviews. Sure Jar Jar could've been toned down, yes Jake Lloyd's acting was questionable, especially in the more dramatic scenes, and yes the politically driven plot tends to bog the movie down. But let's give a little credit to Lucas for trying something different story-wise, plus the fact that the story had to be what it was in order to give birth to the Empire and the rebels. It had to be grand and epic. Small reasons wouldn't have been enough and people would've ripped on it for that too. Plus, he really did tie it all up pretty neatly in Episode III.
A Han Solo type character, and I've seen this mentioned several times before, really would've helped. Someone the audience could relate to a little better. Most people are not going to relate to the very formal way that Jedi, senators and queens speak in these movies. Obi-Wan (McGregor), especially in Episodes II & III, has a few glimpses of this, but because he's a Jedi he's held back. I love the scene in CLONES where Anakin tells Obi-Wan that he and Padme are there to rescue him as they are being chained to pillars in the arena and Kenobi sarcastically says, "Good job." There are a couple of moments with Kenobi in Episode III like that and even more of them throughout the series would've been welcome.
The villains. In the O.T. you had a really strong villain in Vader. Yes, he was basically an enforcer for Tarkin (Peter Cushing) in Episode IV. But in EMPIRE, he's the main dude, until you see him bowing before a hologram of the Emperor that is. Then in JEDI, after the Emperor arrives to oversee things, Vader seems mostly at odds with himself about what his role is and confusion over his son.
Even though the prequels have Palpatine as the main villain, until SITH he's mostly a guy pulling the strings and hiding in the shadows. Personally, I see no reason why Darth Maul couldn't have survived throughout the prequel trilogy to be the main villain until Vader replaces him in Episode III. Most fans liked the character. He was very cool looking, had tons of attitude and could wield a lightsaber like nobody's business. Have him kill Qui-Gonn and maybe lose a hand or an arm to Obi-Wan and fall down that shaft, but survive, ala Luke in EMPIRE. He comes back in Episode II with a prosthetic limb, replacing the Count Dooku character. He battles Obi-Wan and Anakin and the outcome is the same, only with a different character: Maul wounds Obi-Wan, cuts off Anakin's hand, then escapes after battling Yoda. Then in Episode III, Maul gets killed by Anakin, who replaces him as Palpatine's apprentice. That would've been cool, right?
Anyway, critics and some of the so-called "fans" really should lighten up and put things in perspective when criticizing the prequels. Were the prequels better than VAN HELSING? What about THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW? How did they compare to ALIEN VS. PREDATOR, THE MUMMY RETURNS, CHARLIE'S ANGELS or PEARL HARBOR? I'm just throwing those out there as some other summer movies in recent years of questionable quality.
Ah, nice to have this place to get a couple of things off my chest.
Should I have posted this in the "Off the Chest" section?
I was 10 when STAR WARS (A NEW HOPE, if you will) was released in '77. Kids around my age were the target audience Lucas had in mind. We went back to see the movie over and over again, we bought the comic books, trading cards and especially the action figures. (DON'T call them dolls!!) When I say "First Generation" fans, I'm talking about the adults and kids, at least 6 years old, who saw it in a theater in '77. The kids who in '77, were old enough to understand exactly what it was they were seeing without having to have it explained to them by a parent. If you saw it for the first time in '81 at the age of four, I wouldn't consider that "exactly" First Generation. Close, but not quite. You're more of a First Generation RETURN OF THE JEDI fan. You would've been about 6 when that one was released in '83. For comparison, the original PLANET OF THE APES was released in '68 when I was about two. I first saw it about '73 or '74 on tv when I was about 5 or 6. Though I love it and can say I grew up with it, I wouldn't call myself a First Generation fan. I hope that clarifies what I mean. I'm not trying to get into a "Who are the real or biggest fans?" debate. Besides, you'd ALL lose.
And what the heck were you doing watching the R-rated TERMINATOR at the age of 7 or 8??
Bart, you should known by now to lower your expectations when seeing ANY movie. Expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed. Does that make me a "The glass is always half empty" kind of guy? I can live with that.
Smitty brings up a lot of good points. Some I agree with: The effects in the O.T. were groundbreaking. The last major sci-fi/fantasy movie before STAR WARS was LOGAN'S RUN a year before. The f/x in these two movies look almost a decade apart. The effects in the prequels, while very good, are kind of the standard now. They're really good, but very few movies nowadays have weak effects.
Some I don't agree with: There definitely was some questionable dialogue and acting in the O.T. and Lucas has never been an actor's director. Harrison Ford is often quoted as having said to Lucas, "George, you can type this shit, but you sure can't say it." And most of the cast has gone on record that Lucas' favorite direction to the actors was, "Faster, more intense." It's well known that Lucas' favorite part of filmmaking is editing. That's where he feels the movie really comes together. EMPIRE probably had the best dialogue of all of them and we all know Lucas didn't write that one.
It's no secret around here that I'm a huge STAR WARS fan. I love to talk about the films, I have a huge collection of memorabilia that I started back in '77, I've seen the various movies numerous times, etc. The difference between me and a lot of other hardcore fans is that while I love the movies (to varying degrees), I have no problem admitting that the originals aren't perfect, Episode IV comes the closest IMO because it was the first and fastest paced, and the prequels aren't nearly as bad as some people would have you believe.
Forget that they're SW movies and just compare them to the numerous other summer movies that are released every year. Somehow, the SW movies have been elevated to something more than just movies and because of that they seem to be scrutinized, critiqued and generally ripped apart, far more than just about anything else that you can find in a theater. While I didn't love PHANTOM MENACE, and it's my least favorite SW movie, I was shocked by some of the reviews. Sure Jar Jar could've been toned down, yes Jake Lloyd's acting was questionable, especially in the more dramatic scenes, and yes the politically driven plot tends to bog the movie down. But let's give a little credit to Lucas for trying something different story-wise, plus the fact that the story had to be what it was in order to give birth to the Empire and the rebels. It had to be grand and epic. Small reasons wouldn't have been enough and people would've ripped on it for that too. Plus, he really did tie it all up pretty neatly in Episode III.
A Han Solo type character, and I've seen this mentioned several times before, really would've helped. Someone the audience could relate to a little better. Most people are not going to relate to the very formal way that Jedi, senators and queens speak in these movies. Obi-Wan (McGregor), especially in Episodes II & III, has a few glimpses of this, but because he's a Jedi he's held back. I love the scene in CLONES where Anakin tells Obi-Wan that he and Padme are there to rescue him as they are being chained to pillars in the arena and Kenobi sarcastically says, "Good job." There are a couple of moments with Kenobi in Episode III like that and even more of them throughout the series would've been welcome.
The villains. In the O.T. you had a really strong villain in Vader. Yes, he was basically an enforcer for Tarkin (Peter Cushing) in Episode IV. But in EMPIRE, he's the main dude, until you see him bowing before a hologram of the Emperor that is. Then in JEDI, after the Emperor arrives to oversee things, Vader seems mostly at odds with himself about what his role is and confusion over his son.
Even though the prequels have Palpatine as the main villain, until SITH he's mostly a guy pulling the strings and hiding in the shadows. Personally, I see no reason why Darth Maul couldn't have survived throughout the prequel trilogy to be the main villain until Vader replaces him in Episode III. Most fans liked the character. He was very cool looking, had tons of attitude and could wield a lightsaber like nobody's business. Have him kill Qui-Gonn and maybe lose a hand or an arm to Obi-Wan and fall down that shaft, but survive, ala Luke in EMPIRE. He comes back in Episode II with a prosthetic limb, replacing the Count Dooku character. He battles Obi-Wan and Anakin and the outcome is the same, only with a different character: Maul wounds Obi-Wan, cuts off Anakin's hand, then escapes after battling Yoda. Then in Episode III, Maul gets killed by Anakin, who replaces him as Palpatine's apprentice. That would've been cool, right?
Anyway, critics and some of the so-called "fans" really should lighten up and put things in perspective when criticizing the prequels. Were the prequels better than VAN HELSING? What about THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW? How did they compare to ALIEN VS. PREDATOR, THE MUMMY RETURNS, CHARLIE'S ANGELS or PEARL HARBOR? I'm just throwing those out there as some other summer movies in recent years of questionable quality.
Ah, nice to have this place to get a couple of things off my chest.
Should I have posted this in the "Off the Chest" section?
I kid, I kid...
And I DO remember Hammill being on the Muppet Show. I was watching "When Star Wars Ruled the World" on VH1 today. Pretty funny stuff. 
Yoda is cool & all, but I dont' know if his story would be on the top of my list. There are others I would be more interested in. But like any good SW geek it does spark my curiousity. 