Star Wars: For All Your PT, OT, ST, & AT-AT/ST Needs

[DaveSumm]

Figured we could use another separate thread to keep the Mandalorian one about the show.

Please continue the discussion about the great and wonderful franchise we all love, of which two thirds of the main films are terrible.

[TheLastWolf]

May the Force be with thread 

[DaveSumm]

Quote

There is nothing redeeming about the TFA for rewatching. What you describe with it being dumb fun is how I'd describe rewatching the prequels.

@Jaxom 1974

I always defend The Force Awakens, just because of the situation they had in 2015. Lucas made three truly bad films. What they needed wasn’t anything experimental, or ballsy, or earth shattering, what they needed was a safe film. JJ Abrams was the classic, go-to safe pair of hands to just give you a slam dunk box office hit. And that’s what he did. He leant on nostalgia massively, but it does bug me when people point this out as if nobody could have possibly detected the similarities without then speaking up; it’s exactly as nostalgic and derivative as it was intended to be, it’s not like JJ said “oh shit, it DOES look like the Death Star! Whoops!”.

It’s a very non-committal film, it just tees up a load of potential somethings for someone else to deal with. It’s exactly what he did with Lost. But if they’d sat down and made a clear plan after that, and they’d landed the rest of the trilogy, I don’t think it would stand out as particularly bad. Just a bit vanilla.

[Rippounet]

The only thing these threads are doing for me is convincing me that everything StarWars is really different degrees of bad.

I mean, even the OT had cannibal Vietcong teddy bears and a half-romance between brother and sister (for the cringy parts).
The heart of the matter is that it never really got much better than that. Fans do have their favorite parts (some like the story, some like the fights, a few like the comedy, almost everyone loves the music, almost everyone agrees Lucas can't really write dialogues or direct actors... ), but none of these works gets even close to a 10/10.

So yeah, when someone hates on any particular movie, whether it be PT, ST, or even OT... They're probably correct. But perhaps we can keep the hate to the hate threads.

[Werthead]

I think we probably need to reorganise the threads a little as they are lacking focus. A general Star Wars thread for all discussion, including Mandalorian stuff for spoilerphobes, and a specific Mandalorian spoiler thread for up-to-date discussion seems logical.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

@Jaxom 1974

I always defend The Force Awakens, just because of the situation they had in 2015. Lucas made three truly bad films. What they needed wasn’t anything experimental, or ballsy, or earth shattering, what they needed was a safe film. JJ Abrams was the classic, go-to safe pair of hands to just give you a slam dunk box office hit. And that’s what he did. He leant on nostalgia massively, but it does bug me when people point this out as if nobody could have possibly detected the similarities without then speaking up; it’s exactly as nostalgic and derivative as it was intended to be, it’s not like JJ said “oh shit, it DOES look like the Death Star! Whoops!”.

It’s a very non-committal film, it just tees up a load of potential somethings for someone else to deal with. It’s exactly what he did with Lost. But if they’d sat down and made a clear plan after that, and they’d landed the rest of the trilogy, I don’t think it would stand out as particularly bad. Just a bit vanilla.

TFA has a lot going for it. Sure, it's derivative but it could have been a good jumping-off point *if* they actually took the time to plan their trilogy and decide what story they were telling. I could be wrong but everything I've seen tells me they didn't.

I disagree that the prequels are "Truly bad films". Flawed, yes.

As I said before, I think Marcia Lucas should have been involved.  Not only did she edit the OT (winning an oscar for ANH), but she was someone Lucas trusted and could use as a sounding board for stuff she thought worked or didn't. Unfortunately, they divorced after ROJ.

25 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The only thing these threads are doing for me is convincing me that everything StarWars is really different degrees of bad.

I mean, even the OT had cannibal Vietcong teddy bears and a half-romance between brother and sister (for the cringy parts).
The heart of the matter is that it never really got much better than that. Fans do have their favorite parts (some like the story, some like the fights, a few like the comedy, almost everyone loves the music, almost everyone agrees Lucas can't really write dialogues or direct actors... ), but none of these works gets even close to a 10/10.

So yeah, when someone hates on any particular movie, whether it be PT, ST, or even OT... They're probably correct. But perhaps we can keep the hate to the hate threads.

A New Hope and Empire are great. The Clone Wars cartoon was fantastic.  The final 4 episode arc of the final season was beautiful. I'm less familiar with Rebels but I understand it was much loved.

"Cannibal Vietcong Teddy bears"? ROJ just went up a notch in my book.

Though this concept is particularly hated by directors of Lucas' generation, but I think where he excels would be in the role of Creative Producer. Story, world building, etc.

[Heartofice]

29 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

A New Hope and Empire are great. The Clone Wars cartoon was fantastic.  The final 4 episode arc of the final season was beautiful. I'm less familiar with Rebels but I understand it was much loved.

"Cannibal Vietcong Teddy bears"? ROJ just went up a notch in my book.

Though this concept is particularly hated by directors of Lucas' generation, but I think where he excels would be in the role of Creative Producer. Story, world building, etc.

This. I think Empire is borderline perfect and New Hope is basically game changing as a movie. Even RotJ has some brilliant moments (and I don't even dislike the ewoks anymore, it's real issue is the repeat of the death star storyline and lack anything for anyone to do) 

Honestly though, I do think the prequels could fairly be described as truly bad movies, I don't see that they have any real redeeming features, certainly not enough to drag them out of the mud.

[Derfel Cadarn]

26 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

This. I think Empire is borderline perfect and New Hope is basically game changing as a movie. Even RotJ has some brilliant moments (and I don't even dislike the ewoks anymore, it's real issue is the repeat of the death star storyline and lack anything for anyone to do) 

Honestly though, I do think the prequels could fairly be described as truly bad movies, I don't see that they have any real redeeming features, certainly not enough to drag them out of the mud.

Empire has a lot of issues which I’ll point out when on my laptop (too footery on phone)

[DaveSumm]

@Werthead

Quote

It's unfortunate that Star Wars is impervious to remakes, because remaking the prequel trilogy with much better scripts and directors but the same underlying premise isn't a bad idea (whilst the sequel trilogy can be mostly ignored moving forwards).

(Sorry for the cross thread quoting, just trying to segregate these conversations ... I agree a spoiler Mando thread and a general thread is a good idea)

Get Filoni and Favreau to make an animated version of the PT, which lines up with Clone Wars. Now that would be awesome. But yea, won’t happen. Actually I’d happily swap trilogies, have Lucas make 7, 8 and 9 back in the 90’s/00’s and Disney/JJ make the prequels now. I think the basic ethos of the sequels but with the baked in direction that the prequels had would’ve worked well.

[TrueMetis]

I can't dislike TFA for being to much like ANH when IMO the thing that could have taken TLJ from good to great movie was to be more like the OT by more blatantly stealing character arcs from the OT.

If I could remake one Star Wars film it would be the TLJ. If I could remake one of the trilogies it would be the PT. If I could excise one movie it would be TROS since that's the only time I've ever watch a Star Wars thing and been like "nope no potential there."

[Vaughn]

Honestly not trolling here, but (and I loved it as a kid, still enjoy it, etc...) is a New Hope really game changing? The revolution was in the massive commercial tie-in to toys, etc... As a work of cinema though? It all condenses from the view 30 years later but I put in a class with 2001, Blade Runner (which was a RotJ peer) and there was already so much sci-fi cinema in the late 60s-70s of varying quality so it's not like it launched a genre.

[Vaughn]

If I could get one free Star Wars movie, I'd go for Sabine and Ahsoka search for (and find) Ezra. Exploration, mystery, new worlds and creature - it could have it all. No interest in any more navel-gazing Skywalker content although I would enjoy another Solo movie

[felice]

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

I can't dislike TFA for being to much like ANH when IMO the thing that could have taken TLJ from good to great movie was to be more like the OT by more blatantly stealing character arcs from the OT.

Surely there are other ways a followup to TFA could have been great, though? Being more like ESB might be an easy way to improve a film, but what's the point? The originals are great as they are, they don't need to be remade.

1 minute ago, Vaughn said:

Honestly not trolling here, but (and I loved it as a kid, still enjoy it, etc...) is a New Hope really game changing? The revolution was in the massive commercial tie-in to toys, etc... As a work of cinema though? It all condenses from the view 30 years later but I put in a class with 2001, Blade Runner (which was a RotJ peer) and there was already so much sci-fi cinema in the late 60s-70s of varying quality so it's not like it launched a genre.

It didn't launch the genre, but it did transform it. Blade Runner is half a decade after A New Hope; very much post change of game. 2001 was a decade earlier, and an extremely significant movie in its own right, but it's slow-paced cerebral SF, not an exciting family adventure film.

[Vaughn]

Did it transform the genre though? I think Alien/Aliens, Terminator, Blade Runner were at least as transformative to the genre and while they came afterwards, .none of those movies owe much at all to A New Hope. Off the top of my head, the two big news things were 1) the toy tie-in wild commercialization and 2) the idea that the movie was part of a story arc but that wasn't clear when ANH came out, although the Chris Reeve Superman movies were doing that already.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

3 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

There is just this assumption I get sometimes that well of COURSE everyone hates the sequels! In these threads and well, I can only speak for myself but that’s not true. Well, I liked 4 of 5 of the Disney films. Rise can fuck right off to fuck town and get fucked, but that’s a longer rant then I want to type on my phone.

Also I’ve rewatched 7,8 and R1 beyond counting at this point and I think they all hold up fine. Solo I’ve only seen a few times. 

Solo is underrated. Much better than some recent films that grossed a hell of a lot more money.

Rogue One was cathartic for me at the time. Q4 of 2016 was like being welded into a centrifuge full of boiling shit and being fired into the sun. "Hope" fucking wrecked me.

It doesn't have a high rewatch quotient but it's still pretty solid. 

I'll give TLJ some props; It might just have the best cinematography of any SW film and Mark Hamill gives the performance of his career, even if I don't quite recognize the guy he's playing.

1 hour ago, Vaughn said:

Honestly not trolling here, but (and I loved it as a kid, still enjoy it, etc...) is a New Hope really game changing? The revolution was in the massive commercial tie-in to toys, etc... As a work of cinema though? It all condenses from the view 30 years later but I put in a class with 2001, Blade Runner (which was a RotJ peer) and there was already so much sci-fi cinema in the late 60s-70s of varying quality so it's not like it launched a genre.

Take a look at the number of directors that cite A New Hope as an inspiration. 2001 was groundbreaking, but it didn't really blaze a trail for anything to come after. Blade Runner (or Alien for that matter) likely would not have happened if it wasn't for Star Wars. For good or ill, SW changed the landscape. And yes, it revolutionized merchandising.

The examples you cite (2001, Blade Runner) were both critical and commercial failures on their initial theatrical release. 2001 didn't turn a profit until it was re-released in 1971 and Blade Runner only found a audience after a decade on home video.  If an RT style aggregator existed at the time of their release, it's doubtful either of these films would have cracked 50%.

Oh, and RT is the devil.

[TrueMetis]

3 hours ago, felice said:

Surely there are other ways a followup to TFA could have been great, though? Being more like ESB might be an easy way to improve a film, but what's the point? The originals are great as they are, they don't need to be remade.

Possibly but I'm not creative enough to come up with an entirely new movie whole cloth. Though when I say more like the OT, I mean purely arcs, not story beats IE Finn having an arc like Han Solo's where he goes from (in Finn's cause justifiably) looking out for himself to being a committed member of the Resistance. The way he would otherwise get there would be entirely different. Focusing more on the whole "renegade Stormtrooper" part instead of "let's screw around on the casino planet."

3 hours ago, Vaughn said:

Did it transform the genre though? I think Alien/Aliens, Terminator, Blade Runner were at least as transformative to the genre and while they came afterwards, .none of those movies owe much at all to A New Hope. Off the top of my head, the two big news things were 1) the toy tie-in wild commercialization and 2) the idea that the movie was part of a story arc but that wasn't clear when ANH came out, although the Chris Reeve Superman movies were doing that already.

I'm not old enough to have experienced it, but according to people better versed in the subject than I am, Star Wars was in large part the reason movies like Alien/Aliens, Terminator, or Blade Runner could exist. Since it proved big budget sci-fi could be a thing. See Logan's Run pre Stars Wars, to Alien post Star Wars. It's a pretty big change.

[TheLastWolf]

I need a Wookie POV movie. Anyone else? 

[Werthead]

 

Quote

Take a look at the number of directors that cite A New Hope as an inspiration. 2001 was groundbreaking, but it didn't really blaze a trail for anything to come after. Blade Runner (or Alien for that matter) likely would not have happened if it wasn't for Star Wars. For good or ill, SW changed the landscape. And yes, it revolutionized merchandising.

2001 blazed a massive trail for films that followed (arguably alongside Planet of the Apes, which came out the same year). It made science fiction a more viable genre again and led to the SF explosion of the 1970s, including Silent Running, Dark Star, Logan's Run and, indeed, Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (which were in simultaneous development).

Alien started development in 1974, immediately after the writers completed work on Dark Star. They parked it when working on the aborted version of Dune and then reverted to working on Alien. Fox were more enthusiastic about the project after Star Wars blew up, but the film was well in development before then regardless. Fox were also aware that Alien, with little merchandising potential and not aimed at children, was a rather different kind of film.

Star Wars was hugely important, but it was the most visible and successful example of an already-in-progress movement towards massive, special-effects-driven blockbusters (which Spielberg was already pioneering). It's a bit like people talking about Neuromancer for cyberpunk or Lord of the Rings for epic fantasy: hugely important and visible successes, but not the be-all and end-all, or even the starting point, of the movement.

[Rhom]

11 hours ago, Vaughn said:

If I could get one free Star Wars movie, I'd go for Sabine and Ahsoka search for (and find) Ezra. Exploration, mystery, new worlds and creature - it could have it all. No interest in any more navel-gazing Skywalker content although I would enjoy another Solo movie

That was the real crime of TLJ in my book.  The decision to launch Solo in the May window right after the thud of TLJ robbed us of more Solo.  I really liked it and what they were setting up even if I didn't recognize the lead character as Han Solo.

[Heartofice]

In terms of groundbreaking, obviously it's merchandising and special effects where Star Wars gets a lot of credit.

I do suspect that it did have an effect on the type of audience studios would aim at. This is really just off the top of my head so I can't say if that is accurate, but in the 70s you had movies like Jaws, Godfather, even trash like Towering Inferno. Big movies, but aimed at adults. 

The big blockbusters in the 80's were definitely all family led movies. Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones. These were movies that parents and adults could go and see. You could also say they were a bit sillier in some ways. 70's movies were pretty serious. I think it all became a general trend for blockbusters till you got movies like Independence Day.