Do you really like Star Wars?

[Ranger REG]

Heheheh. If George Lucas had known now what he should have known in 1998. He should have stuck with his earlier credo and not do any more Star Wars no matter how much those fans in the 90's wanted it so terribly much.

But NOOOOOO! He HAD to listen to his fans.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

All I can say to those fans that wanted and are now disappointed by the Prequel so far: deal with it.

And to those handful of fans who are satisfied with the Original Trilogy and didn't want anymore Star Wars films beyond that, you should be lauded with the right to say, "I told you so."

[image placeholder: devil smiley]

 

[CrusaderX]

For starters, I don't dislike the midichlorian explaination like a lot of fans do. You have to see where Lucas is coming from with that idea. When writing Star Wars, Lucas was HUGELY inspired by the writings of Joseph Campbell. You could say one of the underlying themes of Campbell's research is finding explaination to things that most people don't delve into much, instead just blindly and ignorantly accepting it. Lucas is definitely not that sort of person, and wanted to put a logical face to the force...

Well, Lucas has specifically stated that the Force is analogous to spiritual faith:

"I put the Force into the movie in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people--more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system. I wanted to make it so that young people would begin to ask questions about the mystery. Not having enough interest in the mysteries of life to ask the question, "Is there a God or is there not a God?"--that is for me the worst thing that can happen. I think you should have an opinion about that. Or you should be saying, "I'm looking. I'm very curious about this, and I am going to continue to look until I can find an answer, and if I can't find an answer, then I'll die trying." I think it's important to have a belief system and to have faith."

Lucas then goes on to say that he believes in God. Though this thread really shouldn't turn into a religious debate...

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, Lucas has specifically stated that the Force is analogous to spiritual faith:

If according to Lucas, that the Force is analogous to spiritual faith, then what the heck is the midichlorian count supposed to represent? Can one devise a system of measurement to determine the strength of spiritual faith?

That's what you get for trying to use science -- or should I say, superscience -- to explain the unnatural.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've been trying to stay out of the "old trilogy vs. new trilogy" debates recently, because I can't usually add anything to them that hasn't been said by the time I got there.

(Well, that's not entirely true. I have a whole essay in my head about why the "Special Editions of the OT are worse than the originals, not only on a personal opinion level, but by accepted standards of storytelling and movie-making. But this isn't the time and place for it; I'm not sure there will ever be a time and place for it. But I digress... )

I do, however, have to jump in and comment on npiccini's comment. Specifically:

The wooden acting of Ep I and II stands right alongside the wooden acting of Luke Skywalker in Ep I.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. There's no comparison at all.

No, I'm not going to claim that Mark Hamill's acting in ANH was great. It wasn't. Very few of the performances in the first film were very good. Even Harrison Ford's performance wasn't fantastic, though it improved by leaps and bounds from ESB onward. (So did the others, but not as much.)

But they stand head and shoulders above most of what we've seen from the new movies. Ewan McGregor's done very well, so let's leave him out. We'll leave out Hayden too, for reasons I'll come back to.

But Jake Lloyd and Natalie Portman are lead weights around the necks of these movies. Mark Hammil may not have been the world's greatest actor in ANH, but at least I got the impression he was truly trying to act. His heart was in the right place. But with Portman, well... I've seen more emotion from people reading off a teleprompter. (For the record, I blame Lucas, not her. I know she can act, so I have to assume she's not being permitted to do so.)

This, BTW, is why I can excuse Hayden's performance--he's clearly giving it his all, and I think he actually did quite well, given the abysmal dialogue he had to work with. I know I'm in the minority, but I like him as Annakin. I just don't like the way Annakin's written.

Bottom line? I'll take mediocre actors who actually try to act (ANH) over actors, good or bad, who can't be bothered to emote (PM/AotC) any day of the week. That, as much as anything else, is the nebulous "soul" that people say is missing from the new trilogy.

 

[Klaus]

I don't blame Jake Lloyd. I blame George for casting him as an 8-year old Anakin when it should have been Hayden all along playing a 16-year old Anakin. Cases in point:

- Anakin's love of "cars", which harken back to the original SW's script with Luke's love of "cars".
- Anakin's working hard as a slave, taking the brunt of Watto's work off his mother's shoulders.
- Anakin being "too old" to begin training. Jake Lloyd was barely older than the Younglings in Ep. II. Seeing they turn down a 16-year old would be more credible.
- The sly smile Anakin and Padmé exchange at the end of TPM. Were it Hayden, it could be a hint of what's to come. With Lloyd there, it's just creepy...
- Only Anakin ages between Ep. I and II. Were Hayden, just a little make-up trick and he could look a bit older. Padme, specially, seems frozen in time.
- No time to rescue Shmi. If Hayden were Anakin in Ep. I, we could buy into an intensive training period (say, 5 years), and there wasn't time to go after his mom. But the age gap between Lloyd and Hayden makes it hard to believe.

As for the lack of a true villain, Darth Maul had the iconic appearance to rivel Vader's status, were he given three movies to shine. And having Anakin strike him down and take his place would have a great meaning, paralelling the Vader/Luke duel in RotJ.

As for the fighting, I was underwhelmed by the Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan/Maul triel (three-person duel), but not as much as with the Obi-Wan/Jango Fett battle and the almost casual Mace Windu/Jango Fett battle.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I don't DISLIKE what Star Wars is, or has become, but I am rather disappointed in that it could have been so much better than a lot of it has been. The soul of Star Wars was sold for the money from merchandising tie-ins.

Oh my. Did you not see the glut of toys in 1978? The 'soul' of Star Wars was sold a long, long, long time ago (practically from the outset) to merchandising tie-ins. What do you think the canteen scene was? Lots of quick glimpses of aliens that later became action figures - despite not taking any real part in the movie! I can see your point but this just seems like too much "rose-coloured glasses syndrome" to me.

Ahnk-Morpork - yes, we certainly can compare the first trilogy and the second. The second trilogy is about the series of events that lead to the first. They are linked on a fundamental level far more than comparing Dark Ages to Roman Empire events. Surely you must see that?

 

[Vocenoctum]

I liked the 4,5,6 trilogy greatly, and liked the Zhan novel trilogy. I didn't even notice they were making more SW novels until suddenly they had 400 of them.
I read the Boba Fett trilogy of novels, and they were beyond horrible, so I never bothered with more.

Ep 1 & 2 have been fine. I don't think Portman was that bad in Ep1, but in Ep2, she was very wooden and vacant. Ep 1 she was either the controlled demeanor of the Queen, or the somewhat submissive maid act. Ep2, she was just Portman standing around trying to appear in character.

What bugs me about 1 & 2 is the reliance on CGI... and it's horrible CGI! Compare to Lord of the Rings, Jar-Jar vs Gollum. The AT-AT's in Empire were one of my fondest childhood memories, but if they were done in Ep1 & 2's style, I'd probably not even notice them.
The alien races are horrible looking, and I specifically detest alien languages based around accents. Why is Anakin wasting his time building a translator droid if everyone speaks the same language?

KotOR1 is great, and captures some of the adventure of the original series, though the cortosis weave weapons are a little out of place, I understand why they exist. KotOR2 is not as good, but still has a good feeling of adventure IMO.

Ep 1 & 2 just don't capture that adventure, nothing happens based on main characters skills to me.

Jango Fett was horrible. Boba Fett's main contribution may have been to fall into a big pit, but he still ranks higher than Jango!

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't blame Jake Lloyd. I blame George for casting him as an 8-year old Anakin when it should have been Hayden all along playing a 16-year old Anakin.

Oh, I agree completely that seeing Anakin as a kid was an awful idea. In fact, the original script for PH called for Anakin to be 13 or so--far more believable.

That said, Lloyd was still a bad choice. It's a proven fact that some 8-year-olds can act--witness The 6th Sense--so I don't consider Lloyd's age an excuse for the performance.

Although I suppose, since we've already established that Lucas didn't let some of the other actors actually act to their potential (Portman), it's not fair to assume that it was any different with Jake Lloyd. For all I know, he's the best child actor in the world, and was dragged down by poor directing.

 

[Thanee]

The original trilogy is still great, even after so many years.

The Empire Strikes Back is by far my favorite from all the Star Wars movies.
I also liked Attack of the Clones, much better than Shadow Menace.
I hope the third one will be another improvement.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Ranger REG]

Bottom line? I'll take mediocre actors who actually try to act (ANH) over actors, good or bad, who can't be bothered to emote (PM/AotC) any day of the week. That, as much as anything else, is the nebulous "soul" that people say is missing from the new trilogy.

Are you saying that George Lucas work well with mediocre actors?

As you said, the fault do not lie with the actors but the director.