The Problem with Star Wars

[mojo1701]

I still believe it is meant to be seen in chronological order.

...our chronology or the chronology of the Star Wars galaxy?

 

[myrdden]

...our chronology or the chronology of the Star Wars galaxy?

Our chronology...

 

[Orius]

The dramatic irony approach pretty much requires the viewer to watch IV, V and VI before I, II & III. If this was Lucas' intention that all subsequent audiences should watch the movies in the above order then the approach works. Personally I feel in order to reap the greatest effect from watching these movies, a person needs to watch them in that order. Watching then sequentially, IMO, lessens the impact of the movies for the viewer.

Well, I'm fairly sure Lucas made the assumption that many people had already seen the originals; hence there's no secrecy about Anakin becoming Vader, Palpatine becoming the Emperor, Padme, being the mother of Luke and Leia, etc. Even where some of this stuff might not be knon to a more casual watcher, the fans know the stuff inside out. And even if some one saw say, TPM first, there's always the opportunity to watch the later ones out of order.

Also, I saw the originals long before the new ones. I don't know what it's like to see them in order from I-VI for the first time.

 

[Orius]

Tell it to the one to whom I was responding when I brought up the question of the kinds of Academy nominations and awards Lucas has won. I suspect you and that person are otherwise in agreement.

Actually my point is that the idea of "Best Picture", "Best Actor", "Best Director", and so on, aren't really all that objective as criteria for judging films IMO. These selections have at least as much to do with internal Hollywood politics as they do with actual merit. People who win them do so at least partially out of favor from the Academy, and not just purely because they were the best. I also see some of it as a matter of taste, and thus harder to judge objectively. Awards like Costume Design, Visual Effects, Makeup, and so on tend to be a bit more objective because there's less (if any really) of those politics involved. Perhaps you may disagree, but that's my view of things.

I'm not going to bother getting into the long pointless argument of how good or bad Lucas is at making these films that has dominated the thread. I've read it enough times already, in several different variations. I do agree that Lucas isn't great at dialogue, particularly romantic dialogue, and he does seem to focus a bit too heavily on special effects. Certainly his weakness with dialogue hurt the whole romance with Anakin and Padme in Episode II. But otherwise I thought AotC wasn't that bad. TPM seems weak too, but like I stated before, it's not meant to stand alone, but rather part of a greater whole. Certainly Lucas knew that much way back in the 70's when he decided to start Star Wars where he did, rather than with the fall of the Republic. And no, I don't believe Lucas had all of TPM in mind when he wrote up the final scrpit of Star Wars, although there are some ideas that go back that far.

 

[Orius]

Keep that up (Corey) and you might yet beat my record of (nested) phrases (that are contained in parentheses (in a single sentence (in a post on ENWorld))).

Arrg, and here I'm trying to cut back, dammit, putting parenthetical staments into complete snetences on their own!

 

[barsoomcore]

Well, I am a fan of many movies Lucas has been involved in so I wouldn't say crappy.

However, if you scroll back, you will note that I have, in fact VERY SPECIFICALLY made the argument that Lucas has not changed.

Again, you seem to think we're having an argument I don't think we're having. I'm not meaning to say that Lucas has undergone some dramatic shift. I think these later movies of his ARE demonstrably worse than both Grafitti and Star Wars, but not because he's changed any. Just because he's run out of story and inspiration. Star Wars just wasn't a rich enough foundation to support the succeeding films.

But I don't think there's been any big change. THX-1138 is a piece of crap, too. So we hold very different opinions about his skill as a writer and director, but not about his growth or change.

I liked his movies a lot more (at least Star Wars) when I was a kid, but I liked a lot of crap back then because I hadn't learned how to distinguish it from good stuff. I ate a lot of crap for very similar reasons.

If there's been a change, it's been on my side entirely. I apologize if I gave a different impression.

Well, when I said "we," I mean everyone who's arguing that the Star Wars films are ruined because of so-called "crap" writing or directing.

So your position is that I don't like these films because I've forgotten they're supposed to be entertaining?

Uh, no. I don't like these films because they DON'T ENTERTAIN me.

Subtle difference, there.

And am I the only one who finds it interesting how pretty much everyone who speaks in support of these films points out how EVERYBODY ELSE loves them, too (whether by mentioning how everyone else in the theatre was excited, or pointing out how much money they've made, or all the awards they've garnered)? What's that all about?

 

[CrusaderX]

Star Wars just wasn't a rich enough foundation to support the succeeding films.

Do you really believe this? I think that even the most jaded prequel viewers would strongly say otherwise. Indeed, one of the most common prequel complaints is that these films had so much potential for greatness, and Lucas wasted the tremendous potential that was there.

Not to mention the fact that alot of good and entertaining post-SW comics, novels, cartoons, and games prove your statement to be wrong.

I mean really. If the Star Wars story elements are't rich enough to support succeeding works, then no story is rich enough to do so.

 

[Vigilance]

Star Wars just wasn't a rich enough foundation to support the succeeding films.

This is a statement I could not disagree with more strongly.

The original comic series would have to rank (with Roy Thomas' Conan) as the best comic adaption of all time. I'd also rate it as one of the best comics of all time. Period.

It drew the kind of talent even MARVEL has trouble drawing, like Howard Chaykin.

Also, the current Dark Horse series also draws the best the comics field has to offer, including Garth Ennis, who did one of the best comic stories I have ever read as a one shot. It currently has 3 ongoing comic series and countless miniseries.

Also lines of books, cartoons and an upcoming TV series... the only universe even close to that level of richness is Star Trek. One could argue that Trek's novels are better (I would) but Trek has never had a comic nearly as successful as any of the SW comics.

So at most you could say SW is more about the visuals... but even then, the idea that there's not enough depth to support multiple stories seems like a statement already proven false.

Unless you're going to argue that EVERYTHING produced for the expanded universe sucks too.

Chuck

 

[barsoomcore]

Meh. My interest in the "expanded universe" ended with Splinter of the Mind's Eye and those old Han Solo novels. I understand some of the video games have been very good, though.

My taste in comics runs to Alan Moore and Frank Miller and Bill Sienkiewicz, so I'm not sure the SW comics would be for me. Even when I was kid I knew the over-sized comics adaptation of Star Wars was utter crap. I'm not sure if this is the one you're referring to, but I can remember even as a kid being outraged at the crappy art. I think it was a two-part, oversized set. I got them as a gift because I was such a huge fan (i.e., I was nine in 1977) and was horrified as soon as I opened them.

The Conan comics pretty much bug me, too, so Chuck, I think you and I are just listening to different drummers in our little heads. Except, apparently, when it comes to Akira Kurosawa.



But I can't say that EVERYTHING produced for the expanded universe sucks, because I'm happily ignorant of it all, for the most part. And if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go back to watching The Killer. THAT'S my kind of entertainment.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

And am I the only one who finds it interesting how pretty much everyone who speaks in support of these films points out how EVERYBODY ELSE loves them, too (whether by mentioning how everyone else in the theatre was excited, or pointing out how much money they've made, or all the awards they've garnered)? What's that all about?

Attempts to legitimize their opinion of the movie based on supposedly objective sources?

Personally, I like them, despite their faults (some of them grievous (no pun intended)). Some people here do not. Some people do and feel the need to bash them anyway. It is, after all, very trendy in geek circles to be smarter and more talented than George Lucas. Since 1999, anyway.

On a completely different note...

The Conan comics pretty much bug me...

Have you seen the new series? I have NEVER liked a Conan comic in my life, until I saw the current Dark Horse series. The artist is brilliant, and the writing feels like Howard somehow. Something that almost never happened in any previous Conan comic, IMO.