Saturday, January 31, 2004
Member since:
January 2004
January 2004
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2004
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
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).
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).
Sunday, February 1, 2004
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
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
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
Sunday, February 1, 2004
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
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
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
Sunday, February 1, 2004
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
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
"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
Sunday, February 1, 2004
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
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
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
Monday, February 2, 2004
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
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
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
Monday, February 2, 2004
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
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]
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]
Monday, February 2, 2004
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Couldn't agree more. On Episode 2.
John
John
Monday, February 2, 2004
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
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
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
