|
Post by Subtext Mining on Aug 4, 2020 11:08:57 GMT
For decades now we've all seen how The Empire Strikes Back has become a beloved fan favorite, and for good reason. We've also seen how fans and critics alike have set it up as the gold standard against which all other SW films are held to scrutiny. But I ask, is that really fair? Is Episode V overhyped by the fandom? Maybe, maybe not. A few brief observations: "It's the best Star Wars film." Sure, ESB is an intense emotional roller-coaster, beautifully crafted, and full of action, suspense, wit and wisdom. Yet, as I always say, each SW movie is exactly what it needs to be and fits into the larger cohesive whole. "It's the darkest of the SW films." Ok, the cold, emotionless, megalithic Empire is relentlessly bearing down on our outnumbered & outgunned heroes and fox-hunting them to the edges of the galaxy (postcards from the edge) as they just keep narrowly escaping doom. The Rebels lose their base, Lando betrays the heroes, Vader uses torture to draw out his own son, and a lot of things seem quite hopeless. But despite the starkness of it's bleak tone, it actually has a fairly upbeat ending. It just leaves a lot of suspenseful questions. I'd also like to point out that it's the only SW film in which no major characters die. Perhaps all this is to balance/compensate for the otherwise dark tone. As an aside regarding the bad guys winning, as many here know, I'm continuously asking the question; why do people like seeing bad people do bad things? Additionally, it's the SW film where I think the least amount of major, important events happen. -Luke meets Yoda and trains to be a Jedi. -Han and Leia fall in love. -Luke learns Darth Vader is his father. And arguably the last one is the only really seismic event. And even that is only the nodal point of that drama. What's really important is the gradual evolution of how Luke decides to process and respond to that, and how Vader/Anakin responds to his response, most of which largely takes place after ESB. Arguably: Luke had already learned a lot about the Force before meeting Yoda. (Yoda is there to teach the audience about the Force). And though the love story is important tonally for the saga, it's consequences largely come in RotJ and post RotJ tales. -- All in all, my only beef is in how specifically ESB and everything about it is held up as the gold standard that all other SW films are supposed to succeed at emulating - and if they don't then they suck. I think with this unrealistic expectation, the fans are short-changing themselves and the films and setting themselves up for unnecessary disappointment. They are not allowing themselves to be open-minded to what each new film has to offer as it's part in the saga. One particular episode shouldn't be put on a pedestal to the detriment of the others. (Anyone here remember Mike Meyers' SNL skit "If it's not Scottish, it's crap!")? It's a little ironic to me, in a few ways, that the majority of the fandom likes ESB the most because it's the least "kiddy" though SW is largely aimed at kids/all ages. They thus in turn disparage TPM relentlessly (when most of them were Ani's age when they fell in love with Star Wars), yet not surprisingly love RotS - but not RotJ or AotC. It's a matter of palettes and taste, I get that, but I just feel there's too much of a "throw the baby out with the bath water if it's not dark and adult in tone" mentality when it comes to the other films. Shouldn't one embrace a larger view of an artist's repertoire in order to understand all its aspects? Don't get me wrong, I love ESB as much as anybody. Yes it's a great sequel, and admittedly a tough act to follow, but seeing it being used to comparatively downgrade and/or completely write off subsequent films has put it into a somewhat different light for me. Or maybe more specifically, the relation between it and the fandom.
|
|
jtn90
Ambassador
Posts: 66
|
Post by jtn90 on Aug 4, 2020 12:02:50 GMT
What I see is not that ESB is overrated,it is a great movie and a turning point to the saga,but more that is overhyped at the expense of the other movies in the saga,I seen people saying that ESB(sometimes along with ANH) is the only genuinely good Star Wars movie,like is the peak of cinema and the other are Trash and only good subjetivily speaking,and it being used as an argument against the prequels and George Lucas "ESB is the best because is the one where George Lucas was the least involved". I think that was what Moonshield meant.
|
|
|
Post by Moonshield on Aug 4, 2020 12:24:15 GMT
I think that was what Moonshield meant. No, I meant that it is a complete cinematic failure, and always was.
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Aug 4, 2020 16:19:49 GMT
Do: consider switching up directors
Irvin Kershner's The Empire Strikes Back (still the best-looking Star Wars movie) Irvin Kershner's The Empire Strikes Back sucks ass and lost 43% in the US box office (and because of it ROTJ lost a lot of audience in the international box office), because he uses stupid humour in the dark movie (as he himself said) and cannot create standard suspense in Hitchcock's style: Lucas added wampa (snow predator) in the first scene, which enhanced the whole scene. He had other people direct "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi," and people helped write the stories and clean them up.
No. Kasdan's ideas like "Revenge of the Jedi" or to kill Solo were tossed away, it's well-known fact. Kasdan wrote only dialogues, and that's why they are worse than in other films ("The Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully" is his typical blunder of the beginner), and, moreover, these dialogues were enhanced by Lucas in dialogue editing (sound editing).
Everything concerning Yoda in the prequels is completely ridiculous.
ESB fanboy isn' blinded by nostalgia, lol. At all, ESB sectarianism is really a cancer for Star Wars.
The originals portray him as an old wise man and a powerful force user.
Kershner's creative vision portrays him as an idiot, but who cares.
However, the prequels have him commanding armies, jumping and flipping in lightsaber duels and failing to make one smart decision throughout the three movies. 1. "I'm looking for a great warrior." - Luke in TESB 2. Kershner's flaw is fixed. (I'm not joking or trolling.) The conclusion: try not to think that you're more smart than Lucas.
Can I just ask you: what's your particular animus against TESB and Kershner and Kasdan? Complaining about a line like "The Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully" seems like pettifogging. Yes, "fully" is an adverb, and should be placed before the verb: i.e., "The Emperor hasn't fully driven it from you." But that ironically makes the line clunkier and it loses dramatic impact. The whole exchange between Luke and Vader on Endor is wonderful and a highlight of the movie. It's where the dynamic between Luke and Vader suddenly snaps to focus. We instantly see how fate has molded these two characters and changed them since their last encounter. The scene hits a number of marks and accomplishes a number of things very deftly. And, retrospectively, with the PT in place, there are mystical echoes of Padme the whole time (the unspoken "energy binder" between the Luke-Vader dyad). Kershner portrays Yoda like an idiot? Please explain. Yoda is obviously fooling Luke in the beginning. If he retains a drop of mischievousness later on, it's only because he's, well... Yoda. That's who he is at that stage of his journey. Some people argue that his being isolated on Dagobah the whole time has also turned Yoda a touch eccentric. Yoda has also had a lot of time to reflect on the follies he embraced during the prequels. Namely: the Clone Wars. Hence his remark to Luke that is brilliantly tossed aside: "Wars not make one great." Yoda is still a warrior in TESB. Warriors don't always carry weapons. That's the lesson. A lesson Luke fails to learn when he takes his own weapons into the cave. When Luke arrives, he is obviously projecting a masculine power fantasy onto Yoda, which causes him to dismiss the impish creature in front of him, who -- *plot twist* -- is actually the very person he's looking for (or whom he's "found" as Yoda corrects him). The entire wampa subplot (Luke being attacked by a wampa in the opening scene, Luke being held captive at the ice cave, Luke using the Force and escaping, and the wampas breaking into the rebel base and wreaking havoc) was present in Lucas' story treatment dating to 1977. With one missing element: Han heading out and rescuing Luke was added later. In the story treatment, Luke is able to get back to the base on his own. This has nothing to do with Lucas being better than Kershner (or vice versa). Everyone worked together to deliver the best movie they possibly could. Regarding the use of humour: As Kershner himself said in "Empire Of Dreams": You seem to forget that these are children's movies. They're not intended to be masterpieces of suspense -- or, for that matter, drama. Yet they have a masterful assembly of genre elements and classical storytelling devices nonetheless. Humour is key to selling the whole enterprise. Of course, the prequels have a bleaker storyline and something of a more self-serious approach, though Lucas has acknowledged the difference in tone between the trilogies himself, explaining it thusly in two print interviews in 2005: So yes, even the dark, mercurial, and melancholic TESB has humour in it, by design. And that humour has something of a zen dimension to it (the whole of Star Wars could be thought of as a zen action comedy), with witty and illuminating subtexts (e.g., a toolbox falls on Han's head while he's in the maintenance pit of the Millennium Falcon, Luke bumps his head against the ceiling of Yoda's home when he protests he's ready to become a Jedi). The film's elliptical emphasis on mud, muck, and grime is partially conveyed through its humour, and its humour is justified by that self-same motif (i.e., symbiosis). Regarding loss of money: First off, TESB didn't lose money. It was a box-office success. However, it made less than the original, and the reasons can be speculated upon. Blaming a strawman like "stupid humour" is silly. Firstly, it would have been hard for any sequel to match the takings of the original. The original was one of those rare stratospheric successes. Secondly, TESB doesn't try and repeat the formula of the original. It's darker, more moody, more original -- and the good guys basically lose. That was very bold at the time, given that thee primary appeal of the original was how light-hearted and fun it was, in contrast to many bleaker films of the time period. By the time of ROTJ, some sequel fatigue was probably setting in, limiting its appeal compared to the original, even though it had a more light-hearted tone (in general) than TESB and did a heftier box-office. Sequels often lose money. It's not always the case, of course (e.g., Marvel), but it's hard to entice people after they've had their initial fill. You can see this phenomenon at work even today on YouTube. The first part of a video series tends to receive more clicks and views than follow-on parts. People are just fickle. There will always be a contingent of viewers who decide to "sample" first, and some invariably decide not to continue. In economics, there is also the law of diminishing returns. We should just be glad that Star Wars is as successful as it is. It could have gone away after the original. Lucas himself was astonished at the popularity of the first film, and originally planned a low-budget follow-up. Instead, the first film became a pop-culture phenomenon, and the Original Trilogy itself would eventually follow suit. Perhaps you're just annoyed at the canonisation of TESB, and the adjoining myth that everyone else saved Star Wars from that "greedy hack" George Lucas. Of course, I share your antipathy there. But I'm not prepared to throw the earlier films under the bus to prove a point. Indeed, while I probably prefer the prequels overall, the main forum description reads: "A discussion place for those with a genuine appreciation for all six of George Lucas' Star Wars films." I try to adhere to that ethos.
|
|
|
Post by Moonshield on Aug 5, 2020 13:24:31 GMT
Can I just ask you: what's your particular animus against TESB and Kershner and Kasdan? I don't like blatant false propaganda.
Complaining about a line like "The Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully" seems like pettifogging. He always makes that mistakes. Yes, "fully" is an adverb, and should be placed before the verb Bro, it should be removed. The whole exchange between Luke and Vader on Endor is wonderful and a highlight of the movie. The fact that it is a highlight of the movie doesn't mean that it cannot contain bad dialogues.
Kershner portrays Yoda like an idiot? Please explain. He looks like an idiot. And it doesn't matter what Kershner wanted to say by his bad direction.
The entire wampa subplot (Luke being attacked by a wampa in the opening scene, Luke being held captive at the ice cave, Luke using the Force and escaping, and the wampas breaking into the rebel base and wreaking havoc) was present in Lucas' story treatment dating to 1977. So what? It can be directed good or bad. Kershner makes bad.
Regarding the use of humour: As Kershner himself said in "Empire Of Dreams": I know this video. I talked about it, actually.
But, for some reason, his humour is only gags where they should be and where they shouldn't.
You seem to forget that these are children's movies.
"This is a movie about space wizards intended for children".
They're not intended to be masterpieces of suspense ANH is a masterpiece of suspense, because it was directed by a great director. Suspense technique is quite simple: the spectator knows more than the characters in the movie. Lucas creates suspense, when he shows Jawas. A simple, but amazing scene, because he is technical. The whole Death Star Assault is a great suspense. Do you remember Vader's aim, when he tried to shot down Luke? It is suspense, because spectators know more than Luke. Kershner cannot do this: he shows only Luke. -- or, for that matter, drama. ROTJ has a dramatic ending, at least.
Humour is key to selling the whole enterprise. 1) No. 2) Humour can be made good or bad.
So yes, even the dark, mercurial, and melancholic TESB has humour in it, by design. It isn't dark, mercurial or melancholic at all, thanks to the lot of badly directed humour.
(the whole of Star Wars could be thought of as a zen action comedy) No. Only one episode.
It's darker, more moody, more original No. I'm afraid not.
-- and the good guys basically lose.
They don't lose, they escaped. Only one guy is lost (after 2 minutes we know that he can be saved).
That was very bold at the time, given that thee primary appeal of the original was how light-hearted and fun it was, in contrast to many bleaker films of the time period. The sequels (V and VI) are simply worse. Objectively. The worst is V - it has no story. About humour. Humour can be made good or bad. Good direction (Lucas): 1) ANH C3PO loses a hand, which looks sadly and creates the compassion to him. C3PO tries to convince Luke to leave him. Luke saves him. Both look noble. 2) AOTC C3PO's head is replaced with the head of the battle droid. It doesn't look like a mockery at him, because he can take part in a battle. Bad direction (Kershner): 1) Chewie put on C3PO's head in a wrong way. Both look like idiots. 2) C3PO's head is used as a ball. It looks like a mockery. What else should I say to explain why Kershner cannot direct?
Perhaps you're just annoyed
When propagandists and brainwashed stupid people look at black and say that it is white, I'm annoyed, really. I have some experiense in counterpropaganda against trotskyism. For example, Trotsky wrote in his book: "over shaken ties at a speed of seventy or more kilometres an hour..." Real speed of trains with damaged railroads of the Russian Empire is about 20 km/h. Trotsky's train was extremely heavy: typography, bath, garage, power station... His train couldn't have speed more than 10-15 km/h. The average commercial speed of freight trains in 1924 year (by documents) is 13 km/h. Moreover, those railroads in 1924 were repaired, but Trotsky rode in 1920 (railroads were damaged). I can explain to you how media brainwashes people about Star Wars (especially prequels). Mostly, they use two methods.
1) They look at black and say that it's white. Examples: A very talented person (Lucas) cannot direct and write screenplays. A very boring, stupid story about the broken Millenium Falcon is "objectively" the best Star Wars movie. A good phrase "I don't like sand" is bad. Natalie Portman's performance in three movies is "wooden", though really it is fantastic. etc.
2) They repeat it 10 000 times, or it won't work.
Bruce Lee once said: "I fear not the man who has practiced 10000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10000 times". I also read the book of Kara-Murza "The Lost Mind". He writes, that every person, who uses technologies to twist the mind, earlier or later becomes a victim of his technologies. The most famous example is Goebbels. And they are, too. They repeated 10000 times that Christensen's performance is bad and convinced themselves that it is so. And other things, too. After 20 years of propaganda many people are brainwashed.
The only way to destroy this propaganda is to make a real, serious in-depth analysis of Lucas's works to explain that they are very good, from the technical point of view. They have a very technical screenplays with three-act structure, technical dialogues and subtle acting. And other aspects. But, unfortunately, you have to destroy the myth about the "objectively" best Star Wars movie. Because it is one of the main aspects of this propaganda. They'll say to you: "It is objectively the best Star Wars movie!" (like "honest" trailers) and the prequels are bad, because they aren't made like TESB. You'll say that AOTC love story is good, they'll say: "No, it should be made like blah-blah-blah-I love you-I know! No chemistry!" (because really AOTC love story is 20 times better than this comedy and they don't like to admit that).
The situation is worse than you think.
I'm sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Aug 5, 2020 18:36:57 GMT
In the next day or two I'm going to start the detailed thread on the fandom's overhyping of ESB I've been meaning to for awhile. I'm fine either way on moving the posts denoted by Cryo from the Moonshield/Cryo discussion into it. That's fine. And thank you! I think Arch Duke does want his debunking thread cleaned up from that tangent, and I can't say I blame him. Even if I initially asserted that I wanted that exchange with Moonshield remaining where it was. It's kind of clogging the arteries of his thread. But I do disagree with him on moving all five highlighted posts. Only the last three are the real troublemakers, in my view. So yeah. Create that thread when you want. And yes, I look forward to those posts being transferred into it. I'm happy to pick the conversation back up with Moonshield at that point. Speaking of which... Alright, toss it away (the whole thread). The forum is not for mockery. All my replies also toss away. Mockery has its place. I don't think you really needed to delete your last post in here. I was itching to get to it! I was just waiting until the other posts had been moved and everything pertaining to our exchange was in one location. Don't worry, though. I have a save of this thread from yesterday. So I can give you your post data back and you can re-post (if you like) once Subtext Mining has set up the new thread. Conversation is good sport. Nothing needs to be erased here. I admit that I went off at you slightly in the TROS thread some weeks back, but I was enjoying the TESB exchange. I think it can handle some blows! I suppose I just thought attacking it in a "debunking" (of haters/disdainers) thread was a strange place to do it. Once we can talk about the movie in the context of its own thread, I think it'll work better.
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Aug 6, 2020 20:26:03 GMT
Can I just ask you: what's your particular animus against TESB and Kershner and Kasdan? I don't like blatant false propaganda.
The gushing over the allegedly flawless status of TESB and those individuals' contributions annoys me as well, but not to the point of wanting to throw the whole thing off a cliff. I think it's good to try and avoid extremes. Otherwise, how are you any better than the propagandists and media pundits you revile? Where is the lexical or stylistic crime? I'm not seeing it. What Luke says to Vader is exactly his frame of reference: his religious conviction. Luke is here articulating that belief for the first time to the object of his conviction. By confronting Vader with that conviction head on, Luke strongly makes his case. It wasn't just some good talk in front of Leia, in other words. As soon as Luke is alone with Vader, he doesn't withhold his belief in his father's innate goodness: he states it plain in his presence. "The Emperor hasn't driven it from you fully." I don't know if it's an amazing line, but there's a gravity to the whole scene that's enjoyable. The line itself serves to reinforce something rather primal about Luke's role in the story, and the sort of insight granted to certain characters by the Force. This is the grain of truth that Luke is clinging to the whole time, exemplifying what Obi-Wan said to him back on Dagobah. We all cling to certain truths based on our own point of view (look at this conversation). In my view, having Luke articulate his faith in Vader so concisely makes for a powerful moment within the film. Luke and Vader hadn't seen each other since Cloud City, and this scene critically sets up the final act of the movie. It was important to get this part right. If Lucas felt it needed revising or deleting, he had ample authority to insist on it being changed. Ergo, we can be pretty sure Lucas found the line, at the very least, adequate for the movie's (and his saga's) entrenched thematic purposes. I guess what I'm saying is: if you bash Kershner and Kasdan, you're also bashing Lucas indirectly. That's true. Something doesn't have to be perfect for it to be a highlight. But you seem to be ignoring the "team player" aspect of the films, as well as Lucas deriving the story and calling the shots. In that respect, you are criticising Lucas for his choices. Which you are, of course, free to do; but it seems a little weird if your intention is to protect and enhance Lucas' reputation, and to argue for his good taste across the Star Wars films that he authored and orchestrated. How does he look like an idiot? Yoda isn't allowed to play the fool? The parameters of the story contradict you and accuse your POV as lacking. Lucas also approved of Yoda being developed and depicted in that manner. Mythology is full of characters being a great deal more wise and powerful than they might first appear. A lesson is being conveyed to the audience (a lesson Lucas obliquely repeats with Jar Jar). And remember, these movies are primarily intended to capture the attention and raise the consciousness of children. You claimed that Lucas added the wampa in the first scene to improve the movie's suspense. The implication being that Kershner delivered a sub-par product and Lucas staged an intervention. But as I objectively showed you, that wasn't the case: the wampa subplot, including the wampa attacking Luke in the opening scene, was already there in Lucas' original story treatment from November 1977. When debunking the propaganda of others, be wary of seeding propaganda yourself. He does use gags, but they generally fit the scenes. And again, Lucas clearly approved of each scene and would have vetoed anything inappropriate or tonally bad. I think Kershner meant that he couldn't be seen to be poking fun at the series, or just putting humour in for the sake of it. Yes. But you seem to forget that when it suits you. Star Wars isn't known for its lofty, arcane wit or dialogue. The movies have to appeal to children, and that means keeping the humour at a level that they can process. I've never heard any of the Star Wars movies described as masterpieces of suspense. I said they can have suspenseful elements, and the suspense can be managed well, or less well. The Death Star assault is a great piece of editing: a real tour-de-force. But I'm confused by what you mean when you say Kershner "shows only Luke". Your bash lacks explication. Where? When? In relation to whom? The Original Trilogy is Luke's journey, but I seem to remember a few other characters featuring a fair bit. The spectator clearly knows more than Luke about his parentage when TESB begins. That suspenseful element hangs over the entire film. Kershner manages to give the whole film a purposeful and ominous mood. For me, it's one of the principal delights in revisiting. It does. I wasn't denying the idea that Star Wars lacks dramatic heft. It delivers where and when it needs to. The entire saga is full of dramatic intrigue. But the films, as a whole, are atypical dramatic vehicles (which is actually what makes them so oddly compelling). They use conventional hooks, but in an unconventional way. 1) Yes. 2) Humour appreciation is a subjective thing. But, ah... "seriously"... Lucas recognised the truth of the former by using the droids to frame the story in the original film. They are designed to provide a running commentary via comic relief. Obviously, he was successful in this endeavour, or we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Okay. Whatever. Quoting an earlier exchange between us (which is still, annoyingly, stuck in the private forum): You: Me: Hope that settles it. Back to this discussion: (the whole of Star Wars could be thought of as a zen action comedy) No. Only one episode. Yes. "Aww, cannot get your ship out!" = One of the funniest lines ever. Fact. Seriously... It's very zen. Thank you, Qui-Gon! You're fond of saying "no" a lot. Ever thought of saying "yes"? Turn that frown upside down! People generally report having a better time with TESB and becoming more engrossed compared to the original. The original is a pretty skimpy meal. It just isn't a very complex or thought-provoking movie. There wouldn't be much of a Star Wars saga without TESB. Sorry. Sure. They are granted a reprieve at the very end. But that's because they have been forced into retreat. Luke loses his hand (and his innocence), Leia loses Han, Lando loses his mining operation. Even Yoda and Obi-Wan lose Luke ahead of time. Of course, none of them actually die. The movie isn't as dark as ROTS. In this trilogy, the heroes are on the "up". At the end of TESB, they are moving back into the light. It has a story. That story was written by George Lucas. Look, I checked the credits and everything: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Empire_Strikes_BackI think what you mean is that the story (and the film generally) doesn't appeal to you. There is also no such thing as true objectivity when it comes to good and bad, or "better" and "worse", in artistic matters. Star Wars films vary. This is a good thing. In my opinion, anyway. A lot of fans dislike the humour involving Threepio in AOTC. It's not a mockery of Threepio that he gets his head attached to a Battle Droid's body against his will, is still conscious (albeit dazed and confused), marches out to battle (the first battle of the mighty Clone Wars), and issues questionable puns while shooting Jedi, before landing in a heap and making more questionable puns when Artoo rescues him -- incidentally, by pulling off his head with a cartoonish "popping" sound, before soldering him back together? It's a dignity-stripping sequence, and that's the point. Just like Threepio getting his head tossed around like a ball in the industrial section of Cloud City. Who said Chewie is any kind of genius when it comes to assembling droids (especially droids that have been shot apart)? He does at least get Threepio to work again (some would argue this is a bad thing). Maybe he was just testing Threepio's systems and it was easier to mount his head backwards. Less Wookiee prejudice, please. Also, Chewie was stressed out, because he was being held captive and worried about Han. Let's give Chewie credit for retrieving the fragments of Threepio in the first place. Who else was bothered? Kershner's film actually shows that Chewie was smart and compassionate and taking an active role in helping a friend. You have every right to be annoyed, but I'm going to skip your off-topic rant on political Machiavellianism. My own government gives me enough problems, and I wouldn't like to live in Russia under Putin, either. True. They set out to invert things. I won't argue you with there or with your example. I don't like the "objective" moniker when they do it, or when you do it. Why can't a Star Wars movie be about the Millennium Falcon, though? It's essentially the mascot or the synecdoche of Star Wars, or the Original Trilogy, is it not?
Yeah. Criticism of that line is stupid. People don't look at these films with an open heart and mind. They tend instead to repeat each other like mindless robots. I certainly share your irritation here.
Right. Her performance is very technically exact. It means nothing to them because they have little sensitivity or concern for what Lucas was doing. This being a common theme with the prequels (or the animosity toward them) in general.
Heh. I think you have misapplied that quote somewhat. You're giving them too much credit there. They repeat their criticisms like a religious credo, in hopes that they can brainwash others. But more than that: they seem to have a need to convince themselves. Bruce Lee was obviously talking about superhuman dedication to a goal. There is little that is honed or practiced about prequel bashing, aside from how monotonous it is. I agree. But TESB and ROTJ are amongst Lucas' works. They display much of the same technical brilliance. There are many fascinating and estimable aspects to the Star Wars enterprise. Yet the films are also more than the sum of their parts. They are more aptly thought of, I think, as one gorgeous piece of architecture, or a self-contained city (e.g., Theed or Theed Palace).
I don't think destruction (on the whole) works as well as celebration. We have to walk a higher path. Criticise criticism, sure. But keep the idea of maintaining a robust defence in mind. Or as Ralph Waldo Emerson passionately exhorted: "Don't waste yourself in rejection, nor bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good."
Captain Typho and Anakin? What a lovely couple they make. But seriously:
Is it? I'm seeing a bit more respect for the prequels these days. Since the completion of the Sequel Trilogy, some people seem to have realised there was actually a vision being expressed in the prequels, and that Star Wars under George Lucas wasn't so bad after all. Wait and see what another ten years may bring.
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Aug 6, 2020 20:35:42 GMT
Some Idiots Don't Except ROTJ as Canon That's How Over-Hyped TESB has become
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Aug 6, 2020 21:11:19 GMT
Some Idiots Don't Except ROTJ as Canon That's How Over-Hyped TESB has become Jesus! Not even JJ is that extreme: The Sequel Trilogy is full of references to ROTJ. ROTJ is truly the Star Wars film that keeps on giving. Don't construct an epic mythological saga without one!
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Aug 6, 2020 21:30:40 GMT
When he Said that only The OT was Canon i was done defending his sorry ass over his Star Trek films
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Aug 6, 2020 21:38:17 GMT
When he Said that only The OT was Canon i was done defending his sorry ass over his Star Trek films It stirred me to a certain level of anger, as well. He was obviously throwing shade at the PT. But it is interesting that even an OT-extremist like Abrams at least recognises the power of the complete Original Trilogy. Maybe writing TFA alongside Lawrence Kasdan helped. Anyway, I know this is the "George Lucas Era" forum, but I felt like pointing that out.
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Aug 7, 2020 23:15:24 GMT
By slightly modifying the question, I think things get way more interesting:
Do/did you dampen your admiration for TESB because of this "Gold Standard" [aka the basher's gold standard] ? Did the bashers even make you hate the film at some point?
There's a similar one out there, which I'm going to Christen "Slicer" after its biggest casualty on Naboo News:
Do/did you dampen your admiration for The Clone Wars because one section of the fandom liked to claim "they fixed the prequels"?
These are traps that prequelists need to be wary of. It tastes gooey at first, but you will shortly be poisoned. I've warned about this in the past, and I shall warn again in the future...
"To a dark place, this line of thinking reactionary fandom will take us."
To properly address the question of the OP: No, I don't think it's overhyped, but I do get irritated when its greatest proponents aren't aware, or worse, refuse to listen, when you tell them (show them) its mixed initial reaction. If they can admit that the appraisal of the film dramatically changed over the years, then we can have a conversation - no matter their views on the prequels - otherwise we're in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Moonshield on Aug 8, 2020 15:01:24 GMT
Let's continue to criticize the bad movie. Where is the lexical or stylistic crime? I'm not seeing it. It is redundant information. I've explained it in the dialogue theme. I guess what I'm saying is: if you bash Kershner and Kasdan, you're also bashing Lucas indirectly. No. Brian Jones in his book "George Lucas: a life" writes that Lucas often argued with Kershner, but Marcia defended him. So, I bash her indirectly. By the way, his ideology in the book is the same: "Star Wars is best without Lucas". Because it is supposed that TESB is "the best Star Wars movie", and readers think that it is so because Kasdan, Kershner and Marcia did what Lucas didn't want to do. Ironic. Now I know why it is bad, lol.
In that respect, you are criticising Lucas for his choices. Which you are, of course, free to do; but it seems a little weird if your intention is to protect and enhance Lucas' reputation, and to argue for his good taste across the Star Wars films that he authored and orchestrated. Lucas isn't guilty that Kasdan cannot write dialogues.
How does he look like an idiot? Yoda isn't allowed to play the fool? Imagine Padme plays the fool or Mace Windu plays the fool. Not good, right? The parameters of the story contradict you and accuse your POV as lacking. Lucas also approved of Yoda being developed and depicted in that manner. Mythology is full of characters being a great deal more wise and powerful than they might first appear. A lesson is being conveyed to the audience (a lesson Lucas obliquely repeats with Jar Jar). And remember, these movies are primarily intended to capture the attention and raise the consciousness of children. 1. Yoda should be portrayed clumsy after his exile, but not like a fool, with Kershner's total lack of sense of scale. Unlike him, Lucas himself can admit his minor - minor! - flaws and say: "I feel I've got too far in a few places." That's the difference (another, lol) between good director (Lucas) and bad (Kershner). The professional admits his flaws. 2. I have no problem with Jar Jar, but Yoda is not Jar Jar at all. By the way, I have no problems with gungans or ewoks. Every lifeform is important, even if it is ridiculous lifeform. Deep Lucas's thought, I'm not joking. In Russia we say: "Don't spit in the well - it will come in handy to drink the water." 3. When I said "This is a movie about space wizards intended for children", I meant that it is a very stupid phrase.
You claimed that Lucas added the wampa in the first scene to improve the movie's suspense. The implication being that Kershner delivered a sub-par product and Lucas staged an intervention. But as I objectively showed you, that wasn't the case: the wampa subplot, including the wampa attacking Luke in the opening scene, was already there in Lucas' original story treatment from November 1977. When debunking the propaganda of others, be wary of seeding propaganda yourself. I think I'm misunderstood again. I'm talking about the difference between the original 1980 movie and the special edition. Lucas added only one single shot, which improved the scene, because the spectator knows more than the hero. And it improved the whole scene, I remember when I watched it for the first time. He does use gags, but they generally fit the scenes. And again, Lucas clearly approved of each scene Well, he contradicts himself.
They fit the scenes, but the movie is stupid. I've already talked about Lucas, who argued with him. The spectator clearly knows more than Luke about his parentage when TESB begins. Lol, no. Luke knows that his father was a Jedi since the first part of the Episode IV. Yes. "Aww, cannot get your ship out!" = One of the funniest lines ever. Fact. Seriously... It's very zen. It's very stupid. ----- Facepalm. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Hypocrisy is eternall. "It's the best Star Wars film." Sure, ESB is an intense emotional roller-coaster, It even has no three-act-sturcture, like TPM."It's the darkest of the SW films." Ok, the cold, emotionless, megalithic Empire is relentlessly bearing down on our outnumbered & outgunned heroes and fox-hunting them to the edges of the galaxy (postcards from the edge) as they just keep narrowly escaping doom. This is ridiculous, because in the Episode IV Empire destroys Alderaan and massacres Jawas, for example. The hunt is totally failed, because we don't know about the rebels' fleet until the end. Episode II: Corde dies, Shmi Skywalker dies, Anakin massacres Tuskens, many Jedis die on Geonosis, villains have achieved their goals. Episode V: Nobody dies, the main villain hasn't achieved his goal. But, for an unknown reason, the Episode V is the darkest of the SW films. Possibly, the Episode III is the funniest SW film. The Rebels lose their base, third time... Lando betrays the heroes, we hardly know him... Vader uses torture to draw out his own son, which almost isn't shown in the movie... (compare it to tortured Shmi) and a lot of things seem quite hopeless. no single thing. Frozen Solo can be saved, and we know it in 5 minutes after that. It's a little ironic to me, in a few ways, that the majority of the fandom likes ESB the most because it's the least "kiddy" The least "kiddy" is III. IV and II are close. The main problem of Star Wars isn't Disney or the Sequel Trilogy. The main problem of Star Wars is the hypocrisy of dumb and brainless fanbase, more accurately, of its loud minority. After the release of TPM there was a demand for Star Wars without Lucas. That's why the loud minority of stupid fandom loves ESB and convinces itself that it is "objectively" the best Star Wars movie. This point of view has turned to be the most comfortable for corrupted media and eventually created a happening, which I call as "TESB sectarianism". Combined with 19 (since 2001, when Rotten Tomatoes changed TESB critics' rating from 52% to 98%) years of brainwashing, it has led to the situation, when the Internet is very comfortable for RLM/ESB fanboys. These guys criticized (stupidly) every other Star Wars movies, even ANH. TESB isn't allowed to criticize even in Hollywood (you can watch Mauler's video "Critique of The Force Awakens Introduction", where Oscar Isaac declares TESB as "obectively" the best SW movie). All of it is sectarianism.
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Aug 16, 2020 19:24:02 GMT
Star Wars gives us what we need, not what we want. Being predominantly a children's movie tonally, some say Spielberg should've directed The Phantom Menace. There's an endless debate ready to happen as to whether or not it then would've been a more palatable film for the masses, but it still wouldn't have been exactly how Lucas wanted it. I think the fact that Lucas did decide to direct the PT himself is commendable, ballsy and worthy of appreciation. I was 6 when E.T. was released and 7 when RotJ was released, so I'm certainly of that generation. And I remember something interesting happened just a year or two later. It suddenly became "uncool" among my age group to like those films. As tonally, they represent that last stage of boyish innocence and wonder. That feeling of being a little person in a big world, with a little dark in the periphery, but good always triumphs in the end. Now ESB on the other hand doesn't suffer this fate of becoming uncool. Why not? I think it appeals more to the teenager, adolescent phase of coming of age or the rite of passage, which is much more cool. Thanks to Han's libidinous swagger, Lando's smooth bravado and Vader's brutal relentlessness it has a much more macho and badass vibe. And we've got early-twenties Luke bravely putting himself out there in the dangerous, unsure world with his half-baked skills and experience. It's about bonding with your tribal peers, but also going it alone on your own path for awhile, and it's also about the fact that you can even be betrayed by your friends. It's about expanding your talents, taking risks, making big mistakes, having some minor spiritual awakenings as well as tastes of your own shadow, fixing your ride, coming to blows with your father, trying to get the girl etc. Rife with role models for young teens to aspire to, this film is bound to leave a Mark. While the darkness is just a bit of a menace in films aimed at 6-10 year-olds, in ESB it's crammed down your throat to the beat of the Imperial March and it's as cold as Vader's mechanical breath on Hoth. Which is great and all, but why do we have to forget about our 6-10 year-old self? Star Wars is about growing up. But it's also about remaining a kid at heart. Go ahead and feel the magic of your childhood. Let the harps and flutes pull you into that enchanting world of imagination. Let the whimsical oboes remind you of how new and delightfully strange the world was for you. Another thing I remember from 1983 is that when RotJ came out, most people loved it. But there was one group that was almost unanimously actively outspoken as to their disdain for it. You guessed it, it was the high schoolers. (It was only many years later that the younger kids, having grown up and gotten addicted to ESB, started to complain about it). Just by analyzing the music let's take a look as to why this might have been. The Han & Leia theme is a tad more mature and self-assured, it even almost has a married couple vibe. Boring! Yoda's music is not as mischievous. it's more like the swan song for a dying old man. Boring! Even the Imperial March/Vader's Theme doesn't send the same chill up your spine. It's more layered, fraught with subtle, tortured emotions and second-guessing. Boring! In ESB, Lando's music has a collegiate, bond of brotherhood theme, not so much in RotJ... I think we can see the underlying appeal for ESB, particularly for those in a certain group, but again, that shouldn't foster in one a dismissive attitude to any other SW film that doesn't hit the same buttons. I mean, in TPM we have a film about a helpful boy full with hope and promise. But we already know he will go bad someday. I think many fans just wanted to cut to the chase, they just wanted to see the going bad part. To them TPM, and AotC as well, were anti-climactic. I mean, even the battle at the end was between mindless droids and polite security guards. Not imperial stormtroopers and intrepid rebel soldiers. And the Gungans? That was like Lucas doubling down on the Ewok vibe. Too kiddy!
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Aug 19, 2020 14:48:56 GMT
Well... I am one of those fans that has Empire Strikes Back as their favorite film. I was 5 years old when I saw Empire at the Drive-In Theater back in 1980, and I instantly fell in love with it as a child. The Battle of Hoth was etched into my mind, and become the focal point of my Star Wars play for years to come. The movie had so many cool things to draw a young boy in. AT-AT's, AT-AT Drivers, Snowtroopers, Tauntaun's, Wampa's, nerf herders, snow planet, snow speeders, epic battle in the snow, Tie Bombers, "Apology accepted, Captain Needa", little green wizards, The Force (the Dark and the Light), Luke being trained, spooky caves where Darth Vader hid, mynocks, slugs living in asteroids, Boba Fett, Lando, Bespin, Ugnuaghts, 3PO getting blown away, the Emperor, carbon freezing, Han in carbonite, Bespin escape, Luke vs. Vader, "NO, I AM YOUR FATHER!".
With a budget of about 3 times that of A New Hope, Empire gave Lucas the ability to put his imagination front and center, regardless of who cleaned up the script for him or who directed the movie for him. As a 5 year old, Empire grabbed me and never let go. Even 40 years later.
I have explained my feelings on Empire Strikes back before on TFN and other forums. So some of you may have read this before.
As much as I loved Star Wars as a child, eventually we move on and we grow up. So it was inevitable that after Return Of The Jedi (at the ripe ole age of 8), other thing started to grab my attention. As a child of the 80's I was lucky enough to live through one of the best times ever for boys shows that had toy lines (thanks again to Lucas). GI Joe, Transformers, He-Man, Voltron, etc etc etc. So as time wore on, Star Wars faded from my daily routine. Than eventually, sports replaced my toys as what I wanted to do, specifically Hockey. Than came... girls...
And just like that Star Wars had faded from my memory. My toys and memories packed away in boxes in the attic of my house and the attic of my mind. Until one day, on my 16th Birthday, my parents gave me the complete Star Wars Trilogy Box Set (on VHS). I started watching immediately. When I got to Empire, something happened. I starting noticing things that I didn't remember as a kid. I started to actually "hear" what the characters were saying, what they were doing.
Wait a minute... there's a reason Yoda is acting like that. It isn't just because he is a silly old green wizard. What is that reason? Ahhh.. he is giving Luke his very first lesson on patience and anger.
Wait a minute... there's a reason Yoda tells Luke that what's in the cave is only what he takes with him... Ahhh it's because Luke is taking his fear and anger into the cave and the cave manifests that. That's not really Vader, but that of Luke's fear and anger.
Wait a minute.. why can't Obi Wan interfere and help Luke? Ahh, because the confrontation will result in Luke having to make a choice, a choice only he could make.
etc etc etc
As a child, who was entranced with all the stuff from Empire I wrote at the beginning of this post, I was just too young to grasp the messages that Empire had. So, at 16, while explosions and fighting, and cool vehicles were still damned cool as hell, I started to pick up on the the messages that Empire had to offer, and that is when I fell in love with Empire (and Star Wars as a whole) for a second time. That is when I started to want to know what Lucas meant by this scene or that scene. I didn't want to "interpret", I wanted to know the actual meaning, the actual thought processes of the characters. What was Lucas trying to tell me here...
So Empire gave me the best of both worlds. It showed me someones visual imagination that just hit a chord with me as a child, and than gave me an epiphany to there being more to movies than just explosions, cool visuals, sword fights etc etc. That there were lessons, messages in the movies that I could take away from the movies. Instead of a cartoon like GI Joe where at the end we got hit over the head with the "Knowing is half battle" moral lesson that was directly explained to us, the lessons of Star Wars were deeper than that. Built into the stories and characters, and visuals. The Empire Strikes back gave me that awakening.
And than came the Prequels... and as the Prequels progressed, right away I could see how the Prequels traced right back to Empire. How those lessons that the little green wizard was trying to get into Luke's skull on Dagobah were the hazards that Luke's Father fell into.
Fear Leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate, Hate leads to suffering. Again the direct lesson that Luke fails in Empire. The cave shows Luke what his fear and anger will do. It will lead to his suffering of becoming the very thing he feared and was angry towards. Just as his Father did, as we saw play out in the Prequels. We see the Jedi teachings of attachment. How attachment can become harmful, that attachment clouds judgement. When Vader knows that he can use Luke's attachment to Han and Leia to draw him in, Yoda warns Luke of that danger and the larger stakes involved.
Luke: And Sacrifice Han and Leia? Yoda: If you honor what they fight for, yes!
Again, here we have a look at the Jedi teachings(from the prequels) of letting go of personal attachments for the greater good, something that Anakin could not do, and a mistake that Luke makes in ESB that nearly costs the galaxy tremendously. A mistake that he learns from and does not repeat in ROTJ as he realizes that his attachment to his friends might be endangering the mission, and that he needs to let them go on their own path so that he can go on his own. He learns to let them go. A lesson that starts in Empire. A lesson his Father would not follow.
I do not like how the fandom uses Empire Strikes Back as a club towards the other movies, as in this one is the best, so all the others are held to it's standards. I do not like that at all. While I think it is perfectly fine and reasonable to criticize any of the Star Wars movies in how they honor what comes before or after, how they move the story along, how the movie fits into the greater theme of the entire saga etc etc etc, I do not think it is fair to say all the movies should be like Empire Strikes Back, or Revenge Of The Sith, or The Force Awakens. It's something even Prequel fans do when they point at Attack Of The Clones.
I personally try my best to judge the movies individually and how they fit into the SAGA as a whole (because I do believe in honoring what comes before and the movies need to make logical sense and consistency). I try hard not to do the comparison thing of well it isn't as good as my favorite so that means it's trash or it should have done things that were in my favorite. That is one of the reasons I dislike the Sequels so much. For the most part they tried to placate the masses with copy and paste stuff from the OT. But, that's a story for another time....
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Aug 20, 2020 21:22:26 GMT
I never doubted you guys for a second. Wonderful!I'm going to jump around a bit with my quotes in this post, but hopefully, none of the crockery gets broken. Well... I am one of those fans that has Empire Strikes Back as their favorite film. I was 5 years old when I saw Empire at the Drive-In Theater back in 1980, and I instantly fell in love with it as a child. The Battle of Hoth was etched into my mind, and become the focal point of my Star Wars play for years to come. The movie had so many cool things to draw a young boy in. AT-AT's, AT-AT Drivers, Snowtroopers, Tauntaun's, Wampa's, nerf herders, snow planet, snow speeders, epic battle in the snow, Tie Bombers, "Apology accepted, Captain Needa", little green wizards, The Force (the Dark and the Light), Luke being trained, spooky caves where Darth Vader hid, mynocks, slugs living in asteroids, Boba Fett, Lando, Bespin, Ugnuaghts, 3PO getting blown away, the Emperor, carbon freezing, Han in carbonite, Bespin escape, Luke vs. Vader, "NO, I AM YOUR FATHER!". Superbly encapsulated, Mike! As I said in that other (currently still private) thread:
You're right that TESB actually has a smorgasbord of nifty, imaginative stuff within it. It's an epic pop fantasia, lushly arranged with eye-grabbing creatures, planets, ships, vehicles, chambers, caves, tunnels, dining rooms, ice-retreat bases, cold villainous one-liners, "into the mountains" (or a swamp) training sequences, burgeoning romance, robot-destruction, double-crossing, torture, imprisonment, harrowing revelation, the hero losing his hand, mystical connection, and a tense, seat-of-their-pants retreat. It's packed with dark joy and has a lot of thematic and existential stuff going on, with the kind of cinematic wallop necessary to carry it off and render the whole thing suitably gripping and satisfying. In making these last few statements, I have also echoed Subtext: Now ESB on the other hand doesn't suffer this fate of becoming uncool. Why not? I think it appeals more to the teenager, adolescent phase of coming of age or the rite of passage, which is much more cool. Thanks to Han's libidinous swagger, Lando's smooth bravado and Vader's brutal relentlessness it has a much more macho and badass vibe. And we've got early-twenties Luke bravely putting himself out there in the dangerous, unsure world with his half-baked skills and experience. It's about bonding with your tribal peers, but also going it alone on your own path for awhile, and it's also about the fact that you can even be betrayed by your friends. It's about expanding your talents, taking risks, making big mistakes, having some minor spiritual awakenings as well as tastes of your own shadow, fixing your ride, coming to blows with your father, trying to get the girl etc. Rife with role models for young teens to aspire to, this film is bound to leave a Mark. It's cool that you have identified a kind of tonal oscillation between the OT movies: if ANH starts us in the light (albeit a slightly compressed light), then TESB swoops low into a brooding psychological valley (literally dominated by glaciers and Harrison fjords), while ROTJ puts us firmly astride the mountain, amongst the trees, for a clear-eyed view and a right ol' knees-up around the log cabin. ROTJ is so much goofier and lighter by comparison. It can't compete with TESB's dark lyricism. But then it isn't trying to. The satisfying thing about Star Wars, as you went on to say, is that there is strong variation between one episode (and one trilogy) and the next, leading to a colourful tapestry, far greater than the individual threads and swatches. That Imperial March is very subtle, and not even remotely close to being overused in TESB, isn't it? Notice that Vader himself is completely transformed in TESB (compared to his somewhat copacetic appearance in ANH) into a dark despoiling menace. In the middle of the OT, Vader is truly the "Dark Father" to Luke's innocent, if supernaturally gifted, kid running around in the maze (yes: deliberate reference to "The Shining" there). Yep. I once wrote about the tonal contrast between TPM and TESB -- or rather: the PT and the OT -- in the following way: To add to that, Lucas himself said upon the release of ROTS: He also said at the same time: That Lucas! Never one to mince words! Right. ROTJ is about return and reconciliation. It's the installment where our characters exhibit more maturity and help to put things right: restore the universe to deeper balance. TESB, by contrast, plays to adolescent thrills, since it's (essentially) about things going wrong, being blown apart, or breaking down. Although, in all cases, some righting occurs in the final act, paving the way to ROTJ. I think Moonshield made an excellent point (I still need to get to his last post) that people tend to ignore the positive overtones at the denouement of TESB; and you yourself made the same observation in your opening post. There's this strong TESB-loving contingent that doesn't fully want to acknowledge the saga returning to the light in the "dark masterpiece" of the franchise. In that regard, they ignore the full range of the meal on offer, both in TESB and in the wider saga it intimately expands and most certainly belongs to. An impoverished reading of TESB leads to an impoverished reading of the saga, as sure as day follows night. As a child, who was entranced with all the stuff from Empire I wrote at the beginning of this post, I was just too young to grasp the messages that Empire had. So, at 16, while explosions and fighting, and cool vehicles were still damned cool as hell, I started to pick up on the the messages that Empire had to offer, and that is when I fell in love with Empire (and Star Wars as a whole) for a second time. That is when I started to want to know what Lucas meant by this scene or that scene. I didn't want to "interpret", I wanted to know the actual meaning, the actual thought processes of the characters. What was Lucas trying to tell me here... It's funny you say that age 16 was the turning point for you, Mike. I was the same age when I saw TPM in 1999. I can't say I was bowled over with TPM (or AOTC) at the time, but they somehow hit some chords deeper in my subconscious, and in the run-up to ROTS, I suddenly started mulling them over in a more deliberate and conscious way. I think that obsession may have begun when I purchased the CD-ROM "Behind The Magic" in either late 1998 or early 1999. That release evidently primed me (as I guess it was intended) for the ensuing arrival of TPM, and there was a particular observation in there, concerning the droids, that really stuck. I'll have to try and revisit the CD-ROM (one way or another) at some future point, but it was stated that Threepio, in his frantic, chattering way, often in a flap and fussy over details, represents the conscious mind, while Artoo, being hard to completely understand, and having these little side quests he's always on, doing things outside the awareness of the other characters very often, represents the subconscious. And they are a pair that generally function better together than too far apart; in any case, they are the essential duo of the story, always coming back together after a period of separation, like oppositely-charged particles or matter-sustaining quarks. One earlier source of inspiration, where I first became sensitive to deeper meanings and purposes within the films, was that key moment in the climax of ROTJ, the apex of the OT, where Luke removes Vader's hand, and then comes to his senses, staring at his own encased in that black glove. Not only was that the same hand removed by Vader in TESB at the peak of their last confrontation, but Luke's replacement hand had been shot and damaged on Jabba's sail barge, which was apparently the excuse Luke needed (in a subconscious way, you understand) to cover it up, thereby hiding his underlying weakness and frailty; yet, oddly, this decision also aligns him (visually) closer to Vader, leading to his cleansing of perception and the redemption of Vader himself. Quite an amazing set of motifs taken to completion. I think this somehow had the effect of "wiring" me into Star Wars in a deeper way; I just didn't know it yet. But yes, all that noise aside, I think it's TESB that really turned Star Wars into a mythological saga. The original movie was an entertaining film: an event, even. But it didn't really give people a lot to think about. It was more of an enticement mechanism in retrospect. As subtle and as esoteric as even that first film is, only in the sequels did Lucas really get his freak on and prove he was on a kind of vision quest: a person deliberately striving to bring something with epic scope into the (then) relatively formless void of popular film-based culture. "Awakening". Anakin: I shouldn't. Yes, TESB demonstrated that there was a more meaningful plot architecture at work. Star Wars turned into something a bit more sophisticated than a homily-dispensing infomercial spewing out messages like "littering is bad". Suddenly, people were being shown a world with many interconnections, where one action inflects another, plot elements carry weight, character decisions carry over into the next film, and themes matter. Star Wars was now a story laden with choices and consequences, full of subtle lessons and reflections: a mandala of the movie-screen. Indeed. Anakin standing and being tested by the Jedi Council in TPM actually has a strong resonance with TESB, especially when Yoda asks him how he feels and Anakin responds that he feels cold. Likewise, when Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan are discussing the situation outside on the patio, Obi-Wan objects and says that Anakin won't pass the council's tests, because Anakin is "too old" -- exactly the same objection Yoda makes toward training Luke in TESB. A third echo occurs in the last night-time scene with the Jedi Council when Obi-Wan impertinently claims he's ready to face the trials, with Yoda recoiling, "Our own council we will keep on who is ready." The second OT movie set a lot of things in motion that only get fleshed out in the PT. The prequels give a lot more meat and context to everything, almost making the OT look a bit cramped and narrow in comparison. That thematic stew begins to thicken the moment Luke lands on Dagobah. Heck, Yoda even makes Luke rootleaf stew! The roots of the saga go deep... True. We see Anakin failing in this around the mid-point of AOTC with ominous consequences. Of course, an argument can be made that the Jedi also fail in the same movie, by (essentially) initiating the Clone Wars on Geonosis. AOTC: why have one hasty rescue attempt when you can have two? The personal spilling out and becoming the political. The birth of the Empire is a complex process, but it's a little easier to see and understand with Yoda's words as our guide. I think we can see the underlying appeal for ESB, particularly for those in a certain group, but again, that shouldn't foster in one a dismissive attitude to any other SW film that doesn't hit the same buttons. I do not like how the fandom uses Empire Strikes Back as a club towards the other movies, as in this one is the best, so all the others are held to it's standards. I do not like that at all. While I think it is perfectly fine and reasonable to criticize any of the Star Wars movies in how they honor what comes before or after, how they move the story along, how the movie fits into the greater theme of the entire saga etc etc etc, I do not think it is fair to say all the movies should be like Empire Strikes Back, or Revenge Of The Sith, or The Force Awakens. It's something even Prequel fans do when they point at Attack Of The Clones. Right. Each of the films has its own flavour and identity. Wanting all the movies to be like TESB is a bit like saying that all Jedi should be like Yoda or Obi-Wan. Or that everyone should sign up and fight for the Empire. As if everything else is inferior by definition. The films have to fit the slice of the story they're telling, and that story is full of dramatic twists and turns, based on decisions that pile up and implode into new realities surprisingly fast (e.g., look how much the story changes between TPM and ROTS). By design, the movies are episodic: interconnected digressions making a whole. As Lucas himself said:
|
|
|
Post by Moonshield on Aug 21, 2020 15:07:45 GMT
ESB fanbase as it is
Admin edit: screenshots have been deleted. They consisted of Reddit posts using vile language to denigrate the PT while claiming ESB was the best film.
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Aug 21, 2020 22:05:17 GMT
^ These guys (OPs) aren't members here, and we don't need their trash here. If you want you could write up a summary of your experiences on Reddit with OT nostalgia bros versus PT fans.
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Aug 21, 2020 23:40:34 GMT
Moonshield Wow! Such rampant vitriol -- and on a celebration page, too. I hope that isn't you using sock accounts to prove a point. There's no need for it. We all know how utterly lousy and terrible some SW fans can be. But by presenting the worst cases, you're also skewing the picture in favour of those worst cases, which is less than ideal. This thread already contains several counter examples, in the form of Subtext Mining , mikeximus , and myself. We all like and respect TESB, and Mike just said it's his favourite film. That said (hey, this is me...) The broader situation you're trying to adumbrate does loosely remind me of Star Trek fans who gush about the second film, "The Wrath Of Khan", being the best in the series, while manifesting various levels of contempt and disdain for the first film, "The Motion Picture". The first film is far more prequel-esque in terms of it being a unique and visionary expression, and yet maligned by many since the day of its release. In contrast to TWOK, however, it had a troubled (if fascinating) production history, and even those people who are fans of the first film can't resist making references to its history or delving into it (and it's fair to say that some of those production issues bled into the final product, which ended up being more of a "rough draft", since the film was being edited and worked on till the last possible second). Indeed, even on a site that's supposedly meant to paint a neutral portrait of the two films, "The Motion Picture" has a capacious entry that seems to be trying (on some level) to do it down, compared to the much more slender and considerably less probing entry for "The Wrath Of Khan", as per the "Memory Alpha" Star Trek Wikipedia (strongly equivalent to "Wookiepedia" for Star Wars): memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picturememory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_The_Wrath_of_KhanBut hang on, Cryo! They appear to be of almost equal length? Okay, fine. An illustration of the difference here: "The Motion Picture" has a very detailed "production history" section on its page above (totalling 11,324 words), while "The Wrath Of Khan"'s production history section on its own page is incredibly short (totalling just 418 words). Note: I have only counted up to a natural demarcation point for both movies' production histories. That includes all of TWOK, which only has a handful of items listed in its production history section beyond the theatrical release in 1982. In the case of TMP, which has an extensive production history section that runs on considerably beyond the film's theatrical premiere dates, I have not counted any items listed in that section beyond 1979. Were I to have done so, TMP would have an even longer production history over TWOK, widening the disparity even more! However, while there's a 27-fold difference between the two films in this regard, the wiki entry for TWOK is handled a little differently, with behind-the-scenes material parcelled off into various sections. In addition to the aforementioned production history section, TWOK has a lengthy "script" section totalling 2,172 words, followed by a "casting" section at 559 words, a "sets" section at 1,215 words, a "costumes" section at 1,410 words, a "shooting" section at 399 words, and a "visual effects" section at 948 words, making for a grand total of 7,121 words (when added to the "production history" word count). But TMP remains way out in front. Additionally, TMP also has more behind-the-scenes material stretched into a few other sections, with a "visual effects" section at 4,003 words, and a "production design" section at 1,703 words, bumping its behind-the-scenes word total up to 17,030 words. There is also another section for the TMP entry which the TWOK lacks entirely: a "costs and revenues" section at 6,398 words. Adding this to TMP's total, it emerges with an entry that lavishes a grand total of 23,428 words on its tumultuous production history, and its associated costs and revenues. TWOK putters out at just 7,121. That is a significant difference! TMP has more than three times the amount of text devoted to its making! Granted, a like-for-like comparison between the two films is challenging, since TMP had (as mentioned) a much more difficult production history, partly tied into cost overruns, partly tied into the long road from 1960s television series to 1970s feature film (with chopping and changing on the part of Paramount executives several times before a high-budget motion picture was finally settled on -- prompted, finally, by the blazing success of Star Wars), numerous script re-writes and story changes, an overly ambitious special effects company that couldn't deliver the goods (and was fired and replaced by another company led by Douglas Trumbull with less than a year to go), and a significant amount of studio politics and subterfuge, including clashing of personalities, especially between Gene Roddenberry and fellow screenwriter Harold Livingston (who basically quit and returned several times due to Roddenberry's antics). No other entry in the Star Wars franchise can compete with all of that! Arguably, very few other films can compete with that! And yet... There remains something amiss in the treatment of the two on their respective Star Trek wiki pages. For example, TWOK has an "analysis" section, delving into the film's themes, totalling 1,403 words. While this isn't an enormous word count, the TMP entry lacks an equivalent section. TMP is surely worthy of its own analysis section, taking seriously its own existential themes and the way it uses the main characters (and visuals) to explore those themes. It is often attacked for being methodical, plodding, and ponderous -- the perfect movie for analysis freaks to do an analysis of! But seriously, it deserves at least something. By contrast, TMP has a hefty "costs and revenues" section (as mentioned above), way denser than TWOK's analysis section. I'm hinting here that a thematic and character-based "analysis" section is positive (or at least neutral), while harping on cost problems is skewing things in an inevitably negative, capitalistic direction. Furthermore, TMP has a small section labelled "reception", where mostly negative responses from its cast and crew are captured and emphasised, running 1,039 words in total. TWOK has no equivalent section, and the thoughts and opinions of its cast and crew with regard to the finished film are not captured. There's just no getting around the fact that heavy focus is placed on TMP's failings and complications; to such an extent that its own artistic power is de-emphasised in favour of dwelling on the morass of challenges and tumbles experienced in realising it as an artistic product. But the realised product itself gets little actual attention. It's almost an afterthought. Of course, I find the behind-the-scenes stuff concerning "The Motion Picture" incredibly compelling, but the film isn't served greatly by its page in comparison to the entry for "The Wrath Of Khan". Perhaps not consciously, but the cumulative and comparative effect of two Star Trek films that differ wildly on many levels (conceptually, thematically, tonally, and stylistically), placed in apposition in this manner (and reflecting the fact that one precedes the other and the two are often compared by the Star Trek fanbase), lends the impression that TMP is being implied to be a white elephant (or a "beached whale" to use Leonard Nimoy's wording from a 2012 interview). In a somewhat subtle and oblique way, it's like the page is saying, "Let's look at everything that went wrong with TMP" -- giving it the vague flavour (albeit more scholarly and less pejoratively) of a RedLetterMedia prequel review. TWOK, by contrast, gets this implicit shield around it; while people must be reminded of TMP's inferior, compromised "worth" as a Star Trek film, and its questionable status as an effective, well-conceived work of cinema everywhere they go. Sound familiar? What a good many Star Trek and Star Wars fans seem to have in common is a failure to appreciate a worthy and well-made expansion of their beloved franchise when it arrives -- one that largely derives from that franchise's intellectually-driven creator and mostly has their blessing. I throw those qualifiers in because the situation with TMP doesn't entirely map onto the prequels. Roddenberry never had full control on TMP and was muscled out toward the end of principal photography. He had the dirty done on him and was never allowed to dictate or interfere with the film side of the franchise again (he was brought back to be a prime creative influence on "Star Trek: The Next Generation", but he wasn't involved beyond the second season and died after suffering the complications of a stroke in 1991). Lucas, by contrast, saw to it that he had full ownership of Star Wars and could do whatever he desired. Fans rejoice the fact that Roddenberry was kicked away from the controls, while lamenting that this didn't happen with Lucas. Fans can be bitter and spiteful and easily side with corporations and capitalistic forces when it suits them. And how easy it is to mock and marginalise creative and visionary people in our contemporary culture. Ultimately, I think what Subtext said earlier really carries some weight: Thanks to Han's libidinous swagger, Lando's smooth bravado and Vader's brutal relentlessness it has a much more macho and badass vibe. And we've got early-twenties Luke bravely putting himself out there in the dangerous, unsure world with his half-baked skills and experience. It's about bonding with your tribal peers, but also going it alone on your own path for awhile, and it's also about the fact that you can even be betrayed by your friends. It's about expanding your talents, taking risks, making big mistakes, having some minor spiritual awakenings as well as tastes of your own shadow, fixing your ride, coming to blows with your father, trying to get the girl etc. I think this can be applied in reverse to the first two Star Trek features. "The Motion Picture", like the prequels, is perceived as slow, overly-involved, self-serious, pretentious, dull, contrived, clunky, and in a word: boring. "The Wrath Of Khan" is more like its dark, jaded cousin: much more cheaply made, but well-paced, exciting, full of great character moments, pulpy space battles, big themes, consequences, drama, humour, a sense of guts and devastation, and the motif of revenge, alloyed to reflections on aging, imperfection, hubris, and facing death. In short, the former is regarded as a pompous snore-fest and a major miscalculation, while the latter is lionised as "an intense character study" and often championed as "the most engaging and intelligent" of all the Trek movies. Similarly, the production histories of the two films are like mirror images of one another. TWOK seems to have had a relatively uncomplicated and unexciting production history; while TMP is a case study in flawed choices, shortsighted decision-making, tension, difficulty, acrimony, vain ambition, mismanagement, and waste. People seem to innately seek out the thrill of drama and things going wrong; especially when they believe it validates their frustrations and is deserved (in the case of of TPM and the prequels -- e.g., "I may have gone too far in a few places"). Given these factors, it's not surprising that TESB remains the go-to movie when people talk about successful sci-fi (or fantasy) action sequels, along with TWOK; while the crowning achievements of those respective franchises continue to endure a soiled reputation. The fact that key entries in both go by three- and four-letter acronyms starting with the letter "T" (TESB and TWOK; TPM and TMP) -- yes, isn't that strange? -- suggests this weird duality was baked into the DNA of our cinematic universe a long time ago. Must be those Whills still up to their myriad of midi-based tricks. I guess, when you call your epic creation "Star (something)", you're setting yourself up for trouble later on. People get very attached to these things (look at us), and good luck getting them unattached, even when it's part of your movies' preachments. Heck, why is it so hard for high-quality films to get themselves seen for the earnest offerings they are? It almost feels like there's a fatal flaw in the universe somehow. In the words of Anakin: "It's not fair!" How can fairness exist ("free of blemishes or stains"; "having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias") when people go around with deceitful tactics, deliberately weighting the table in advance; and then use each other, something like a hive-mind, to promulgate the same tired talking points, while continuing to quarantine and sneer at those things they have collectively deemed (overtly and tacitly) to be "pathetic lifeforms"?
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Aug 22, 2020 0:28:32 GMT
|
|