Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Krypton_Son]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Look, a lot of people could have made a Flash Gordon-style movie around the late 60s or early 70s, and unless you count Barbarella, nobody did. And Lucas recognized that there was a potential audience for that kind of movie, in other words, he recognized the kind of story a lot of people wanted to watch, and he set about in creating such a story, and it turned out to be even more successful than American Graffiti. Maybe because he told a fun story, and chose great collaborators?

The overwhelming majority of the movies he made or produced made money, and enough of it to make up for the few which didn't, so he was definitely mostly telling stories the moviegoing public wanted to watch. Even the Young Indiana Jones adventures, which didn't rely on selling tickets, captivated a lot of young viewers.

More importantly, we're still here, more than 40 years since 1977, still going on talking about so many of the characters he created, which by all rights are far more popular than Flash Gordon is today.

I'd still say he's a great storyteller, and not just because of my own personal opinion on the movies he's made.



Likewise!

The arguments get old. I love the OT. The PT is about 50/50 for me. And except for Rogue One, I really can't stand any of the Disney movies. But I would never tell someone that they're wrong for thinking differently than I do. You like what you like. And there are good justifications for both views.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I liked the basic backbone of the prequel-story, there's actually a lot to unpack there. You have a Republic that has been overrun with corruption, and a Sith who manages to infiltrate his way to the highest authority and create a crisis that keeps him in power and eventually turns the Republic into the Empire.

The Jedi are theoretically the most interesting-- Their order is also failing, and their cult-like dogmatism in part led to their own downfall, and Anakin being disillusioned enough to be lured to the dark side.

So I think a lot of the ideas had a lot of potential, I just don't think Lucas applied these very well in the films. Some of those themes ended up being fleshed out more in the Clone Wars series, but the film trilogy itself just doesn't work well, IMO.

Personally I've always felt the PT more than lived up to its potential, but whatevs. I think the approach in the Clone Wars was focused on being more audience-friendly, which is a good approach for a TV series usually. It was more conventional in a lot of ways that's for sure

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Krypton_Son

The arguments get old. I love the OT. The PT is about 50/50 for me. And except for Rogue One, I really can't stand any of the Disney movies. But I would never tell someone that they're wrong for thinking differently than I do. You like what you like. And there are good justifications for both views.

I can always understand when someone doesn't like a movie I absolutely loved. What gets old, imho, is the rather entitled opinion that goes along the lines of "the prequels should have been different because I was expecting different", which makes it sound like Lucas should have hand-tailored everything with a certain kind of fan in mind, which isn't how this works.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Look, a lot of people could have made a Flash Gordon-style movie around the late 60s or early 70s, and unless you count Barbarella, nobody did. And Lucas recognized that there was a potential audience for that kind of movie, in other words, he recognized the kind of story a lot of people wanted to watch, and he set about in creating such a story, and it turned out to be even more successful than American Graffiti. Maybe because he told a fun story, and chose great collaborators?

The overwhelming majority of the movies he made or produced made money, and enough of it to make up for the few which didn't, so he was definitely mostly telling stories the moviegoing public wanted to watch. Even the Young Indiana Jones adventures, which didn't rely on selling tickets, captivated a lot of young viewers.

More importantly, we're still here, more than 40 years since 1977, still going on talking about so many of the characters he created, which by all rights are far more popular than Flash Gordon is today.

I'd still say he's a great storyteller, and not just because of my own personal opinion on the movies he's made.



Likewise!

We're talking about storytelling ability. But you're still banging on about how amazing it was that he thought to make a Flash Gordon type movie.

It's a pity his storytelling abilities in the nineties and noughties weren't on a par to what they were in the seventies. Maybe Anakin Qui Gon and Padme might be cultural icons today like Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie, Ben, Vader, Yoda, Artoo and Threepio have been ever since they were introduced in the OT.

[Gargus]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I liked the basic backbone of the prequel-story, there's actually a lot to unpack there. You have a Republic that has been overrun with corruption, and a Sith who manages to infiltrate his way to the highest authority and create a crisis that keeps him in power and eventually turns the Republic into the Empire.

The Jedi are theoretically the most interesting-- Their order is also failing, and their cult-like dogmatism in part led to their own downfall, and Anakin being disillusioned enough to be lured to the dark side.

So I think a lot of the ideas had a lot of potential, I just don't think Lucas applied these very well in the films. Some of those themes ended up being fleshed out more in the Clone Wars series, but the film trilogy itself just doesn't work well, IMO.

All of that is true but my problem is I don't like to invent my own ideas and stories into something. None of those things you mentioned are actually in the movie at all, they are concepts and ideas you added in. For me I don't want the work of trying to create something in a movie, it's no fun for me. I like a movie for what I am given, not what I perceive as potentially there.

Like goodfellas is an excellent movie. The story, the characters, everything about it is very well done and I am given everything I need. I don't need to invent things that weren't actually in it in order to tell myself what a great movie it is. And that's a problem if you rave about a movie and all your high points of the movie weren't actually there and you had to do some mental gymnastics in order to create them then the movie itself wasn't that good.

But that's the great thing about .movies. people can enjoy them for a variety of reasons. While I don't agree with you, I agree you can like them in your way and i can dislike it in my way. All that matters in the end is did you like it? If so nothing else matters.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by Gargus

None of those things you mentioned are actually in the movie at all, they are concepts and ideas you added in.

What? All of that is in the movies in some fashion.

[grodd]

I've always been a huge fan of TPM. While it has some problems with casting and a few other issues it still has a great story mixing with some amazing art direction/design. (Further expanded upon in the cartoons)

I would challenge people to spot what was CG and what was practical within the 3 movies. I think few people realize the vast amount of practical effects that went into the films. And removing the Yoda puppet was a great idea.

I'm sure some of the more sleek designs gave people the idea of CG when it was often not used. That's not to say it has many now dated shots, but go look at RoTS and then tell me how much better Black Panther's effects or even TFA with its more modest effect sequences.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Gargus

All of that is true but my problem is I don't like to invent my own ideas and stories into something. None of those things you mentioned are actually in the movie at all, they are concepts and ideas you added in. For me I don't want the work of trying to create something in a movie, it's no fun for me. I like a movie for what I am given, not what I perceive as potentially there.

Like goodfellas is an excellent movie. The story, the characters, everything about it is very well done and I am given everything I need. I don't need to invent things that weren't actually in it in order to tell myself what a great movie it is. And that's a problem if you rave about a movie and all your high points of the movie weren't actually there and you had to do some mental gymnastics in order to create them then the movie itself wasn't that good.

But that's the great thing about .movies. people can enjoy them for a variety of reasons. While I don't agree with you, I agree you can like them in your way and i can dislike it in my way. All that matters in the end is did you like it? If so nothing else matters.

I think all those ideas are there, they just don't come out in the story well. If you think I was writing that out as a defense of the films, that is not the case. If anything, the prequel trilogy is more frustrating to me from a storytelling perspective because the building blocks of a great story are all there, but the actual finished product is such a unfocused mess most of the time. By the time you get to the end, at least to me, there is no tragedy or emotional reaction to much going on because it was all done so wooden and perfunctory.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Martoto

We're talking about storytelling ability. But you're still banging on about how amazing it was that he thought to make a Flash Gordon type movie.

It's a pity his storytelling abilities in the nineties and noughties weren't on a par to what they were in the seventies. Maybe Anakin Qui Gon and Padme might be cultural icons today like Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie, Ben, Vader, Yoda, Artoo and Threepio have been ever since they were introduced in the OT.

I'm not trying to single out any *one* of the projects he worked on, I think you're the one who keeps coming back to the same thing. As for PT/OT characters, he already had the general outline of the story in his head since the early 1970s. It's not like he only decided in the mid 1990s what the story would be, so your point would seem moot?

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by grodd

I've always been a huge fan of TPM. While it has some problems with casting and a few other issues it still has a great story mixing with some amazing art direction/design. (Further expanded upon in the cartoons)

I would challenge people to spot what was CG and what was practical within the 3 movies. I think few people realize the vast amount of practical effects that went into the films. And removing the Yoda puppet was a great idea.

I'm sure some of the more sleek designs gave people the idea of CG when it was often not used. That's not to say it has many now dated shots, but go look at RoTS and then tell me how much better Black Panther's effects or even TFA with its more modest effect sequences.

Spot on! I know what was CGI and what was practical mostly because of behind-the-scenes photos and documentaries, not because I could really tell them apart most of the time.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

I'm not trying to single out any *one* of the projects he worked on, I think you're the one who keeps coming back to the same thing. As for PT/OT characters, he already had the general outline of the story in his head since the early 1970s. It's not like he only decided in the mid 1990s what the story would be, so your point would seem moot?

How does that explain why Anakin, Padme and Qui-Gon have nothing like the cultural currency that OT originated characters have retained since then?

The only one that comes close is Jar Jar, for all the wrong reasons.

Having a general outline of a story doesn't make you a good storyteller either, by the way. Telling the story well makes you a good storyteller. If you think the story in the PT was told well, cinematically speaking, then that's all fine and good
, for you. I find it next to impossible to agree with that though.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Martoto

How does that explain why Anakin, Padme and Qui-Gon have nothing like the cultural currency that OT originated characters have retained since then?

The only one that comes close is Jar Jar, for all the wrong reasons.

Because the OT movies are the ones that cemented this universe in most people's minds. Also, they seemed like more clear-cut archetypes in a lot of ways. The PT deliberately sought to make some things a little more ambiguous, in relationship to the earlier movies.

Also, over the years many of the PT characters have become rather well-known, especially Darth Maul, who turned out to be much more resilient than we could have imagined in 1999.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Because the OT movies are the ones that cemented this universe in most people's minds. Also, they seemed like more clear-cut archetypes in a lot of ways. The PT deliberately sought to make some things a little more ambiguous, in relationship to the earlier movies.

Also, over the years many of the PT characters have become rather well-known, especially Darth Maul, who turned out to be much more resilient than we could have imagined in 1999.

If the storytelling was better then I'm sure those characters would have achieved comparable cultural icon status (not just among super fans) in their own right.

Ambiguity and making a cultural impact aren't mutually exclusive either.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Martoto

If the storytelling was better then I'm sure those characters would have achieved comparable cultural icon status (not just among super fans) in their own right.

Ambiguity and making a cultural impact aren't mutually exclusive either.

Because people who saw the OT first almost always think of those characters first. For folks who were young 'uns in the late 90s/early 00s and saw the PT first that isn't always the case. In any event, I doubt it has much to do with storytelling. Solo had very well-known characters from the OT and yet the storytelling wasn't as good as what most folks had come to expect. I didn't think it was terrible, but obviously it was very BO-challenged.

[Bobbyjoe766]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

The Good
Star Wars
The Empire Strikes Back
Return Of The Jedi
Raiders Of The Lost Ark
Temple Of Doom
Last Crusade

The Awful
The Phantom Menace
Attack Of The Clones
Revenge Of The Sith
Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

6 to 4 in the good vs awful but then he had to go and ruin three of the good.

Return of the Jedi is disappointing and Temple of Doom and Last Crusade are average, imo.

[Fnord Prefect]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

At this point I'm so used to the extended cut of Phantom Menace that the theatrical just wouldn't feel right to me. But 100% agree that it needs to be remastered, and including both cuts couldn't hurt (but it's Star Wars, so....).

There's an extended version of the Phantom Menace? Maybe that's the version I've been watching all along and never known.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Fnord Prefect

There's an extended version of the Phantom Menace? Maybe that's the version I've been watching all along and never known.

Yes, it was first available when the DVD for the film was released. The main additions are to the pod race.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Yes, it was first available when the DVD for the film was released. The main additions are to the pod race.

If I'm not mistaken, that was also the version they used for the 3D re-release

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Because people who saw the OT first almost always think of those characters first. For folks who were young 'uns in the late 90s/early 00s and saw the PT first that isn't always the case. In any event, I doubt it has much to do with storytelling. Solo had very well-known characters from the OT and yet the storytelling wasn't as good as what most folks had come to expect. I didn't think it was terrible, but obviously it was very BO-challenged.

The culture is more than just people who saw the OT first.

The storytelling of Solo hasn't received the criticism that the PT did. Some people did complain before theyeven saw the movie that it was a story they didn't need to be told. You can't be critical of the telling of a story you don't allow to be told to you.

People were scared off by the production history and other negative publicity as well as a general fatigue of the whole Star Wars thing and the market forces at the release time.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Martoto

The culture is more than just people who saw the OT first.

It can be, broadly speaking. However when it comes to the permanence in the pop culture, that's still very much driven by people who saw the OT first. That is slowly starting to change, but for a long time, the reverence towards certain aspects of SW was mostly due to older figures in entertainment. This is going to be a little different at the personal level, where most of your peers usually have a similar generational background.

And Solo didn't really have awful storytelling, it was serviceable at the very least, which is to say it wasn't nearly half as good as the PT.