Star Wars Episode III

Im wondering if this last part will be any good, I really liked the first two prequels and Im hoping that Lucas can pull it off. I hear that the last duel between Anakin(Vadar) and Obi-Wan is going to last 12 minutes! I believe if Lucas can try and focus on the story more than the VFX this could be the best STAR WARS of them all. Well we got a long while to see if he can. May 25 05.

I liked "Episode 1" a lot, but "Episode 2" has soured me on the whole series. You see, it doesn't help that I didn't think much of "A New Hope" or "The Empire Strikes Back", and "The Return of the Jedi"--by far my favorite of the "original trilogy"--is marred by the fact that the Empire is easily fought off by a couple of teddy bears. How the Empire ever took control of the "Star Wars" galaxy is beyond me given their humiliating defeat on Endor.

I'm hoping that "Episode 3" will be great, too--after all, it IS another two hours of my life when I see it (probably on opening day since I'm a sucker).

Spoilsport.

There are high hopes for Episode 3 because it's the one Lucas defenders have been claiming everything else has been leading up to. If a person didn't like Episodes 1 or 2, it was OK because they were just the incomplete buildups to the big finale. Or something like that. We'll see.

As a "Star Wars" fan from day one (yeah, I was standing in line for the first showing of "Star Wars" at San Francisco's Coronet Theater in 1977), I've seen the series' ups ("The Empire Strikes Back") and downs (starting with Eddie's "Teddy Bears" at the end of "Return of the Jedi" through the takeover by ILM's special-effects department in "The Phantom Menace"). I hope Episode 3 will bring the series back up.

John

John,

I suspect that, for a lot of people, "A New Hope" holds a special place in their hearts more for being a part of their lives at the right time than for being a good movie. Deep down, you know that there are better sci-fi films than any of the "Star Wars" movies. :)

Eddie

Yes, "2001," which you also dislike, "Close Encounters," "Alien," "Aliens," and possibly "Contact" are in the same league, but understand that the original "Star Wars" is hardly a sci-fi film, anyway. It's a fantasy, to be sure, but not science fiction in the traditional sense of something that could actually happen as we know it from today's science.

"Star Wars" (and I use its original title here) is an outer-space, action, fantasy Western, with gun-toting heroes and villains in black hats (or helmets in Vader's case). It was exciting to watch in '77 and it's just as exciting to watch today. It's the one film I've probably watched more times on tape than any other, which says I must find its repeatability factor pretty high.

John

John,

Well, there's a difference between liking something and respecting something. I don't like "2001", but I acknowledge its artistic/technical achievements (the same probably goes for "A.I.", of which I still don't know if I like or not).

On the other hand, there are movies like "A New Hope" that may be okay to watch, but if you think academically about them, you find that they are crude pastiches of cliches, lousy acting (Mark Hamill was terrible in "Episode 4", though he did get better in the later movies), and awkward pacing.

Of course, I'm not saying that everything that people like has to be great. For example, I enjoy watching the "Highlander" TV series, but it's pretty trashy. :)

Eddie

Tim,

Your well-considered and well-reasoned post does not offend me--and it shouldn't offend anyone with an ounce of common sense.

The thing is, what I describe about the impact that "A New Hope" had on the way that movies are presented to the public is an objective observation, whereas how we react to the film itself is purely subjective. Speculation concerning artistic quality lies in the "to each his own" realm.

About small things beating big things...dude, Yoda had the Force, and the teddy bears had tomahawks, slingshots, bows-and-arrows, etc. It's a little different, ya know. :)

Eddie

John, Eddie,

Let me first off say that I do not want my opinion to offend either of you two. You guys have been very good friends and I consider the both of you to be like family to me.

I feel John's opinion is right on the money when it comes to the analogy of the "Star Wars" episodes. It was groundbreaking, not just for marketing reasons, but also because, at the time, nobody had seen anything like it. I guess you had to be there at the time of the release of "A New Hope." It was truly a magical time because it presented elements of fantasy and Sci-fi we had never seen on the big screen. In fact, the only thing that came close was the early episodes of the televison show "Star Trek." I say that because that show gave us memorable characters set through as series of adventures that captured our attention. However wooden the acting may have been in the first three "Star Wars," John is right. The characters were reasonably believable enough for us to care about. They had a hell of enough more wit and life than any of the new characters we've seen in the recent episodes. When it comes to comparing the cliches of the early episodes to the new ones, well, I'll take the old episodes any day of the week.

When it comes to "groundbreaking" the first three episodes take the prize in almost every field. VFX, sound, original story line, fantasy, swashbuckling adventure. . .take your pick. Fact is, no other film of its time had accomplished so many elements. America had been waiting for a film for all of us to love sci-fi in a way we never thought possible, and Lucas knew it. Thus the reason you are right about the marketing aspect, Eddie. Lucas did capitalize on a market that many of us were hungry for, and, at the time, we just didn't know it. "Star Wars" was probably the most effective film I have ever seen in my life. I to, like John, was a young lad in Portland waiting in line to be one of the first to see this remarkable film. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that John was like me and went back the next day to see it again. The film was truly that remarkable and effective.

Out of the first three episodes, my favorite is "Empire Strikes Back." It is still my favorite because it was daring enough to show us that even the best of heroes do not always save the day. It brought a sense of reality to the series that, in itself, was groundbreaking. No one expected our heroes to leave the scene broken and beaten. The film was the darkest of the three, and that alone may be why I still love it. I know John doesn't care for the future looking so dark and grim, however, that's what I love. John brought up some very good sci-fi's that I also enjoyed, however, let me add to that. I loved "Soylent Green," "The Omega Man," "War of the Worlds," John Carpenters, "The Thing," "Dark City" and "Silent Running." In many ways these are dark films and, in some way, this might explain why "Empire" was my favorite.

I will agree with Eddie that "2001" did absolutely nothing for me. It may be a remarkable classic of its time, but the overall film bored me to tears. I never could understand what point it was trying to make or where it was taking me. I usually love Kubrick films, but this is one that did nothing for me. I think they tried to redeem what the plot of the whole thing was in "2010" but the film came out so mediocre that it never made a captivating conclusion. In all, "2001" was more of a visual masterpiece than it was a truly remarkable story. In the end, "Star Wars" accomplished more than "2001" then any of us had seen. It entertained and captured our emotions in more ways then any of us expected.

Now to the whole thing about teddy bears beating the powerful Empire. First off, I agree that it was silly and a bit unbelievable. I think Lucas was trying to show us that even the smallest of good could defeat evil. His theory may prove true. For example, when I was a young lad playing lead guitar for a small band in Montana. I remember a night when I witnessed a six-foot tall guy harassing a guy no more then five-feet two-inches. The smaller guy capped the tall guy in the knees and brought him tumbling to the floor. Next thing I know, paramedics are taking the tall guy out on a stretcher. Moral of the story, size matters not. Remember, even Yoda taught that to Luke in "Empire." Then again, didn't bacteria kill the Martians in "War of the Worlds?"

[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Feb 3, 2004]

Couldn't agree more. On Episode 2.

John

John,

I agree that "A New Hope" is a landmark--but probably not for the same reasons as you do. For me, it's a landmark in financial/marketing terms.

Oh, I'm not complaining about the film being filled with cliches; rather, I'm complaining about HOW it uses cliches.

I'll still get the "original trilogy" on DVD because the films have become such an integral part of the American cultural consciousness. That being said, I think that the "The New York Times" review of "Episode 2" hit it on the nose--watching a "Star Wars" movie sometimes feels like a Communist election, with people going to the voting booths even though they know that it's pointless. :)

Eddie

Well, to each his own, Eddie. I consider the original "Star Wars" a great film, whether or not I happen to like it and whether or not it happens to use old Western-movie cliches. It's exciting; the acting is good enough to convince us that these people are worth caring about, heroes and villains alike; the special effects, inspired by "2001," continue to hold up well enough to make the movie enjoyable today; and I did not find the pacing awkward but, on the contrary, smooth, forward-pointing, and involving. "Star Wars" was a landmark film that can still give pleasure. It's why it and its two original sequels are the most eagerly awaited films in DVD history (apparently by everyone but you). Oh, well, they're only films.

John

I say if Christen Hayden acts like a sniveling cry baby, like he did in episode II, then episode III will certainly suck the big one.

Sean,

What a person likes/dis-likes is not as important as knowing what's going on in the world. For example, one might not like Adolf Hitler, but it certainly would not hurt someone interested in politics and history to buy books about (or written by) him. I acknowledge that the "Star Wars" series has a major cultural presence in the United States--that doesn't mean that I have to like it in order to own it.

However, "cultural significance" is not the only reason for me for owning the "Star Wars" movies. Like many, I love those light sabre fights. :D

Eddie

I am definitely in the camp that likes the original trilogy, but can completely understand why someone would not like the series (my wife has explained herself quite well, thank you very much!).

However, I have more difficulty understanding why someone who does not seem to particularly like a series of films would want to purchase them.

Eddie, you state that you will more than likely buy the original trilogy due to its impact on the cultural consciousness. I don't get why someone would buy a piece of art if they don't really like it. I would be hard pressed to purchase a painting, book, album, or film based solely on its social impact rather than its aesthetic impact on me personally.

Is there more to it on an aesthetic level, or is its cultural significance the only attribute that would lead you to own it?

Sean

Eddie,

Knowing that Adolf Hitler existed and the atrocities he committed is culturally relevant as a fact. This fact leads us to determine whether we like or dislike him. (Definitely count me in the NOT liking Adolf group!) It is something you know, not own. Art is certainly a different beast than history and current affairs. Knowing how art affected society is one thing, but actually liking a piece of art is completely different. I.e., I understand Jackson Pollock's impact on art and his relevance in the medium, but I do not want to own one of his paintings because I do not find it aesthetically pleasing.

I guess I just don't quite get this one. I do understand buying a movie just for specfic sequences (the lightsaber battles) even if you didn't really like the overall film. I have to admit I have a few purchases that I don't tout even though I like certain aspects of the movie. Heck, I've bought a few just because they were good deals....D'oh!

Alright, you wrangled it out of me. I do own Godzilla, but only because the sound rocks, and it was in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart!

I guess I just got from your post that the only reason you would even purchase the trilogy was for its significance and no other reason, and I just don't quite grasp that. I'm really not trying to be adversarial, just don't quite understand.

Sean

Sean,

I happen to be a student at Chapman University trying to obtain an M.A. in Film Studies. Part of Film Studies involves learning about film history.

If you want historical facts, then "Star Wars: Episode IV--A New Hope" offers plenty of them independent of its merits as a "work of art". For example, it changed the way that movies were marketed. It confirmed what "Jaws" had done in terms of how studios could approach the summer season. Its huge initial box office gross forever imprinted in studio heads' minds that sci-fi aimed at younger males could save everyone's ass. There are plenty of things to discuss, but understand that there is more to cinema than just the films themselves. One must understand the entire process of how films get made (not just film production but film business) in order to get a sense of all of cinema.

If that still doesn't help you understand my attitude, Sean, then let me reiterate again that, on a personal level, likes/dis-likes are less important to me than what academic value something holds. I may not like every period of the Roman Empire, but I certainly try to buy as many good books about the Roman Empire as possible.

Eddie

P.S. Don't worry, I know that you aren't trying to be adversarial. :)

I don't mind being adversarial.

If one wants to explore every facet of history and culture from film to Adolph Hitler to the Roman Empire, then one must try to buy or experience every book, film, painting, and work of art related to everything that has ever existed. Fine if you're the Library of Congress, but the rest of us have to struggle along buying and experiencing the things we can most afford and best enjoy.

Nevertheless, I see your point. Experiencing at least the highlights of history is better than burying your head in the sand and pretending that history and culture are meaningless. You are certainly a Renaissance Man in your tastes, Eddie, as is befitting a proper college student.

John

John,

Hey, at least I'm not buying "Caligula". :)

Eddie

Yeah, but, you know, there's a place in film history for "Caligula," too. It has the distinction (dubious) of being the most expensive porn film ever made. Now, if only those of us with wives could get them to see it that way.

John

Euh...that's blasphemy, John. :p

No, that's the Bible.

John

Sean,

Yup, you got it!

You, too, noticed that a lot of people own something written by Shakespeare but never seem to read it, huh? :p

Eddie

OK. I think I'm starting to get this. To me this would be akin to the following:

I do not particularly enjoy reading Shakespeare; however, I realize his immense influence on literature. Academically, he has had as great an impact on literature as any writer could, therefore I own the Complete Works of Shakespeare.

Am I getting close?

Sean

P.S.: this is definitely a rhetorical response. I am an avid fan of Shakespeare and have been since before performing in theater. Just thought it would better emphasize what I am getting at!

Hey Eddie, I guess now I know the reasons for your purchase of The Complete Ron Jeremy DVD Collection ;)

hey man, porn is the reason why many nascent technologies become successful. vhs tape was embraced by the porn industry long before mainstream film companies, and porn basically secured the futures of the internet and dvd.