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

[Rippounet]

17 hours ago, Veltigar said:

The prequels were a mistake to begin with. I can't fathom why people want to see events that are already heavily hinted on in the core story. They'll never be able to live up to one's own imagination of those events.

Fair enough.
Nonetheless, I enjoyed Lucas trying immensely.

I knew the movies would never be as deep as I wanted them to be. On the other hand I didnt expect them to be so amazing visually (btw I think they aged ok-ish considering they're all at least 15 years old).
It's true the political and spiritual angles were a bit botched, but in exchange there were some amazing visuals (combined with great music).
Every single scene with Maul was breathtaking for instance.
But to this day, I remember being glued to my seat when episode 3 started. Episode 1 had been mediocre as a whole, Episode 2 a mix of mawkishness and clumsiness (Yoda with a lightsaber? Please, no!). Both had some good sides in my eyes, but were definitely clunky (oh yeah, and the blatant anti-semitism didn't help... ).
Then episode 3 arrived, and bam!, as soon as the opening ended we were thrown in media res, in the middle of a space battle, with Obi-Wan and Anakin zigzagging between space vessels firing at each other.
Palpatine's speech and Padme's comment about the death of democracy sent shivers down my spine. I was working on my dissertation about W. Bush's abuses of power and the War on Terror at the time, and this echoed my work perfectly. I think I even included a footnote about the movie somewhere.
And the final duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin, leading to a transition to A New Hope, was, whatever people might say, objectively fantastic. IIRC it was the longest duel in movie history, and not at all boring. Meanwhile, the symbolism of the duel between Yoda and Sidious in the Senate was well done enough that I forgave Lucas for having Yoda stoop to fighting with a lightsaber.

In a nutshell, the prequels were extremely ambitious - though where Lucas truly screwed up is that maybe he lost a lot of time with the slow pace of episodes 1 and 2.

They were supposed to answer a key question within the StarWars mythos: what is evil, and how does one fall prey to it? We knew Anakin had started as a Jedi and then fallen to the Dark Side. But how exactly? To answer that meant to define evil. Lucas's answer, drawing his inspiration from Buddhism, was that evil comes from self-centerdness, selfishness.
Anakin's fall ended up being clumsy though or, as most people put it, "the execution was poor."
But then, it wasn't an easy story to tell. The Clone Wars would later fill in the gaps in a more satisfying way.

There was also the political angle. The prequels had to answer the question of how the fuck a Sith could take over the galatic Senate and become emperor.
And here, contrary to what many people might say, the way Lucas did it was actually rather good and convincing. It could have been better, but it certainly wasn't bad. The Jedi as a separate spiritual order working with the Senate/Republic, while one ambitious Senator was really pulling the strings of both sides... It wasn't too original I guess, but it was all right. And the dénouement was credible to say the least in 2005.
I'm kinda puzzled why anyone would mock the use of "trade disputes" on a board dedicated to A Song of Ice and Fire, a work of literature famous for its description of politics and its analysis of/take on the nature of political power. One would think that people who love ASoIaF would be particularly prone to understand what Lucas was trying to do.

Anyway, I loved Revenge of the Sith. Its "execution" wasn't as good as Empire Strikes Back, but then, Empire was far less ambitious. RotS was trying to conclude spiritual, political, and even sentimental (love, friendship) arcs in a satisfying way while also having to tie it all up to A New Hope.
At the other end of the spectrum, The Mandalorian is all form and no substance. It is great fun, and entertaining, but it pretty much takes zero risk (and yet, it still manages to fail at times).
I can enjoy both forms of entertainment: the brainy ambitious stuff (even if it's not perfect), or the "cool" pointless one (as long as suspension of disbelief can be maintained). StarWars is no doubt more suited to the second type (as evidenced by the success of simple stories like that of The Mandalorian or Rogue 1), but I'm not going to hate on the prequels for trying.
And for all of Lucas's faults, I don't think anyone could have done better. Few writers/directors even try to do such ambitious work (and most of those who do fail).

[Heartofice]

42 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And the final duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin, leading to a transition to A New Hope, was, whatever people might say, objectively fantastic. IIRC it was the longest duel in movie history, and not at all boring. Meanwhile, the symbolism of the duel between Yoda and Sidious in the Senate was well done enough that I forgave Lucas for having Yoda stoop to fighting with a lightsaber.

I mean, have to completely disagree here. That was the moment the entire trilogy was building up, it was the moment that stirred my imagination before the movies even came out. It was the one thing I'd been waiting to see. And it was anti climax in so many ways. Where Vader vs Luke in Empire and Jedi was a wonderful dance of emotions via the medium of lightsabre battles, RotS' big fight was a video game, it was no less a video game than any of the other fights in the trilogy. It was greenscreen figures jumping on plaforms in lava as if they were mario, poorly framed close ups and completely unbelievable choreography. What a let down. What a dismal ending to a dismal series. Oh and lets not the biggest meme worthy scene: 'NOOOOOOOOOO!!' when I remember my audience bursting into laughter'
 

Quote

Then episode 3 arrived, and bam!, as soon as the opening ended we were thrown in media res, in the middle of a space battle, with Obi-Wan and Anakin zigzagging between space vessels firing at each other.

Admittedly in the cinema I thought 'oh this is better! Much more what I was waiting for'. On rewatch it really is just as dull as everything else, it just feels like a zap zap video game in the same way. The banter in the opening few scenes is an improvement I will give it that.

Quote

They were supposed to answer a key question within the StarWars mythos: what is evil, and how does one fall prey to it? We knew Anakin had started as a Jedi and then fallen to the Dark Side. But how exactly? To answer that meant to define evil. Lucas's answer, drawing his inspiration from Buddhism, was that evil comes from self-centerdness, selfishness.

Does it really answer any of that? It does a pretty awful job of getting its message across because Anakin is such a poorly drawn and executed character. There a number of very interesting angles that could have been taken on Anakin and why he turned to the Dark Side, but actually in the movies his turn is almost overnight and has very little real build up. To get any sort of depth to who he is you need to go and watch all the Clone Wars cartoons, because it isn't there in the movies. The real message is that Anakin turned to the dark side because he's a little b***h who just moans all the time. Way to ruin such an icon George.

Quote

'm kinda puzzled why anyone would mock the use of "trade disputes" on a board dedicated to A Song of Ice and Fire, a work of literature famous for its description of politics and its analysis of/take on the nature of political power. One would think that people who love ASoIaF would be particularly prone to understand what Lucas was trying to do.

Not sure if this is reference to a comment I made earlier, but I wasn't mocking the use of trade disputes, I was mocking the sentiment that the movies are a deep and clever examination of politics because they have have 'trade disputes' in them. 

Quote

In a nutshell, the prequels were extremely ambitious - though where Lucas truly screwed up is that maybe he lost a lot of time with the slow pace of episodes 1 and 2.

Really I don't think you can just handwave all the problems and deficiencies of these movies away by citing 'ambition'. Tommy Wiseau was pretty ambitious when he made The Room.. doesn't mean it isn't a glorious mess. 

Yeah these are the sort of arguments I heard in defence of the prequels a decade or more ago, and I still don't see that they hold up to scrutiny at all. I'm sure someone who is more invested in the prequels could pull apart it's story and its stupidity, god knows I've seen enough videos on that in the past, but I've tried my best to forget these movies exist. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

 

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.

"Development" meaning O'Bannon and his typewriter.  There wouldn't be any production company or studio involved for years.  Before SW hit, O'Bannon & Shusset's vision for Alien was basically a Roger Corman film: A "B" movie made for a few hundred thousand dollars and directed by O'Bannon himself. The thing would play in drive-ins and midnight movies for a while and disappear. Star Wars changed that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(film)#Development (first paragraph)

As for 2001 paving the way for Logan's Run, Dark Star, & Silent Running; none of those films had anything close to the budget, cultural impact or the box office of 2001. That's a digression IMO, not a revolution. Outside of Sci-fi Fantasy circles, and maybe film critics/historians, Logans Run and Silent Running are pretty obscure and the normies have never even heard of Dark Star.

Star Wars was the crossover hit. And yes, Close Encounters' production was concurrent with Star Wars, but it hit theaters 6 months later. Its debatable how much Close Encounters' success is owed to Star Wars as opposed to 2001. I think its more of the former.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

There was also the political angle. The prequels had to answer the question of how the fuck a Sith could take over the galatic Senate and become emperor.
And here, contrary to what many people might say, the way Lucas did it was actually rather good and convincing. It could have been better, but it certainly wasn't bad. The Jedi as a separate spiritual order working with the Senate/Republic, while one ambitious Senator was really pulling the strings of both sides... It wasn't too original I guess, but it was all right. And the dénouement was credible to say the least in 2005.
I'm kinda puzzled why anyone would mock the use of "trade disputes" on a board dedicated to A Song of Ice and Fire, a work of literature famous for its description of politics and its analysis of/take on the nature of political power. One would think that people who love ASoIaF would be particularly prone to understand what Lucas was trying to do.
 

This was masterfully done IMO. I also thought the "trade disputes" criticism was really odd, and it was being made everywhere.  Even The Simpsons mocked it.

[TrueMetis]

11 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

This was masterfully done IMO. I also thought the "trade disputes" criticism was really odd, and it was being made everywhere.  Even The Simpsons mocked it.

Well people acted like the trade dispute thing was something the movie spent a huge amount of time on, rather than being a 30 sec literally part of the opening crawl "okay this is the excuse the bad guy is using" thing. Even the other stuff, the "government is corrupt and inefficient" parts which people act like was some huge focus, was just a couple of scenes without going into much detail and again was just to show what the bad guy was doing.

Ultimately "fascists can and will use the mechanisms of government against you to seize power" feels very much like a timeless message.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

5 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Well people acted like the trade dispute thing was something the movie spent a huge amount of time on, rather than being a 30 sec literally part of the opening crawl "okay this is the excuse the bad guy is using" thing. Even the other stuff, the "government is corrupt and inefficient" parts which people act like was some huge focus, was just a couple of scenes without going into much detail and again was just to show what the bad guy was doing.

Ultimately "fascists can and will use the mechanisms of government against you to seize power" feels very much like a timeless message.

...and timely given the Bush administration. Ah George, my sweet summer child.

World War 1 started because an insignificant Nobleman and his even less significant wife were assassinated by a nobody in a place no one ever heard of. The Russian Empire was ultimately brought down by bread riots. Big things can have small beginnings.

Am I wrong in thinking the conflict on Naboo coincides with the contracting of the cloners on Kamino to create the clone army? 

cHow could cpeople cmiss cthis?

[Vaughn]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

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.

This is an excellent summary.

There are countless directors who cite Star Wars as a huge influence but I find it interesting how few 'Star Wars' type movies are made now. I think dystopian sci-fi is the dominant strain now, which I think is more in the Alien/Terminator/Matrix lineage. The big exceptions are the space Marvel (GotG, Thor 3) movies but they claim source material that predates Star Wars I think? (not a comics book person)

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Vaughn said:

This is an excellent summary.

There are countless directors who cite Star Wars as a huge influence but I find it interesting how few 'Star Wars' type movies are made now. I think dystopian sci-fi is the dominant strain now, which I think is more in the Alien/Terminator/Matrix lineage. The big exceptions are the space Marvel (GotG, Thor 3) movies but they claim source material that predates Star Wars I think? (not a comics book person)

Well I mean there are no movies that aren't made from some pre existing source material these days anyway! (not to mention there are just no movies at all right now!). There is no appetite to make original movies.. well not enough appetite.

These things happen in trends. After Lord of the Rings came out all blockbusters featured some long winded CGI battle scene and after Harry Potter came out every young adult book got turned into a movie. 

Outside of Star Wars how many examples are there of successful sci fi space opera? Recently I can't think of very many. The two recent attemps that spring to mind are enormous flops like John Carter or Jupiter Rising (I still maintain that John Carter is pretty good). Who is going to risk making another one of those? 

 

[Vaughn]

23 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

 

Ultimately "fascists can and will use the mechanisms of government against you to seize power" feels very much like a timeless message.

Sure, but the movies were still turgid. 'The Winter Soldier' as a counterpoint also explored these themes while still being eminently re-watchable and entertaining. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

8 minutes ago, Vaughn said:

There are countless directors who cite Star Wars as a huge influence but I find it interesting how few 'Star Wars' type movies are made now. I think dystopian sci-fi is the dominant strain now, which I think is more in the Alien/Terminator/Matrix lineage. The big exceptions are the space Marvel (GotG, Thor 3) movies but they claim source material that predates Star Wars I think? (not a comics book person)

I'm not sure if it's necessarily a trend toward dystopian sci fi as much as it's Star Wars has staked out that territory. Anything that purposely set out to treat Star Wars as a formula never came close to replicating its impact.  Anything that was successful at the time or is held in any regard today did so in that it specifically didn't try to clone Star Wars.  Some of it was dystopian but you could also include the Back to the Future trilogy in this list.

Thor Ragnarok bears little resemblance to the Thor comics I was familiar with.  I don't remember Thor being a comedic character and Kate Blanchett's kinda sassy Hela bears no resemblance to the comic Hela (pretty grim and humorless).

If anything, the MCU Thor is more similar to the Marvel Comics' Hercules than Thor.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Oh and lets not the biggest meme worthy scene: 'NOOOOOOOOOO!!' when I remember my audience bursting into laughter'

Your audience must have been more cynical than mine.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Your audience must have been more cynical than mine.

Maybe younger members of the audience wouldn't understand what a hilarious cliche this scene already was at that point. It was a trope I think the Simpsons was poking fun at at least a decade earlier.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

44 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Maybe younger members of the audience wouldn't understand what a hilarious cliche this scene already was at that point. It was a trope I think the Simpsons was poking fun at at least a decade earlier.

I don't know. They seemed pretty sophisticated to me. And I know a few people who absolutely got the cliche and had no problem with it.

[Lord Varys]

Unless I'm mistaken, George Lucas is one of the most influential filmmakers of the late 20th century. Not because of what Star Wars is, but how it was made and what he did with his companies during/after the first SW movie.

Star Wars as such brought back classical music for soundtrack - which was out of date back then, and is now, I'd fathom, established practice for essentially any movie genre. Another lasting effect of ANH is the breakthrough for movie credits - Lucas forced it through, against heavy resistance at the time, to have the main credits at the end of the movie so he could have only his crawl at the beginning. Before ANH this kind of thing was not possible (in the US, at least).

But the companies he founded changed the art of fimmaking - you have to keep in mind that the guy founded what would eventually become Pixar. And not just on the special effects level but also digital sound and movie editing and, with the PT, digital cameras, etc. goes back to that guy. I mean, it is breathtaking how tedious and complicated movie editing was before there was any digital technology involved - no wonder guys had women do it for most of movie history. That is a shitty job.

Steven Spielberg may have directed Jurassic Park, but ILM made the effects, just as they made the first big CG effect for Star Trek II (the Genesis project animation) and ANH also includes some very early computer effects.

As a director Lucas isn't all that great, to put it mildly, and he may even be a worse screenwriter, but his impact on the movie industry cannot be overestimated. He would be in the same league as many other movie pioneers pushing established boundaries.

And Star Wars as such certainly paved the way for blockbuster SF/fantasy films which wasn't a thing in the 1950s to 1970s. And the technology pushed by him also opened the door for digital characters through which Peter Jackson went in in the early 2000s with Gollum (who, I think, is the character who really sealed the deal for that kind of thing). And that, I think, completely established fantasy/SF as the most important/profitable movie genre which it is today ... as one can see with the Marvel/DC movies, etc.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Unless I'm mistaken, George Lucas is one of the most influential filmmakers of the late 20th century. Not because of what Star Wars is, but how it was made and what he did with his companies during/after the first SW movie.

Star Wars as such brought back classical music for soundtrack - which was out of date back then, and is now, I'd fathom, established practice for essentially any movie genre. Another lasting effect of ANH is the breakthrough for movie credits - Lucas forced it through, against heavy resistance at the time, to have the main credits at the end of the movie so he could have only his crawl at the beginning. Before ANH this kind of thing was not possible (in the US, at least).

But the companies he founded changed the art of fimmaking - you have to keep in mind that the guy founded what would eventually become Pixar. And not just on the special effects level but also digital sound and movie editing and, with the PT, digital cameras, etc. goes back to that guy. I mean, it is breathtaking how tedious and complicated movie editing was before there was any digital technology involved - no wonder guys had women do it for most of movie history. That is a shitty job.

Steven Spielberg may have directed Jurassic Park, but ILM made the effects, just as they made the first big CG effect for Star Trek II (the Genesis project animation) and ANH also includes some very early computer effects.

As a director Lucas isn't all that great, to put it mildly, and he may even be a worse screenwriter, but his impact on the movie industry cannot be overestimated. He would be in the same league as many other movie pioneers pushing established boundaries.

And Star Wars as such certainly paved the way for blockbuster SF/fantasy films which wasn't a thing in the 1950s to 1970s. And the technology pushed by him also opened the door for digital characters through which Peter Jackson went in in the early 2000s with Gollum (who, I think, is the character who really sealed the deal for that kind of thing). And that, I think, completely established fantasy/SF as the most important/profitable movie genre which it is today ... as one can see with the Marvel/DC movies, etc.

I thought I saw somewhere that ILM was founded partly because the studios had mostly liquidated their VFX departments.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I thought I saw somewhere that ILM was founded partly because the studios had mostly liquidated their VFX departments.

Yes, of course, back when he did that he was still making ANH, he just wanted to make a movie and needed the effects. I mean, name a heavily VFX movie from 1980-2000 which didn't get some/all effects from ILM.

[Werthead]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, of course, back when he did that he was still making ANH, he just wanted to make a movie and needed the effects. I mean, name a heavily VFX movie from 1980-2000 which didn't get some/all effects from ILM.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy and then Jackson's subsequent projects (King King, The Lovely Bones, The Adventures of Tintin and Mortal Engines).

Admittedly that's about it though. There's a few films which tried not to use ILM in favour of their own  but ended up having too much work and needed to bring them on board anyway (Avatar, most notably).

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

The Lord of the Rings trilogy and then Jackson's subsequent projects (King King, The Lovely Bones, The Adventures of Tintin and Mortal Engines).

Admittedly that's about it though. There's a few films which tried not to use ILM in favour of their own  but ended up having too much work and needed to bring them on board anyway (Avatar, most notably).

That's why I asked specifically about 1980-2000 ;-). FOTR was released in 2001.

But, yes, Jackson is another pioneer in the special effects department with WETA and all they did. Although ILM and others did some minor effects for FOTR unless I'm misrembering. It has been a long time since I last watched the stuff detailing all that. And in our age there is more than enough room for quite a few VFX departments considering that the fantasy/SF genre exploded both for movies and, now, TV/streaming series.

Although unless I'm mistaken motion-capture and stuff was first pioneered by GL with Jar Jar Binks for TPM. They built on that for Gollum in TTT.

[Kalbear]

What @Werthead isn't describing is one thing that SW did that Spielberg wasn't doing yet - which was having franchises and sequels as the main thing. Prior to ESB there really weren't any big sequels other than Godfather Part 2. Star Wars as a way to create a whole set of spinoffs and sequels and storylines was absolutely unique at the time. Now, of course, we consider this part and parcel of any blockbuster type of movie - Marvel stories, Jurassic Park, Matrix, even things like Lethal Weapon. But before that, sequels weren't nearly as common and were certainly not setup like SW did them; if you had a sequel it was after the movie became a massive hit, and it almost never had hooks or whatnot in it.

That was something Lucas had in mind - his idea of bringing back the serialized shows of his childhood - that no one really had been banking on. And boy did he bank on it.

[Werthead]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

What @Werthead isn't describing is one thing that SW did that Spielberg wasn't doing yet - which was having franchises and sequels as the main thing. Prior to ESB there really weren't any big sequels other than Godfather Part 2. Star Wars as a way to create a whole set of spinoffs and sequels and storylines was absolutely unique at the time. Now, of course, we consider this part and parcel of any blockbuster type of movie - Marvel stories, Jurassic Park, Matrix, even things like Lethal Weapon. But before that, sequels weren't nearly as common and were certainly not setup like SW did them; if you had a sequel it was after the movie became a massive hit, and it almost never had hooks or whatnot in it.

That was something Lucas had in mind - his idea of bringing back the serialized shows of his childhood - that no one really had been banking on. And boy did he bank on it.

Sequels were nothing new: James Bond was ten films in, Planet of the Apes was five films down and already complete and even Jaws 2 was in production when Star Wars came out. Superman 1 and 2 were already planned as back-to-back films before Star Wars was released.

There may be something in that Star Wars was very explicitly planned with sequels in mind that would continue story elements from the first film that were deliberately left hanging. That was less common at the time.