|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 13, 2024 1:18:50 GMT
Nice thoughts. And lovely artwork. I'm a sucker for steelbooks, especially ones that have exclusive art like this. I saw the Mandalorian steelbook in the movie store I use, and almost bought it just for the cover. But I ended up saving my money for this Obi-Wan steelbook. The series is very flawed, but I felt a spark of creativity at the very least. Rogue One, Solo, Mando, Boba Fett, etc. They all kind of meld together in my mind and aren't very distinguishable. Obi-Wan and TLJ had something that sets them apart for me.I see that and respect that. I think that "something" is perhaps what you articulated before: their focus is a middle-or-older-aged fallen hero who is put through a redemption narrative, who both rekindles that divine fire within and makes peace with himself, leaving his mark on the world once more and helping the next generation along the way. It's a very inspiring narrative, of course, and while we can debate the execution of these projects and the final result, the underlying power of that story is able to strike a deeper chord. Both Obi-Wan and TLJ are "fallout" fables, in a way: i.e., the world has gone wrong, all the signs of it going wrong were ignored (by the fallen hero), and the fallen hero has since retreated, into a very safe and mundane environment, in a gesture that started off as an act of self-preservation but has since turned selfish; and yet, even in the depths of that selfishness, there is still a sense of sacrifice and penitence at work. But the fallen hero is nevertheless lost within their own carapace, and something dramatic has to happen to tear them from their apathy. It's compelling to watch the little cogs at work as the fallen hero processes where they now are, who they've become, and what they still could be, all through the eyes of relatively youthful innocence -- to recover, in a sense, through a series of vital self-actualising steps, their own masculine excellence, and then, through the re-discovery of such excellence, their own kingdom of innocence (the sunset with Luke, the warm "Hello there!" to Luke, from Obi-Wan). |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Apr 13, 2024 2:03:20 GMT
Rogue One, Solo, Mando, Boba Fett, etc. They all kind of meld together in my mind and aren't very distinguishable. Obi-Wan and TLJ had something that sets them apart for me. I suppose Obi-Wan Kenobi has about it thus far the most Prequelness in many aspects, some obvious while others slight and perhaps unintentional, which arguably distinguishes it among the Disney era. I would have said Rogue One prior to Andor having since perpetuated a psuedo-grounded Star Wars. In lieu, I'm opting for both Solo and, as awkward as I am to admit, The Rise of Skywalker. Again, though, only in terms of something something MouseHouse Star Wars that is the most delineated, for better or for worse. Solo mostly better, Episode IX mostly worse ...but not entirely worse, or even fairly. I think maybe there are certain episodes of Obi-Wan Kenobi or moments therein that stake the most remote territory. It's hard to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 13, 2024 3:28:10 GMT
Rogue One, Solo, Mando, Boba Fett, etc. They all kind of meld together in my mind and aren't very distinguishable. Obi-Wan and TLJ had something that sets them apart for me. I suppose Obi-Wan Kenobi has about it thus far the most Prequelness in many aspects, some obvious while others slight and perhaps unintentional, which arguably distinguishes it among the Disney era. I would have said Rogue One prior to Andor having since perpetuated a psuedo-grounded Star Wars. In lieu, I'm opting for both Solo and, as awkward as I am to admit, The Rise of Skywalker. Again, though, only in terms of something something MouseHouse Star Wars that is the most delineated, for better or for worse. Solo mostly better, Episode IX mostly worse ...but not entirely worse, or even fairly. I think maybe there are certain episodes of Obi-Wan Kenobi or moments therein that stake the most remote territory. It's hard to say. W00t??! The first reply from Ingram in this thread for almost two years, after a dry spell of fifteen pages?! Some prequel elements in the Obi-Wan series would feel less apparent, and less striking, if it weren't for the re-casting of both Ewan and Hayden, or that lovely new theme for Obi-Wan by John Williams. These elements definitely gave the series a touch of class -- in my eyes, at least -- and helped sell it as a legitimate (or semi-legitimate) offshoot and/or homage to the PT. Quite the coup, too, to bring Jimmy Smits back as Bail (although he also appears, very briefly, as his character in the aforementioned "Rogue One"). And, if you like, Liam at the very end of the last episode. Heck, even those prequel montages in the first episode helped make the case, if nothing else, that Obi-Wan was very much a more prequel-friendly endeavour by Disney. The first of its kind. And perhaps, still, the only one of its kind. I'll happily join you in your affection for "Solo" and TROS. Those, to me, are the best Star Wars movies from Disney, alternately followed by either TFA or TLJ (depending on my mood). For whatever reason, I've never been into "Rogue One" that much; and, unlike most fans of that movie, I seem to prefer the first two-thirds of it over the finale on Scarif. Some degree of understatement seems to fit that movie better, in my opinion (the rainy mood on Eadu is perhaps my favourite stretch). On the other hand, I'm okay with the frenetic action finale at the end of TROS. Go figure. My thoughts are a mess on "Andor". It's not fun enough to revisit. Too self-serious. I said it in the "Andor" thread, but it's like the series is trying to be to Star Wars what "Deep Space Nine" is to the other Star Trek shows, but without the same sense of mirth or creativity in its art direction or its characters. Kinda like all the Star Wars television shows, "Andor" is ultimately a long drive to a short stay on the beach. But at least the likes of "Obi-Wan Kenobi" and "The Book Of Boba Fett" are, well... short. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Apr 13, 2024 4:28:52 GMT
W00t??! The first reply from Ingram in this thread for almost two years, after a dry spell of fifteen pages?!   |
|
|
|
Post by Seeker of the Whills on Apr 13, 2024 6:32:03 GMT
I'm a sucker for steelbooks, especially ones that have exclusive art like this. I saw the Mandalorian steelbook in the movie store I use, and almost bought it just for the cover. But I ended up saving my money for this Obi-Wan steelbook. The series is very flawed, but I felt a spark of creativity at the very least. Rogue One, Solo, Mando, Boba Fett, etc. They all kind of meld together in my mind and aren't very distinguishable. Obi-Wan and TLJ had something that sets them apart for me.I see that and respect that. I think that "something" is perhaps what you articulated before: their focus is a middle-or-older-aged fallen hero who is put through a redemption narrative, who both rekindles that divine fire within and makes peace with himself, leaving his mark on the world once more and helping the next generation along the way. It's a very inspiring narrative, of course, and while we can debate the execution of these projects and the final result, the underlying power of that story is able to strike a deeper chord. Both Obi-Wan and TLJ are "fallout" fables, in a way: i.e., the world has gone wrong, all the signs of it going wrong were ignored (by the fallen hero), and the fallen hero has since retreated, into a very safe and mundane environment, in a gesture that started off as an act of self-preservation but has since turned selfish; and yet, even in the depths of that selfishness, there is still a sense of sacrifice and penitence at work. But the fallen hero is nevertheless lost within their own carapace, and something dramatic has to happen to tear them from their apathy. It's compelling to watch the little cogs at work as the fallen hero processes where they now are, who they've become, and what they still could be, all through the eyes of relatively youthful innocence -- to recover, in a sense, through a series of vital self-actualising steps, their own masculine excellence, and then, through the re-discovery of such excellence, their own kingdom of innocence (the sunset with Luke, the warm "Hello there!" to Luke, from Obi-Wan). Yes, that is exactly it. There was a more dramatically interesting dilemma in these two works compared to the other Disney movies and shows. It's the same reason why The Dark Knight Rises is the only film in the Nolan Batman trilogy that I like these days. The hero who has lost his way rekindling that fire within. I like and relate to that narrative strongly. It's probably my favorite kind of character arc. So, I was fine with Obi and Luke being dejected in these stories. I didn't really get the whole argument levelled against the TLJ portrayal of Luke especially as being "out of character." To me it always seemed like as valid a direction to take the character as any other. And I saw it as a quite inspired and daring choice. I love the sunset with Luke, and Obi's meeting with Luke, but especially his reconnecting with Qui-Gon. To me that was just a beautiful moment that made the whole experience worthwhile. Rogue One, Solo, Mando, Boba Fett, etc. They all kind of meld together in my mind and aren't very distinguishable. Obi-Wan and TLJ had something that sets them apart for me. I suppose Obi-Wan Kenobi has about it thus far the most Prequelness in many aspects, some obvious while others slight and perhaps unintentional, which arguably distinguishes it among the Disney era. I would have said Rogue One prior to Andor having since perpetuated a psuedo-grounded Star Wars. In lieu, I'm opting for both Solo and, as awkward as I am to admit, The Rise of Skywalker. Again, though, only in terms of something something MouseHouse Star Wars that is the most delineated, for better or for worse. Solo mostly better, Episode IX mostly worse ...but not entirely worse, or even fairly. I think maybe there are certain episodes of Obi-Wan Kenobi or moments therein that stake the most remote territory. It's hard to say. I adored Rogue One when it came out. I was greatly disappointed by TFA at the time, and slightly backed away from SW as a whole, but seeing RO twice in theaters brought me back. I loved the "Guardians of the Whills," Baze and especially Chirrut. Just the mention of the Whills in a Star Wars movie had me giddy. Unlike TFA, I liked that there was some spirituality in the movie. It reminded me of Qui-Gon and his wisdom. And that final Battle of Scarif is still brilliant. But the fan service moments with Vader (who is portrayed much more like his TESB self rather than the closer ANH one) rubbed me the wrong way. And the other characters fall flat, especially Andor. I was perplexed that they chose to give him a show of his own. He just doesn't have that leading man vibe. Solo I had no expectations for whatsoever, so I was actually quite positively surprised by it. I still think the Kessel run sequence is the most Star Wars-y moment in any Disney production. But again, the characters fall flat, with the recast Han not being able to fully live up to the standards set by Ford. And the rest of the cast are mere place holders. TRoS is my second favorite out of the Disney movies. It's so much crazier and more inspired than TFA that I have a hard time believing it was directed by Abrams. TLJ really did push them into a corner, so they had to think more outside the box. |
|
|
|
Post by Somny on Apr 13, 2024 10:15:55 GMT
I tear up every time I occasionally jump to the final Obi-Wan/Leia scene.  |
|
|
|
Post by Seeker of the Whills on Apr 13, 2024 10:40:39 GMT
I tear up every time I occasionally jump to the final Obi-Wan/Leia scene. That was a great scene. I had some misgivings about the focus on young Leia earlier on, but the final scene sold it for me. Very emotional. Both of the actors were great, and any scene with Jimmy Smits is a joy for me. The one that really got to me, however, was the very last scene with Qui-Gon. That had me almost shedding a tear. Liam has such a fatherly presence. It was perfectly executed. |
|
|
|
Post by Somny on Apr 13, 2024 10:50:20 GMT
I tear up every time I occasionally jump to the final Obi-Wan/Leia scene. That was a great scene. I had some misgivings about the focus on young Leia earlier on, but the final scene sold it for me. Very emotional. Both of the actors were great, and any scene with Jimmy Smits is a joy for me. The one that really got to me, however, was the very last scene with Qui-Gon. That had me almost shedding a tear. Liam has such a fatherly presence. It was perfectly executed. I'm generally opposed to a level of verisimilitude in moving image media that provokes feelings and sentiments about characters the way I feel about people in real life. I'm far more sympathetic to an Eisensteinian approach to cinema which favors ideas and dialectics wrought through writing and editing. But damn it if I don't feel about Anakin and Padme the way I feel about flesh and blood kin in that scene! I gave so much of my adolescence to the anticipation of where they and their story would go in the PT. I simply can't help it in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by Samnz on Apr 13, 2024 16:57:08 GMT
Ah, the Obi-Wan Series, it almost makes nostalgic. I was kind of left disappointed and it's very flawed, but I loved the experience of the lead-up, the manifestation of prequel love in mainstream media, of watching the episodes with the comunity of this board. It was nice. The ending, finally some sorely lacking nod and love to "my" Padmè. That, alomgside Qui-Gon, felt like something that we earned, as prequel fans, after years - decades - of defamation and ridicule.
The series, for all its shortcomings, was our victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 13, 2024 23:47:42 GMT
I see that and respect that. I think that "something" is perhaps what you articulated before: their focus is a middle-or-older-aged fallen hero who is put through a redemption narrative, who both rekindles that divine fire within and makes peace with himself, leaving his mark on the world once more and helping the next generation along the way. It's a very inspiring narrative, of course, and while we can debate the execution of these projects and the final result, the underlying power of that story is able to strike a deeper chord. Both Obi-Wan and TLJ are "fallout" fables, in a way: i.e., the world has gone wrong, all the signs of it going wrong were ignored (by the fallen hero), and the fallen hero has since retreated, into a very safe and mundane environment, in a gesture that started off as an act of self-preservation but has since turned selfish; and yet, even in the depths of that selfishness, there is still a sense of sacrifice and penitence at work. But the fallen hero is nevertheless lost within their own carapace, and something dramatic has to happen to tear them from their apathy. It's compelling to watch the little cogs at work as the fallen hero processes where they now are, who they've become, and what they still could be, all through the eyes of relatively youthful innocence -- to recover, in a sense, through a series of vital self-actualising steps, their own masculine excellence, and then, through the re-discovery of such excellence, their own kingdom of innocence (the sunset with Luke, the warm "Hello there!" to Luke, from Obi-Wan). Yes, that is exactly it. There was a more dramatically interesting dilemma in these two works compared to the other Disney movies and shows. It's the same reason why The Dark Knight Rises is the only film in the Nolan Batman trilogy that I like these days. The hero who has lost his way rekindling that fire within. I like and relate to that narrative strongly. It's probably my favorite kind of character arc. I can't dispute your points -- when you're right, you're right. It's part of the same reason I love Elvis, who had his own "comeback" with his first television special, famously now referred to as "The Comeback Special" in 1968, under the direction of Steve Binder (the same Steve Binder, incidentally, who directed the notorious "Star Wars Holiday Special", which landed on CBS about thirteen months after Elvis' own notorious third and final special, "Elvis In Concert", which was directed by Dwight Hemion, one of the executive producers of the aforementioned Holiday Special!). Reviewing Elvis' 1968 television special, the American music critic Jon Landau brilliantly observed, "There is something magical about watching a man who has lost himself find his way back home." Amen. I find "Rogue One" kinda plastic. I mean, cool, detached, intriguing, but oddly uninvolving. It lacks the deeper feeling of the saga movies and I'm somehow never on the edge of my seat watching it. That said, I've only watched it all the way through in one sitting two or three times. I'm not drawn back to it that often. I agree that the characters aren't all that great (not bad, but not great), and Diego Luna, God bless 'im, isn't a match for Ewan McGregor. Ouch! I dig the characters in "Solo" a bit more than you, perhaps, and I certainly agree with what you said about the Kessel Run. "Solo" is a terrifically executed film -- probably the one Star Wars film from Disney that actually has some spunk to it and is genuinely warm and entertaining. Cut loose from the grandiosity of the Jedi-Sith conflict of the main films, and also refreshingly free of the usual Rebels-vs-Empire claptrap (claptrap under Disney, I mean), "Solo" excels as a pulpy heist movie and an engaging character study. No, I didn't steal that from Rotten Tomatoes! But anyway, it has a certain unpretentious charm and understated flair that the other Disney films haven't been able to summon. Like "Rogue One", there's also more invention in the world design here than in the sequel films, and it's a shame that "Solo" underperformed in theaters and that we haven't had any more honest-to-goodness Star Wars features since. That said, the movie unfortunately feels a bit incomplete and insubstantial by itself. "Rogue One" offers a more self-contained story, since its narrative is cleanly buttoned-up at the end, and the story of the saga films (i.e., Episode IV) effectively resumes right after. "Solo" doesn't afford itself that luxury. Deliberately so. They were obviously laying down building blocks being for a sequel that will now probably never be made. Nobody can live up to the rogueish charm of Harrison Ford -- or, for that matter, the ultra-suave of Billy Dee Williams -- but Alden Ehrenreich and Donald Glover are both good in their roles. It would have been great to see them possibly teaming up or crossing paths again in a sequel. The interesting thing about TFA and TROS is that, both times, Abrams got Disney out of a corner. Granted, the first time, he didn't really need to get them out of a corner (i.e., Disney's trepidation around prequel bashing), and he arguably put them in a new (or, er, rehashed) corner of his making. Second time, it looked like the Sequel Trilogy might be dead in the water (and, for a lot of fans, maybe it was), but he was able to push himself and go to greater lengths to do something a tad more visceral and weird. Maybe it would have been a bad idea to start the trilogy off with the energy of TROS, but if the first film had been a little more original and slightly less, well, square, the trilogy (and the fan response) could have turned out quite different. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 13, 2024 23:59:04 GMT
That was a great scene. I had some misgivings about the focus on young Leia earlier on, but the final scene sold it for me. Very emotional. Both of the actors were great, and any scene with Jimmy Smits is a joy for me. The one that really got to me, however, was the very last scene with Qui-Gon. That had me almost shedding a tear. Liam has such a fatherly presence. It was perfectly executed. I'm generally opposed to a level of verisimilitude in moving image media that provokes feelings and sentiments about characters the way I feel about people in real life. I'm far more sympathetic to an Eisensteinian approach to cinema which favors ideas and dialectics wrought through writing and editing. But damn it if I don't feel about Anakin and Padme the way I feel about flesh and blood kin in that scene! I gave so much of my adolescence to the anticipation of where they and their story would go in the PT. I simply can't help it in this case. The Obi-Wan series offers some poignant emotional hooks and callbacks, done to varying degrees of in-universe believability. I certainly had problems, later on, with the execution of some of these moments, or the other bits 'n' pieces around them, but there's no denying (on my part) the power of these moments. I've never felt the same depth of emotion, frankly, watching the other Disney+ Star Wars series. As I said earlier in the thread when the series was streaming, the prequels are a deep well of mood, imagination, and meaning to draw upon -- which makes it all the more maddening that the people in charge of the Sequel Trilogy resolutely refused to properly honour the legacy they inherited, aping the major plot beats of the OT whilst making pithy allusions to the prequels but not really connecting dots as openly and as unapologetically as "Obi-Wan" did. Ah, the Obi-Wan Series, it almost makes nostalgic. I was kind of left disappointed and it's very flawed, but I loved the experience of the lead-up, the manifestation of prequel love in mainstream media, of watching the episodes with the comunity of this board. It was nice. The ending, finally some sorely lacking nod and love to "my" Padmè. That, alomgside Qui-Gon, felt like something that we earned, as prequel fans, after years - decades - of defamation and ridicule. The series, for all its shortcomings, was our victory. Sorry, had to make that BIG. I started off hugely impressed with the series, then went quite far in the opposite direction -- with reality, no doubt, somewhere in-between. Your final sentence really nails it. And I think the size of this thread ("Judge this thread by its size, do you?") also speaks to the truthfulness of your last sentence. It is, far and away, the largest thread in the Disney section. The single largest thread on Naberrie Fields, in fact. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that "Obi-Wan" was the biggest Star Wars thing from Disney since the founding of this website. Yes, "Rogue One" had not long seen release when this website was born (Feb 2017), and, unbelievably, the Waterloo of the sequels -- "The Last Jedi" -- was still in post-production at the time. But those early Disney years didn't really make a dent. This site only started getting more activity around the time of the release of "The Rise Of Skywalker". But "Obi-Wan" clearly takes the prize here (now a whopping 57 pages to TROS' comparatively slender 23 pages of content). And rightly so. |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Apr 14, 2024 0:03:50 GMT
I'm generally opposed to a level of verisimilitude in moving image media that provokes feelings and sentiments about characters the way I feel about people in real life. I'm far more sympathetic to an Eisensteinian approach to cinema which favors ideas and dialectics wrought through writing and editing. But damn it if I don't feel about Anakin and Padme the way I feel about flesh and blood kin in that scene! I gave so much of my adolescence to the anticipation of where they and their story would go in the PT. I simply can't help it in this case. The Obi-Wan series offers some poignant emotional hooks and callbacks, done to varying degrees of in-universe believability. I certainly had problems, later on, with the execution of some of these moments, or the other bits 'n' pieces around them, but there's no denying (on my part) the power of these moments. I've never felt the same depth of emotion, frankly, watching the other Disney+ Star Wars series. As I said earlier in the thread when the series was streaming, the prequels are a deep well of mood, imagination, and meaning to draw upon -- which makes it all the more maddening that the people in charge of the Sequel Trilogy resolutely refused to properly honour the legacy they inherited, aping the major plot beats of the OT whilst making pithy allusions to the prequels but not really connecting dots as openly and as unapologetically as "Obi-Wan" did. Ah, the Obi-Wan Series, it almost makes nostalgic. I was kind of left disappointed and it's very flawed, but I loved the experience of the lead-up, the manifestation of prequel love in mainstream media, of watching the episodes with the comunity of this board. It was nice. The ending, finally some sorely lacking nod and love to "my" Padmè. That, alomgside Qui-Gon, felt like something that we earned, as prequel fans, after years - decades - of defamation and ridicule. The series, for all its shortcomings, was our victory. Sorry, had to make that BIG. Perfectly said. That's what happens when you recruit Prequel haters like JJ. Abrams and Simon Pegg |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 14, 2024 0:14:43 GMT
The Obi-Wan series offers some poignant emotional hooks and callbacks, done to varying degrees of in-universe believability. I certainly had problems, later on, with the execution of some of these moments, or the other bits 'n' pieces around them, but there's no denying (on my part) the power of these moments. I've never felt the same depth of emotion, frankly, watching the other Disney+ Star Wars series. As I said earlier in the thread when the series was streaming, the prequels are a deep well of mood, imagination, and meaning to draw upon -- which makes it all the more maddening that the people in charge of the Sequel Trilogy resolutely refused to properly honour the legacy they inherited, aping the major plot beats of the OT whilst making pithy allusions to the prequels but not really connecting dots as openly and as unapologetically as "Obi-Wan" did. Sorry, had to make that BIG. Perfectly said. That's what happens when you recruit Prequel haters like JJ. Abrams and Simon Pegg Ironically, while I'm not aware of any such comment from the former, Pegg ended up regretting some of his anti-Lucas, pro-Disney, rah-rah posturing a few years ago: www.digitalspy.com/movies/a870508/simon-pegg-new-star-wars-films-sequel-trilogy-miss-george-lucas-last-jedi/theplaylist.net/simon-pegg-last-jedi-george-lucas-20181113/screenrant.com/star-wars-simon-pegg-george-lucas-sequels/ |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Apr 14, 2024 4:04:32 GMT
CryogenicJJ want to blow up Coruscant show Jar Jar's Skeleton and hates Darth Vader being portrayed as a sympathetic character i'm aware of Pegg's comments but is it genuine?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 14, 2024 17:30:19 GMT
Cryogenic JJ want to blow up Coruscant show Jar Jar's Skeleton and hates Darth Vader being portrayed as a sympathetic character i'm aware of Pegg's comments but is it genuine? I don't know -- as genuine as Simon Pegg could make his comments sound? He was still clearly quite upset about the prequels, even willing to throw opprobrium at prequel fans, back in November 2015, a month before the release of TFA: web.archive.org/web/20151110043305/https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/new-star-wars-film-wipe-bad-prequel-memories-article-1.2427964Specifically: His comments are quite bitter and angry-sounding, and clearly, not really intended as a joke. Ironically, however, you could maybe apply his infanticide analogy to Lucas selling to Disney. I mean, Lucas himself used an analogy that was pretty lose to the knuckle, that very same month (the Charlie Rose interview was taped in November 2015), when he said he sold his films (i.e., his "children") to "the white slavers". I'm not sure of the exact date of the taping, but it's faintly possible he even read Pegg's comments which could have caused him to make a similarly-charged analogy. In any case, for Pegg to go from bashing the films and people that liked them, to murmuring that maybe the lack of George Lucas' input had harmed the sequel films, is quite the concession on his part, in just three years (his latter remarks being made in November 2018). Sincere regret? Maybe. But a true apology? Not really. He didn't actually withdraw his remarks about the prequels or their fans that he had gleefully fed the media just a few years earlier. I don't really think Pegg had a true Damascene conversion. His ego, likely enlarged by his Hollywood connections, probably precludes him from fully recanting what he said before. If you're interested, we discussed his earlier remarks (as highlighted above) back on TFN, in the PT forum, when they went into circulation online: boards.theforce.net/threads/simon-peggs-recent-comments.50034632/Basically, it was a lame thing to say, especially so close to the release of his buddy's movie. As for Pegg's buddy (J.J. Abrams)? Well, Pegg's 2018 remarks flatly contradict what Abrams himself was asserting at the time of TFA's theatrical release: web.archive.org/web/20160205153633/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/star-wars-force-awakens-complete-history-part-v/Self-serving rationalisations and platitudes of this sort, combined with JJ's digs at the prequels (e.g., the Jar Jar remark you mentioned), compounded by Pegg's abrasive sneers at the prequels and prequel fans, definitely gave a strong impression that these people thought they didn't really need George Lucas around -- that, not only could they do a better job, but they even understood Star Wars or what fans wanted more than he did. The last one ("what fans wanted") being a major fallacy by itself, as touched on in other threads by Subtext Mining . So, yes, and getting back on-topic here... When the "Obi-Wan" series was announced and finally began streaming, it was a breath of fresh air -- the only oxygen, in fact, that Disney really supplied to prequel fans, since the air had been filled with poisonous anti-prequel fumes in the first ten years of the Disney acquisition, and it seemed like nobody thought it was a bad idea to either openly or obliquely diss George Lucas and his accomplishments back then, the very man who made it possible for these people to get their hands on Star Wars in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Apr 14, 2024 18:00:42 GMT
Which episode of Lost was this, again?
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Apr 14, 2024 20:55:13 GMT
Cryogenic JJ want to blow up Coruscant show Jar Jar's Skeleton and hates Darth Vader being portrayed as a sympathetic character i'm aware of Pegg's comments but is it genuine? I don't know -- as genuine as Simon Pegg could make his comments sound? He was still clearly quite upset about the prequels, even willing to throw opprobrium at prequel fans, back in November 2015, a month before the release of TFA: web.archive.org/web/20151110043305/https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/new-star-wars-film-wipe-bad-prequel-memories-article-1.2427964Specifically: His comments are quite bitter and angry-sounding, and clearly, not really intended as a joke. Ironically, however, you could maybe apply his infanticide analogy to Lucas selling to Disney. I mean, Lucas himself used an analogy that was pretty lose to the knuckle, that very same month (the Charlie Rose interview was taped in November 2015), when he said he sold his films (i.e., his "children") to "the white slavers". I'm not sure of the exact date of the taping, but it's faintly possible he even read Pegg's comments which could have caused him to make a similarly-charged analogy. In any case, for Pegg to go from bashing the films and people that liked them, to murmuring that maybe the lack of George Lucas' input had harmed the sequel films, is quite the concession on his part, in just three years (his latter remarks being made in November 2018). Sincere regret? Maybe. But a true apology? Not really. He didn't actually withdraw his remarks about the prequels or their fans that he had gleefully fed the media just a few years earlier. I don't really think Pegg had a true Damascene conversion. His ego, likely enlarged by his Hollywood connections, probably precludes him from fully recanting what he said before. If you're interested, we discussed his earlier remarks (as highlighted above) back on TFN, in the PT forum, when they went into circulation online: boards.theforce.net/threads/simon-peggs-recent-comments.50034632/Basically, it was a lame thing to say, especially so close to the release of his buddy's movie. As for Pegg's buddy (J.J. Abrams)? Well, Pegg's 2018 remarks flatly contradict what Abrams himself was asserting at the time of TFA's theatrical release: web.archive.org/web/20160205153633/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/star-wars-force-awakens-complete-history-part-v/Self-serving rationalisations and platitudes of this sort, combined with JJ's digs at the prequels (e.g., the Jar Jar remark you mentioned), compounded by Pegg's abrasive sneers at the prequels and prequel fans, definitely gave a strong impression that these people thought they didn't really need George Lucas around -- that, not only could they do a better job, but they even understood Star Wars or what fans wanted more than he did. The last one ("what fans wanted") being a major fallacy by itself, as touched on in other threads by Subtext Mining . So, yes, and getting back on-topic here... When the "Obi-Wan" series was announced and finally began streaming, it was a breath of fresh air -- the only oxygen, in fact, that Disney really supplied to prequel fans, since the air had been filled with poisonous anti-prequel fumes in the first ten years of the Disney acquisition, and it seemed like nobody thought it was a bad idea to either openly or obliquely diss George Lucas and his accomplishments back then, the very man who made it possible for these people to get their hands on Star Wars in the first place. Remember when he threw a hissy fit over the negative reaction to Star Trek: Into Darkness? (which i liked don't judge me) Simon Pegg slates Star Trek Into Darkness detractors | JJ Abrams | The Guardian |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 14, 2024 23:16:25 GMT
Which episode of Lost was this, again?
Saltier than a crate of crates within a crate of crates somewhere off the coast of Crete! Ah, I see you've finally achieved a new level of mastery with hyperlinks! That's some next level shit, Joe. Yes, indeed, I remember his hilariously bad strop there, spewing invective at fans because of one random poll/fan gathering. Darth Pegg: Dark Lord of the Hissy Fit. Let's import his remarks so we can unpack them a little bit: First off, by what metric does Pegg know what the "worst" Star Trek movie is? That's purely subjective. This guy seems to often confuse objective reality with his own tastes and preferences. Second, Pegg seems to think a film should be immune from criticism because "hard work" and "love" went it, which is obviously stupid. Not to mention insanely hypocritical, given his stance toward the prequels. A ridiculous amount of hard work and love went into all three of those, but that didn't stop Pegg one bit when he likened them to "infanticide" two years after these remarks, and elsewhere, albeit playing a comedy character, called them a "jumped-up firework display of a toy advert" (we know this is obviously close to his real feelings on the matter and he was just hiding behind the conceit of playing a character when he said it). Third, labelling other people's opinions "asinine", never mind resorting to profanity, is neither professional, nor mature, nor rational. I'll give Pegg points for being a passionate guy, and there's something to be said for speaking your mind (and not just playing a game of false modesty in interviews or being scared to voice a real opinion), but there are better and worse ways to go about it. Given the literally daily slander and abuse that George Lucas endured for decades after the release of the prequels (and which he handled with far more grace and poise than Pegg and other Disney employees when the sequels were bashed), which Pegg himself gleefully participated in, his attitude here is an obscenity all by itself. Even more incredulously (when you read his comments), he then went on to offer reasons for the film's low fan approval: - "It hasn't been around long enough." - "It's the newest one." - "It's the one people least recognise." All of which, of course, is true of the prequels vis-a-vis the original -- or "classic" -- trilogy. The picture resolves into an entire continent of hypocrisy when you read his fuller set of comments from the original source: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/simon-pegg-the-worlds-end_n_3787056Specifically: Pegg completely overlooks the fact that the prequels were very successful on theatrical release, successful on home video, and successful on cable television, and they've since been meme-d to Mars and back by younger generations. Even the young stars of the sequels, like John Boyega, seem to hold ROTS in strong regard, at least. So is Pegg saying he can't respect another cast member, even a leading actor, because they appreciate a movie and part of a trilogy he holds in contempt? Claiming that fans are "stuck-in-the-mud" is certainly something that could be said of OT fans' disappointed and downright hostile reaction to the prequels (like Pegg). Equivalently, the prequels weren't conceived purely with fans of the OT in mind. Lucas' intent was to tell a story that could appeal to a broad range of people, especially children and young adults. Apparently, it's totally acceptable and normal that "Star Trek Into Darkness" was made "for everyone", according to Pegg, while the prequels were some kind of monumental failure and relentlessly interpreted as a personal insult to OT fans, as if George Lucas had killed their grandmother, just because they didn't turn out how those people expected or wanted them to. Conceptually, the prequels are different to the OT by design. Lucas set out to differentiate his two trilogies from one another, but with a larger overarching story in mind -- arguably far superior to the simplistic post-9/11 allegory of "Star Trek Into Darkness". Finally, if Pegg is confident that the success of the Star Trek film, at the box office, is some knockdown point in its favour, why does he then go on in the same interview to rage at fans and accuse them of subjecting him and all the people that worked on it -- again, seeming to take it as some personal insult -- to "crass fucking ire" after calmly reasoning through the factors that could have resulted in it polling last? He's the one, ironically, that seems to be full of "crass fucking ire", not the fans he's bitching about. All in all, Pegg is something of an interesting case study -- a holotype -- for the narcissistic, supercilious, self-appointed, maladjusted, and contradictory bile typically spewed by prequel bashers over the years, at the films, at George Lucas, at the other people who worked on them, and anyone who dared to speak up in support of any of the former. There was never any sense of true ownership or self-awareness coming from bashers that they were simply a bunch of entitled, cantankerous bigots, holding the prequels to impossible standards that they conveniently relaxed around other films, and failing to see the irony in defending other films for being successful in areas that the prequels were also successful in. Anyway, this thread should really be about "Obi-Wan", not prequel bashers, not the Sequel Trilogy makers, and definitely not Simon Pegg. |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Apr 14, 2024 23:21:26 GMT
Cryogenic James Doohan would be disappointed that they cast this guy to play Scotty maybe we should move this to the Trek page like you said this thread is about Obi-Wan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 14, 2024 23:34:01 GMT
Cryogenic James Doohan would be disappointed that they cast this guy to play Scotty maybe we should move this to the Trek page like you said this thread is about Obi-Wan. Pegg's okay in the film, but I find it hard to take "JJ Trek" seriously, or anything bearing the name "Star Trek" since Abrams and his writing team aggressively rebooted the franchise. And yes, let's keep the focus on "Obi-Wan" going forward. |
|
