The Problem with Star Wars

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

No, it's like saying Shakespeare's early drafts of Hamlet are irrelevent to the final draft of Hamlet. And, for all intents and purposes, they are.

It's not a big deal, but I have to respectfully disagree. Maybe it's just me, but the evolution of an idea (or a story) is fascinating. And the early steps of the process can be very interesting when compared to the final product. And it tells you something about the author/originator.

But either way, I don't see how comparing the early drafts of the script to Hidden Fortress says anything at all about comparing the movies that actually got made instead to Hidden Fortress. If you mean instead that early drafts more closely resembled Kurosawa's film, then that's one thing, and I won't really argue with you (since I don't remember many details of reading those early scripts online, assuming those are actually genuine.) But watching the two movies side by side I can say that I think it's preposterous to say that one is simply a remake of the other, as it's just as easy to find substantial differences as it is to find superficial similarities.

Cool. We're not actually disagreeing much here. I think the similarities are a little more noteworthy than you do, but "remake" does indeed stretch it well past the breaking point. Lucas borrowed some elements from it the same way he borrowed elements from serials, mythology, and whatnot else. I just felt like you were giving short shrift to the parallels that do exist.

 

[Desdichado]

It's not a big deal, but I have to respectfully disagree. Maybe it's just me, but the evolution of an idea (or a story) is fascinating. And the early steps of the process can be very interesting when compared to the final product. And it tells you something about the author/originator.

Well, just because it's irrelevent to the point I was making doesn't mean I don't think it's an interesting line of investigation in its own right!

Cool. We're not actually disagreeing much here. I think the similarities are a little more noteworthy than you do, but "remake" does indeed stretch it well past the breaking point. Lucas borrowed some elements from it the same way he borrowed elements from serials, mythology, and whatnot else. I just felt like you were giving short shrift to the parallels that do exist.

Sounds like it. I was more nagging the guys who call Star Wars a remake, and make way too much of the parallels. There certainly are parallels, and I'd be pretty dumb to blow them off since even Lucas acknowledged that they are there and he put them in on purpose.

 

[mojo1701]

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the grip was meant to reference Lee's history of fencing in movies, or something like that. And the whole "lightsaber forms" thing they bandied about in the lead-up to Episode 2 came from that. Perhaps our fencing geeks can tell us why a pistol grip would be appropriate to the reference?

Perhaps because he was... The Man with the Golden Gun.

Gun... pistol?

 

[LilMissKittyn]

I am not a Star Wars fan, either, inasmuch as I've only seen the movies once. However, I am a movie buff and an enormous D&D/RTS/General RPG nerd (I'm one of the people that was outraged when The Two Towers took a major and rather unscripted plot twist into Gondor). I've been taking notes and it's time for my term paper here.

As to the financial success of the movie:
First, the original Star Wars came out at a time in which the movie industry was not nearly so competitive. Less movies, more time to see them; admittedly, less interest. However, the stunning (for the time) special effects and general coolness, along with Lucas' brilliant marketing skills, spread word of the movie fairly quickly, making it a parallel to Harry Potter. It has nothing to do with the horrible dialogue and more to do with the cool fight scenes. Nerds, whether we'd like to admit it or not, really enjoy seeing those pretty little lightsabers whirled around and watching hi-tech spaceships get blown to bits. That's why the fad has grown to a cult-ish fervor.
Basically, as long as it looks pretty, it'll make good money. Day After Tomorrow? The Drunken Master movies (ok, the humor was pretty good, but the plot sucked)? Titanic? Charlie's Angels? I mean, come on.
Also, remember the movie doesn't have to cost a lot to be an enormous seller. Napoleon Dynamite had to be one of the lowest-budget movies of all time, but look at the sales on that one.

As to Lucas' directing job, I'm sorry, but I have to revisit it. Personally, I'd agree that he was making a political statement....but he missed the whole point. There's a number of angles you could take with this; anti-warfare, political drama, etc., etc. He also tried, N.B., TRIED, to make the movie bigger than it was, especially (this has been brought up several times) with the ridiculous love story in AotC and general statements of city life (the cantina scene in one of the prequels, I believe it was the first one). He's just one of those directors that, while I admire his works, wasn't particularly good at his job in the first three movies, which were the most enjoyable for me because of Han Solo's biting presence. The second series seem to be mediocre, at best (I saw tPM when I was ten and refused to watch AotC).

Don't mistake what I'm saying as that I don't like Star Wars. I'm too much of a sci-fi junkie to say otherwise. However, I'll repeat what many have already said; take that movie and find a co-director who can override Lucas' artistic vision. The movie could have been right up there with Casa Blanca, Vertigo, Gone With the Wind, and Citizen Kane.

Some random snippets I have replies to:
As to the relevence of a first draft:
A quote comes to mind. I think it was Hemingway that said, "The first draft of anything is always $H|T."

Someone mentioned a director's quote who said, "Like that, only better." I think that was the director of the Shining, which I recently re-watched....Peter something-or-another, I can't remember his last name either.

As to kid superheros, let me cite a few VERY successful series and individuals which are being soaked up by kids of all ages (depending, of course, on the target age)
Goosebumps
Teen Titans
Pokemon
Spykids
X-Men (my favorite character was always Rogue)
The "Swiftly Tilting Planet" series
Matilda
Little Women
The Redwall series (yes, I know it features mice, but the principle is exactly the same)
The Chronicles of Narnia
The Legends of Zelda
Blue's Clues (Joe)
Hilary Duff, Lil Bow Wow, JoJo, and Lindsey Lohan
Harry Potter
The Incredibles
Those are just off the top of my head, I read a lot more than I did anything else as a kid. My point is, kids look up to older kids, not adults, and most of them are looking for confirmation, IMO, that the underdog really can save the day (I know I'm playing armchair psychologist, but stick with me here). For most children, anyone over the age of 25 is a "bad guy" until they reach the age of, let's say, 16 at the earliest, 19 at the latest.

Anyways, those are my rants. Do not attack me as being incompetent because I haven't seen the movies fifteen billion times, as I will ignore those accusations, but feel free to critique/discuss any other part of the post.

Oh yes, and for all those who completely debunk Lucas, rather than ask that he improve upon his methods: go watch Plan 9 from Outer Space and come back and tell me how they compare. He's not quite the worst out there.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Don't mistake what I'm saying as that I don't like Star Wars. I'm too much of a sci-fi junkie to say otherwise. However, I'll repeat what many have already said; take that movie and find a co-director who can override Lucas' artistic vision. The movie could have been right up there with Casa Blanca, Vertigo, Gone With the Wind, and Citizen Kane.

I'm glad they're not. IMHO it's a whole different ballgame. Star Wars movies should be popcorn flicks - nothing more, nothing less.

I'm guessing he figured there weren't any real wookies around to get offended by it...

Of course there are real wookies. Peter Mayhew is real, right?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Of course there are real wookies. Peter Mayhew is real, right?

Oh, he's definitely real. Though it can be kind of surprising to meet the guy and see just how big his hands are. Gives you a whole new respect for Wookies

 

[barsoomcore]

Basically, as long as it looks pretty, it'll make good money. Day After Tomorrow? The Drunken Master movies (ok, the humor was pretty good, but the plot sucked)?

"The Drunken Master movies" What, exactly are you referring to here? Jackie Chan's films? So there's Drunken Master which he made in 1978 and stands as one of the turning points in action cinema (along with Young Master a year or so later) -- when Jackie Chan figured out that he was actually a comedian rather than a martial artist. Sure, Drunken Master isn't a classic, but it is right in line with literally hundreds of other HK films of that time featuring young talents trying to live up to Bruce Lee's legend.

Or perhaps you're referring to Drunken Master II, known in English as The Legend of Drunken Master? The greatest fight film of all time, bar none? The film that captures Jackie (one of the screen's enduring greats) at the peak of his creative and physical powers?

I mean, if you don't like Drunken Master II, you just flat-out don't like kung-fu movies. And there's nothing besides Chan's megawatt charisma and physical innovation to make Drunken Master stand out among a hundred other films.

But NEITHER of these films can lay much claim to "looking pretty", so they seem awfully out of place in a list of films that made lots of money despite sucking because they looked pretty. They're not films that emphasize style over substance, unless you call Jackie Chan rolling through hot coals as "style over substance".

And they're hardly any sort of coherent series, those films. They have nothing in common with each other besides the main character -- who is one of China's most famous figures and appears in probably hundreds of movies.

But maybe you're referring to a different set of pictures entirely. I'm curious.

 

[Flyspeck23]

"The Drunken Master movies" What, exactly are you referring to here?

Maybe LilMissKittyn is referring to the Star Wars prequels, as (s)he thinks of Lucas as the drunken master of Star Wars...

As (s)he said "the humor was pretty good, but the plot sucked", that summed up the prequels thus far for me.

 

[Desdichado]

Maybe LilMissKittyn is referring to the Star Wars prequels, as (s)he thinks of Lucas as the drunken master of Star Wars...

That would explain a lot of things. Lucas as a lush, though... hmmm...

 

[LilMissKittyn]

"The Drunken Master movies" What, exactly are you referring to here?

Uh-oh, I think I hurt someone's feelings.

I guess I should reword what I think makes a good movie, I have a habit of phrasing myself so it doesn't come out quite right.

What makes a good movie is class. I didn't think that you could have something pretty and graceful without, well, grace. You yourself brought up a scene that I'd forgotten, with Jackie Chan rolling around on the coals.
Actually, I'm a big fan of good Kung Fu movies, and I really did enjoy the Drunken Master movies quite a bit (I watched them in rapid succession three years ago, at 14). And they do look VERY pretty. Kung Fu fighting attracts most people because the moves are just extraordinarily cool. I know it's not an exact parallel, but that's why Crouching Tiger was so successful, as well as Kenshin. People like Eastern fighting, because it has a great amount of control to the body, discipline, etc.

But that's neither here nor there. Do you actually have criticism pertaining to the content of the thread, or are you just posting because you wanted to defend your movie? Think about it first. I'd rather not hijack the thread, thanks.