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

[TheLastWolf]

All slamming the series for unrealistic scenes should look at Rogue 1's realism

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah it stayed in theaters for 10 months and was the number one movie in North America for 15 straight weeks, a record that seems impossible to ever be broken.  However, to Wert's point, as I recall a lot of people - including many critics - dismissed its popularity as largely isolated to teenage girls.  And there was plenty of criticism about the quality of the film beyond the effects/technical aspects.  Ebert ranked it ninth on his best films of 1997 list.

On top of the enormous budget, the movie was also delayed from a summer release to Christmas because of the special effects. This sort of thing can generate a great deal of pessimism in the entertainment press. They're like ravenous fucking wolves when they smell blood.

Ebert's review of the film was overwhelmingly positive. Same for Siskel.

Still, the sting must have faded by the time the film made so much money that Cameron could afford to buy a second home just to house all the awards the film would eventually win.

 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Ebert's review of the film was overwhelmingly positive. Same for Siskel.

Yeah I mentioned that to emphasize he thought eight other movies were better that year, which suggests it'd be closer to "good but not great" rather than "all-time great."  And that's where I'd put it at too.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I mentioned that to emphasize he thought eight other movies were better that year, which suggests it'd be closer to "good but not great" rather than "all-time great."  And that's where I'd put it at too.

Except all the films on that list are films that he gave 4 star reviews. Its not clear to me that it's a ranked list (he seems to cover several genres) and if it is he's grading on a very narrow curve.

My point is that citing Roger Ebert as evidence for lukewarm or negative critical reaction to Titanic doesn't work. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

My point is that citing Roger Ebert as evidence for lukewarm or negative critical reaction to Titanic doesn't work. 

Uh, that wasn't why I mentioned it, which I made pretty explicit.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

"Good but not great" =/= 4/4 stars. and it's not clear to me that is a ranked list. Like I said.

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Uh, that wasn't why I mentioned it, which I made pretty explicit.

 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

"Good but not great" =/= 4/4 stars. and it's not clear to me that is a ranked list. Like I said.

Well, if Ebert didn't want people to think it's a ranked list he shouldn't have numbered it - like a lot of critics do on their annual lists.  I also, for some reason, distinctly remember Ebert preferring LA Confidential to win the Oscar that year.  Anyway, I don't really care to quibble over semantics.  I'm saying Ebert's evaluation of the film plainly suggests he wouldn't put it among the all-time greats.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

36 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, if Ebert didn't want people to think it's a ranked list he shouldn't have numbered it - like a lot of critics do on their annual lists.  I also, for some reason, distinctly remember Ebert preferring LA Confidential to win the Oscar that year.  Anyway, I don't really care to quibble over semantics.  I'm saying Ebert's evaluation of the film plainly suggests he wouldn't put it among the all-time greats.

Yeah, he and Siskel used to do a "pick the winners" thing but I can't find it for that year.

I dunno, the way I interpret that list, ranked or not, is making razor thin distinctions between films that are all A+'s. And of course, any film criticism is going to be subjective, regardless of how knowledgable or experienced the critic is.  

Anyway, (not that this has anything to do with your comments), I stand by my original point, it's weird to me how apparently acceptable it has become to dump on that film.  

Not that this is always the case. There are plenty of films that are huge at the time and utterly disappear shortly after. My personal opinion (and I realize I'm in a minority) is that a lot of the MCU films won't age well. Same for the Disney live action remakes of classic cartoons. Sure, Lion King probably made a billion dollars, but 10 years from now people will still be watching the cartoon; I'm not so sure about the remake.

And, to connect this back to the subject of the thread, I'll go out on a limb and say the ST will not endure as well as either the OT or the PT.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Anyway, (not that this has anything to do with your comments), I stand by my original point, it's weird to me how apparently acceptable it has become to dump on that film.  

Fair enough.  To reiterate my general response, I'd just say plenty of people have been dumping on the film since it came out.  

6 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

And, to connect this back to the subject of the thread, I'll go out on a limb and say the ST will not endure as well as either the OT or the PT.

I dunno.  The PT definitely grew on me over the years.  I really hated the first two when they first came out.  But after a couple decades of mindlessly rewatching them on cable while multitasking, I slowly came around.  I guess that progress was kinda like what Howard Stern said about himself - it grew on me like a fungus - but the effect is the same. 

Will that happen with the ST?  Eh, there are some important differences.  First, the Disney factor is important.  There weren't any other Star Wars movies (I've never been into the EU and/or the cartoons) between the PT and the ST, while that obviously won't be the case moving forward.  Second, the PT does have the advantage that it was cohesive, a linear story.  In comparison the ST is at best a U-shaped (or Bell, depending on which ones you prefer) curve.  OTOH, collectively my first impression of the ST was decidedly more positive than the PT, so who knows?

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Fair enough.  To reiterate my general response, I'd just say plenty of people have been dumping on the film since it came out.  

I dunno.  The PT definitely grew on me over the years.  I really hated the first two when they first came out.  But after a couple decades of mindlessly rewatching them on cable while multitasking, I slowly came around.  I guess that progress was kinda like what Howard Stern said about himself - it grew on me like a fungus - but the effect is the same. 

Will that happen with the ST?  Eh, there are some important differences.  First, the Disney factor is important.  There weren't any other Star Wars movies (I've never been into the EU and/or the cartoons) between the PT and the ST, while that obviously won't be the case moving forward.  Second, the PT does have the advantage that it was cohesive, a linear story.  In comparison the ST is at best a U-shaped (or Bell, depending on which ones you prefer) curve.  OTOH, collectively my first impression of the ST was decidedly more positive than the PT, so who knows?

The prequels, for all their many, many faults, have qualities the sequels don't have. If they could combine the best elements of each, while respecting the established cannon, they'll have something special.

Unfortunately,  Disney's biggest concern probably isn't any of that.  Mostly they're trying to figure out how to break big in China, where SW hasn't really had great box office success. That and maximizing toy sales.

I actually felt sorry for the abuse Lucas was taking for the prequels.  If there comes a point where honest criticism becomes sheer piling on, it was definitely crossed it there.  This is only worse today with social media.  Negativity gets clicks. There are plenty of SW youtube fan channels that seem focused on only shitting on Star Wars and everything meta-Star Wars. Because "wokeness" or "SJW" something something. 

Oh, and fuck you Max Landis. Him and every other clever fucker who popularized the term "Mary Sue" in relation to this franchise should be fired into the sun.

[Ran]

The response to the PT was part of the reason he sold it to Disney, really. I'm not going to pretend I like those films -- they are, objectively, bad cinema that are sorely lacking in artistic merit -- but they're basically a wild misfire from someone who knew he wasn't really up to directing them and did it anyways because he thought it was a story fans wanted and then was surrounded by yes-men who  were too afraid to help him right the ship. This was a trap entirely of his own devising, but still. The intentions were good. The execution was not.

 

P.S.

Rey was a Mary Sue in TFA, though! 

[Luzifer's right hand]

The PT has really grown on me mainly because of memes. I enjoy rewatches now even the pod race. Only the romance plot sucks. The meme side of the internet is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

[Heartofice]

Did Lucas believe he wasn’t up to the task of directing? It would make sense, but then why didn’t he hand those duties off like he did before? Clearly he didn’t have the energy for it any more, and clearly his main interest seems to have been pushing effects technology.. so why didn’t he just let someone else direct the prequels?

[mormont]

56 minutes ago, Ran said:

Rey was a Mary Sue in TFA, though! 

What was that about trolling again? :p

Musing on this thread this morning, I just want to note that on a personal level, there are probably five SW films I have no particular desire ever to watch again. Solo, Rise of Skywalker, and any of the prequel trilogy. I can rank the remaining films in preference order, but when it comes to those five, I can't even pick between them. I just have nothing for any of them. I don't even hate them. I just don't care.

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Clearly he didn’t have the energy for it any more, and clearly his main interest seems to have been pushing effects technology.. so why didn’t he just let someone else direct the prequels?

I recall an interview where he said his true love is editing. But to get the editing done as he likes, he needs certain shots so he needs to direct. And to have them exist at all, he needs to write it. But it’s all for the endgame of his favourite part, editing.

It does bug me that he constantly moans about people ‘yelling at you’ if you make the films you want to make, and there’s no room for experimentalism anymore. Twenty years is plenty of time to be more honest, and just own up to making shit films.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Solo

I think it’s a fun enough movie on its own, I just don’t buy the character as Han Solo, nor do I think he had a background worth telling. It might’ve been better to take the basic plot of Solo and wrap it round a new character, and set up Maul as a villain for some stuff set between III and IV. Tie in a Kenobi series, Rebels etc.

But yea, I don’t see why I’d watch any of the PT or ST again. The ST has the bizarre property that each film ruins the others more than itself; TFA could’ve build up to something, but the other two proved it didn’t. TLJ revealed that Rey is nobody and anybody can be special, and TROS quashed it. And TROS spends more time undoing stuff from TLJ to be good in its own right. If I watched either TFA or TLJ with no context, I could believe they were the weak link in an otherwise good trilogy. The ‘RotJ’ of the ST, if you will. But they just don’t gel together at all.

[Ran]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Did Lucas believe he wasn’t up to the task of directing?

He tried. He asked Spielberg, Ron Howard, and Robert Zemeckis, among others, and everyone told him that he should be the one to do it. Which, in retrospect, was probably a warning sign if they saw his first script and realized there were major problems but didn't want to say.

He clearly felt that the demand for the prequel required a top-tier talent, and since all the top-tier talent said no, well, there was just him left.

 

[Slurktan]

9 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Yes that proves my point?

im confused again

Well other than it doesn't lol.  At no point does Luke say they are being tortured just that they are in pain, which could mean physical, mental, emotional  pain what not. If you think he is referring to torture well then Luke is flat wrong (Leia is not tortured) and his vision is lying to him so as to connect it to actual torture is pointless. He very well could be referring to Han being put in Carbon Freeze.  So again basically Vader just tortures Han to be a dick, but doesn't torture Leia and Chewie because..... reasons.  He also doesn't have Chewie killed because reasons although already proved to be a dick. My small nitpick was and is that I want to know why he didn't have Chewie killed in 1980.  Because of Phantom Menace I get why he isn't killed now as Vader has a soft spot for 3PO.

 

13 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Didn't the Falcon have problems with the hyperdrive? I always assumed the asteroid chase was still in the Hoth system.

While Luke grabbed an X-wing and went to lightspeed. There's no hyperspace tracking BS in this movie.

All that is true. Except that Luke is still on Hoth while Vader is there so why didn't he just saunter over to where the X-wings were parked (as he can feel Luke) instead of going for the Falcon?

[Werthead]

13 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Didn't the Falcon have problems with the hyperdrive? I always assumed the asteroid chase was still in the Hoth system.

While Luke grabbed an X-wing and went to lightspeed. There's no hyperspace tracking BS in this movie.

Yup, the asteroid belt is near Hoth. They even say this near the start of the film, "With all the asteroids in this system spotting the Imperials is going to be tough." When the probe droids come down, they assume they're meteors impacting the surface.

As for Luke taking out the AT-AT, I assume the idea is that no-one survived the walker coming down to report his presence.

Vader can discern that Luke is in the general area but he can't tell precisely where, which is why he's taken by surprise a few times during their fights on both Bespin and Hoth. With the shuttle over Endor he could discern Luke's general location and the shuttle was the only thing in that area, so that was an easier guess (and even Palpatine indicates scepticism that he could know that for sure).

[Corvinus85]

37 minutes ago, Slurktan said:

All that is true. Except that Luke is still on Hoth while Vader is there so why didn't he just saunter over to where the X-wings were parked (as he can feel Luke) instead of going for the Falcon?

The presence sensing through the Force isn't a pinpoint tracker. And when did you see Vader just rush to do anything? The stormtroopers were still busy clearing the base, and Vader was letting them do that job. He didn't charge ahead, trying to find where the Rebels evacuation point was. Luke was actually not in the base, he walked over from where the AT-AT fell to the evacuation point, somewhere outside the base, potentially hidden. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

8 hours ago, Ran said:

The response to the PT was part of the reason he sold it to Disney, really. I'm not going to pretend I like those films -- they are, objectively, bad cinema that are sorely lacking in artistic merit -- but they're basically a wild misfire from someone who knew he wasn't really up to directing them and did it anyways because he thought it was a story fans wanted and then was surrounded by yes-men who  were too afraid to help him right the ship. This was a trap entirely of his own devising, but still. The intentions were good. The execution was not.

The only place I'd disagree here is I think they do have some redeeming qualities. 

8 hours ago, Ran said:

P.S.

Rey was a Mary Sue in TFA, though! 

Well yeah... It just boggled my mind how that criticism was weaponized the way it was. And continues to be.

And if they had been more skillful at crafting the ST it might have been interesting to explore why. Something to do with the whole "diad in the force" thing? Maybe.

Anikin Skywalker at the age of what, six? Is an ace pilot and a championship calibre pod racer. He simultaneously holds honorary degrees in aerospace and electrical engineering and he's an ace mechanic to boot.  He built the moral equivalent of an F1 race car in his back yard despite probably being illiterate and wiping his ass with sand before the Jedi showed up.