Star Wars Wars the UOT Strikes Back and OTHER PEZ dispensers

[fgomike]

I don't get all the hate for AOTC. I agree that it is not the best of the prequels, but I do like it better than TPM. Yeah, there were some painful things to watch (like Anakin riding a watermelon). But overall, I think it does the job of getting you to ROTS. I thought the fight on Kamino and the area battle were great.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

Who cares if it doesn't make AFI's stupid list? Is that what you use to measure a movie's worth? Also, judging by your sig you are some wacko OT purist who only posts to whine about Lucas revising his OWN movies. The movies DO NOT belong to you. PERIOD.

PS: Not everyone loves Lord of the Rings.

Sigh, I just don't understand resorting to personal attacks when it comes to discussing these films. Red Letter Media? You talking about Mr. Plinkett? Never heard of him when I was walking out of the theater in 2002 and 2005 and wondering just what went wrong with these films.

[Saturius]

Originally Posted by fgomike

I don't get all the hate for AOTC. I agree that it is not the best of the prequels, but I do like it better than TPM. Yeah, there were some painful things to watch (like Anakin riding a watermelon). But overall, I think it does the job of getting you to ROTS. I thought the fight on Kamino and the area battle were great.

I feel the same. I just cannot get through an entire sitting of TPM. That's mainly how I personally judge films, whether I can re-watch them multiple times or not, and TPM does not fall in that category. AOTC had awful acting by Portman and Hayden, cringe worthy love scenes, and an overabundance of cartoony CGI, but I can sit through it multiple times. It's really only the horrible love scenes that drag it down tremendously, but that only accounts to maybe about 10-15 minutes of screen time. I can enjoy everything else alright enough.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Sigh, I just don't understand resorting to personal attacks when it comes to discussing these films.

Agreed.

People take it too personally. I love Dazed and Confused, but I won't call someone names if they think it's stupid, pointless and directionless.

On the topic of the AFI list (or IMDB top 250, etc.) the list is a pretty good indicator of a movie's worth, to me, because I have looked at it and I see many of my favorite movies with high rankings. Movies that I personally decided were good, they also thought were good. Since our opinions seem to be aligned, I give credit to their list. If we constantly disagreed, I wouldn't take their opinion seriously. That's all it is. It's not like I'm arbitrarily letting the list tell me what I like.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Agreed.

People take it too personally. I love Dazed and Confused, but I won't call someone names if they think it's stupid, pointless and directionless.

On the topic of the AFI list (or IMDB top 250, etc.) the list is a pretty good indicator of a movie's worth, to me, because I have looked at it and I see many of my favorite movies with high rankings. Movies that I personally decided were good, they also thought were good. Since our opinions seem to be aligned, I give credit to their list. If we constantly disagreed, I wouldn't take their opinion seriously. That's all it is. It's not like I'm arbitrarily letting the list tell me what I like.

Yeah I was only trying to say that if it's #13 on the AFI list it's a pretty good bet that its highly thought of........not that the list was the end all be all.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Yeah I was only trying to say that if it's #13 on the AFI list it's a pretty good bet that its highly thought of........not that the list was the end all be all.

Yarr! Definitely on your side on this.

[phatrat1982]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

It does not bother me that you like the updated versions. Everyone should like what they like right? I was just responding to your comment on the need for them to be revived. 10 Years from now Star Wars will be dead again just like it was in 1989 correct? Are you not also wanting to hold on to that special moment?

Sounds fair by the way I was not mad earlier so if I came off rude I didn;t mean to but you do come off as bitter. But I disagree I don't see Star wars dieing down now like it did before not with the Clone Wars and everything that keeps coming along to keep it in peoples minds. Maybe not in ten years anyways but in twenty or more when I won't really care anymore maybe.

Things have changed too much since the 80's for me to believe the world will ever go back to the way it was.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by JasonWard

We've also already gone over how difficult it is quantify what a classic is. From a cultural studies perspective, its going be based on market penetration into the home. The more a "text" is consumed by the lower class over time is how things become a part of the cultural canon. In that regard, how well The Phantom Menace does at the box office will be telling.

I think it's definition of "classic", even based on "cultural studies" (kind of a term that doesn't exist past college campuses), is a lot more than how many people consume it.

If that were the case, then "American Idol" and "Big Brother" would be considered "classics" to the culture. (Why they might as that "genre", more of a phenomena than "classic", but that's a whole other talk.) For a real comparison, as someone said above - that would make some of the worst movies "classics", which they never really do become (they just make a lot of money quickly to soon be forgotten).

What determines a "classic" is how a particular piece of "text" survives and it's cultural regard in the decades that follow. That doesn't simply rely on the amount of mass consumption.

In spite of my in-jest comment above regarding "Idol" et al, not many Americans of the last few generations have actually seen, say, Casablanca, outside of film classes, yet bringing it up to most anyone and they would identify it as a "classic" probably using that exact word without being prompted.

What determines a "classic" is that regard, as well as how much influence it has on other texts (we can drop the quotes now, I think - most people on this forum will understand the concept, text = film in this case, we've got a nice slice here). For example, one thing which makes Star Wars a classic is how imitated it was - how it's melting pot of existing archetypes in a new way with a new setting and level of technical revolution that changed the art of film making across many genres (not just Sci-fi). The prequels achieved nothing in any of those regards.

The prequels were not anything new story-wise or thematically. In fact, that was their intention, it was by design. It's blend of costume drama and action film wasn't something exactly new (in spite of bringing "prequel" to the larger lexicon, they are actually still sequels in everything but name). It explored deeper some of the themes presented in the original trilogy, but did not do so in any sort of profound way. (Can anyone say they really took anything deeply emotional from the film? What is interesting - and a whole other long cultural discussion - is that I think most of the emotional impact of watching the prequels isn't felt until watching the originals with the new knowledge, in that they don't so much stand on their own as make the originals even deeper/better when you watch them.)

As to technology, the same thing. When people look back at the history of visual effects, the original trilogy is going to be a major signpost. It was the first to do many things, and invent many concepts. Lucas earned his spot in history there with Star Wars itself (to a lesser extent with the sequels, as he was simply perfecting and pushing what he had already done). When people point to the milestones in special effects, the Star Wars tentpole looms far above the decade or two surrounding it (it's pretty much a straight shot to Jurassic Park from there in terms of true revolution, with a few other high points in between).

When you look at CGI, Lucas sort of missed the beginning and the "end". The Visual Effects he pioneered are also antiquated now, unfortunately (though I prefer them to CGI hands down - it's amazing how there is no middle ground, if only more directors would use BOTH). Tron (because even though Star Trek II with it's limited CGI was the first released film with a CGI sequence because it beat it by a month, Tron still was the big technical achievement), then Jurassic Park, then Lord of the Rings, then Avatar. The prequels don't even really factor in there.

The prequels were made at the mid-development of CGI technology, and it shows. The Special Editions were made in those mid-teenage years, for comparison (which mainly was my whole issue with them to begin with in most cases - the CG just wasn't very good). Yes, he will make a footnote for being the first to digitally film - but that's the camera hardware he used and it's resolution (antiquated already today as well), digital video itself was certainly nothing new.

And the CGI itself - it wasn't that great. The technology just wasn't there to do what Lucas wanted to do, even when he got to the prequels after the special editions. And he really didn't add anything new to the CGI landscape either. He did extensively use 3-D set extensions, famously having to redesign the physical ones at one point supposedly due to Liam Neeson's height. But the thing is, they had been doing that since Gone With The Wind - I didn't know this until listening to the commentary, but most of the interior of Tara was a matte painting as well.

So it's nothing new to replace interiors with graphics - the only difference between GWTW and TPM is that TMP used digital to fill in and not optical. To be honest, both are equally convincing to me. Then you have Jar Jar, who in spite of his character flaws did take image replacement a tiny step forward, just for the sheer number of shots he was in, but again, they didn't invent or do anything spectacular with actor motion capture, they just did it a bunch in a theatrical film. In that realm, Gollum really was the technical milestone because the technology had gotten good enough by then.

Then you have Avatar. Cameron did what Lucas tried to do ten years earlier. Spielberg pioneered it, Lucas and Jackson muddled with it for awhile, then Cameron came in and finished it up. CGI is kind of at the top of it's own technical heap right now. That's one reason 3-D is trying to be the new big deal - because CG is already 3-dimensional, it was just flattened for 2-D film, it's trying to push CG some place new because it's really at the end of development. There aren't many places left to go when you can pretty much use it to make anything look like anything or anywhere (which has greatly desensitized people very quickly - it's tough to impress these days, one reason some people may be hungry for 3-D after all).

So that's why the prequels I don't think will really qualify for "classic" status. Sure the kids of today will hold it in a different regard than we do Star Wars, but popularity isn't what defines a classic. It's how it advances the art of storytelling, either thematically or technically. And they really didn't do anything revolutionary in those regards, unlike the originals.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

So that's why the prequels I don't think will really qualify for "classic" status. Sure the kids of today will hold it in a different regard than we do Star Wars, but popularity isn't what defines a classic. It's how it advances the art of storytelling, either thematically or technically. And they really didn't do anything revolutionary in those regards, unlike the originals.

Nice post, sorta the same theme I was pushing awhile back.

[JasonWard]

Star Wars is pretty healthy right now. "The Clone Wars" is a rating success, the toys are selling strongly (it's still the number 1 boys toy), there's two more animated series on the way (only one is officially confirmed but I know of a another on the drawing board).

If the Live Action Show resonates, that will also help it go on, possibly better than ever.

I've come to the conclusion that trilogies are dead and they are not magical. Star Wars is in six parts, albeit both trilogies for the respective heroes arcs. Indiana Jones was never designed to be one and is no longer a trilogy. Lord of the Rings won't really be a trilogy once there are five films in the universe itself. For me, that only leaves Back to the Future that remains a trilogy.

I feel The Clone Wars has expanded upon Anakin's life in a positive way. I have a friend that was not jazzed with 1-3 but now feels those holes were plugged that he disliked and now enjoys the films thanks to the animated saga.

Once the Live Action Series gets going, I am sure they will follow the Young Indy model, in which they air as episodes and are then edited into story-arc films. The Clone Wars has already started doing this (I saw the Secret of Darth Maul theatrically and it was way better than the episodes in the form in which they aired).

I think we are entering into an era that is not unlike Star Trek where some of the films are accepted by fans and the TV shows are loved and the story is bigger than a trilogy or even a six part series.

[JasonWard]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

What determines a "classic" is how a particular piece of "text" survives and it's cultural regard in the decades that follow. That doesn't simply rely on the amount of mass consumption.

Exposure to a consumer base is the biggest part of something going on and being read as a text that matters. Today's low culture is the high culture of tomorrow. We can look at comic art from the 50s and see that it was disposable trash for the values of the day, but today it might sell for millions of dollars. Shakespeare survived because commoners consumed it and loved it. I agree that it is more complex than just being distributed and out there on a mass level. But if people enjoy it and it is out there, it has a shot at becoming canonical. Now, these films are undeniably instant classics for some (in my house for example) and not in others. So I don't deny the term is contested but we are even seeing people that aren't that into the "The Phantom Menace" calling it as classic in this thread.

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

In spite of my in-jest comment above regarding "Idol" et al, not many Americans of the last few generations have actually seen, say, Casablanca, outside of film classes, yet bringing it up to most anyone and they would identify it as a "classic" probably using that exact word without being prompted.

What determines a "classic" is that regard, as well as how much influence it has on other texts (we can drop the quotes now, I think - most people on this forum will understand the concept, text = film in this case, we've got a nice slice here). For example, one thing which makes Star Wars a classic is how imitated it was - how it's melting pot of existing archetypes in a new way with a new setting and level of technical revolution that changed the art of film making across many genres (not just Sci-fi). The prequels achieved nothing in any of those regards.

I have to respectfully disagree here. In fact, I believe super hero films are stuck on origin stories right now because of the prequel consciousness a whole generation of writers grew up with because of Lucas' last three films. Outside of Nolan's Batman, not many super hero films can get off the ground and get passed their prequel/origin phase, and in this instance origin and prequel are fairly synonymous. In fact, Lucas is the one that showed filmmakers of this type of film that they do not have to be restricted to a timeline that only moves forwards. Now, we have other films that have done prequel bits before, like the Godfather 2, but we never saw that affect the family blockbuster style film until Star Wars I-III.

That said, I don't feel I-III changed their style from IV-VI and remained consistent in a way we were somewhat accustomed to. In this way, I feel Lucas was successful as a filmmaker because he didn't break the conventions of his story/universe but did fresh things to each movie to give them their own flavor, which is why I love Star Wars.

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

The prequels were not anything new story-wise or thematically. In fact, that was their intention, it was by design. It's blend of costume drama and action film wasn't something exactly new (in spite of bringing "prequel" to the larger lexicon, they are actually still sequels in everything but name). It explored deeper some of the themes presented in the original trilogy, but did not do so in any sort of profound way. (Can anyone say they really took anything deeply emotional from the film? What is interesting - and a whole other long cultural discussion - is that I think most of the emotional impact of watching the prequels isn't felt until watching the originals with the new knowledge, in that they don't so much stand on their own as make the originals even deeper/better when you watch them.)

Sorry to be cliche, but I don't think we really have any new stories left in the world. We only have a mixing of primary and secondary genres that follow the beat structure. "The Phantom Menace" brought in 1950s science fiction films and mixed it with space fantasy. I can't think of a film that mixed those two reverently (wizard!). "Attack of the Clones" is a space opera mixed with a soap opera and a splash of film noir, which was new for Star Wars in some ways. We've seen this themes mixed before, sure. But for Star Wars it was fresh. "Revenge of the Sith," now this one is the one that is the least unique and plays into its own self. But I would say the originality in it is that the hero falls and literally fails. Tragedies aren't new, but they're new to blockbusters. I haven't seen that replicated elsewhere though. It can be hard for to root for a failure and I think that explains some of the negativity that goes with Anakin to a degree.

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

As to technology, the same thing. When people look back at the history of visual effects, the original trilogy is going to be a major signpost. It was the first to do many things, and invent many concepts. Lucas earned his spot in history there with Star Wars itself (to a lesser extent with the sequels, as he was simply perfecting and pushing what he had already done). When people point to the milestones in special effects, the Star Wars tentpole looms far above the decade or two surrounding it (it's pretty much a straight shot to Jurassic Park from there in terms of true revolution, with a few other high points in between).


When you look at CGI, Lucas sort of missed the beginning and the "end". The Visual Effects he pioneered are also antiquated now, unfortunately (though I prefer them to CGI hands down - it's amazing how there is no middle ground, if only more directors would use BOTH). Tron (because even though Star Trek II with it's limited CGI was the first released film with a CGI sequence because it beat it by a month, Tron still was the big technical achievement), then Jurassic Park, then Lord of the Rings, then Avatar. The prequels don't even really factor in there.

The prequels were made at the mid-development of CGI technology, and it shows. The Special Editions were made in those mid-teenage years, for comparison (which mainly was my whole issue with them to begin with in most cases - the CG just wasn't very good). Yes, he will make a footnote for being the first to digitally film - but that's the camera hardware he used and it's resolution (antiquated already today as well), digital video itself was certainly nothing new.

And the CGI itself - it wasn't that great. The technology just wasn't there to do what Lucas wanted to do, even when he got to the prequels after the special editions. And he really didn't add anything new to the CGI landscape either. He did extensively use 3-D set extensions, famously having to redesign the physical ones at one point supposedly due to Liam Neeson's height. But the thing is, they had been doing that since Gone With The Wind - I didn't know this until listening to the commentary, but most of the interior of Tara was a matte painting as well.

So it's nothing new to replace interiors with graphics - the only difference between GWTW and TPM is that TMP used digital to fill in and not optical. To be honest, both are equally convincing to me. Then you have Jar Jar, who in spite of his character flaws did take image replacement a tiny step forward, just for the sheer number of shots he was in, but again, they didn't invent or do anything spectacular with actor motion capture, they just did it a bunch in a theatrical film. In that realm, Gollum really was the technical milestone because the technology had gotten good enough by then.

When we say CGI in films, do people think "Jurassic Park," or do they think "Star Wars?" I think they think "Star Wars." I don't think you get Gollum without Jar Jar either. I think you make good points on how history may view George Lucas. But at the same time, I think the majority of the films you're talking about came through ILM, which both Star Wars trilogies made at the core level. Lucas himself thinks he'll be a footnote. I don't. Lucas directed many of the most technical scenes from "Jurassic Park" and while "Jurassic Park" was a huge step forward, the film for many intents and purposes was just the first step. Lucas was the first one to actually make CGI live action films at a viable level. The work done there is the foundation for "Avatar" which was really only better effects wise because of the motion capturing techniques they came up with. I think Star Wars may end up being viewed as traditionally animated CGI in the long run. Ultimately, it is still way too early to tell.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Then you have Avatar. Cameron did what Lucas tried to do ten years earlier. Spielberg pioneered it, Lucas and Jackson muddled with it for awhile, then Cameron came in and finished it up. CGI is kind of at the top of it's own technical heap right now. That's one reason 3-D is trying to be the new big deal - because CG is already 3-dimensional, it was just flattened for 2-D film, it's trying to push CG some place new because it's really at the end of development. There aren't many places left to go when you can pretty much use it to make anything look like anything or anywhere (which has greatly desensitized people very quickly - it's tough to impress these days, one reason some people may be hungry for 3-D after all).

From a technical point of view, you may be right. We won't know until its been twenty years where they can take it from here, if they can take it anyplace else that isn't smell-o-vision. I still think the verdict is out on "Avatar" as well. It reach mass consumption and was well received but was forgotten about quickly and didn't really seem to impact anything other than saying 3D was a viable option. In a lot of ways, I think the prequels robbed "Avatar" of a lot of its punch. But I don't agree with your comment below...

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

So that's why the prequels I don't think will really qualify for "classic" status. Sure the kids of today will hold it in a different regard than we do Star Wars, but popularity isn't what defines a classic. It's how it advances the art of storytelling, either thematically or technically. And they really didn't do anything revolutionary in those regards, unlike the originals.

Popularity is not what defines a classic, I do agree with that. "Transformers" just made a bajillion dollars and will be forgotten in two years time, totally off the cultural landscape entirely. But here we are talking about "The Phantom Menace" twelve years later which says something about its durability. It is in a stage of contention, which is obvious from the conversation we're having right now.

But based on a lot of what you've written, today's modern classics aren't even classics at all. "Lord of the Rings" isn't a classic and the things it has influenced are about as open ended as what the new "Star Wars" has inspired.

Still, the technical innovations you've discussed are irrelevant to cultural perceptions as consumers don't care about how something furthered a medium. They do however, probably matter to film historians that help set what is considered a classic in print.

The prequel's CGI innovations impacted more films than its predecessors CGI work did. On top of that, many of the tricks in the original films weren't entirely new, they were only new ways of doing old tricks better (thanks Dykstravision). The prequels streamlined CGI in a way that allowed ILM to do movies like Avatar and that will not be forgotten unless new movies utterly place them in the shadows in the end and I doubt that will happen. Being the first isn't what matters, making it a viable tool is what matters and ILM did that through Star Wars and that has nothing to do with earning a classic status. I don't think the technical innovations of say "King Kong" are a huge reason why its a classic today.

I don't believe we can know yet if they are classics though. I also don't believe half the saga will float and the other half will be forgotten. I think the whole thing floats or none of it does. I think a better discussion might revolve around the impact of movies through the series becoming instant classics because of their association with another film that has been inducted wholeheartedly as one.

What really is the determining factor is how many parents take their children to see "Star Wars" in 3D next February. I think your analysis is not bad but I think it leaves out mass exposure and nostalgia, two really powerful components that fuel Star Wars. I was 18 when "The Phantom Menace" came out and its already a part of my nostalgic past that cannot be erased or forgotten. This 3D release, if successful might do that again for new people and once it spans generations, I think it's in.

[phatrat1982]

And that is what I want the more the better I say.

[frogmort]

Wow, that's a lot of words.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by JasonWard

I've come to the conclusion that trilogies are dead and they are not magical. Star Wars is in six parts, albeit both trilogies for the respective heroes arcs. Indiana Jones was never designed to be one and is no longer a trilogy. Lord of the Rings won't really be a trilogy once there are five films in the universe itself. For me, that only leaves Back to the Future that remains a trilogy.

There's the old saying that "The worst entry in a trilogy is Part IV."
So far, that seems to have panned out for movies, as well.

(In keeping with the EricJ rule of "The Curse of IV":
Strange forces will inevitably collide to keep a producer from successfully making his fourth movie to revive a successfully completed trilogy...And if it ever happens--which it rarely does in the same decade as the original--it will be either missing half its cast, half its budgets or locations, or be in the hands of a completely different director or producer, thus severely damaging the chances of a Pt. V.
See related entries under "Superman", "Indiana Jones", "Back to the Future", "Karate Kid" and "Pirates of the Caribbean".
Star Trek, of course, being the exception, since they constantly had to apologize for the Odd-Numbered ones and pretend they hadn't happened, which threw off the numbering. )

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by JasonWard

Exposure to a consumer base is the biggest part of something going on and being read as a text that matters. Today's low culture is the high culture of tomorrow. We can look at comic art from the 50s and see that it was disposable trash for the values of the day, but today it might sell for millions of dollars. Shakespeare survived because commoners consumed it and loved it. I agree that it is more complex than just being distributed and out there on a mass level. But if people enjoy it and it is out there, it has a shot at becoming canonical. Now, these films are undeniably instant classics for some (in my house for example) and not in others. So I don't deny the term is contested but we are even seeing people that aren't that into the "The Phantom Menace" calling it as classic in this thread.



I have to respectfully disagree here. In fact, I believe super hero films are stuck on origin stories right now because of the prequel consciousness a whole generation of writers grew up with because of Lucas' last three films. Outside of Nolan's Batman, not many super hero films can get off the ground and get passed their prequel/origin phase, and in this instance origin and prequel are fairly synonymous. In fact, Lucas is the one that showed filmmakers of this type of film that they do not have to be restricted to a timeline that only moves forwards. Now, we have other films that have done prequel bits before, like the Godfather 2, but we never saw that affect the family blockbuster style film until Star Wars I-III.

That said, I don't feel I-III changed their style from IV-VI and remained consistent in a way we were somewhat accustomed to. In this way, I feel Lucas was successful as a filmmaker because he didn't break the conventions of his story/universe but did fresh things to each movie to give them their own flavor, which is why I love Star Wars.




Sorry to be cliche, but I don't think we really have any new stories left in the world. We only have a mixing of primary and secondary genres that follow the beat structure. "The Phantom Menace" brought in 1950s science fiction films and mixed it with space fantasy. I can't think of a film that mixed those two reverently (wizard!). "Attack of the Clones" is a space opera mixed with a soap opera and a splash of film noir, which was new for Star Wars in some ways. We've seen this themes mixed before, sure. But for Star Wars it was fresh. "Revenge of the Sith," now this one is the one that is the least unique and plays into its own self. But I would say the originality in it is that the hero falls and literally fails. Tragedies aren't new, but they're new to blockbusters. I haven't seen that replicated elsewhere though. It can be hard for to root for a failure and I think that explains some of the negativity that goes with Anakin to a degree.




When we say CGI in films, do people think "Jurassic Park," or do they think "Star Wars?" I think they think "Star Wars." I don't think you get Gollum without Jar Jar either. I think you make good points on how history may view George Lucas. But at the same time, I think the majority of the films you're talking about came through ILM, which both Star Wars trilogies made at the core level. Lucas himself thinks he'll be a footnote. I don't. Lucas directed many of the most technical scenes from "Jurassic Park" and while "Jurassic Park" was a huge step forward, the film for many intents and purposes was just the first step. Lucas was the first one to actually make CGI live action films at a viable level. The work done there is the foundation for "Avatar" which was really only better effects wise because of the motion capturing techniques they came up with. I think Star Wars may end up being viewed as traditionally animated CGI in the long run. Ultimately, it is still way too early to tell.


From a technical point of view, you may be right. We won't know until its been twenty years where they can take it from here, if they can take it anyplace else that isn't smell-o-vision. I still think the verdict is out on "Avatar" as well. It reach mass consumption and was well received but was forgotten about quickly and didn't really seem to impact anything other than saying 3D was a viable option. In a lot of ways, I think the prequels robbed "Avatar" of a lot of its punch. But I don't agree with your comment below...



Popularity is not what defines a classic, I do agree with that. "Transformers" just made a bajillion dollars and will be forgotten in two years time, totally off the cultural landscape entirely. But here we are talking about "The Phantom Menace" twelve years later which says something about its durability. It is in a stage of contention, which is obvious from the conversation we're having right now.

But based on a lot of what you've written, today's modern classics aren't even classics at all. "Lord of the Rings" isn't a classic and the things it has influenced are about as open ended as what the new "Star Wars" has inspired.

Still, the technical innovations you've discussed are irrelevant to cultural perceptions as consumers don't care about how something furthered a medium. They do however, probably matter to film historians that help set what is considered a classic in print.

The prequel's CGI innovations impacted more films than its predecessors CGI work did. On top of that, many of the tricks in the original films weren't entirely new, they were only new ways of doing old tricks better (thanks Dykstravision). The prequels streamlined CGI in a way that allowed ILM to do movies like Avatar and that will not be forgotten unless new movies utterly place them in the shadows in the end and I doubt that will happen. Being the first isn't what matters, making it a viable tool is what matters and ILM did that through Star Wars and that has nothing to do with earning a classic status. I don't think the technical innovations of say "King Kong" are a huge reason why its a classic today.

I don't believe we can know yet if they are classics though. I also don't believe half the saga will float and the other half will be forgotten. I think the whole thing floats or none of it does. I think a better discussion might revolve around the impact of movies through the series becoming instant classics because of their association with another film that has been inducted wholeheartedly as one.

What really is the determining factor is how many parents take their children to see "Star Wars" in 3D next February. I think your analysis is not bad but I think it leaves out mass exposure and nostalgia, two really powerful components that fuel Star Wars. I was 18 when "The Phantom Menace" came out and its already a part of my nostalgic past that cannot be erased or forgotten. This 3D release, if successful might do that again for new people and once it spans generations, I think it's in.

Wow that is alot of words.....

To make a long short I can see your passion for these films which is good, it's always good to read about one's love for film (that's why were are here no?) I do not agree with pretty much everything you have said regarding the films or their ultimate place in film history. I think banking on 3D anything to solidify their place in film history is kind of, well wishful thinking at best.

[Sweetmeats]

I think what everyone forgets that is TPM was incredibly groundbreaking but it's influence goes unnoticed. TPM played a huge role in how we see movies today and what types of programming we see in movie theaters. TPM was...

the first public demonstration of a full-length motion picture from a major studio using digital electronic projectors in movie theatres to replace the normal film projectors.

http://www.starwars.com/episode-i/re...s19990312.html

I traveled hours away to see The Phantom Menace projected digitally.It was huge event. Just 4 screens in the entire United States. Just think about that for a second. A little over ten years ago, there were barely any digital projectors in movie theaters. Now? The dollar theater near me has them. TPM brought this new technology to the forefront, just as Star Wars did with its SFX. Not to mention, digital cameras. A small scene in TPM was shot digitally, to test the waters, and with that success, came AOTC. It changed the way movies were shot and displayed, thanks to Lucas.

First talking film? The Jazz Singer. Racist by today's standards but it will always be remembered for it's importance, regardless of the quality of the movie. I suspect, whether people like TPM or not will be a moot point. It will be long remembered for the changes it helped bring about.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Sweetmeats

I traveled hours away to see The Phantom Menace projected digitally.It was huge event. Just 4 screens in the entire United States. Just think about that for a second. A little over ten years ago, there were barely any digital projectors in movie theaters. Now? The dollar theater near me has them. TPM brought this new technology to the forefront, just as Star Wars did with its SFX. Not to mention, digital cameras. A small scene in TPM was shot digitally, to test the waters, and with that success, came AOTC. It changed the way movies were shot and displayed, thanks to Lucas.

The fact that the most memorable and important things about the movie are the cameras used to film it and the projectors used to display it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement when it comes to the quality film itself. If anything, digital projection has become prevalent despite the quality (or lack thereof) of its parent film, not because of it.

[JasonWard]

Meats make an excellent point about the technical innovation the film had on modern filmmaking in the context of the conversation we're having. That's not the only thing contribution he films made but it is a large one in that has actually impacted the way we make and see films today. In fact, the 3D revolution itself doesn't exist without it.

Also in the context of the conversation we are having, most films that Star Wars influenced weren't really great either.

[phatrat1982]

what about A Nightmare on Elm Street, Police Academy, Pirates of the Caribbean, Rocky, Friday the 13th, Lethal Weapon, Fast and Furious, there might be others but last time I checked all of those had a successful run that went past 3 in a short period of time.

[jala12]

I was six when I first saw TPM. Needless to say, I was amazed by the movie at the time. The use of CG On Jar Jar, the environments and battle droids was unlike anything I had ever seen before. As such, regardless of what I think of the film itself now, the movie still holds a special place in my heart.