Obi-Wan speaks out against franchise 363
Spazmoid wrote to us with (we sure don't link here often)
a Eonline story talking about an upcoming interview with Sir Alec Guinness. Guinness talks about how much he hates Star Wars, dimissing the script as "those bloody awful banal lines." Now, before people go calling him a heretic, I'd argue that TPM has shown Lucas' negative side to a great degree. The sheer franchisization of the movies is stunning, IMHO-but what do you folks think?
Re:Where's the real conflict here? (Score:2)
Lucas is capable of making truly excellent films (witness THX-1138), but I think we should go ahead and credit Spielburg for Indiana Jones.
Re:It ain't art... (Score:1)
Improvised Dialogue (Score:1)
I still think Empire is the best, and for many a good reason:
a) Lucas wrote the story, not the Screenplay
b) Two decent writers wrote the actual Screenplay
c) A seasoned Director behind the camera
d) A Producer who let the Director go overbudget when it was clear that to do so otherwise would have comprimised the whole shebang (see the Salon article)
Too bad Kershner hasn't done much of note lately, unless you count RoboCop 2
pope, playing Way too much with that new Lego Y-Wing/Tie Figher combo
Re:I'm kinda disappointed... (Score:1)
Re:"Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists (Score:1)
Re:It ain't art... (Score:1)
Re:Sold Out (Score:1)
The chick with the bruised lower lip was the best part of the trailer.
Haven't seen the movie. (notice I didn't say "yet.")
Re:Ahem (Score:1)
Have you actually seen The Hidden Fortress? The simililarities are there, but are well on the side of inspiration as opposed to thievery which he is constantly accused of.
Where do you think Kurosawa got HIS ideas from? Do a little 'research' on that.
ALL writers beg, borrow and steal, consciously or otherwise, whether they like it or not. VERY FEW works are purely original. Skill and effectiveness lie in choosing your heroes and role models carefully.
People regurgitating the old Hidden Fortress complaint is getting to be more tiresomely repetitive than a Beowulf cluster of VIC-20's.
Star Wars, warts and all, rang the bell and will for decades to come. Lucas gets credit for choosing the elements of his inspiration effectively, and breaking a few rules ('space' being a bit grimy and dinged-up as opposed to squeeky clean) that changed the genre forever more.
Re:Star Wars as Sir Alec Guiness' claim to fame? (Score:1)
Re:glad to see he's willing to give his opinion (Score:1)
What? No he doesn't. He wasn't forced into making the film.
Guinness is just a snotty, bitter old man.
Re:Sold Out (Score:1)
Because it is a series of movies that are all tied together. He couldn't show us everything that was going to happen in this one because there would be nothing left to show. Hence they are titled Episode I, II, III, IV, V, and VI.
What he did show us is what is happening that gets Palpatine into power and the state of turmoil the galaxy is in at the moment. Also, from what I've heard, what happened in the first movie will result in much larger events in the next one.
Granted, mundane things must happen in the galaxy all the time - trade ships plying their wares, gov't officials moving around constantly. But this wasn't what star wars was about. Look at the title - Star Wars - it says a lot about what you should expect. Its not Land Wars, just Star Wars.
You apparently have not read the first chapter of the original novel. The entire plot of the first trilogy (Episodes I-III) is outlined right there in about a page and a half. That is what Star Wars is about.
Re:Dialog (Score:1)
How silly of me to think in REAL chronological time instead of the Star Wars Universe FICTIONAL time.
However, I never turn down a good flogging.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
Disney Wars. (Score:1)
Yeah, the special effects were pretty nice. Yeah yeah whatever. Seen it before. Done that. Fer chrissakes, get on with the film, I know you can make animated fish after the first one.
To sum it up, the average Disney cartoon has more storyline, philosophical content and character development.
The first two films were pretty good. In the third they should've fried the bears with flamethrowers. In this one they might as well have skipped the actors and sound and just run a demo of how to make alien masks and do CGI (and shown it to Paramount). The next one Im not even going to see unless it gets complete rave reviews on Slashdot. Id rather spend my money renting sci-fi B movies, which actually tend to be better than expected at times.
He knows of what he speaks... (Score:4)
I should cut him a little slack, though. Conversational dialogue is, from what I hear, the hardest literary skill to master, and very few do it well. Few do it as poorly as Lucas does to such a wide audience, though.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re: yeah yeah, but (Score:1)
If you don't like it, don't watch it. (Score:1)
Re:It ain't art... (Score:1)
Hmm , not sure of you point here, I mean people went crazy over Boba Fett(sp?) as well. I mean bad guys are usually slicker and more attractive in many ways.
glad to see he's willing to give his opinion (Score:1)
Re:It ain't art... (Score:1)
To hell with double standards: good art is good art, regardless of the audience. All the most enduring childrens' books, for example, are the ones adults find interesting as well: Alice in Wonderland, The Chronicles of Narnia, etc. I'm sure there are some movies that fit the bill too, but unfortunately all I can think of at the moment is bland and over-sanitized Diznee crap.
Oh, and for the record: I've seen TPM and had a great time. Basically, a few weeks before it came out, when I found myself succumbing a little too much to the hype, I had an epiphany:
STAR WARS SUCKS.
SUCKS, SUCKS, SUCKS.
...And then it was OK, and I knew I could properly enjoy TPM, which I did. It was even better the second time, much to my amazement.
Wow. (Score:2)
That's a good sport.
IMHO, if one does not like the franchise element of something, that's no reason to take it out on your throng of adoring fans. Yes, Lucas is taking all of this too far(I think
phtphtpht
Re:He knows of what he speaks... (Score:1)
I remember in ran there is a scene where a vassal is exhorting his lord to quickly take advantage of an opportunity to sieze power, but the image behind them is a castle burning furiously ... Lucas would not ever come up with something like that.
Re:Other actors have contempt for it too (Score:1)
Re:Sir Obi-Wan Guiness is *NOT* dead....DUH! (Score:1)
Absolutely (Score:2)
I really thought Sir Alec Guiness was dead. (Score:3)
--Lenny
Alec the luvvie (Score:1)
Having said that, there's no excuse for verbally abusing a 12-year-old. I may never watch The Man in the White Suit again. Okay, maybe once more.
It ain't art... (Score:4)
What no-one remembered is that sci-fi appeals to people of all ages, and many (more mature) people who saw the films thought : "not bad but if the plot was such and such it would be so much cooler".
Well, yes, of course, but it was never supposed to make you think, it was supposed to make kids say "Mom! I wanna play with luke/r2d2/". Lucas marketed Star Wars toys from the outset, I remember seeing those toys appear right after the second movie.
No, I can't spell!
-"Run to that wall until I tell you to stop"
(tagadum,tagadum,tagadum
-"stop...."
Don't dis da books (Score:1)
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotected sex.
"Immaculate Conception" =/= "Virgin Birth" (Score:1)
(And I'm not even a Catholic.)
The "Immaculate Conception" was Mary's conception. Catholic doctrine is that she was concieved without "Original Sin", thus the "immaculate" (though otherwise by the usual means) conception.
Most Protestant churches don't teach this. I'm not sure about the Orthodox churches.
The Virgin Birth is something else entirely.
Re:Sold Out (Score:1)
And yes, Lucas knows the character is childish, but that is what he created it for, kids, people between the ages of 10 and 15 (or something like that).
I actually expected Jar Jar to be worse than an Ewok. But, since he couldn't kill any Battledroids with his stupid antics and at least the ewoks could kill stormtroopers with their antics, I didn't find him as annoying. Sure, he is annoying, but not as bad as I thought he'd be. I do find some of the things he does funny (like eating the food by grabbing it with his tongue), but most things I did find annoying.
And no, I did not leave the theatre pissed (I actually went back for two more showings later that day and I think 3 more that weekend) because I thought it was a good movie and it made me feel like a kid again (exactly what it was supposed to do).
Re: (Score:1)
Re:A Jerk and a Loser (Score:1)
WTF? So what?
"If he felt the dialog was so bad and beneath him, why did he accept the role in the first place ?!? Of course, as usual, money comes before principle."
Can you read? The above has nothing to do with his acting ability. Nothing whatsoever. If he felt it was beneath him, he shouldn't have done it in the first place.
Good Sci-Fi doesn't make good Merchandising. (Score:1)
My favourite game was to spend hours pondering the deep, inscrutable surface of the Monolith, awonder with the obscure cosmic possibilities it intimated. Dave Bowman and Frank Poole were idols in my childhood fantasies. I wanted to be just like them when I grew up - incomprehensibly altered by a mysterious alien intelligence; annhiliated in the cold depths of space. Hal was a favourite, too - an insane intelligence driven into a murdering fever by contradicted loyalties. Many happy hours were passed recreating these fun conflicts on the playground.
Have I made my point?
Star Wars has been a marketing exercise from the moment Lucas procured the merchandising rights. Quality storytelling? No room for that.
Chris Stearns.
Owing it to the fans... (Score:2)
A number of people have posted claiming that Guiness "owes something" to the fans.
I hardly think so. The notion that an actor (or a writer or a director) is a puppet who must perform in his life as "the fans" expect is painfully barbarous. Are people seriously suggesting that, if a person is popular or successful, that he must, from then on, conform to the expectations of those who made him successful? That because something he did for money (and I can't imagine that Mr. Guiness made Star Wars for any other reason) was a huge success, he no longer owns his own life?
Forget the fashionable vampires. They are merely the product of the trendy sexual undead. Try "fans" if you want a howling, bloodsucking, all-consuming, shreiking, soulless hunger.
A person has a right to own his or her life for themselves and they owe exactly nothing to the fans.
That's the problem (Score:2)
Creating something for young people should not be an excuse to use simplistic caricatures that insult the intelligence of a mature audience, nor should it be an excuse to use a story that doesn't make people think. Consider things like Sesame Street and Dr. Seuss which, while aimed at children, are challenging and clever. That Lucas seems to have intended to make Star Wars intellectually empty should not make him immune to criticism.
Re:He knows of what he speaks... (Score:1)
Cliff Palmer, Jr.
Re:He's just bitter. (Score:1)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:WHAT DOES IMHO MEAN???????? (Score:1)
What I'd like to know is
a) What does 'IANAL' mean?
b) What does 'gg' mean?
c) They're not in the Jargon File, but is there some place I can look them up?
P.S. As poor as the Star Wars (especially TPM) dialog is, it's better than a lot of the Sci-Fi out there like Wing Commander *blegh*
Now the Fifth Element had some good stuff in it. (Hmmm. Chris Tucker as Anakin Skywalker *ponder*)
Re:WHAT DOES IMHO MEAN???????? (Score:2)
Owing it to the fans... (Score:2)
A number of people have posted claiming that Guiness "owes something" to the fans.
I hardly think so. The notion that an actor (or a writer or a director) is a puppet who must perform in his life as "the fans" expect is painfully barbarous. Are people seriously suggesting that, if a person is popular or successful, that he must, from then on, conform to the expectations of those who made him successful? That because something he did for money (and I can't imagine that Mr. Guiness made Star Wars for any other reason) was a huge success, he no longer owns his own life?
Forget the fashionable vampires. It is hardly a revelation that humans are obsessed with sex and death. Try "fans" if you want a howling, bloodsucking, all-consuming, shreiking, soulless hunger.
A person has a right to own his or her life for themselves and they owe exactly nothing to the fans.
Re:He knows of what he speaks... (Score:1)
Re:It ain't art... (Score:1)
Re:He knows of what he speaks... (Score:2)
--
Re:A Jerk and a Loser (Score:1)
Shaw. Why would Prowse be pissed because they used another actor for that particular scene?
Do you think Ray Park was pissed that they used a voice over instead of his voice?
Re:because he's a professional actor (Score:1)
He's still an asshole...
Re:Lucas is a hack (Score:1)
That was my point - that even as entertainment, it failed, because it was essentially a two-hour toy commercial. The blatant product marketing in TPM was, to me, distracting in the extreme. I'm fully aware that the Star Wars movies are supposed to be for a younger audience, but TPM even failed at that level. The bottom line is, if Lucas could have sold all that merchandise without even making the movie, he would have. The movie wasn't the central thing - the Jar Jar inflatable chairs and "Making Of..." videos and Taco Bell posters were the sole reason for this movie's existence, and neither Lucas nor the studio made any effort to hide that fact.
Emz, I also understand his feelings but... (Score:1)
Many singers experienced the same; they made a great hit which sold very good. After the hit they made a song which was 'not as good' and people lost interest. Another one; why do you think groups like Abba are still very populair? They quit when they we're at a certain peak. People remember them being in that peak and remember them as being great.
And like I said; this isn't just one occasion; these things happen. And being a professional actor (and we all know Sir Alec is) I can't believe that you are not familier with this.
hmm, when looking at the preview I think I should go back to Netscape in order to read /. :)
But you don't. (Score:1)
and Tattoine is nothing like Dune, Fremen? Sandworms? Spice?
You'll note the great variety of sources you claim he ripped off from... but there is no consistant theme or pattern! every word in your message has been spoken by someone before, therefore you just ripped off what you said from other people.
Re:Ahem (Score:1)
Now, Resevoir Dogs to City on Fire? That was outright theft. Lucas has many, many sins to atone for, but plagarism isn't one of them.
Re:Star wars vs. TPM (Score:2)
I liked Star Wars.
I liked Empire Strikes Back the most.
I didn't like Return of the Jedi all that much.
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was the worst of the four, by a very large margin.
That being said, look back on Star Wars with adult eyes. The acting is bad, the dialog is terrible, the story is sort of weak. All of that being said It's still a classic of science fiction if for nothing else than special effects and the way it got kids into the audience with it's fairy-tale story. You'd never be able to get a 5 year old kid to understand the adult themes in Star Trek the Motion Picture or 2001: A Space Odyssey but Star Wars opened the door so that kids would be interested in sci-fi (sort of sci-fantasy?), and for that reason we continue to look back on it fondly, like a childhood memory. Who cares that the plot was weak and the characters were one dimensional? It was and still is great fun for kids.
My $.02
-Rich
LadyKillers (Score:1)
Mind you Guinness's performance, strong as it is, isn't the centre of the film as it is in the other three, as it is more of an ensemble piece.
I wonder if the Ealing comedies are out on DVD yet?
Re:*SPOILERS* Re:Sixth Sense was something differe (Score:1)
I did. Even a reviewer at CNN(?) mentioned that the movie has a twisted ending. So, I spent two hours hoping that the ending is not what I expected, but
Still, It's nice to see the town I live in the movie. I live in Philly and saw some filming. I'm glad the movie did well.
Re:Its His creation (Score:1)
Re:Where's the real conflict here? (Score:2)
Re:"Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists (Score:2)
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06
He didn't have to utter those awful banal lines! (Score:2)
He is right about the lines, I cringe after hearing Vader/Emperor utter "turn to the dark side/it is your destiny" over and over and over and over....
However Star Wars is still enjoyable, and I'm sorry that he's come to hate it.
Best Guinness quote (Score:3)
"He's seen Star Wars over 100 times" she said proudly. "Can you give him some of your wise advice?"
Guinness walked over to the boy, bent down and looked him in the eye and slowly said "Never - watch - it - again"
I still think is best films are 'Kind Hearts and Coronets', 'The Lavender Hill Mob' and 'The Man in the White Suit' - a nerd parable if ever there was one.
Careful, here (Score:2)
It's easy to call him an heretic, but I don't think we should. I disagree with him that the dialogue sucked; granted, it wasn't Shakespearian, and certainly not the best lines he had been given. I'm not sure how this piece deserves news, other than it acts as counterpoint to the hype. But this type of comment comes along for every majorly successful movie series. Star Trek's Shatner is another example.
Hey, that's fine. When the 6 movies are done filming, we'll remember McGregor as Obi-Wan, not Sir Alec Guinness. Not to say the first three movies will be better, but McGregor would make a convincing Jabba the Hut if they cast him as that!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
agreed (Score:2)
An immaculate conception
A slapstick plot "resolution"
ten billion annoying CGI creatures
ten minutes of screen captures from a mediocre video game
thrown in for kicks. Cmon, yousa thinkin, yousa people gonna die? Just read the abridged script:
http://ter.air0day.com/phantommenace.shtml
All movies are over hyped... (Score:3)
Fast food and soft drink tie ins just inundate us with movie images and they do detract from the movie. Sometimes they even ruin the movie altogether.
But as for the complaints of Guinness and Neeson, well I don't think they should complain about being meat puppets. After all, they are actors and are paid to do a job.
On the other hand, Lucas's writing seems to have gone down hill since the first trilogy. Hopefully, the quality of the dialogue and plot will increase with practise.
btw, anyone see the Southpark with strange female critter who talks like Jar-Jar?
anyway...
J:)
Re:Star wars vs. TPM (Score:2)
Now, anything that Lucas does with SW is going to have to deal with that which came before. It's like being the child of an incredibly famous person...who am _I_ if not a reflection on that which came before? Yeah, the dialog in TPM was weak, and some of elements were crummy as all heck (guess who, the name rhymes with links), but it was a Good Movie. I'm not looking for the solutions to life's problems or even a tale by which to live my life, just something that's entertaining and to which I can relate.
As for over-hyped, Heck Yeah TPM was over-hyped. But from the economics standpoint, it was brilliantly so. No TV advertising was necessary! That's UNPRECEDENTED for a movie.
Ultimately, SW exists to make its backers money, same as any other brand. Yeah, that's crass, but it's true. And it's been incredibly successful at that while also being quite entertaining and a common bond among geeks.
Trite dialog seems to be a pretty minor critique in light of that.
IMHO.
Re:I really thought Sir Alec Guiness was dead. (Score:2)
I searched for the rumour, and found it... in Italian! Although it doesn't include the rumor of his death, you can use bablefish to read:
http://delos.fantascienza.com/delos25/swpreq.ht
Rumors of Guinness' death are debunked all over the place (in fact, the only thing the FAQs mention is that he's not dead, "Not Yet"). Try:
http://www.bus.miami.edu/~jdavis/StarWars/sw_ne
Re:He knows of what he speaks... (Score:2)
Seen it once. Won't even rent it.
TPM sucked (Score:2)
The original movies, although a bit corny, still had some zen in them...TPM is just pure pop-culture trash...
See David Brin's articles:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/06/15/141
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/07/04/204
Listen to the man (Score:4)
Sir Guinness would, I'm sure, prefer to be remembered for his truly great roles, such as in Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. The fact that another fine actor, Liam Neeson, feels likewise about the series lends support to the view that maybe we're taking Star Wars just a little too seriously.
Re:It ain't art... (Score:2)
Then why all the hype about the Campbell influence? Were all those claims about being informed by cultural anthropology just a gimmick for selling more action figures to the kiddies?
No,
Re:Sold Out (Score:2)
Yes, there's a lot of whining about how we shouldn't complain about "George Lucas's personal vision", but you know, I pay my money to watch movies, and I demand good stuff. George Lucas is always willing to wax poetic about the "power of myth" in his movies, willing to put together mind-blowing trailers, but woefully short on delivery, with the feeble, "but it's only a children's movie" when someone points out the shortcomings.
There are those who said that, "look, Episode I was just a movie." It was _not_ just a movie, it was somewhat _less_ that a movie. If it had been "just a movie", it would have been great.
-Dean
Re:Dialog (Score:2)
Re:Sold Out (Score:4)
The truth is, he made Episode I the way he wanted to and that was as a children's movie. George Lucas has children. He made this movie for them. He threw in some adult-candy (Darth Maul) and some teen candy (hey that Natalie Portman is some queen). Still overall, it was a kid's movie. So cry about it.
Finally, the light-hearted idiocy of this movie fits with the story. Nothing really big is happening right now. Naboo is a small silly place divided up between a seventeen year old girl and an obese frog-man. Barely worth the Jedi's notice. What this will build to is a good love story and finally a horrible tragedy. The third film will not be a "kid's movie." It will be serious, like Empire was serious. This series is not the trite EVERY MOVIE IS THE END OF THE WORLD that Star Trek is. It has levels, and broad strokes of color. Yes, Jar-jar sucks, but I laughed anyway. You should too.
obsessiveness (Score:3)
Re:Biting the hand that feeds you... (Score:2)
I've read essays by many popular writers about the difficulty and stress in their lives caused by the incessant demands of the mob for "the next book." While I can see your argument, and agree that the love of the public for one's work is something for which one should be grateful, I think the artist owes something to the text -- to tell a story in a compelling, perhaps even an illuminating way, and that is the sole obligation. If there is no audience, the work was still honorable. If there is a mass audience, the work was still honorable. If the artist sets out with a duty to the mob instead of a duty to the text, well, whatever the work is, it is not art.
The labor of the artist is for the art, not for the audience. If the art is good, if it is human, if it is truthful and compelling, the audience will come. If it is not, there will be no audience.
Why should an actor, writer, or director be a slave to an audience?
By buying a ticket to Star Wars you do not buy firendship from Alec Guiness. Period.
Re:I really thought Sir Alec Guiness was dead. (Score:2)
Die Jar-Jar! (Score:2)
Re:It ain't art... (Score:3)
10-16 years may be stretching it a bit, actually.
I remember being a very young'un and having all the neighborhood kids in the 4-9 age range going nuts over ROTJ. By 16, most kids I knew would have somewhat outgrown the obsession. That is, those who aren't in their 20s and still obsessed.
Of course, one of the things I find amusing-yet-scary is how nuts all the little kiddies are going over Darth Maul. Yeah, that's a wonderful role model
Seriously, though. Star Wars ain't art, and it ain't religion, either.
Well, duh (Score:2)
It's a space western, folks. Lots of people like John Wayne's movies, too, but that doesn't mean he didn't have to wrap his mouth around some of the lamest, most pretentious dialogue ever written. At least Alec Guinness has the presence of mind to take himself less seriously than the Duke.
Sure, Star Wars is entertaining. Many children's movies are. I enjoyed all four. But people who think they're high art need to get out more often.
Jamie McCarthy
Re:Listen to the man (Score:2)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Re:Wow (Score:3)
It seems a little strange (Score:2)
On the other hand, he's not the only unsatisfied Star Wars actor. There's a link to David Prowse's comments, but also I've read that Denis "Wedge Antilles" Lawson didn't enjoy making the movies. I suspect that any time you have a director who is also the creator (such as Lucas, but also JMS of Babylon 5), the director is going to want to exercise more creative control in creating his "vision."
Re:Star wars vs. TPM (Score:2)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Re:He knows of what he speaks... (Score:5)
Nope, wouldn't be slashdot without someone bringing up a beowulf no matter what article a thread of conversation is in... ;)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
He's been anti-Star Wars for a while (Score:2)
He does have an excellent point - obsession over a story is a dangerous thing. Watching a movie 100 times at such a YOUNG age is ridiculous... I think he gave the kid good advice.
Alec Guiness seems to feel that Star Wars is destructive for youth (according to an old interview I read with him). I disagree here. Almost all fantasies are constructive, especially for young people. The mind grows through play & imagination. Star Wars has opened the imaginations of many kids, and inspired many of us...
[Tangent:
Looking at the original Star Wars, it was *JUST AS BAD* as TPM plot-wise... but we had never seen ANYTHING like Star Wars before it came out, so it was such a novelty. Now, 22 years later, our taste for involved plots & good dialogue has risen... Apparently, Lucas' hasn't.
What I *don't* like about this article is the way it throws in Liam Neeson's decision to quit acting and David Prowse's complaints in order to paint a "dirtier" picture. Journalistic FUD at its best. Neeson's decision has little to do with Lucas' specific treatment of him (I read that Redbook article), and if Prowse's story sounds way too left-field.. (a "black" voice? Why did you wait 2 decades to bring this up?)
Alec is understandibly upset (Score:3)
"Hi Obi-Wan!"
"My name is not Obi-Wan."
"You're a great actor!"
"What have you seen me do?"
"Uhh... Obi-Wan Kenobi!"
*sound of molars grinding and head striking wall repeatedly*
Actors just can't help being upset about things like that. It may seem stupid to the casual observer, but when you spend your entire life doing theater full time and then in the later stages of it you're remembered only for one role -- in a movie that's admittedly cool, but definately NOT your best work -- it will get to you.
Where's the real conflict here? (Score:3)
Star Wars isn't over-hyped. The populace is over-enthusiastic. Alec isn't pissed off at Star Wars. He's pissed off at the people who raise it to a platform it shouldn't be on. Lucas is perfectly capable of making truly excellent films (witness Indiana Jones), but Star Wars doesn't need to be. He's marketing that towards the kids and the middle-age and parents come along for the nostalgia and the excitement.
Sir Alec is pissed at you and me.
Re:He knows of what he speaks... (Score:4)
you mispelled regurgitating.
Read some Joseph Campbell to get a background on the classical myths that Lucas borrowed from for Star Wars.
Go to babelfish and translate father from english to German.
Read the Dune trilogy, or at least the first book, to see where Tattione (sp) came from.
The force? Read Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land and see if you don't agree that Michael Valentine could kick Vader's ass, and then melt Leia into a multi-orgasmic sex kitten. A trusty blaster is no match against an ancient religion when it disappears into the aether.
A powerful empire with a world encircling city as its capital, trying to crush a rebellion? Start with Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.
Floating/flying cities? I think there is a Star Trek episode about that, and I'd like to see the Empire try to take on one of Blish's Cities in Flight.
To his credit, Lucas did make a very entertaining space opera. The grittiness in the Star Wars opus contrasted nicely with the antiseptic cleanliness of previous filmed science fiction (cf. 2001), and you can see that influence in modern science fiction (SnowCrash, Virtual Light, etc).
George
I'm kinda disappointed... (Score:2)
Surely he's right in what he said. The dialog in Star Wars films is hardly Restoration comedy. But it's kind of rude of Sir Alec to be so blunt about it. He has every right, of course, but I kind of wish he hadn't...
Re:obsessiveness (Score:2)
TPM was high art folks (Score:2)
One of the great triumphs of advertising, which is the only art left to us.
Now excuse me while I take a break to suck on a battery powered Jar-Jar-Binks themed tootsie pop twirler/noisemaker.
Re:Alec is understandibly upset (Score:2)
"Wow, great image!"
"Oh, thanks, I just threw it in there."
"You're a great programmer!"
"Really, you like my natural language processor?"
"Uh, sure....that splash-screen is killer!"
*sound of molars grinding and head striking keyboard repeatedly*
moderate this up (Score:2)
I think this may be the crux of the matter in comparing ANH and TPM. Your critical judgement changes as you get older, and the same stuff that knocks your socks off as a teen becomes infantile, predictable and obvious as an adult.
Of course, the only way to test this hypothesis is to get a few samples of children (preferably under 2), let them grow up in a non-Star Wars contaminated environment, and then expose one set to TPM and the control set to ANH, and see which one they prefer.
Now if I could just get a grant for this, or maybe we could grab a few Amish teens.
George
Inside Info (Score:2)
Episode II will take place entirely in the Dagobah swamps. There will be only three characters -- Jar Jar, Yoda, and Jedi-in-training Anakin Skywalker.
Yoda is recording Anakin's progress on a Sony Handycam. Most of the film is shot from this perspective.
Here is a portion of the script:
Anakin -- "I kicked the map into the swamp."
Yoda -- "Kicked the map into the swamp, did you? Why you kick map into swamp? Map we need!"
Jar Jar -- "Oh no! Weesa gonna die!"
Anakin -- "You're a Jedi master! Just use the force and get us out of this!"
Yoda -- "Powerful is the force, but map we need! Foolish you are!"
Jar Jar -- "Weesa gonna die!"
Anakin -- "Wait! What was that? Did you hear that?"
Yoda -- "Do not change the subject. Map you lost!"
Anakin -- "Where's Jar Jar?"
Yoda -- "Standing here he was. I know not where he went."
Then again, I could just be making the whole thing up because I'm bored.
Lucas is a control freak (Score:2)
He's right to some extent too, it's a movie. It's fun and exciting but some people take it a bit far. As one of the greatest actors around it's got to sting a little to have done some amazing roles and then be primarily remembered by some younger generations for a bit role in a pop movie.
Falling down the detonator and blowing up the bridge was a little over the top though also..
Re:He knows of what he speaks... (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
What's this idea so many people seem to have about shielding twelve-year-olds from anything that might make them sad? Is it some sort of child abuse to tell them what you believe to be the truth?
And don't give me that "do it for the children" schtick, or I'll find you wherever you hide.
--
"Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists (Score:5)
Why is George Lucas peddling an elitist, anti-democratic agenda under the guise of escapist fun?
"But there's probably no better form of government than a good despot."
-- George Lucas (New York Times interview, March 1999)
Well, I boycotted "Episode I: The Phantom Menace" -- for an entire week.
Why? What's to boycott? Isn't "Star Wars" good old fashioned sci-fi? Harmless fun? Some people call it "eye candy" -- a chance to drop back into childhood and punt your adult cares away for two hours, dwelling in a lavish universe where good and evil are vividly drawn, without all the inconvenient counterpoint distinctions that clutter daily life.
Got a problem? Cleave it with a light saber! Wouldn't you love -- just once in your life -- to dive a fast little ship into your worst enemy's stronghold and set off a chain reaction, blowing up the whole megillah from within its rotten core while you streak away to safety at the speed of light? (It's such a nifty notion that it happens in three out of four "Star Wars" flicks.)
Anyway, I make a good living writing science-fiction novels and movies. So "Star Wars" ought to be a great busman's holiday, right?
One of the problems with so-called light entertainment today is that somehow, amid all the gaudy special effects, people tend to lose track of simple things, like story and meaning. They stop noticing the moral lessons the director is trying to push. Yet these things matter.
By now it's grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. After four "Star Wars" films, alarm bells should have gone off, even among those who don't look for morals in movies. When the chief feature distinguishing "good" from "evil" is how pretty the characters are, it's a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look.
Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?
* Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.
* "Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.
* Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.
* True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.
* Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.
That is just the beginning of a long list of "moral" lessons relentlessly pushed by "Star Wars." Lessons that starkly differentiate this saga from others that seem superficially similar, like "Star Trek." (We'll take a much closer look at some stark divergences between these two sci-fi universes below.)
Above all, I never cared for the whole Nietzschian Übermensch thing: the notion -- pervading a great many myths and legends -- that a good yarn has to be about demigods who are bigger, badder and better than normal folk by several orders of magnitude. It's an ancient storytelling tradition based on abiding contempt for the masses -- one that I find odious in the works of A.E. Van Vogt, E.E. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and wherever you witness slanlike super-beings deciding the fate of billions without ever pausing to consider their wishes.
Wow, you say. If I feel that strongly about this, why just a week-long boycott? Why see the latest "Star Wars" film at all?
Because I am forced to admit that demigod tales resonate deeply in the human heart.
Before moving on to the fun stuff, will you bear with me while we get serious for a little while?
In "The Hero With a Thousand Faces," Joseph Campbell showed how a particular, rhythmic storytelling technique was used in almost every ancient and pre-modern culture, depicting protagonists and antagonists with certain consistent motives and character traits, a pattern that transcended boundaries of language and culture. In these classic tales, the hero begins reluctant, yet signs and portents foretell his pre-ordained greatness. He receives dire warnings and sage wisdom from a mentor, acquires quirky-but-faithful companions, faces a series of steepening crises, explores the pit of his own fears and emerges triumphant to bring some boon/talisman/victory home to his admiring tribe/people/nation.
By offering valuable insights into this revered storytelling tradition, Joseph Campbell did indeed shed light on common spiritual traits that seem shared by all human beings. And I'll be the first to admit it's a superb formula -- one that I've used at times in my own stories and novels.
Alas, Campbell only highlighted positive traits, completely ignoring a much darker side -- such as how easily this standard fable-template was co-opted by kings, priests and tyrants, extolling the all-importance of elites who tower over common women and men. Or the implication that we must always adhere to variations on a single story, a single theme, repeating the same prescribed plot outline over and over again. Those who praise Joseph Campbell seem to perceive this uniformity as cause for rejoicing -- but it isn't. Playing a large part in the tragic miring of our spirit, demigod myths helped reinforce sameness and changelessness for millennia, transfixing people in nearly every culture, from Gilgamesh all the way to comic book super heroes.
It is essential to understand the radical departure taken by genuine science fiction, which comes from a diametrically opposite literary tradition -- a new kind of storytelling that often rebels against those very same archetypes Campbell venerated. An upstart belief in progress, egalitarianism, positive-sum games -- and the slim but real possibility of decent human institutions.
And a compulsive questioning of rules! Authors like Greg Bear, John Brunner, Alice Sheldon, Frederik Pohl and Philip K. Dick always looked on any prescriptive storytelling formula as a direct challenge -- a dare. This explains why science fiction has never been much welcomed at either extreme of the literary spectrum -- comic books and "high literature."
Comics treat their superheroes with reverent awe, as demigods were depicted in the Iliad. But a true science fiction author who wrote about Superman would have earthling scientists ask the handsome Man of Steel for blood samples (even if it means scraping with a super fingernail) in order to study his puissant powers, and maybe bottle them for everyone.
As for the literary elite, postmodernists despise science fiction because of the word "science," while their older colleagues -- steeped in Aristotle's "Poetics" -- find anathema the underlying assumption behind most high-quality SF: the bold assertion that there are no "eternal human verities." Things change, and change can be fascinating. Moreover, our children might outgrow us! They may become better, or learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. And if they don't learn, that could be a riveting tragedy far exceeding Aristotle's cramped and myopic definition. "On the Beach," "Soylent Green" and "1984" plumbed frightening depths. "Brave New World," "The Screwfly Solution" and "Fahrenheit 451" posed worrying questions. In contrast, "Oedipus Rex" is about as interesting as watching a hooked fish thrash futilely at the end of a line. You just want to put the poor doomed King of Thebes out of his misery -- and find a way to punish his tormentors.
This truly is a different point of view, in direct opposition to older, elitist creeds that preached passivity and awe in nearly every culture, where a storyteller's chief job was to flatter the oligarchic patrons who fed him. Imagine Achilles refusing to accept his ordained destiny, taking up his sword and hunting down the Fates, demanding that they give him both a long life and a glorious one! Picture Odysseus telling both Agamemnon and Poseidon to go chase themselves, then heading off to join Daedalus in a garage start-up company, mass producing wheeled and winged horses so that mortals could swoop about the land and air, like gods -- the way common folk do today. Even if they fail, and jealous Olympians crush them, what a tale it would be.
This storytelling style was rarely seen till a few generations ago, when aristocrats lost some of their power to punish irreverence. Even now, the new perspective remains shaky -- and many find it less romantic, too. How many dramas reflexively depict scientists as "mad"? How few modern films ever show American institutions functioning well enough to bother fixing them? No wonder George Lucas publicly yearns for the pomp of mighty kings over the drab accountability of presidents. Many share his belief that things might be a whole lot more vivid without all the endless, dreary argument and negotiating that make up such a large part of modern life.
If only someone would take command. A leader.
Some people say, why look for deep lessons in harmless, escapist entertainment?
Others earnestly hold that the moral health of a civilization can be traced in its popular culture.
In the modern era, we tend to feel ideas aren't inherently toxic. Yet who can deny that people -- especially children -- will be swayed if a message is repeated often enough? It's when a "lesson" gets reiterated relentlessly that even skeptics should sit up and take notice.
The moral messages in "Star Wars" aren't just window dressing. Speeches and lectures drench every film. They represent an agenda.
Can we learn more about the "Star Wars" worldview by comparing George Lucas' space-adventure epic to its chief competitor -- "Star Trek?"
The differences at first seem superficial. One saga has an air force motif (tiny fighters) while the other appears naval. In "Star Trek," the big ship is heroic and the cooperative effort required to maintain it is depicted as honorable. Indeed, "Star Trek" sees technology as useful and essentially friendly -- if at times also dangerous. Education is a great emancipator of the humble (e.g. Starfleet Academy). Futuristic institutions are basically good-natured (the Federation), though of course one must fight outbreaks of incompetence and corruption. Professionalism is respected, lesser characters make a difference and henchmen often become brave whistle-blowers -- as they do in America today.
In "Star Trek," when authorities are defied, it is in order to overcome their mistakes or expose particular villains, not to portray all institutions as inherently hopeless. Good cops sometimes come when you call for help. Ironically, this image fosters useful criticism of authority, because it suggests that any of us can gain access to our flawed institutions, if we are determined enough -- and perhaps even fix them with fierce tools of citizenship.
By contrast, the oppressed "rebels" in "Star Wars" have no recourse in law or markets or science or democracy. They can only choose sides in a civil war between two wings of the same genetically superior royal family. They may not meddle or criticize. As Homeric spear-carriers, it's not their job.
In teaching us how to distinguish good from evil, Lucas prescribes judging by looks: Villains wear Nazi helmets. They hiss and leer, or have red-glowing eyes, like in a Ralph Bakshi cartoon. On the other hand, "Star Trek" tales often warn against judging a book by its cover -- a message you'll also find in the films of Steven Spielberg, whose spunky everyman characters delight in reversing expectations and asking irksome questions.
Above all, "Star Trek" generally depicts heroes who are only about 10 times as brilliant, noble and heroic as a normal person, prevailing through cooperation and wit, rather than because of some inherited godlike transcendent greatness. Characters who do achieve godlike powers are subjected to ruthless scrutiny. In other words, "Trek" is a prototypically American dream, entranced by notions of human improvement and a progress that lifts all. Gene Roddenberry's vision loves heroes, but it breaks away from the elitist tradition of princes and wizards who rule by divine or mystical right.
By contrast, these are the only heroes in the "Star Wars" universe.
Yes, "Trek" can at times seem preachy, or turgidly politically correct. For example, every species has to mate with every other one, interbreeding with almost compulsive abandon. The only male heroes who are allowed any testosterone are Klingons, because cultural diversity outweighs sexual correctness. (In other words, it's OK for them to be macho 'cause it is "their way.") "Star Trek" television episodes often devolved into soap operas. Many of the movies were very badly written. Nevertheless, "Trek" tries to grapple with genuine issues, giving complex voices even to its villains and asking hard questions about pitfalls we may face while groping for tomorrow. Anyway, when it comes to portraying human destiny, where would you rather live, assuming you'll be a normal citizen and no demigod? In Roddenberry's Federation? Or Lucas' Empire?
Lucas defends his elitist view, telling the New York Times, "That's sort of why I say a benevolent despot is the ideal ruler. He can actually get things done. The idea that power corrupts is very true and it's a big human who can get past that."
In other words a royal figure or demigod, anointed by fate. (Like a billionaire moviemaker?)
Lucas often says we are a sad culture, bereft of the confidence or inspiration that strong leaders can provide. And yet, aren't we the very same culture that produced George Lucas and gave him so many opportunities? The same society that raised all those brilliant experts for him to hire -- boldly creative folks who pour both individual inspiration and cooperative skill into his films? A culture that defies the old homogenizing impulse by worshipping eccentricity, with unprecedented hunger for the different, new or strange? It what way can such a civilization be said to lack confidence?
In historical fact, all of history's despots, combined, never managed to "get things done" as well as this rambunctious, self-critical civilization of free and sovereign citizens, who have finally broken free of worshipping a ruling class and begun thinking for themselves. Democracy can seem frustrating and messy at times, but it delivers.
Having said all that, let me again acknowledge that "Star Wars" harks to an old and very, very deeply human archetype. Those who listened to Homer recite the "Iliad" by a campfire knew great drama. Achilles could slay a thousand with the sweep of a hand -- as Darth Vader murders billions with the press of a button -- but none of those casualties matters next to the personal saga of a great one. The slaughtered victims are mere minions. Extras, without families or hopes to worry about shattering. Spear-carriers. Only the demigod's personal drama is important.
Thus few protest the apotheosis of Darth Vader -- nee Anakin Skywalker -- in "Return of the Jedi."
To put it in perspective, let's imagine that the United States and its allies managed to capture Adolf Hitler at the end of the Second World War, putting him on trial for war crimes. The prosecution spends months listing all the horrors done at his behest. Then it is the turn of Hitler's defense attorney, who rises and utters just one sentence:
"But, your honors
Gasp! The prosecutors blanch in chagrin. "We didn't know that! Of course all charges should be dismissed at once!"
The allies then throw a big parade for Hitler, down the avenues of Nuremberg.
It may sound silly, but that's exactly the lesson taught by "Return of the Jedi," wherein Darth Vader is forgiven all his sins, because he saved the life of his own son.
How many of us have argued late at night over the philosophical conundrum -- "Would you go back in time and kill Hitler as a boy, if given a chance?" It's a genuine moral puzzler, with many possible ethical answers. Still, most people, however they ultimately respond, would admit being tempted to say yes, if only to save millions of Hitler's victims.
And yet, in "The Phantom Menace," Lucas wants us to gush with warm feelings toward a cute blond little boy who will later grow up to murder the population of Earth many times over? While we're at it, why not bring out the Hitler family album, so we may croon over pictures of adorable little Adolf and marvel over his childhood exploits! He, too, was innocent till he turned to the "dark side," so by all means let us adore him.
To his credit, Lucas does not try to excuse this macabre joke by saying, "It's only a movie." Rather, he holds up his saga like an agonized Greek tragedy worthy of "Oedipus" -- an epic tale of a fallen hero, trapped by hubris and fate. But if that were true, wouldn't "Star Wars" by now have given us a better-than-caricature view of the Dark Side? Heroes and villains would not be distinguished by mere prettiness; the moral quandaries would not come from a comic book.
Don't swallow it. The apotheosis of a mass murderer is exactly what it seems. We should find it chilling.
Remember the final scene in "Return of the Jedi," when Luke gazes into a fire to see Obi-Wan, Yoda and Vader, smiling in the flames? I found myself hoping it was Jedi Hell, for the amount of pain those three unleashed on their galaxy, and for all the damned lies they told. But that's me. I'm a rebel against Homer and Achilles and that whole tradition. At heart, some of you are, too.
This isn't just a one-time distinction. It marks the main boundary between real, literate, humanistic science fiction -- or speculative fiction -- and most of the movie "sci-fi" you see nowadays.
The difference isn't really about complexity, childishness, scientific naiveté or haughty prose stylization. I like a good action scene as well as the next guy, and can forgive technical gaffes if the story is way cool! The films of Robert Zemeckis take joy in everything, from rock 'n' roll to some deep scientific paradox, feeding both the child and the adult within. Meanwhile, noir tales like "Gattaca" and "The 13th Floor" relish dark stylization while exploring real ideas. Good SF has range.
No, the underlying difference is that one tradition revels in elites, while the other rebels against them. In the genuine science-fiction worldview, demigods aren't easily forgiven lies and murder. Contempt for the masses is passé. There may be heroes -- even great ones -- but in the long run we'll improve together, or not at all. (See my note on the Enlightenment, Romanticism and science fiction.)
That kind of myth does sell. Yet, even after rebelling against the Homeric archetype for generations, we children of Pericles, Ben Franklin and H.G. Wells remain a minority. So much so that Lucas can appropriate our hand-created tropes and symbols -- our beloved starships and robots -- for his own ends and get credited for originality.
As I mentioned earlier, the mythology of conformity and demigod-worship pervades the highest levels of today's intelligentsia, and helps explain why so many postmodernist English literature professors despise real science fiction. When Joseph Campbell prescribed that writers should adhere slavishly to a hackneyed plot outline that preached submission for ages, he was lionized by Bill Moyers and countless others for his warm and fuzzy "human insight."
Indeed, his perceptions were compassionate and illuminating! Still, a frank discussion or debate might have been more useful than Campbell's sunny monologue. As in the old fable about a golden-haired king, no one dared point to the bright ruler's dark shadow, or his long trail of bloody footprints.
I admit we face an uphill battle winning most people over to a more progressive, egalitarian worldview, along with stirring dreams that focus on genuine problems and heroes, not demigods. Meanwhile, Lucas knows his mythos appeals to human nature at a deep and ancient level.
Hell, it appeals to part of my nature! Which is why I knew I'd cave in and see "The Phantom Menace," after my symbolic one-week boycott expired. In fact, let me confess that I adored the second film in the series, "The Empire Strikes Back." Despite Yoda's kitschy pseudo-zen, one could easily suspend disbelief and wait to see what the Jedi philosophy had to say. Millions became keyed up to find out, at long last, why Obi-Wan and Yoda lied like weasels to Luke Skywalker. Meanwhile, the script sizzled with originality, good dialogue and relentlessly compelling characters. The action was dynamite
You already know what I think of what came next. But worshipping Darth Vader only scratches the surface. The biggest moral flaw in the "Star Wars" universe is one point that Lucas stresses over and over again, through the voice of his all-wise guru character, Yoda.
Let's see if I get this right. Fear makes you angry and anger makes you evil, right?
Now I'll concede at once that fear has been a major motivator of intolerance in human history. I can picture knightly adepts being taught to control fear and anger, as we saw credibly in "The Empire Strikes Back." Calmness makes you a better warrior and prevents mistakes. Persistent wrath can cloud judgment. That part is completely believable.
But then, in "Return of the Jedi," Lucas takes this basic wisdom and perverts it, saying -- "If you get angry -- even at injustice and murder -- it will automatically and immediately transform you into an unalloyedly evil person! All of your opinions and political beliefs will suddenly and magically reverse. Every loyalty will be forsaken and your friends won't be able to draw you back. You will instantly join your sworn enemy as his close pal or apprentice. All because you let yourself get angry at his crimes."
Uh, say what? Could you repeat that again, slowly?
In other words, getting angry at Adolf Hitler will cause you to rush right out and join the Nazi Party? Excuse me, George. Could you come up with a single example of that happening? Ever?
That contention is, in itself, a pretty darn evil thing to preach. Above all, it is just plain dumb.
It raises a question that someone should have asked a long time ago. Who the heck nominated George Lucas to preach sick, popcorn morality at our children? If it's "only a movie," why is he working so hard to fill his films with this crap?
I think it's time to choose, people. This saga is not just another expression of the Homeric archetype, extolling old hierarchies of princes, wizards and demigods. By making its centerpiece the romanticization of a mass murderer, "Star Wars" has sunk far lower. It is unworthy of our attention, our enthusiasm -- or our civilization.
Lucas himself gives a clue when he says, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away."
Right on. "Star Wars" belongs to our dark past. A long, tyrannical epoch of fear, illogic, despotism and demagoguery that our ancestors struggled desperately to overcome, and that we are at last starting to emerge from, aided by the scientific and egalitarian spirit that Lucas openly despises. A spirit we must encourage in our children, if they are to have any chance at all.
I don't expect to win this argument any time soon. As Joseph Campbell rightly pointed out, the ways of our ancestors tug at the soul with a resonance many find romantically appealing, even irresistible. Some cannot put the fairy tale down and move on to more mature fare. Not yet at least. Ah well.
But over the long haul, history is on my side. Because the course of human destiny won't be defined in the past. It will be decided in our future.
That's my bailiwick, though it truly belongs to all of you. To all of us.
The future is where our posterity will thrive.
---------------
By David Brin
June 15, 1999
Re:He knows of what he speaks... (Score:2)
It all seems kind of fishy to me (Score:2)
Re:He knows of what he speaks... (Score:2)
"but uncle owen, I was going to go to Tashe Station to pick up some power converters!"
man I cringe at a couple of those crappy lines everytime I see that movie. (but for some sick reason, I still love all 3). I used to think it was just the crap way Hammil delivered some of the lines, but I have to agree that some of Sir Alec's were equally banal and although he pulled them off very well, they still are trite and shallow. "stretch out with your *feelings*".
Some of the best lines are Han Solo's but I've heard that Harrison Ford ad-libbed most of those anyway. Yeah, Lucas was able to (create/adapt/rip-off) some pretty good immersive visual environments, but he should have left off some of the wordsmithing of the dialogue to someone else more able (IMO).
Star Wars as Sir Alec Guiness' claim to fame? (Score:2)
Comparing the dialogue and longevity of Shakespeare to that of Lucas
Re:I'm kinda disappointed... (Score:2)
I don't know the state of Sir Alec Guinness's personal finances, but it seems unlikely that Star Wars made the difference between working and retirement. Let's not forget that at the time he'd already had an illustrious career of 30-some years on film and stage, and by 1977 he'd already begun to slow down, performing only once every few years. I would expect that he was already prepared to slip into a comfortable retirement when Lucas came along.
The quiet period is over; Sir Alec Guinness speaking harshly of the writing in Star Wars is not going to materially affect the franchise at this point. Let the man have his say.
Re:glad to see he's willing to give his opinion (Score:2)
First: Shatner said that on SNL, and it's one of the funniest things ever done or said on that show. He was, in part, making fun of his own continued popularity in the face of his incredibly cheesy acting. The devotion of hard-line fans of *anything* be it Jane Austen, Trek, Star Wars, is interesting, amusing, and, I'll admit it, a little frightening. The degree of obsession displayed by hard-core Trekkies is worth making fun of. Repeat after me: "it's only a TV and movie franchise". Now do the same with Star Wars, only leave out the "TV" part.
Not that this excuses Guinness for being rude to a young child; but I don't blame him for trying to shock the kid out of his obsession with what are, after all, movies that only scratch the surface of what can be done with the medium. If I saw a kid that obsessed I might not "harshly rebuke" him, but I'd sure take steps to ensure the kid gets some kind of life.
Finally: "Alec, you made your bed. It made you famous. Now, you have to lie in it." (a) it didn't make him famous. He was the only 'name' actor in the original movie. Check out his filmography on IMDB if you don't believe me. Yes, yes, it may have made him more famous, but it's not like he appears to have wanted the extra fame, and it's not like he got lots of work out of it (it happened at the tail end of his distinguished career) (b) what the heck do you mean by that anyway? Guinness has every right to complain about the movie or its effects on him after making it.