CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Star Wars Saga: A Look Back
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Wars Saga: A Look Back

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
Sorry to borrow your title JM Prater but with the upcoming release of Episode 3 and everything coming full circle, I thought I'd throw this out there. I know SW has been discussed and will be discussed until the end of time but I love the series anyway.

I remember watching SW on the big screen for the first time back '97 when the special editions were released and seeing that opening battle was an almost transcendant experience, hyperbole I know but that's just the way I felt. I love the '40's style verbal banter which you don't really hear anymore, especially between Han and Leia. Everytime I watch the ceremonie at the end it bring's a huge grin to my face, maybe it's William's score but it's just so uplifting.

ESB:
It's a classic. I love that final shot and also the falcon diving with the star cruisers above it almost colliding.

ROTJ:
That final space battle was just EPIC. I'll never get tired of watching it.

I'm focusing more on the OT because there's already enough threads on the prequel's but I think they ought to be discussed with the saga as a whole.

Most of all though, I'm just impressed by Lucas's vision throughout the entire series including the prequels.

I find it weird though that the death star is practically devoid of any females, I know it's supposed to representative of an oppressive regime but I still find it odd, then again, Leia's really the only major female character aside from Padme throughout the series so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
post #2 of 67
It's bittersweet that the end is near. Hopefully there will be other SW projects that actually merit good dicussion in the future.

I'll miss the hype. I always pictured watching all 6 films back-to-back, but I still am not sure how jarring it will be to go from Ep. III into Ep. IV. I'm not expecting it to be LOTR seamless.


Oh, and RottenPlanet...you're sneaky.
post #3 of 67
I also can't wait to watch all six in one sitting. I will be kinda sad when it's over though. Waiting for and talking about these movies have been a tether to my childhood.
post #4 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by sith happens
I also can't wait to watch all six in one sitting. I will be kinda sad when it's over though. Waiting for and talking about these movies have been a tether to my screenname.
I kid.
post #5 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rottenplanet
Considering that twenty years pass inbetween III and IV, it's not that hard to imagine the galaxy going to hell in the meantime.

Don't worry, I may be sneaky but no more jerking around from me.



rP
rj...is that you?
post #6 of 67
You're quick, Graham.

I mean, real quick.

Like lightning.
post #7 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rottenplanet
This is one thing that I've always admired about Lucas, that his vision for SW has never been compromised.
Lucas disagrees with you.
post #8 of 67
A New Hope was a comprimise of Lucas' original vision of Star Wars--he couldn't make the movie he wanted, due to both monetary and technological limitations, so he reworked it into something he could.
post #9 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Helix
You're quick, Graham.

I mean, real quick.

Like lightning.
FLASH!!!!
AHAHHHHHHHHHH!

Hey fella, I was just being sardonic.
post #10 of 67
I will always miss the fact that at one time there was supposed to be NINE films....I will be happy with six, but I would have loved the nine for sure.

I saw SW when it first came out in 77, and it totally blew me away and made me go on a path of creativity since. Then there was always this hope after 83 of another trilogy and I waited and waited and waited...now finally it's here and it seems unreal that we are already at the end. I am glad we will have a SW series since I have wanted one since childhood, but I am not sure if it will ever be the same.

The only thing is I bet someday that there will be more SW films....it may not be for a very long time, but I can see more coming...not from Lucas, but from others - you never know. I just hope it's not another 20 years (almost) before it happens.

Or can you see it, 30 - 40 years from now more SW films coming out while we are in our 70s, 80s, etc???
post #11 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
FLASH!!!!
AHAHHHHHHHHHH!

Hey fella, I was just being sardonic.
So was I.

ZAP!
post #12 of 67
Does anyone here think kids will be affected by the new films in the same way we were with the OT? I say this because my neighbours kid is nuts about Star Wars, but I'm not sure wether he prefers the old films or the new ones.

I was 4 when ROTJ came out and it was my favourite film for most of my childhood. If kids can feel the same way about these new films, then they're OK in my book and Lucas has done his job. But DO they? Or are they into other stuff (like video games, other films, etc.)?
post #13 of 67
Thread Starter 
I think kids are bombarded with so much info today so they're having video games, toys, DVD's and whatever else can be marketed towards them. Star Wars is a HUGE seller because it can be marketed to the kids easily. I don't think the prequels will have the same effect as the original SW because technology is such that it's extremely hard to impress kids today, they'll probably look at the OT and think it looks goofy or dumb because the FX, although impressive back then and still holds up in my eyes isn't what they're used to today when they're taken to see a movie.
post #14 of 67
Hahahahahaha!
post #15 of 67
As i was 11 when TPM came out would i be classed as one of them kids?

Anyway the OT:SE in 97 was my first 'real' experience, especialy on the cinema. I had seen ESB but can hardly remember it at all. It pretty much blew me away, but repeat viewings made it better for me and TPM cemented how much i loved the films. I saw no flaws when i watched it on the cinema for the first time, and i certainly wasn't dissapointed but i still knew the old ones though. Wonder what i would think if it was the first time of seeing SW ever? Though i was still young. But now when i see it i see more of the flaws and prefer the OT but i still admire the prequels anyway and certainly dont see as many of the flaws.

LONG LIVE STAR WARS!! lol
post #16 of 67
Wasn't sure which of the 27,894 STAR WARS threads to post this in but I thought it was an interesting essay all the same.

Sorry, George: Critics Used to Love 'Star Wars'
post #17 of 67
1977: Me and my mother walk late into a dark theater as R2-D2 and C-3PO are walking in the desert on Tatooine. I missed the Star Destroyer at the front of the movie. I would not see this scene for many years until I see it on video. My mother covers my eyes when Walrus Man gets his arm cut off.

1980: ESB- My mother covers my eyes when Han cuts open the Tauntan.

1983: My mother had a nervous breakdown. I saw ROJ with my cousin Regina. Who at the time I had a huge crush on.
post #18 of 67
For balance.....

Archived EMPIRE page at Rotten Tomatoes?

(This was pre-special edition)

http://web.archive.org/web/200008172...back/index.php


Quote:
Consensus:
ROTTEN. The novelty has worn off; terrible ending.

Quote:
"Empire is simply a minor entertainment." -- Tom Allen, VILLAGE VOICE

"I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called The Island." -- Vince Canby, NEW YORK TIMES


"Diverting piece of nonsense." -- John Simon, NATIONAL REVIEW


"Far less entertaining than the first!" -- John Coleman, NEW STATESMAN


"No amount of lightness, however, can lift this movie out of the swamps of Dagobah." -- Robert Asahina, NEW LEADER

"Unpromising!" -- Richard Combs, MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN


"There's no plot." -- Colin L. Westerbeck, Jr., COMMONWEAL

(Substitute CG for mechanical in the next one! )-

Quote:
"Lucas has been so preoccupied with the construction of mechanical amazements that he has perhaps forgotten there is more in Homer than epic battles, one-eyed giants, the song of the sirens and the whims of the gods." -- Robert Hatch, THE NATION

From a 1978 article discussing the mythical triumph of Star Wars -- the author had to preface it by citing the overall critical estimation...


Quote:
Star Wars, George Lucas' lavish space opera, is a fantasy for our times, this generation's Wizard of Oz. Nevertheless, whereas Lucas' film was almost universally praised for its costuming, sets, technical perfection, and wondrous special effects, its plot was largely dismissed by reviewers as corny or hokey, strictly kids' stuff. "The film's story is bad pulp, and so are the characters of hero Luke and heroine Leia," says Richard Corliss. "I kept looking for an 'edge,' to peer around the corny, solemn comic-book strophes," writes Stanley Kauffmann. And Molly Haskell sums up the critics' objections: "Star Wars is childish, even for a cartoon."

Well, if Star Wars is childish, then so are The Wizard of Oz and The Lord of the Rings. Like Tolkien's Middle Earth series, Star Wars is a modern fairy tale, a pastiche which reworks a multitude of old stories, and yet creates a complete and self-sufficient world of its own, one populated with intentionally flat, archetypal characters

Then of course, there's Pauline Kael's infamous review (full text):

Quote:
THE CURRENT CINEMA
by Pauline Kael
Issue of 1977-09-26

The loudness, the smash-and-grab editing, the relentless pacing drive every idea from your head; for young audiences "Star Wars" is like getting a box of Cracker Jack which is all prizes. This is the writer-director George Lucas's own film, subject to no business interference, yet it's a film that's totally uninterested in anything that doesn't connect with the mass audience. There's no breather in the picture, no lyricism; the only attempt at beauty is in the double sunset. It's enjoyable on its own terms, but it's exhausting, too: like taking a pack of kids to the circus. An hour into it, children say that they're ready to see it all over again; that's because it's an assemblage of spare parts—it has no emotional grip. "Star Wars" may be the only movie in which the first time around the surprises are reassuring. (Going a second time would be like trying to read "Catch-22" twice.) Even if you've been entertained, you may feel cheated of some dimension—a sense of wonder, perhaps. It's an epic without a dream. But it's probably the absence of wonder that accounts for the film's special, huge success. The excitement of those who call it the film of the year goes way past nostalgia to the feeling that now is the time to return to childhood.

Maybe the only real inspiration involved in "Star Wars" was to set its sci-fi galaxy in the pop-culture past, and to turn old-movie ineptness into conscious Pop Art. And maybe there's a touch of genius in keeping it so consistently what it is, even if this is the genius of the plodding. Lucas has got the tone of bad movies down pat: you never catch the actors deliberately acting badly, they just seem to be bad actors, on contract to Monogram or Republic, their klunky enthusiasm polished at the Ricky Nelson school of acting. In a gesture toward equality of the sexes, the high-school-cheerleader princess-in-distress talks tomboy-tough—Terry Moore with spunk. Is it because the picture is synthesized from the mythology of serials and old comic books that it didn't occur to anybody that she could get The Force?

While making TPM, Lucas wore a black t-shirt that had the following written on it:

Quote:
Star Wars
"a film with comic-book characters, an unbelievable story, no social commentary, lousy acting, preposterous dialogue and a ridiculously simplistic morality. In other words a bad movie"
John Seabrook, "The New Yorker", 1977
post #19 of 67
Now compare these two New York Times reviews (both by Canby)

Quote:
STAR WARS

By VINCENT CANBY
Published: May 26, 1977

Star Wars, George Lucas's first film since his terrifically successful American Graffiti, is the movie that the teenagers in American Graffiti would have broken their necks to see. It's also the movie that's going to entertain a lot of contemporary folk who have a soft spot for the virtually ritualized manners of comic-book adventure.

Star Wars, which opened yesterday at the Astor Plaza, Orpheum, and other theaters, is the most elaborate, most expensive, most beautiful movie serial ever made. It's both an apotheosis of Flash Gordon serials and a witty critique that makes associations with a variety of literature that is nothing if not eclectic: Quo Vadis?, Buck Rogers, Ivanhoe, Superman, The Wizard of Oz, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table.

All of these works, of course, had earlier left their marks on the kind of science-fiction comic strips that Mr. Lucas, the writer as well as director of Star Wars, here remembers with affection of such cheerfulness that he avoids facetiousness. The way definitely not to approach Star Wars, though, is to expect a film of cosmic implications or to footnote it with so many references that one anticipates it as if it were a literary duty. It's fun and funny.

The time, according to the opening credit card, is "a long time ago" and the setting "a galaxy far far away," which gives Mr. Lucas and his associates total freedom to come up with their own landscapes, housing, vehicles, weapons, religion, politics—all of which are variations on the familiar.

When the film opens, dark times have fallen upon the galactic empire once ruled, we are given to believe, from a kind of space-age Camelot. Against these evil tyrants there is, in progress, a rebellion led by a certain Princess Leia Organa, a pretty round-faced young woman of old-fashioned pluck who, before you can catch your breath, has been captured by the guardians of the empire. Their object is to retrieve some secret plans that can be the empire's undoing.

That's about all the plot that anyone of voting age should be required to keep track of. The story of Star Wars could be written on the head of a pin and still leave room for the Bible. It is, rather, a breathless succession of escapes, pursuits, dangerous missions, unexpected encounters, with each one ending in some kind of defeat until the final one.

These adventures involve, among others, an ever-optimistic young man named Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), who is innocent without being naive; Han Solo (Harrison Ford), a free-booting freelance spaceship captain who goes where he can make the most money; and an old mystic named Ben Kenobi (Alec Guinness), one of the last of the Old Guard, a fellow in possession of what's called "the force," a mixture of what appears to be ESP and early Christian faith.

Accompanying these three as they set out to liberate the princess and restore justice to the empire are a pair of Laurel-and-Hardyish robots. The thin one, who looks like a sort of brass woodman, talks in the polished phrases of a valet ("I'm adroit but I'm not very knowledgeable"), while the squat one, shaped like a portable washing machine, who is the one with the knowledge, simply squeaks and blinks his lights. They are the year's best new comedy team.

In opposition to these good guys are the imperial forces led by someone called the Grand Moff Tarkin (Peter Cushing) and his executive assistant, Lord Darth Vader (David Prowse), a former student of Ben Kenobi who elected to leave heaven sometime before to join the evil ones.

The true stars of Star Wars are John Barry, who was responsible for the production design, and the people who were responsible for the incredible special effects—spaceships, explosions of stars, space battles, hand-to-hand combat with what appear to be lethal neon swords. I have a particular fondness for the look of the interior of a gigantic satellite called the Death Star, a place full of the kind of waste space one finds today only in old Fifth Avenue mansions and public libraries.

There's also a very funny sequence in a low-life bar on a remote planet, a frontierlike establishment where they serve customers who look like turtles, apes, pythons, and various amalgams of same, but draw the line at robots. Says the bartender piously: "We don't serve their kind here."

It's difficult to judge the performances in a film like this. I suspect that much of the time the actors had to perform with special effects that were later added in the laboratory. Yet everyone treats his material with the proper combination of solemnity and good humor that avoids condescension. One of Mr. Lucas's particular achievements is the manner in which he is able to recall the tackiness of the old comic strips and serials he loves without making a movie that is, itself, tacky. Star Wars is good enough to convince the most skeptical eight-year-old sci-fi buff, who is the toughest critic.


(continued)
post #20 of 67
(continued]

Quote:
'The Empire Strikes Back' Strikes a Bland Note
By VINCENT CANBY

The Force is with us but let's try to keep our heads. These things are certifiable: "The Empire Strikes Back," George Lucas's sequel to his "Star Wars," the biggest grossing motion picture of all time, has opened. On the basis of the early receipts, "The Empire Strikes Back" could make more money than any other movie in history, except, maybe, "Star Wars." It is the second film in a projected series that may last longer than the civilization that produced it.

Confession: When I went to see "The Empire Strikes Back" I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called "The Island."

The Empire Strikes Back" is not a truly terrible movie. It's a nice movie. It's not, by any means, as nice as "Star Wars." It's not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it's also silly. Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation.

Gone from "The Empire Strikes Back" are those associations that so enchanted us in "Star Wars," reminders of everything from the Passion of Jesus and the stories of Beowulf and King Arthur to those of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the Oz books, Buck Rogers and Peanuts. Strictly speaking, "The Empire Strikes Back" isn't even a complete narrative. It has no beginning or end, being simply another chapter in a serial that appears to be continuing not onward and upward but sideways. How, then, to review it?

The fact that I am here at this minute facing a reproachful typewriter and attempting to get a fix on "The Empire Strikes Back" is, perhaps, proof of something I've been suspecting for some time now. That is, that there is more nonsense being written, spoken and rumored about movies today than about any of the other so-called popular arts except rock music. The Force is with us, indeed, and a lot of it is hot air.

Ordinarily when one reviews a movie one attempts to tell a little something about the story. It's a measure of my mixed feelings about "The Empire Strikes Back" that I'm not at all sure that I understand the plot. That was actually one of the more charming conceits of "Star Wars," which began with a long, intensely complicated message about who was doing what to whom in the galactic confrontations we were about to witness and which, when we did see them, looked sort of like a game of neighborhood hide-and-seek at the Hayden Planetarium. One didn't worry about its politics. One only had to distinguish the good persons from the bad. This is pretty much the way one is supposed to feel about "The Empire Strikes Back," but one's impulse to know, to understand, cannot be arrested indefinitely without doing psychic damage or, worse, without risking boredom.

This much about "The Empire Strikes Back" I do understand: When the movie begins, Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and their gang are hanging out on a cold, snowy planet where soldiers ride patrols on animals that look like ostrich-kangaroos, where there are white-furred animals that are not polar bears and where Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) almost freezes to death.

Under the command of Darth Vader, the forces of the Empire attack, employing planes, missiles and some awfully inefficient tanks that have the shape of armor-plated camels. Somehow Han Solo and Princess Leia escape. At that point Luke Skywalker flies off to find Yoda, a guru who will teach him more about the Force, Yoda being the successor to Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi (Alec Guinness), the "Star Wars" guru who was immolated in that movie but whose shade turns up from time to time in the new movie for what looks to have been about three weeks of work.

As Han Solo and Princess Leia wrestle with the forces of darkness and those of a new character played by Billy Dee Williams, an unreliable fellow who has future sainthood written all over him, Luke Skywalker finds his guru, Yoda, a small, delightful, Muppet-like troll created and operated by Frank Oz of the Muppet Show. Eventually these two stories come together for still another blazing display of special effects that, after approximately two hours, leave Han Solo, Leia and Luke no better off than they were at the beginning.

I'm not as bothered by the film's lack of resolution as I am about my suspicion that I really don't care. After one has one's fill of the special effects and after one identifies the source of the facetious banter that passes for wit between Han Solo and Leia (it's straight out of B-picture comedies of the 30's), there isn't a great deal for the eye or the mind to focus on. Ford, as cheerfully nondescript as one could wish a comic strip hero to be, and Miss Fisher, as sexlessly pretty as the base of a porcelain lamp, become (is it rude to say?) tiresome. One finally looks around them, even through them, at the decor. If Miss Fisher does much more of this sort of thing, she's going to wind up with the Vera Hruba Ralston Lifetime Achievement Award.

The other performers are no better or worse, being similarly limited by the not-super material. Hamill may one day become a real movie star, an identifiable personality, but right now it's difficult to remember what he looks like. Even the appeal of those immensely popular robots, C-3PO and R2-D2, starts to run out.

In this context it's no wonder that Oz's contribution, the rubbery little Yoda with the pointy ears and his old-man's frieze of wispy hair, is the hit of the movie. But even he can be taken only in small doses, possibly because the lines of wisdom he must speak sound as if they should be sung to a tune by Jimmy Van Heusen.

I'm also puzzled by the praise that some of my colleagues have heaped on the work of Irvin Kershner, whom Lucas, who directed "Star Wars" and who is the executive producer of this one, hired to direct "The Empire Strikes Back." Perhaps my colleagues have information denied to those of us who have to judge the movie by what is on the screen. Did Kershner oversee the screenplay, too? Did he do the special effects? After working tirelessly with Miss Fisher to get those special nuances of utter blandness, did he edit the film? Who, exactly, did what in this movie? I cannot tell, and even a certain knowledge of Kershner's past work ("Eyes of Laura Mars," "The Return of a Man Called Horse," "Loving") gives me no hints about the extent of his contributions to this movie. "The Empire Strikes Back" is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank.

I assume that Lucas supervised the entire production and made the major decisions or, at least, approved of them. It looks like a movie that was directed at a distance. At this point the adventures of Luke, Leia and Han Solo appear to be a self-sustaining organism, beyond criticism except on a corporate level.
post #21 of 67
Of course, not every critic disliked SW or it's sequels. But Stahl did kind of ask a generalized/loaded question.....so she kinda got a generalized/loaded answer.

As if EVERY critic loathed the prequels.

As if EVERY critic loathed the OT.


Maybe the backlash against the prequels has dulled our collective memories, but there was a good chunk of film critics who did like the prequels -- as much as loathe.

From TPM's Rotten Tomatoes page....


Quote:
"It's well-made and entertaining!"
-- William Arnold, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

"It sustains the gee-whiz spirit of the series and offers a swashbuckling extragalactic getaway, creating illusions that are even more plausible than the kitchen-raiding raptors of Jurassic Park."
-- Janet Maslin, NEW YORK TIMES

"The Phantom Menace takes twists and turns you don't expect."
-- John Podhoretz, NEW YORK POST

"Phantom had me from the moment it touched down on Naboo."
-- Carrie Rickey, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

"Though I've been bored senseless by the Star Wars phenomenon for over two decades, I found The Phantom Menace something of a pleasant surprise."
-- Jonathan Rosenbaum, CHICAGO READER

"Spectacular fun!"
-- Jack Garner, ROCHESTER DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE

"Visually dazzling, inventive beyond imagining and full of resonant detail that recalls stories told or hints at those to come!"
-- Susan Stark, DETROIT NEWS

"A highly entertaining and visually breathtaking movie, capable at times of rocking and delighting you."
-- Michael Wilmington, CHICAGO TRIBUNE

"Lucas has proved he has the Naboos to pull it off again."
-- Susan Wloszczyna, USA TODAY


"Pure adventure!"
-- Philip Wuntch, DALLAS MORNING NEWS

"There is a sense of discovery in scene after scene of The Phantom Menace."
-- Roger Ebert, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES


"Incomplete, but still fun."
-- Sean Means, FILM.COM


"The special effects are as awesome as you would expect, and this is an extremely slick production."
-- Brian Webster, APOLLO GUIDE

"I'm glad I saw this movie. You'll be glad you did too. It's an amazing adventure into technology and glitz."
-- CULTUREVULTURE.NET

"A great work from a greater director, and a blockbuster of quite the most swashbuckling kind."
-- Mark Dinning, EMPIRE MAGAZINE [UK]

"A testimony to how far special effects have come."
-- James Berardinelli, REELVIEWS


"A vigorous, romping, hugely entertaining movie!"
-- F.X. Feeney, MR. SHOWBIZ

"Delivers exactly what every kid of any age wants: wows. And plenty of them!"
-- Bob Fenster, ARIZONA REPUBLIC

"An often deliriously exciting adventure, hitting the target audience of 10-year olds and satisfying long-time fans."
-- Danny Graydon, BBC

"The Phantom Menace proves that Lucas still knows how to capture the imagination of young and old."
-- Louis B. Hobson, JAM! MOVIES

"Very rewarding for devoted fans, chock full of delightful references and allusions and parallels to the first trilogy that pay off handsomely the multiple viewings of the originals we've enjoyed over the years."
-- MaryAnn Johanson, FLICK FILOSOPHER

"This Star Wars engages by its sheer variety of characters!"
-- Harvey S. Karten, COMPUSERVE


"Lucas' films might not be very deep, but they're very complex and involving in a comic book kind of way."
-- Kevin N. Laforest, MONTREAL FILM JOURNAL

"Far from a shattering blow to my faith in Star Wars, I believe that in time these new films will only make it stronger."
-- Paul Malcolm, L.A. WEEKLY


"It exactly has the same strengths and weaknesses as the original three, plus breathtakingly spectacular visual design and special effects."
-- Nell Minow, MOVIE MOM AT YAHOO! MOVIES

"Finally someone has crossed the line where reality and fantasy are indistinguishable!"
-- Christopher Null, FILMCRITIC.COM

"This entry into the Star Wars saga does the originals justice in terms of heart, action, and fun."
-- Marty Mapes, MOVIE HABIT

"This movie is a perfect example of why the word 'eye-candy' was invented."
-- JoBlo, JOBLO'S MOVIE EMPORIUM

"A terrific piece of visual entertainment!"
-- Ted Fry, FILM.COM

"It does the job just fine. That job, as director George Lucas freely admits, is quite simply to thrill the beating hearts and the inquiring minds of 12-year-old boys."
-- Rick Groen, GLOBE AND MAIL

"Worth the wait, worth the trouble, worth all the noise!"
-- Glenn Gaslin, NEW TIMES

"It's an extremely enjoyable movie, blending imagination with technology and creating visual eye candy, wrapped up in a lightweight but enjoyable story."
-- Matt Easterbrook, MATT'S MOVIE REVIEWS

"The Phantom Menace opened to the exact same complaints as its now canonical predecessor. Only this time, its very real assets have been almost completely dismissed."
-- Rob Vaux, FLIPSIDE MOVIE EMPORIUM

"Packed with creative characters and breath-taking action sequences!"
-- Jay Stone, OTTAWA CITIZEN

"Let the movie speak to the child inside you -- the child that is still optimistic and that still believes in magic."
-- Eric D. Snider, ERICDSNIDER.COM

"Action sequences that will bring you back to see it again and again!"
-- Chuck Schwartz, CRANKY CRITIC®

"Lucas has fashioned a fascinating pluriverse of outer space works filled with strange and amazing creatures and special effects."
-- Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat, SPIRITUALITY AND HEALTH

"Exceptionally well-made, highly imaginative!"
-- Michael Dequina, MR. BROWN'S MOVIES


"The perfect movie for families!"
-- Duane Dudek, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL

"Just as Roy Lichtenstein transferred his imagery from painting to sculpture, George Lucas has transferred his imagery from film moviemaking to digital moviemaking."
-- Curtis Edmonds, TXREVIEWS.COM

"An entertaining piece of science fiction fluff."
-- Michael Elliott, MOVIE PARABLES

"The John Williams score is dynamite, the sound is brilliant, the pictures are richly detailed and ferociously eye-popping!"
-- Mark Ramsey, MOVIEJUICE!

"Thoroughly entertaining!"
-- Steve Rhodes, STEVE RHODES' INTERNET REVIEWS

"Is it fun? For the most part, yes. Is it a life-changing experience? Only if you reach puberty, give birth or die while watching it."
-- James Sanford, KALAMAZOO GAZETTE

"The Star Wars series is back with all of its virtues intact."
-- Steve Schneider, ORLANDO WEEKLY

"At times this science-fiction adventure is thrilling, and it is also touching and even has its share of silly moments."
-- Jeff Vice, DESERET NEWS, SALT LAKE CITY

"A very pleasing technical accomplishment."
-- Dennis Schwartz, OZUS' WORLD MOVIE REVIEWS

"Outstanding!"
-- Bob Strauss, LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS
post #22 of 67
"While making TPM, Lucas wore a black t-shirt that had the following written on it:


Quote:
Star Wars
"a film with comic-book characters, an unbelievable story, no social commentary, lousy acting, preposterous dialogue and a ridiculously simplistic morality. In other words a bad movie"
John Seabrook, "The New Yorker", 1977 "



And that's exactly what he went on to make. How clever of him.
post #23 of 67
Thread Starter 
And thus, the battle goes ever on.
post #24 of 67
BTW, Here's that full essay, "Star Wars: A Myth For Our Time"

{Literature/Film Quarterly 6.4 (Fall 1978)}


Quote:
Star Wars, George Lucas' lavish space opera, is a fantasy for our times, this generation's Wizard of Oz. Nevertheless, whereas Lucas' film was almost universally praised for its costuming, sets, technical perfection, and wondrous special effects, its plot was largely dismissed by reviewers as corny or hokey, strictly kids' stuff. "The film's story is bad pulp, and so are the characters of hero Luke and heroine Leia," says Richard Corliss. "I kept looking for an 'edge,' to peer around the corny, solemn comic-book strophes," writes Stanley Kauffmann. And Molly Haskell sums up the critics' objections: "Star Wars is childish, even for a cartoon."

Well, if Star Wars is childish, then so are The Wizard of Oz and The Lord of the Rings. Like Tolkien's Middle Earth series, Star Wars is a modern fairy tale, a pastiche which reworks a multitude of old stories, and yet creates a complete and self-sufficient world of its own, one populated with intentionally flat, archetypal characters: reluctant young hero, warrior-wizard, brave and beautiful princess, and monstrous black villain. I would argue that the movie's fundamental appeal to both young and old lies precisely in its deliberately old-fashioned plot, which has its roots deep in American popular fantasy, and, deeper yet, in the epic structure of what Joseph Campbell in The Hero with a Thousand Faces calls "the monomyth."

In an era when Americans had lost heroes in whom to believe, Lucas created a myth for our times, fashioned out of bits and pieces of twentieth-century American popular mythology--old movies, science fiction, television, and comic books--but held together at its most basic level by the standard pattern of the adventures of a mythic hero. Star Wars is a masterpiece of synthesis, a triumph of American ingenuity and resourcefulness, demonstrating, how the old may be made new again: Lucas raided the junkyards of our popular culture and rigged a working myth out of scrap. Like the hotrods in his previous film, American Graffiti, Star Wars is an amalgam of pieces of mass culture customized and supercharged and run flat out. He lifted parts openly and lovingly from various popular culture genres, but the engine that runs it is the "monomyth."

If, as Lucas says, he has studied myth and deliberately attempted to construct one in his film, it would be useful to determine how successfully the work meets mythic criteria. I want to examine Star Wars: A Myth for Our Time in the light of Joseph Campbell's thesis in The Hero with A Thousand Faces that the hero of epic myth is a dream-figure who stands in for the entire culture. According to Campbell, the hero must descend into the infantile unconscious, the realm of sleep. "All the ogres and secret helpers of our nursery are there, all the magic of childhood." There the hero gives battle to "the nursery demons of his local culture," and "brings back from his adventure the means for the regeneration of the society as a whole". Symbolically, he become a man by rescuing his mother and slaying his father. Despite the Oedipal nature of the conflict, he is finally accepted by the parent figures, and thus discovers his true identity and attains his true powers, which he realizes were within him all the time. Campbell divides this "monomyth" into three main stages--Departure, Initiation, and Return--each of which consists of various steps, so I will trace the action of Star Wars to see how closely it corresponds to this traditional pattern of mythic adventure.

Typically, the hero is the orphaned son or royalty. Unaware of his true identity, he is consigned to a life of drudgery and exile. He is first called to adventure by a herald, signifying that "the time for the passing of a threshold is at hand". The threshold represents a rebirth into adulthood; the hero or heroine must overcome the parents, who stand as "threshold guardians." When we first meet Luke, we find him bored and restless for adventure, but kept on a farm on the remote planet Tatooine by his uncle, who fears the orphan may turn out like his father. Luke is curious about this father, who his uncle claims was navigator on a space freighter. Later we find that Luke's father was actually a Jedi Knight, and, in the words of Ben Kenobi, "the best starship pilot in the galaxy, and a cunning warrior." The uncle, then, is the actual father--ordinary and repressive--while the Knight is the idealized image of the father. At this point, the call to adventure arrives fortuitously for Luke: a little robot appears, carrying a hologrammed plea for rescue from a beautiful princess. Symbolically, Threepio, Artoo's android companion, now refers deferentially to the boy as "Sir Luke." Like a Knight of the Round Table, he has been summoned to adventure.

The next step in this wish-fulfillment dream is the encounter with a protective figure, "some wizard, hermit, shepherd, or smith, who appears to supply the amulets and advice that the hero will require....The call, in fact, was the first announcement of the approach of this initiatory priest". The wizard here is old Ben Kenobi, once a rebel General (Obi-wan) and a friend to Luke's father, now a hermit in the desert wastes of the planet; the Princess' message had been a call for his help. Ben has supernatural powers: he first appears as a mysterious hooded figure, uttering inhuman howls to frighten away the desert Sandpeople, who have attacked Luke. And he is indeed a priest, last of the Jedi Knights, a mystic religious order which worships the Force, "the power which binds together the universe." Ben appears out of nowhere to save Luke, and he assumes the protective, paternal role which he maintains throughout the film. Like Merlin, he tutors this rough-hewn country lad, and hands him the sword his father willed him (in this case not Excalibur but the light-sword of the Jedi Knights).

Once he leaves the safe boundaries of the farm, Luke can never go back. As the attack of the Sandpeople shows him, the world is a desert place filled with danger, but only by abandoning the security he had known, leaving the womb of his childhood, can he enter the adult world. Luke at first refuses the call to adventure, but joins Ben when he discovers that, in his absence, DarthVader's Stormtroopers have burned the farm and killed his aunt and uncle.

Of course, nothing in mythic plots adheres to the conventions of realism; it is all guided to fulfill the hero's "destiny." And what is destiny but a supernatural "Force" which arranges for things to happen? It is another word for the belief in the magical omnipotence of thought. For example, why does a chain of circumstances detour the little robot to Luke's farm? This is not chance--it was evidently predestined for Luke's sake. And why is Ben living as a hermit near Luke's farm? Obviously, so that he could be there when Luke needed him. For that matter, the death of Luke's aunt and uncle is arranged conveniently.

"Destiny" also helps to make Luke seem blameless: he does not seek out Ben, but merely tries to return the wandering Artoo unit to the farm, and, still loyal to his uncle, he refuses the call to adventure until he is left no choice. It has all been magically manipulated for Luke: his wish for adventure materialized and the obstacles (uncle and aunt) conveniently removed.

(continued)
post #25 of 67
(continued)

Quote:
At the same time, our blameless hero is provided with a ready made excuse for rebellion in the political situation and the slaughter of his father, aunt, and uncle by Vader or his minions. As Otto Rank notes in The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, "the myth throughout reveals an endeavor to get rid of the parents," particularly the father; yet the hero, like Hamlet, sees himself not as the persecutor but as "the avenger of the murdered father." In fact, Luke has a careless habit of losing father-figures: first the Knight, then his uncle, and then Ben fall to the demonic Darth Vader (whose name suggests "dark" or "death invader," or even "death father").

According to Campbell, the mythic hero, once having stepped beyond the safe bounds of his everyday routine, sallies forth with the Wizard, "the personification of his destiny to guide and aid him." Now he must confront a dangerous ogre, a "threshold guardian". Here we have a series of threshold guardians: first the marauding Sandpeople, next a Stormtrooper guarding the entrance to the spaceport, and finally a foul-looking alien in the spaceport bar. In each case, Luke is saved by Ben, who uses either the Force of the power of his light sabre.

The next stage of the adventure, says Campbell, is the passage into "the belly of the whale"; in Star Wars, the heroes are sucked into the enemy space fortress by a tractor beam. Here the hero symbolically dies and is reborn in the second phase, or Initiation.

The initiation consists of a series of miraculous tests and ordeals. The hero is covertly aided by the advice, amulets, and secret agents of the supernatural helper". In Campbell's scheme, the endless corridors of the Death Star would represent for Luke "the crooked lanes of his own spiritual labyrinth," and his perils would represent the type we encounter nightly in our dreams. Interestingly, among the typical dream perils Campbell mentions are two in particular: "Themistocles dreamed that a snake wound itself around his body, then crept up to his neck" (an obvious phallic symbol), and "the dreamer is absolutely abandoned...in a deep hole of a cellar. The walls of his room keep getting narrower and narrower, so that he cannot stir. In this image are combined the ideas of mother womb, imprisonment, cell, and grave". Luke encounters precisely these two perils after his plunge into the inferno of the garbage room. Meanwhile, he is aided by his various helpers: Ben unlocks the tractor beam to release their captive ship, and he fights Vader; the robots stop the walls from crushing them; and Solo and Chewbacca help the group shoot their way out. But Luke has passed his initiation; whereas previously he had passively relied on Ben, now he initiates and carries out the rescue of the Princess and the escape from the Death Star.


At the center of the journey is "The Meeting with the Goddess" and "The Atonement with the Father," both symbolic stages in working out the Oedipal crisis. The rescue of the Princess represents the former stage, and the death of Ben represents the latter. Luke's guardian, having fulfilled his function, seems to will his own destruction and is cut down by Vader; nevertheless, he does not die so much as he disappears in order to be subsumed into the Force. He persists as a voice which guides Luke at critical moments, like the superego, which Freud posited as nothing more than the internalized voice of the parents. Once they are safely aboard Solo's ship, Luke mourns Ben, and is comforted by the Princess, who maternally puts a blanket over his shoulders and tells him he is not to blame; there is nothing he could have done about it. Ben had similarly exculpated him after Luke found his aunt and uncle dead.

We can see here again how Lucas attempts to make this essentially Oedipal fable guilt-free. If myth is dreamlike, then all the characters are merely extensions of the wishes of the central character. Vader as destructive devil acts out Luke's patricidal desires, yet Ben, his good side, still forgives him and blesses him, as we all wish our parents to do. Solo, the apparently amoral loner, acts out Luke's antisocial desires for total independence; Luke himself is presented as dutiful and dependent. The ambivalence of love yet hate toward authority is thus successfully contained by parcelling it out among separate characters. Finally, the Oedipal desires toward the mother-figure are also kept in check by the inability of the Princess to decide between the two rivals, Luke and Solo.

Having symbolically met his mother and made his peace with his father, the hero, according to Campbell, has reached the stage of Apotheosis. He is now the possessor of the grace of the Gods, "the Ultimate Boon" which can restore his culture. This Boon is, of course, the Force. As Campbell writes,

Briefly formulated, the universal doctrine teaches that all the visible structures of the world--all things and beings--are the effects of a ubiquitous power out of which they arise, which supports them and fills them during the period of their manifestation, and back into which they must ultimately dissolve....Its manifestation in the cosmos is the structure and flux of the universe itself.

This ur-religion is a basic element of all myth; the hero becomes the possessor of this ubiquitous power, or "Force" when he achieves adulthood.

Thus the mystical elements of Star Wars begin to make sense; they are indispensable to the mythic structure. Moreover, this Force, as Campbell explains, is not simply a religious power; it is also the power of the libido, and "its guardians dare release it only to the duly proven". Luke, having won through his trials and proven himself to his guardian, can now enter manhood. The father dies for his sake, freeing Luke's libido; as Ben tells him, "The Force will be with you always."

The Departure and the Initiation completed, the hero now begins the third and final stage: the Return. "The full round, the norm of the monomyth, requires that the hero shall now begin the labor of bringing the runes of Wisdom, the Golden Fleece, or his sleeping princess, back into the kingdom of humanity, where the boon may redound to the renewing of the community, the nation, the planet, or the ten thousand worlds". Luke, accompanied by the Princess, escapes with the plans of the battle station in Solo's ship out of the Death Star, out of the belly of the whale. He now undergoes what Campbell calls "the Magic Flight" (p. 196); he is chased by symbolic "demons" out of the Death Star, but manages with the aid of Solo to destroy the pursuing ships and reach the rebel base--significantly, a lush, green, light-filled planet.

Having crossed the threshold from "the world of light" into "the world of darkness" and returned alive, Luke is now "master of the Two Worlds". He has the power to move at will between the two, and he proves this by returning at the risk of his life to the Death Star in order to destroy it. In combat, Luke now assumes his true identity, which is that of the ideal father: Jedi Knight, starship pilot, and cunning warrior. Guided by the Force, he naturally succeeds in his task, dropping some proton torpedoes down a symbolically suggestive narrow chute. The Death Star goes up in an orgasmic explosion of fireworks.

According to Campbell, "the work of the hero is to slay the tenacious aspect of the father (dragon, tester, ogre king) and release from its ban the vital energies that will feed the universe". His job, in other words, is the destruction of the status quo in order to permit renewal and restoration, and this is the task which Luke, ordinary boy raised to the status of mythic hero, successfully performs.

It is precisely this sense of renewal which makes Star Wars so appealing. In the absence of any shared contemporary myths, Lucas has constructed out of the usable past, out of bits of American pop culture, a new mythology which can satisfy the emotional needs of both children and adults. The passion for Star Wars is akin to the fervor of a religious revival.

Each generation must either create its own myths and its own heroes or regenerate those of the past. Star Wars was released in a period when the heroes had been cast down through such national catastrophes as Vietnam and Watergate, when the lines between good and evil became cloudy, and when sexual identities were beginning to be redefined by the Women's Movement. Meanwhile, Americans found themselves living inside a kind of Death Star, a machine world drained of spiritual values, a world in which the individual felt impotent and alien. In the late 1970s, Americans desperately needed a renewal of faith in themselves as good guys on the world scene, as men and women, as human beings who count, and so returned temporarily to the simpler patterns of the past. Old superheroes like Superman were revived--and so were old-fashioned genre films like Rocky and Star Wars.

Such fantasies give voice to our deepest longings, and speak to our hopes about the future of our society and of ourselves. For example, in opposition to the dehumanizing uses of technology, Star Wars shows the triumph of good technology over evil machinery--an updated version of the triumph of white magic over black magic in The Wizard of Oz. Viewers recognize that Star Wars has no direct relation to external reality, but it does relate to our dreams of how we would like reality to be. As the reviewer Jack Kroll says about the film, "It's the last chance for kids to have fun before they grow up to be Oedipus. And we hollow-eyed Oedipuses can, if we try, go back and enjoy the fun of our pre-guilt stage."

"Kids' stuff," after all, is the stuff that dreams are made of.

We can see here again how Lucas attempts to make this essentially Oedipal fable guilt-free.


Of course, that would change in a big way during the next episode.....
post #26 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eurytus
"While making TPM, Lucas wore a black t-shirt that had the following written on it:


Quote:
Star Wars
"a film with comic-book characters, an unbelievable story, no social commentary, lousy acting, preposterous dialogue and a ridiculously simplistic morality. In other words a bad movie"
John Seabrook, "The New Yorker", 1977 "



And that's exactly what he went on to make. How clever of him.
I seriously do not understand the sheer bitterness and scorn heaped upon the prequels and I never will. They are only movies, popcorn flicks designed to entertain and for better or worse the PT is entertaining.

Anyways.

Interesting stuff Mecha... it is always nice to see an objective opinion of the original trilogy and seeing some of the bad reviews for a New Hope and Empire really made me smile. I am of the firm belief that these are kids films and the reason why a lot of you guys feel burned is because you watched the OT at Lucas's desired age and then went on to watch the phantom menace as adults and expected the film to break the tonal conventions of the OT. The movies are a kids saga and as such expecting the plot to change to suit an adult audience when the OT itself was kid lit is always going to lead to dissapointment.

As I have stated before my first real encounter with the OT was the 15th anniversery vhs rerelease in 1992 (before the Special Editions were brought out). As such I watched the OT when I was kind and I watched the phantom menace when I was still technically a kid (14 if my maths is right).

I enjoy these films as a piece of mindless entertainment, a quirky homage to a bygone age of high adventure. If I want strong narrative and adult plots I will go watch another movie, because to me the SW saga is always going to be about just letting the films wash over you.
post #27 of 67
Thread Starter 
I think it's been discussed at length that people found the prequels disappointing due to a lack of direction on Lucas's part and as Fatboy Robert's so expertly assessed, people placing thematic weight on a series of films that just can't hold it up.

I still like the prequels. I think they've progressed with each movie, hopefully ROTS will be the pinnacle and after listening to that score oh god I hope so.
post #28 of 67
Mecha, I honestly respect your opinion and always appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your responses. I truly do.

But for fuck's sake, must you carpet bomb every STAR WARS thread with entire articles? That's not "balanced." That's overkill. It's filibustering. Why not just provide links?

Anyway, sorry to vent. But MAN...
post #29 of 67
So you're not going to address how those past reviews show up your article and posturing for what it's worth?
post #30 of 67
I think what has to be considered here when comparing the OT and PT is not what critics think, but what audiences think. Critics have always hated Star Wars, so who cares? The bad reviews for Star Wars back in 77 didn't stop audiences from loving it and making it a hugely influential film trilogy. Back then Star Wars stood out, it really was something different, and its still loved to this day because of that.

Are the prequels going to be the same? Do they really push any boundaries? The special effects aren't anything special, there's just a lot of them. The end battle in TPM consisted of two armies of identical droids and Gungans marching towards each other and shooting. Will audiences remember or cherish these new films, or are they just a throwback, outdated and silly by todays standards, especially when compared to LOTR or The Matrix? The effects in AOTC already seem outdated and cartoonish to me, along with the performances.

A lot of the people on these boards who defend the prequels accuse the haters of having too high expectations of the new films. Is it really too much to ask for something that affects us the way the OT still does? Lucas has 3 years to make each of these films, yet they still seem unfinished and empty. And before that he had 20 years, and he came up with trade disputes, monk Jedi Knights, and generic droid-badguys. Its just not the same, the imagination isn't fired, nobody leaves the theatre wishing they were Anakin Skywalker, the way we wished we were Han Solo or Princess Leia (depending on our respective genders).

Thats what I think anyway. We complain, and we should complain, because thats what makes people get it right . Oh and I hope everyone enjoys ROTS.
post #31 of 67
Well put.
post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Helix
Well put.
Agreed. Now take cover! Incoming Mecha bombardment in five, four, three, two...

post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviatedPrevert
The special effects aren't anything special, there's just a lot of them.
Sorry, but I think not just the digital work here but also the model work deserves a mention. Jar-Jar especially. The guy was annoying as hell, but he was annoying as a character, and as a digital character, he worked, as did Watto and others. I agree not all of it has been perfect and AOTC's effects sometimes looked off, but to say they've done nothing special is a bit crazy, in my opinion.
post #34 of 67
Thread Starter 
I always felt that the the limitations of FX at the time of SW release actually helped Lucas, he may not agree but the clunky computers and broken down ships worked within the confines of that world, under an oppressive dictatorship, compare that with the prequels where you have a vibrant republic not yet succumbing to the empire and it's a different vision than the one we saw in the OT. I'm not saying Lucas pulled it off flawlessly, far from it but I don't think it's fair to say the FX is outdated, just take a look at the podrace, the chase through coruscant, the three way duel in TPM, there's some stellar work in those movies, choosing the gungan/droid battle as an example seems like such an easy target and I agree, that was boring as all hell, I just wanted to get back to the duel but I don't agree with the critiscism that the FX in both films was uninspired and outdated.
post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fett
Sorry, but I think not just the digital work here but also the model work deserves a mention. Jar-Jar especially. The guy was annoying as hell, but he was annoying as a character, and as a digital character, he worked, as did Watto and others. I agree not all of it has been perfect and AOTC's effects sometimes looked off, but to say they've done nothing special is a bit crazy, in my opinion.
Good point, I like Watto, but Jar Jar? Not once did I believe he was actually there, especially when poor old Ewan McGregor spent every scene with him staring above his head. I think its a case of having the technology, and using it properly. As Dragon Ma said, Lucas worked better when he COULDN'T do everything he wanted, he had to be creative. Now that he can do anything, he's become boring and uncreative. He isn't challenged. Look at the Oscars for Special Effects (bad example , I know). Both SW prequels lost out to films with less effects, but, in my opinion with more IMAGINATIVE effects. LOTR won because you could see the effort that went into Gollum onscreen, the Matrix won because it pioneered the way effects were used in an action film. In this respect, I'm afraid Lucas has fallen behind. Sure, his models are great, but when you've had 20 years and unlimited funds to come up with them, its kind of expected.

Well, I haven't been flamed yet, but thats probably just down to time differences. I want to be as civil as possible in this debate, I'm not out to piss anyone off, and any feedback is much apreciated!
post #36 of 67
See, I do agree though that the limitations fo Special Effects in the 70's had a positive impact on the original trilogy. Not only did it force ILM and Co. to be really clever in the way they pulled things off, it also forced Lucas to reel in his story to a personal level. A New Hope, for instance, which is my favorite of the series, is really about three or four people and you can relate to them even as exagerrated cartoon characters because the plot necessitates that you like them or else you'd root for the much cooler-looking bad guys.

The Prequels though are filled with so much stuff happening and so many characters doing so many things- It's like Lucas finally had the technical ability to create an epic but had no idea and no experience in how to tell that kind of story. He also has this fan base now that took his series so seriously that he had almost no choice BUT to give them big sprawling pictures with mythological overtones and conspiracies and boring over-explanation. He probably worried that if he produced something on the same scale as A New Hope, the audience would have been more disapponted then they ultimately were.

I don't know where the poop jokes fit in, though.
post #37 of 67
I'm with Prevert on the special effects thing. I will not deny that technically, they're marvelous. The movies are gorgeous to look at and experience. But the effects themselves aren't really special. They sort of become the movie, instead of enhancing it.
post #38 of 67
....While the poor actors are left to flounder in a sea of bluescreen. It pains me to see these actors so obviously struggling with the fact they've got nothing to work with. Lucas has often remarked that he doesn't enjoy working with actors. In that case, he shouldn't be directing, because actors are the most important part in ANY fim, even Star Wars. I could have done without the droid factory scene in AOTC in return for ONE convincing scene between Anakin and Padme.

All I know is that when I watch AOTC on dvd now the one thing that strikes me is how fake it all looks. Compared with the brilliance of the Hoth battle, or the incredible model-work in the ROTJ space battles, it just comes across as a video game cinematic.
post #39 of 67
Heh, the only reason I posted what I posted was to show that the exact same criticisms being lobbed at the prequels have been there from the very beginning.


B-movie tropes, weak acting, weak dialogue, style over substance, relentlessly paced (in a bad way), emotionally vapid , over-reliance on technology/SFX, etc...


It didn't even start with JEDI -- so we can't use that excuse!


I will say that there is irony in the fact that many of the kids that stared wide-eyed for the original trilogy have basically become the Pauline Kaels and Vincent Canbys of the prequel era.

That's not a diss -- just pointing out something that definitely sets these prequels apart.
post #40 of 67
I think the best lesson we can learn from the OT is that sometimes film critics get it wrong. But you are right that we have become critics of the prequels after growing up with the originals. But is that really just a symptom of childhood imagination and nostalgia, or are these new films just bad , disliked this time not only by critics but by discerning fans of cinema as well?

Its hard to say the prequels are bad films, with their box office earnings, but we all know that marketing had a BIG role to play in that. I dislike the prequels, I have TRIED to enjoy them, but I find them lacking in too many areas to forgive them. I'm hoping ROTS is great, simply because I'd rather have 4 Star Wars films to enjoy rather than just 3. And if it isn't, well, we'll all be back here arguing about it, so thats something!
post #41 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviatedPrevert
I dislike the prequels, I have TRIED to enjoy them, but I find them lacking in too many areas to forgive them. I'm hoping ROTS is great, simply because I'd rather have 4 Star Wars films to enjoy rather than just 3.
I agree completely. I desperately want to love EP3. I truly do. And I've wanted to love EPs 1 and 2 as well. Even though I was pissed about the Special Editions, I went into EP1 still on a six-month-old high from that first trailer. Even though I was crushed by EP1, I went into EP2 optimistic that Lucas was simply rusty on EP1 and that he was going to make a return to form with EP2. And even though I despise EPs 1 and 2, I'm going into EP3 hopeful for a satisfying yarn that finally gets into the meat and potatoes of what I hoped the previous films would have explored before now.

The love is still there. Hope lingers. But reality is a bitch.
post #42 of 67
Thread Starter 
I still remember an article on Lucas where he stated each movie was made with his daughter in mind. So TPM was catered to his youngest and her demographic, AOTC was catered to his second oldest and ROTS to his oldest hence the darker themes.
post #43 of 67
I was 3 when Star Wars (ep 4) came out. My dad (a lifelong fan who never got to see the prequels, RIP) took me to see it. I wish to god that I could recover the memory of my initial viewing, but alas, I was too young. What I remember was the effect it had on me, constantly playing with the toys (Christmas '77 my grandparents' living room rug became a desert and Luke's landspeeder was the coolest toy I ever owned. My cousin Rusty helped me put together the Death Star playset (that might have been the following year, but I still have that vivid memory of the landspeeder, with the pop-open hood and decal engine).

My dad took me to see Star Wars again when it was re-released before Empire and the memories of that experience are probably conflated with the memories of my original viewing so as to more or less obliteate them.

Then my parents divorced and my dad moved away.

When Empire came out I didn't see it right away (I was at my mother's mercy, and we were so poor that going to a movie was a big deal). A friend at my day care center saw it before me and told me "Luke gets his hand chopped off." "Nuh Uh!" I responded incredulously. "But he gets a new one," I was reassured (I didn't know what to make of that because I was unfamiliar with the concept of cybernetics before ESB). I find it telling now about what is important to kids that he didn't spoil Vader's revelation to Luke. He didn't mention it. Seeing ESB in the theater for the first time I definitely remember, mainly for the trauma of that revelation, so profound was it to me at age 6.

And as for ROTJ, by the time that came around I had irrevocably dedicated my life to Star Wars (that's a slight exaggeration). I remember seeing the theatrical trailer for it and being overawed to the point of frenzy. My first glimpse of it recalls for me that much of the joy of the original trilogy was to see those familiar characters in such (seemingly) radically different environments from the previous films (something that the prequels have somewhat failed to achieve for me, as much as I love them, because of the exhaustion and revisiting of the various thematic planetary environments).

But anyway I have this vivid memory of my mom's promise to take me to ROTJ on a Friday night (again, at my mother's mercy, this was probably the Friday following initial release). As the single child of a single parent, I had to stay at a day care facility for a couple of hours after school before my mom could pick me up after work. I was so anxious that afternoon that I sat around in the front room waiting for her to show up. When she walked through the door, without a word she pulled two green-bordered tickets for an evening showing of ROTJ out of her purse and and held them up before me. I flipped out. I love my mom.

Anyway, I've made a point of taking her to see the prequels at the theater after they've been out for a week or so. When I took her to see the TPM she asked me afterward, "Well, aren't you going to ask me what I thought?" "What'd you think?" I asked. "I loved it," she replied. "What did you love about it?" I asked. "The special effects," she she said. I laughed.

When I asked her what she thought about AOTC (in the 3 years since TPM she had forgotten too many of the plot points and it was a bit confusing for her) she said she really enjoyed it but that it bothered her that in the Coruscant chase scene that the Jedis' hair weren't blowing around furously enough. It just didn't seem realistic enough for the speed they were supposed to be going. I laughed because I hadn't even noticed that.
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mecha superior
I will say that there is irony in the fact that many of the kids that stared wide-eyed for the original trilogy have basically become the Pauline Kaels and Vincent Canbys of the prequel era.
With all due respect, this is a terrible parallel.

Most movie critics in the 1970s were middle-aged white men like Canby, Bosley Crowther or John Simon, who felt that the "Golden Age" of Hollywood was in the 1930s and '40s and had little or no use for the post-Bonnie and Clyde/Easy Rider era they found themselves in. It was Kael who ended up celebrating most of the filmmakers we regard today as the great directors of the era, like Altman and Coppola. (She was also gaga over DePalma, but that's another story.) Kael, along with more populist figures like Ebert, helped transform the image of the movie critic as a glum fuddyduddy into that of a relatively youthful, hip, countercultural type, effectively creating the idea of the modern movie critic as we know it today-- think of the EW gang, or the fortysomething dude or chick who reviews movies for your local lefty alterna-weekly. Unlike her elitist peers, Kael didn't feel the need to condescend to genre material if it was done with style and originality. (Case in point: she wrote probably the most thoughtful and well-informed review of Lynch's Dune, at a time when most critics --Ebert included-- dismissed the movie as incoherent nonsense.) Her objections to Star Wars don't seem to be based on the subject matter or space opera genre so much as that the movie is, in her eyes, at least, relentlessly whitebread and old-fashioned at a time when American filmmakers seemed truly capable of pushing the creative envelope. She doesn't like the movie, but her rationale isn't grounded in snobbery, at least in the way it is in John Simon's case. And I don't think you can say that about the Paulettes who hated TPM or AOTC, either; a lot of them were probably looking forward to the prequels as much as the fans, but were disappointed by the results.

FWIW, Kael loved Empire Strikes Back.
post #45 of 67
So Pauline Kael was "hip" in your eyes. Maybe you're "hip" too. The point still stands, doesn't it?
post #46 of 67
Sitting and seeing Episode III in the theater on opening night will most likely be one of those film experiances I remember forever. This is definitely the most anxious I've been for one of the films.
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill
So Pauline Kael was "hip" in your eyes. Maybe you're "hip" too. The point still stands, doesn't it?
Hmm? I don't find many parallels at all between Kael's approach to film criticism and the braying of the prototypical disillusioned Star Wars fans. For one thing she didn't have lofty expectations to be dashed, or axes to be ground.

The only obvious similarity between Kael and the embittered fanboys who criticize TPM or AotC is that they all didn't like one of Lucas's films... But their approach to the films couldn't be more different. It's as sensible as equating Kael with that CAPAlert nut.
post #48 of 67
Guys, stop taking things so literally. I grew up on Pauline Kael. I still treasure my hardcover copy of "5001 Nights At The Movies" which I ripped off from my high school library almost 20 years ago (score!). No one needs to inform me what she signifies to modern film criticism. I remember reading her Goodfellas review in the NEW YORKER, and realizing it was gonna be her last Scorsese review in print. It actually made me sad that day. Heck, my favorite modern critic was a Kael apprentice.

I disagreed with her about half the time (especially regarding Kubrick and Peckinpah ), but I always dug her prose. I'm definitely not saying the average online film geek/SW fan comes close to articulating film analysis on her level.

The point still stands though.

Her SPECIFIC perspective regarding ANH could easily be interchanged with the prequel detractor sentiments of '99-'05....

Now let's take a look at some of her critiques, shall we?



Quote:
The loudness, the smash-and-grab editing
Yup!



Quote:
the relentless pacing drive every idea from your head;

Yup!



Quote:
This is the writer-director George Lucas's own film, subject to no business interference, yet it's a film that's totally uninterested in anything that doesn't connect with the mass audience.

Do I hear the Lucas Yes-men sentiment in that?

YUP!


Quote:
There's no breather in the picture, no lyricism;
Folks say this quite a bit about the prequels (especially regarding TPM).

Where's an equivalent Binary sunset moment in EP1?

I remember hearing that alot in '99.

Interesting that Kael even gave a backhanded compliment to Binary Sunset.

BINARY--FUCKING--SUNSET!


Quote:
Even if you've been entertained, you may feel cheated of some dimension—a sense of wonder, perhaps. It's an epic without a dream. But it's probably the absence of wonder that accounts for the film's special, huge success. The excitement of those who call it the film of the year goes way past nostalgia to the feeling that now is the time to return to childhood.

Now this one blows my mind because it now comes off as precient -- that's exactly how the original SW generation's '99 trip was described: A semi-pathetic attempt at reliving our childhood

I don't know if I disagree with the above. I know Devin mentions it alot in topics. I definitely think 1997 till now has been an escape to the womb, for the most part. I know I'm part of it. I've contributed to this online. I'm not leaving myself out.


Almost over, though.


Quote:
Lucas has got the tone of bad movies down pat: you never catch the actors deliberately acting badly, they just seem to be bad actors, on contract to Monogram or Republic, their klunky enthusiasm polished at the Ricky Nelson school of acting.

........
post #49 of 67
Doesn't this just show that what seemed minor criticisms of the OT by a VERY sharp critic are now so pronounced in the new films that even non-critics can spot them? Surely this seems to prove one point: The new Star Wars films were made for a 1970s audience, not a present-day one, and that is why they seem outdated.

That, or everybody now has the same critical faculties Ms Kael possessed 30 years ago. Interesting.
post #50 of 67
That's a legitimate way of contemplating it.

Of course, Kael didn't consider these "minor issues".


And I think it would be a mistake to only focus on Kael here. Like I said, we could do the same thing with Camby's EMPIRE review, etc....


I know this is simplifying things, but I've often pondered whether the prequels' lack of clear cut good VS evil dynamics (the patented OT formula!) have perhaps just illuminated (laid bare) the same ol'-same ol' Lucas SW aesthetic. That it's been there from the beginning, but it took losing war, rebellions and Empires, to really harp on it.

I mean, what's probably the unanimous favorite sequence of TPM? I would say Qui-Gon & Obi-Wan VS Maul. It's exciting because it's primal good VS evil. Those are easily identifiable heroic and villainous avatars for the audience to get wrapped in. The SW "cheeze" just seems to go down alot smoother with that dynamic -- or perhaps the aesthetic doesn't even come off as clunky or heightened because of it. Of course, it's also a great lightsaber show, but I think emotionally, it's harder for Lucas to lose his audience in that kind of scenario.

(There's also no dialogue in that set-piece. )


Maybe the SW aesthetic just can't be as universally entertaining, resonant, or accessible when good guys are naive and flawed pawns of hidden evil. When there's no raging galactic war dynamics as a backdrop to the story, or clear poster boy of villainy to hiss at ---- It just tips the balance and makes the story appear to have less weight. The seams show. Maybe the OT formula was a delicate balance, and Lucas reverse engineering the whole thing to tell this story he seems to want to tell, is just not as primal.


Probably getting a tad over- anlytical here. There's also the child/teenager aspect to EP1 and 2 to consider. There's no equivalent of that in the OT. (I think Luke was 20 in ANH) That's definitely gonna change things for viewers.

There's also the lack of a Han and Leia in the prequels (cynical stand-ins from the post-Watergate era). Never underestimate that. This helped give the OT a more modern feel.


And Lucas is obviously dabbling/interpreting a different palette of 30s/40s acting styles/dialogue rhythms in this trilogy. Maybe it's a riskier venture because it can alienate modern audiences much easier. Perhaps it's just tougher for Lucas to pull this off (especially with the younger actors).


Maybe Lucas is also just hamstrung by a good chunk of his audience knowing exactly what happens in the next trilogy. Perhaps it makes it much easier to deconstruct the SW aesthetic....

------------


Just pondering other things beside the usual -- blue screen, CG, LUCAS IS OLD, he doesn't have his heart in it, etc....


New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › Star Wars Saga: A Look Back