When Did Star Wars Jump the Shark? 640
stm2 writes "As a long time fan of the stories, I watched as Star Wars transformed from one of the better sci-fi stories told to 'Whedon is my master now.' An article at the TechRepublic blog explores the weakness of the sequel trilogy and states that the Midi-chlorians are the culprit. Was it the Midi-chlorians, Jar Jar Binks, the actors? When did Star Wars jump the shark?. A bonus question: Did George Lucas redeem himself in Episode III?"
In Jedi (Score:4, Insightful)
in the 20 years between 4 and 1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The trillogy ending where it did in 1983 was just fine. Coming back to it two decades later was jumping the shark.
Too much backstory exploration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In Jedi (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably when I was about 20 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Midichlorians (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been mentioned before, but you also have to remember that he's a shit storyteller. I like to call him the anti-Stephen King: He comes up with some great plots, but when it comes to writing a coherent narrative or three-dimensional characters, he's always been hopeless, and the original trilogy bears that out to a great extent. Most of us were kids at the time and mostly missed all that, we were too busy gawping at the lightsabers and other cool stuff.
As for Episode 3 being some kind of redemption, sorry no. Granted, all the work he put into 1 and 2 reach some neat and satisfying conclusions, but he still managed to deliver a highly-flawed and (as usual) stodgy movie.
Plus, it would have helped if we saw more of Darth Vader than than pathetic and brief scene we get of him in the end. I'm not one for ragging on artists when they don't deliver exactly what the fanboys want, but the "birth" of Darth Vader scene was very weak sauce.
Not Midi-chlorians (Score:5, Insightful)
But I think if you had been paying attention in the first trilogy you might also have come to the conclusion that Jedi are born not made - or was is coincidence that two of the most powerful Jedi just happened to be FATHER and SON!?
Re:When Han Shot Second. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't buy it. I'm sorry, but they introduce nothing plausible that would justify that, and yea, sure, it's fiction, but even fiction has to be internally consistent.
what it's really about... (Score:4, Insightful)
Star Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Before:
Lucas: "hey harrison, I want you to shoot after guido shoots at you."
Harrison: "You know what george, fuck you. Han is supposed to be a bad ass with a good side not a boy scout with a furry for a friend."
Now:
Lucas: "I want you to put in a CG rhasta with teeth grindingly bad dialogue"
ILM grunt: "Yes mr. pays my bills and whose opinion my career hinges on"
Re:In Jedi (Score:5, Insightful)
Jar Jar I can almost forgive, because the concept of putting in a fully computer-rendered photo realistic character IS pretty neat. They just really blew it with this particular one. But, Anakin being barely out of diapers when they found him pretty much blew it for me. And he was still too old to start training?!
Anakin building Threepio and Artoo showing up for no reason (other droids could have been used, why these two?), the painful, "do anything for a cheap laugh" antics of Jar Jar, horrible dialogue... and, of course, the midi-chlorians.. Bah, Episode 1 was so disappointing. Even for what was, supposedly, a movie intended for kids only, it was disappointing.
On the other hand, I cheered up a friend of mine after the movie by suggesting that, just maybe, midi-chlorians weren't the cause of Force-sensitivity, but the result of it. Like, they grow better in those who are Force-sensitive, but have no impact on the Jedi's ability to use the Force.
I like that, but I know it's not what Lucas intended. I'm just glad he didn't explore something like genetic engineering or "juicing" with midi-chlorian injections to make some sort of Super-sith.
Fuggin chlamydians (Score:4, Insightful)
In the original trilogy, the Force was magic. There was no need to explain "how it works;" Obi-wan's explanation in ANH of what it is and what it does was sufficient. Nobody has to ask how Merlin's magic or Gandalf's magic works. It's magic, fercryinoutloud! Similarly, there's no need to explain how the Force works. It's the Force fercryinoutloud!
As much as I was looking forward to Episode I, I was totally disappointed by it pretty much from the beginning, and the moment at which I knew it was totally blown and wasn't going to get better was when Qui-gon started blabbing about the chlamydians or whatever. Stupid technobabble worthy of the absolute worst episodes of ST:TNG (gawd... I now wonder: how do tetrions affect chlamydians?), and worse, it reduced what had been magic to a mere blood condition.
Also, as TFA notes, being a great Jedi suddenly stopped being decided by training in the Force and became a mere accident of birth, which is much less appealing to me, as it is to the author of TFA.
Episode III was the least awful of the prequel trilogy, but the world would be better off if the three had never been made. The original trilogy is still great, though. Star Wars (ANH) is still one of my all-time favorite films. I was 8 when it came out, and that was 30 years ago, so you know I'm rapidly approaching 40, but I still feel a childlike sense of wonder when I watch that movie. Even the awful prequel trilogy can't ruin that for me. I just pretend the prequels don't exist. Besides, that way, Darth Vader's revelation to Luke in TESB, and what Luke figures out on Dagobah in ROTJ are actually surprises.
I plan to show my kids the original trilogy. If they end up somehow seeing the crap prequels afterward, that's their problem, but I won't be responsible for it. I'll show them something awesome and let them decide, knowing how Dad doesn't like the prequels, whether they want to watch them or not.
Not very interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too much backstory exploration (Score:3, Insightful)
To me the attempt at political commentary and Jar Jar Binks are tolerable, if annoying aspects of the prequels, but the midichlorians are the real symptom of the disease. Lucas knew enough about myths to invoke some rather powerful ones in the original trilogy, so clearly he's not all that incompetent, but there's something so ham-fisted about how he tried to "explain" things in the prequels. Whether it was the midichlorians or the Christ-like conception of Anakin, it just came off as shallow rip-offs of both science and mythology, without any real attempt at proper integration.
Worse, none of it really fit all that well with what we saw in the original movies. I was never really convinced throughout the prequels that I was watching the events that lead up to Episode IV. The burden was huge for the prequels because, ultimately, we already knew how they were going to end, so there should have been a lot more effort put into making them captivating stories.
Presenting a concept vs. beating you over the head (Score:5, Insightful)
Many good movies will often have a concept, or a message, or something for you to think about after the credits roll. However, good movies also let you draw your own conclusions from the film and aren't usually incredibly overt in presenting it. This is what the first starwars trilogy did. You had the concepts of good vs. evil, predestination vs. free will etc, but you weren't constantly beat over the head with those themes. The prequels are more like the Matrix sequels in that the messages are repeated over and over again till you just don't care. Also, hiding behind intentionally confusing and/or terse dialog doesn't make you "profound" it makes you annoying....
In "A New Hope". Seriously. (Score:1, Insightful)
"Star Wars" is a pulp space-opera, fercryinoutloud... the exact same sort of hokey stuff writers were churning out for a penny a word in the 40s... these inflated standards of imagined quality are just typical fanboy nitpicking and bitching enhanced to the nth degree because of the series' iconic status among dorks, spazzes and geeks who grew up immersed in the stuff. Same deal with the "Special Editions" -- objectively, who can blame Lucas for wanting to spruce up those awful-to-mediocre movies, given their visibility?
Just like the original film and its sequels, the prequels were made to appeal to kids -- and just like the original film and its sequels, the marketing blitz that followed will ensure that, whatever your opinion as adults (anecdotally, most adults I knew in the late 70s thought "Star Wars" was dreck), an entire generation of kids will consider these movies classics.
Re:When Han Shot Second. (Score:5, Insightful)
And in this universe, of all things to complain about, you're bitching that a military vessel can't have enough layers of redundancy to limp home after being half destroyed?
The very first time you heard an X-wing "swoosh" should have told you all you need to know about Star Wars: physics takes a back seat to moviemaking, and the crash landing you're complaining about is entirely consistant with that.
Hayden Christensen (Score:4, Insightful)
Fix What is Broken! (Score:5, Insightful)
In most medieval tales, people have free will to choose between good and evil. Darth Vader chose evil. Han Solo also made the wrong choices, but at the end of Star Wars IV, he made the right choice to not abandon the rebels. Han Solo saved the day by protecting Luke Skywalker as his space ship ultimately delivered a blow against the Death Star -- the ultimate symbol of evil. Of course, in "Star Wars VI", even Darth Vader chose good and became reborn as a good spirit.
In the first 3 movies, people who chose good and who committed their lives to the ideals of the Jedi could acquire the powers of the Jedi. Of course, one must be open-minded and must be sensitive to the true nature of the universe. This message is a wholesome one for all the bratty kids who adored these movies and who eventually grew up to shape our society (via, for example, the many discussions on Slashdot) for the better.
Now, fast forward to the 21st century. George Lucas changed the message of the original "Star Wars". In the new "Star Wars", the powers of the Jedi belong only to the people who inherit specialized midi-chlorians in their genes. If you do not have the special genetic material, then you are a loser like the rest of the humanoids.
In the new "Star Wars", the Jedis are the highest, most privileged class in a caste system (like the one in India). People are born into their fate. Regardless of the amount of effort in abiding by the Jedi ideals, a person can never be a Jedi. Being a good person means nothing.
George Lucas transformed the Western theme of free will (to choose good and become a Jedi) to the Indian theme of a caste system. That is a terrible message to send to today's children. Though both the old "Star Wars" and the new "Star Wars" have characters (e.g., ewoks and Jar Jar Binks) specifically appealing to children, the underlying message of the old "Star Wars" is a much better inspiration for children.
Yet, we should not whine about Lucas' tragic blunder. We should create another new "Star Wars" by re-writing the stories and re-developing them into an alternative prequel, which sticks closely to the original theme in "Star Wars IV: A New Hope".
Fixing a tragic blunder is the plan for a new movie [reuters.com] about "Star Trek". This new movie is also a prequel and attempts to return to the original spirit of "Star Trek".
built in spoilers and rebels (Score:3, Insightful)
1. We knew the ending just not exactly how they got there. That works fine if there is some mystery to it or it just seems like an odd outcome you have to work your way to (JJ Abrams did MI:3 and several episodes of Alias like this). It doesn't work that well for Star Wars because the original trilogy is pretty much a spoiler for the last three. The new trilogy hit the requirements of setting the stage for the original trilogy. I think they did it poorly because they tried too hard to bring in old characters and thing like that to tie the movies together without a good reason.
2. The good guys aren't the underdogs like they were in the original trilogy and one of the main protagonists pretty much becomes a strait up villain. Do we root for the guy who's going to become a villain and hunt down and kill the Jedi including kids? Do we root for the second tier character who dies in the first movie of the original trilogy? The answer is we tolerate them and their poor characters until they do cool fights or Jedi tricks.
This stuff made it a lot harder to put up with Jar Jar, annoying kid Anakin, whiny teen Anakin, teen Anakin hooking up with Padme, Midicloriens, the title "Attack of the Clones", a trade dispute war no one gave a damn about, and villains that weren't very intimidating. It was never going to be easy to make a prequel trilogy but they could have done a lot better.
It has to be Jar Jar (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure some of you who are older than me by a few years will say that the Ewoks ruined the Star Wars franchise, but for me, they have always been an intrinsic part of it. Yes, they were largely a comedic species, but in RoTJ, their nievity - their childish, silly actions and noises served as a contrast to the evil of the Empire. One of the most touching moments in the original trilogy was a scene where one Ewok is killed by an imperial laser blast, and another leans down beside him, prodding him, clearly not realising his friend is dead, and possibly even unfamiliar with the concept of non-natural death itself.
The Ewoks are often compared to Jar Jar, but I think this is very unfair. Yes, they made the audience laugh, and yes they probably made Lucas lots more money from merchandising, but they served a purpose in terms of the film's plot, and without the contrast that they created, the Empire's actions would have had a greatly reduced impact on audiences.
None of this can be said of Jar Jar Binks. His "zany antics" serve no purpose but outright slapstick humour, and even this is not done very well. He alone does not create a contrast with the Trade Federation, nor does his innocence underscore the central themes of the film(s). He exists purely because the writers needed a "funny character", and were too lazy to create something better.
As I have said, I am (by the skin of my teeth) a member of the "Star Wars generation", but because I was not old enough to be obsessively interested in movies, I do not think that the modern trilogy "ruined my childhood" by any means. However, there is a noticable drop in quality between the two sets of films, and for me, the most blatant example of this is the presence of Jar Jar Binks.
Re:Sorry to disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with trying to sell toys, in and of itself. But when something is done solely for the purpose of making people buy things, it kinda takes a lot of the soul out of it. It's like watching a very long and expensive commercial instead of a movie. So, it's not so much wrong as it is limiting.
Oh, and thanks for reminding me of the whole "Jesus" thing that Anakin had going on, too. I forgot all about that!
Re:When Han Shot Second. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll agree with you that there is less of a market for that sort of film, but that's no excuse for setting out to make one, and making a piece of crap. The whole second series had the emotional range of a turnip...If it hadn't been for Ewan MacGregor, it wouldn't have even rated turnip.
Re:Star Wars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Midi-chlorians (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that Terry Goodkind sums it up nicely in his Sword of Truth series. In that series, there are two types of wizards; those with the Calling, i.e., they want to be, and those with the Gift, i.e., they're naturally talented at it.
in the OT, or at least Epi 4, it was quite clear that any old idiot could use the Force; Kenobi offers to teach some to Solo. That having been said, some people, through luck, or heridity, or whatever, have a particular aptitude or talent for Force usage.
In TPM, all they had to say was 'Midichlorians are ATTRACTED to The Force', not 'CAUSE The Force.' Simple. People with natural aptitudes have higher counts. People with higher counts should probably get some sort of training. Done.
Re:Apparently you forgot Luke and Leia doing... (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the most phenomenally stupid moments in moviemaking, IMHO.
Virgin birth crap was even worse (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't use that without invoking one of the most powerful symbols in western culture, and doing it randomly, without any purpose or even any sense of the symbology you're riding is really stupid. If Lucas wanted to explore some "Christ turned evil" meme that would have been one thing, but to throw a symbolic bombshell like that out and then ignore it just shows... I'm not sure what. Clulessness? Arrogance? Some combination, I guess, but heavy on the gorm deficiency.
As for whether or not he redeemed himself in ep III, I have no idea, and probably never will. I own a copy that my wife bought for my kids, but the few times I've considered watching it I decided I'd rather mow the lawn. And I hate mowing the lawn. Maybe someday I'll be so bored that I'll watch it, but I doubt it. This is from a guy who wore out two copies of episodes 5-6 on VHS and probably would have worn out a set of DVDs, too, except that I ripped them to my file server as soon as I got them home.
Re:Not very interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment is particularly ill-conceived, even for Slashdot Star Wars posts. The prequels are dull, but not because they are backstory. If someone asks you, "what's Christianity all about?" you can answer them in a handful of paragraphs, but that doesn't make the entire 'backstory' of the Bible "dull" because "there's no tension and no surprise." Literature is rich with wonderful exposition of 'backstory'. Even individual stories can be enthralling when they explore 'backstory', which is why the technique of jumping around chronologically in fiction is so widespread.
The Star Wars prequels were awful for precisely the same reason that 99% of Hollywood films are awful: terrible writing and terrible directing.
Re:Fix What is Broken! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, actually it wasn't, unless you mean by genetic something vague like "Got it from his old man."
The Force in the first trilogy is mystical, and is inherited, apparently (or at least in the Skywalker clan's case) by blood. The idea of blood being passed down from parents to children is a very old motif in legend and myth (it's the underlying concept behind ideas like "pure blooded").
The difference between the first and second trilogies is that the first uses an ancient and powerful cultural archetype to describe the powers that Luke inherits, whereas the second uses silly pseudo-scientific technobabble (ala ST:TNG) and thus falls flat on its face. One presents us with an old motif found throughout our ancient literature, and the other sounds like some scriptwriter's hack to explain how the protaganists figure out that Anakin is powerful with the Force.
Re:When Han Shot Second. (Score:5, Insightful)
You nailed it in your subject line, or at least part of it. The problem with the prequels is the lack of Han Solo.
You see, Star Wars was supposed to be, in Lucas's mind, about the Jedi. However, the Jedi are really boring, pretentious, one-dimensional characters. By luck (at least, for us, the viewers), he started the story in a time when the Jedi were all but eliminated. Therefore, instead of actually being about the Jedi, the original trilogy was about a rebellion, with a bit of Jedi coolness (ie. light saber duels) thrown in for fun. The star of the show: Han Solo. A cool, bad-ass scoundrel of a good guy.
Fast forward to the prequels, and it's all Jedi. Where's Han Solo, or at least a cool character like him? There isn't one. There's just stiff pretentious Jedi spouting tripe masquerading as wisdom. Sure, there's lots of light sabers, which is cool. But that's not enough to make a good movie.
Think about it: the Empire came into existence because the Jedi screwed up and let it happen, and it came crumbling down because Lando Calrissian blew up the second Death Star after Han Solo destroyed the shield generator, while the only remaining Jedi was too busy dealing with personal issues to actually help.
Re:what it's really about... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Scream (Score:3, Insightful)
Revenge of the Sith didn't redeem the mess... it was just good enough to remind you of how good the prequels could have been, if someone had taken George's crayons away and hired a screenwriter. ILM should release a Special Edition using CGI to replace the entire trilogy.
The "used future" (Score:5, Insightful)
During the documentary of the making of Star Wars (on the 4th disc of the box set DVD release), one of the film crew members described a problem where C3P0s costume was initially a highly reflective chrome surface and was causing the cameras to be visible during their test shoot. To offset this problem they rubbed dirt and grease into the costume, dulling it enough so that it would no longer be reflective. They then used this technique with other droids, vehicles and anything else in the film. They called it the "used future" - and it was all the more believable because these objects, vehicles, droids and other things really did appear as though they had always been there.
As we all know, not only was there an overzealous amount of CG in Star Wars Episodes I, II and III, but the real sets and costumes were kept pristine and perfect throughout the films. Hair cuts, makeup, billboards, decorations, vehicles, aliens, etc, all looked perfect 100% of the time. Too perfect.
Just as human brains are capable of instantly detecting the subtle differences in something that is not really alive (which is a common problem when watching CG special effects in film), it also can detect when something is "too perfect".
This alone was enough to ruin any immersive qualities the new Star Wars films might have had, and this problem was compounded by the poor dialogue, stupid gags, dragging plot-lines, inconsistencies and the idiotic notion that everything needed to be explained in detail.
Also, the new films had a practically unlimited budget, and therefore there was less need to innovate or improvise, almost eliminating the possibility of creating "happy accidents" that were part of the magic of the original movies (some of which were later removed by George's "improvements" in the re-releases).
My favorite Star Wars film is the original Empire Strikes Back, which was not directed by George Lucas, and also happens to be his least favorite of the series. The original film is a perfect balance of action, romance and drama, and should have been left entirely alone. But I suppose until I am as successful as George Lucas in the entertainment industry my two cents are pretty meaningless.
Tying up things up & bad humor (Score:4, Insightful)
The plot could have just:
Let Anikin be good at the force without being some weird plot thing and then would better explain why in 4-6 he was not quite powerful and stiff.
Beat up Anikin real good and put him out of commission for a while and just gave him a couple more artificial limbs and a lot of destructive anger (so he could earn the rest of his suit)
Let "Uncle" Lars be his brother, or just as well another fallen Jedi in hiding that unlike Kenobi totally disavowed the order.
Leaving some things open to speculation and opportunity for fans or authors to fill in the blanks would have been a whole lot more entertaining and interesting in my book.
Re:When Han Shot Second. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anakin went from "He should stand trial!" to murdering babies in all of what, 10 minutes? Less? WTF was "gradual" about that?
Re:In Jedi (Score:4, Insightful)
This degree of "fail" in Ep1 did however set us up properly for the journey to the city of Whine that was the teenage Anakin. Maybe if Obi-Wan had back-handed the little bitch now and again and put him in his place ("You're a Jedi, goddammit - act like one! [smack!]"), the Republic could have avoided 40 years of oppression.
Eh, yeah free spirit and all (Score:3, Insightful)
In a story with a princess and a destined one? The original three movies just didn't lay it on as thick as the pre-quels but they are BOTH the same story. Luke Skywalker is DESTINED to be a jedi, because his father is one. Han Solo could NEVER become one. This whole upper-cast system has ALWAYS been there, both in the form of born-to-be jedi's and royalty.
Lets be honest here, it is a fairy tale, and in fairy tales the world revolves around nobility because telling a story of how a real peasant becoming a great leader might just be a little upsetting to the people in whose kingdom these fairy tales began.
Re:People, just relax (Score:2, Insightful)
In any event, enjoying your entertainment regardles of the content or quality of that entertainment does not make you stupid. It makes you undiscerning.
Special effects ruined the original trilogy (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it's been said before by many, but Greedo shooting first doesn't make sense. The reason though isn't just that "Han is a bad boy who would shoot first if his life is in danger", but that the scene is totally unbelievable that way. You have a trained bounty hunter sitting about three feet away from Han with a gun pointed right at him. If he had intended to kill Han, why not just shoot him to start with? How does he miss him over his shoulder? Even if you had never seen the original Star Wars, you would have to ask yourself "What just happened?" Then you have Jabba the Hut, who can't even move in Return of the Jedi so he has his platform move in and out from the wall, meeting Han personally in a busy spaceport. He doesn't take Han in though, instead he lets Han step on him. You also have all the digital creations added to make the space port look busy, like the guy on the motorbike that swerves to avoid the dinosaur thing, causing the digital guy to fall off and hang on by the reigns. Lucas said he always intended Mos Eisley to be a bustling space port, but why? Tatooine was chosen to hide Luke specifically because it was a backwater planet with little interstellar travel. Having all of this digital crap on the screen distracts from the story. It's like he forgot anything he learned in film school about drawing attention to things that are important to tell the story.
The three "prequels" are all about special effects. Now Tatooine is a busy planet with thousands turning out for a spectacular race all the time. Anakin's boss is a ridiculous digital flying creature that could never fly in real life because 1) he's fat, 2) his wings are too flimsy and 3) he has no chest muscles to flap those wings. The story is about some "trade federation" blockading a planet for no other reason it seems than they like to take orders from a shadowy figure over holographic communications. I don't even remember the plots from the other two really, they are just forgettable.
Re:Midichlorians (Score:3, Insightful)
We shouldn't have seen Vader at all. We're not supposed to know he's Annakin until ESB. George forgot he was writing prequels, here. The last trilogy would have fared better if he had used those prequels to give us a different understanding of what happened. Suppose the Jedi, who were said to be heroes in the original trilogy, turned out to have been not-so-nice? At least then, 1,2, and 3 would have value no matter if you watched them first, or the original trilogy.
Re:People, just relax (Score:5, Insightful)
But it really comes right down to the fact that apparently George Lucas is an idiot and always has been. If you watch the old documentary about the making of the original Star Wars movie, narrated by Mark Hamill, you will hear at one point Hamill saying that GL wanted to cast an actor with a used-car-salesman slick-talking "Brooklyn accent" as the voice of C-3PO, instead of the smooth English accent of Anthony Daniels. Just think about how awful that movie would have been if such a recognizable modern-day accent were thrust into every other scene, breaking down the veneer of believeability that helps the audience buy in to the fact that this was supposed to be "long ago, in a galaxy far away". So even back then the guy was a total moron. Fortunately decisions like that got shot down somehow, and he ended up making some pretty good movies, instead of Space Balls.
Fast forward to the new movies, nobody seems to have the nerve to tell GL he's an idiot, so we get movies with characters saying completely idiot non-fitting dialog like the modern-day-talking announcer at the pod race who says, "Ooooh, that had to hurt!" and the robot captain who looks confused and says, "Does not compute!" Way to create the feeling of a totally non-modern-Earth-like environment there, GL. We get actors interacting with an almost entirely digital world so their reactions are all wrong. What do you expect when you have people running around in an empty room with green fabric on every surface? We get people waving lightsabers around with no sense of weight or momentum or the effort required to cut through various different materials and body parts. It ended up looking like they were all swinging toothbrushes around.
We also got characters like Obi-Wan's Jedi master acting like a complete jerkwad toward characters like Jar Jar for no particular reason, completely going against the calm, self-assured presence created by Alec Guinness and other Jedi masters from the original trilogy. There are many more instances where a character's actions or words simply didn't fit what that character should have been doing or saying at that moment. Again, this is not about the actual events that make up the storyline, because that was totally up to the writer. But there are concrete rules about how any specific character in any specific situation will react, and for those of us who have a sense of how this works, when a character is acting "wrongly", it is quite obvious. I was so disgusted with how often something like this happened in Episode I that I almost walked out of the theater, which I have never actually done nor even had the urge to do before or after watching that film. It was simply THAT horribly bad.
I'm so glad you enjoyed it, as many others have. But it was quite awful, and Episode II and III weren't much better. It really had nothing to do with me expecting a certain progression of the storyline. The story was OK, and I would have been happy with any other storyline that fit with the original trilogy, as long as it was produced with the same acting and effects quality as the originals. Going completely digital with the effects was a huge mistake, IMO. Combine that with GL's total lack of understanding about the fragility of the audience's suspension of disbelief, and you end up with a disaster.
Re:People, just relax (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea of midichlorians ruined the entire Star Wars saga for many of us. The only redemption that could ever be possible is remaking the prequels and cutting out any mention of it. Fortunately I've been able to repress the bad memories, like I obviously did just now in my parent post. Now excuse me while I go wash my brain out with soap.
Re:When Han Shot Second. (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, there are so many problems with the prequels that it would take a considerable amount of time to debate them all. Certainly, the lack of a compelling character such as Han Solo is significant, but with a plot so disastrously put together it would take a character ten times more interesting than Han Solo, played by the best actor alive on this planet, to salvage the prequels as they were.
The way by which the midi-chlorian twist was an ill-conceived idea, to say the least, also explains why the prequels suck so much more than they would have had the sequels not existed in the first place. Basically, it seemed as if everything that was enigmatic about the original triology had to be demystified and degraded to the point where even the sequels would start to look bad. For example, take the most enigmatic character in the entire Star Wars story, Boba Fett, who had a large and loyal fan following in spite of his extremely brief appearances... obviously it would have been thrilling for the fans to see Boba Fett appear in at least one of the prequels, so how does George Lucas decide to satisfy their appetite? Naturally, he delivers not one, but a gazillion Boba Fett clones so that they are now everyone and everywhere in the freaking imperial forces... *sigh*...
Growing up ruined it. (Score:3, Insightful)
When I saw "The empire strikes back", I had grown slightly more adult and so had the series, it was again almost a perfect match.
Then "Return on the Jedi" and I was now a more cynical young adult. The series had not kept pace. Silly antics and cutsey toy ewoks sullied what could have been a brilliant trilogy capper if the original writing/directing team were kept in place, and someone kept George from going backwards.I thought this was bad, but little did I know...
So a combo of me growing up and George aiming younger and lower. The sharked jumped at ROTJ.
The special edition tweaks were lame. Not just Han turning from calculating badass to a typical good two shoes hero, but all the lame overdone insertions of random creatures all over the landscape. Bleh. But this is more of footnote you can ignore.
The new trilogy: Seriously this was garbage by almost any standard. It sold because of mega marketing dollars and because we are suckers for nostalgia. Though I waited for the 1 and 2 to hit video or TV broadcast,because even the previews were painful to watch. I saw 3 in the theater and it was meh.
So ROTJ jumped the shark, but it got mind boggling worse from there.
I just watched Empire again. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, the myth of Star Wars is stronger than the films. --My memories of Luke's training with Yoda is much more robust than what was actually on the screen. The Jedi and what they mean hold a place in my mind and heart which isn't going anywhere, and which fits into a larger perspective of life as I see it, and I am thankful to have those ideas contained in the myth of Star Wars.
It's like the stories of the Greek Gods; there are many different tellings from many different story tellers, some good, some less so, but they were just facets of a greater thing. An idea which is 3D to a story's 2D, and which must be approached many times from many different angles to be fully understood, and which cannot be diminished by a bad telling; only the story might be foggy. The idea itself is perfect, and we know this, or we wouldn't argue about how such and such a scene could have been done better. We KNOW there is a perfect idea within it all, and it is what we are all seeking to understand. --And of course I'm not talking about the Greek myths here. They don't do much for us today. I'm talking about the myth that Star Wars looks in upon and which still holds enormous power today even though Lucas coughed and lost his place a few times while telling it as we all sat around the fire.
There are so many great ideas from Star Wars which can be used to measure and reinforce other stories. A couple of my favorites. . .
"Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate, and Hate leads to Suffering. . . I see much Fear in you."
"You focus determines your reality" "I don't understand." "You will, Anakin. With time and training, you will."
Other films, even great stories like Lord of the Rings, don't cut to the quick of the experience of this world in quite the same way the Star Wars myth does. --Star Wars shows how politics works in our world, it shows how Spirit moves in our world, and it offers a means to navigate through these interesting times with grace and power. And that's why people constantly re-tell the same myths over and over. They inform our lives.
Yeah, I'd be happier if Teen-Anakin hadn't been such a weenie. But that was just a movie. The ideas are what count.
-FL
Western? WESTERN? (Score:5, Insightful)
The original Star Wars leaned very heavily on Eastern narrative traditions (drawing particularly on Hidden Fortress [imdb.com] by Akira Kurosawa.
The Eastern narrative commonly relies on two classes of hero: one who is pure of heart and destined for great things and one who initially joins the quest out of self-interest, but finds himself affected by the actions and idealism of his companions. The first type cannot succeed without the strength of the second, and the second cannot succeed without the first showing them the path to enlightenment.
This archetype can be traced back at least as far as Journey to the West [wikipedia.org] (circa 1590, the source for the TV series Monkey [wikipedia.org]) in which the pure hearted monk Tripitaka (Xuánzàng) is aided by three characters, all of whom have fallen out of favour with the gods and seek redemption.
Luke is pure archetype number 1. Han Solo was archetype 2, an unreconstructed rogue even to the point of casually shooting Greedo in the Mos Eisley cantina. When he flew back at the Death Star scene, he redeemed himself. Even so, in ESB he was still not fully converted, planning to head off just before the imperial attack started. His buddy Lando Calrisian stepped in to bolster the "soul in need of redemption" role, and by the end of the film, both Lando and Han were fully redeemed. Who did that leave for ROTJ? Yup, the big one: Darth Vader, whose hatred, bitterness and resentment was purged by love.
Now, when Lucas redid the original trilogy, he took away that first defining moment in Han's character, that cold-blooded, unflinching murder that showed us just how much of heartless, self-driven piece of scum he was. This was when Lucas started moving back into modern Western narrative. In the West, bad guys don't get reformed -- they get "what's coming to them!"
By the time he finally wrote the first three episodes, any aspirations to Eastern narrative was gone and he we had good people who were good, evil people who were evil and one good guy who was stupid and let the bad guys win. No-one was redeemed, and we made do with western "punishment": Maul, Dooku and Grievous were all cut to pieces before death.
Oh, if only the story had stayed eastern....
HAL.
Re:Fix What is Broken! (Score:1, Insightful)
What? Were we watching the same movies?
In episodes 4-6, the only people I ever saw learn to use The Force were
I haven't seen episodes 1-3, but I know about midichlorians. I don't have a problem with them, because it explains why even the good rebels weren't picking up lightsabers and deflecting blaster bolts. Did you really think that it was just coincidence that Skywalker, and the son whom he didn't raise, were the strongest two Force users in the universe? If there's no biological reason, then that's a remarkable coincidence!
The prequels are entirely consistent: Anakin has no father (else we'd need to have it explained why *he* isn't a Jedi!), and his mother is no Jedi (but that's OK because she's a woman). In fact, if there's one glaring inconsistency, it's that there are female Jedi in the prequels. I'm not sexist -- I think female Jedi are awesome -- but it does kind of ruin continuity, and/or strain credibility: is it just luck that the only Jedi to survive till Episode 4 are men (Vader, Ben, Yoda,
But anyway, there's being romantic, and there's being stupid. If you, and your son, are the only people in town with the same color eyes, maybe, just *maybe*, there's a biological reason for it. Sure, it might sound a little funny to hear them talk about "midichlorians" (just as it would sound weird in a medieval movie to have them talk about "genetic material"), but we all know there's some cause (and that Lucas sucks at dialog). He didn't ruin the movie by naming it.
Day One (Score:2, Insightful)
Read some good science fiction, and you'll quickly see the difference...I highly recommend trying some Robert L. Forward, some C.S. Friedman, some Vernor Vinge, or some Stephen Baxter. If you swing more for the adventure side, check out some of the true classics: Robert A Heinlein, Poul Anderson, Charles Sheffield, Isaac Asimov (for science, not for characters), or John Brunner.
Re:In Jedi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry to disagree. (Score:4, Insightful)
Episode III was redeemed by the fact that Lucas seemed to pay attention to some of the things Genndy and Paul were doing. There were still plenty of moments to wince at, but the good outweighed the bad. There was some legitimate fun in Episode III. Can't say that about the other two prequels.
It's NOT Hayden Christensen... (Score:3, Insightful)
...or indeed any of the actors. It's Lucas. The actors can only do what the director wants. I posted about this after Episode 1 was released. Hayden Christensen has been fairly criticized for a terrible performance, but unfairly characterized as a terrible actor. He's anything but. In fact, he's actually quite talented, as anyone who saw his performances in "Life as a House" [imdb.com] and "Shattered Glass" [imdb.com] can attest. All the featured actors have proven in other films that they can act, but their performances in the prequel trilogy were uniformly cringe-worthy. The common denominator is the director: George Lucas.
I remember an interview with Carrie Fisher from maybe 1978, in which she talked about her experience in "Star Wars" as a young actress (I believe it was only her second film, and she was about 19 when it was shot). Fisher is quite witty, and it's a delight to read interviews with her. She said something to the effect that Lucas wasn't really an actor's director, and spoke particularly about the set-up for the scene in which Leia witnesses Alderaan being destroyed. She asked him what he wanted her to do: "I mean, there goes home, family, record collection, everything. He kind of grunted and waved his arm in the general direction that he wanted me to face. That was it."
Recipe for Star Wars Episode 1:
1) one shitty story;
2) liberal amounts of crappy script;
3) mix in lousy director;
$) PROFIT!!!
Repeat steps 1) through $) for Episodes 2 and 3.
Re:People, just relax (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything else is spot on, though.
Re:In Jedi (Score:2, Insightful)
They are dissing from the perspective of lining them all up and having them suck from the start, and very slowly getting better, until episode 4 when it gets watchable.
Re:Western? WESTERN? (Score:3, Insightful)
I honestly kinda like the way Revenge of the Sith changed the Vader story. Now, he's basically uninterested in larger ideologies, all the way through. He wasn't really corrupted by the Sith, and he wasn't really redeemed by Luke. His loyalties were consistently to his friends, and especially his family.
Re:Western? WESTERN? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to disagree with your assertion that this scene originally showed that Han was a "heartless, self-driven piece of scum." Han shooting Greedo was pure self-defense (granted, self-defense with panache). Greedo HAD A GUN POINTED AT HIM and WAS ABOUT TO SHOOT HIM. But Greedo was overconfident and stupid, and Han took advantage of that to save his own life.
Greedo shooting first was cinematic stupidity of the highest order, but it didn't really change the story or characterization. It merely meant that Han waited a second longer before firing, not because he wanted to avoid having to shoot Greedo due to some kind of internal moral conflict.
Star Wars will redeem itself... (Score:3, Insightful)