[HeckHouse]

Well, I kinda feel like a Baptist at an Aethiest convention. I'm a bit outnumbered in terms of my opinions, it seems.

[Paladin]

When I said "No more witty remarks", I meant that no more would be coming from me. Apologies for the confusion.

If that's the case, then I apologize for treating you harshly on that matter.

I want to add that I am not attacking this board, or the members in it. I could say alot worse of some of the beavior that I have recieved in my short time here, or your attitudes to GL. But I don't want to start any more arguments.

Well, if that wasn't what you were doing, then what exactly was the point of your arguements? You didn't seem to be defending George more than you were berating us for acting in such a manner towards him.

[use the force]

don't leave xenduck, we nned more people that think like you here.

[snaithbert]

To me it just seems highly unlikely that the PT will go down in history the same way the OT did. Time may soften people's harsh opinions, but it will also illustrate just how little impact the new trilogy has made. Yeah, they've made money and headlines, but in comparison to the money and press of the OT, it's the like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing one.

I predict that in 30 years, people will STILL be talking about the original trilogy, but that the prequel trilogy will basically be ignored, if not forgotten. There's never going to be a re-release of the prequel trilogy and kids aren't going to grow up remembering going to see it, thinking of it nostalgically, rebuying their old toys on ebay, etc. These new films are an event- but no more so than the new Matrix movie or whatever hot film is coming out this week. Just because they're "Star Wars" movies doesn't mean they'll automatically be elevated to exalted status and stay there forever. For that to happen, they have to be GOOD movies and sadly- they are not. If anything, we forgive their obvious flaws BECAUSE they're "Star Wars" movies, but that doesn't mean they'll stay in people's hearts and minds the way their predecessors did. As long as there's a new film coming out, the prequel trilogy will be fresh in our minds, but once the last film has been released, I predict that the prequel trilogy will quickly fade from public consciousness. Whereas the original trilogy will stick with us as it always has.

My one hope is that the release of these bad new movies doesn't tarnish the public image of those good old movies. "Star Wars" now has a stigma attached to it; many people now associate it with bad writing, acting and directing. I just hope the bad moviemaking of the new trilogy doesn't cause people to start rethinking the old trilogy. I'm sure it'll never be decried as terrible (as the new trilogy has been) but George has done some serious damage to the Star Wars name and I can't help wondering if in the long run his bad movies will in some way drag down his good ones.

In any case, I have to disagree with Mr. Lucas about there never being any more Star Wars movies. Once the guy dies, I have a feeling his kids might decide it's time to make a few more. You know, if they decide they'd like to make an extra 200 million dollars, just to have a little spare cash, etc. Hopefully if they're bad storytellers (like their father is) they'll be smart enough to know it and pass the creative duties along to someone else. If not, get ready for three more awful movies, loosely based on three really good ones.

I used to think that George Lucas was a terrible artist, but a brilliant businessman. Now I'm starting to wonder just how brilliant he really is, because the first thing any businessman will tell you is that you have to know your audience- and George Lucas clearly does not know his. Yes the fans will turn out for the next movie and it will make a fortune, etc. But in the end Mr. Lucas will be loser in all this. Because he's now going to go down in history as the guy who made both the best and the worst film trilogies of all time. The question is, which will he be best remembered for- creating the good trilogy, or creating the bad one? The sad thing is that if he'd never made the new trilogy, he would have gone to his grave with the whole world still thinking he was a creative genius. But now the cat's out of the bag- George Lucas isn't a good filmmaker.

In the final analysis, I think Mr. Lucas is very correct when he surmises that no one will want to see his next movies, etc. If his track record proves anything, it's that if the words "Star Wars" don't appear in the title- no one wants to see it. Those two words are the ONLY things that kept the prequel trilogy from being completely, utterly dismissed. If they weren't Star Wars movies, they'd be no better than "Battlefield Earth" or any other long forgotten turkey. And I think that without the shield of Star Wars to hide under, the world will finally see George Lucas for what he really is- a very bad filmmaker and an even worse storyteller. Hopefully after a few post Star Wars flops, George will finally accept his fate and hang up his director's chair forever. He got lucky once, 30 years ago. The lightning isn't going to strike again, no matter how much he tries to convince us that it will.

Having said all that, I must say that I'm sure the guy loves his kids and he's probably a nice guy, etc. But if these new movies are the legacy he's leaving Star Wars fans- I'd rather not have any legacy at all.

[jariten]

What you're basically doing is taking personal opinion ("I dont like the prequels") and using that opinion to generalise society at large ("therefore noone will like the prequels"). You might be right of course, but I highly doubt it. In this day and age it'd be impossible for Lucas to create anything with the impact of A New Hope, everyones just too jaded now, special effects movies are a dime a dozen. Except that, as exercises in imaginative filmmaking, all the SW films are a cut above the rest (the Riddicks, the Van Helsings, the Matrixs), and nothing sticks in a childs mind more than that.

Since '99, thats six years now, the only films ive seen that could fire up a kids imagination like the two SW prequels have been LOTR and maybe the first Harry Potter film. A lot of critisicm of the PT derives from the line "they aren't as good as the OT", baggage that a 10 year old kid isn't going to have. They see SW, get exicted, dont really notice the (numerous) flaws, then take this memory with them when they grow up (and become film critics themselves).

Of course, we're both biased. me for the prequels, and you against. So you could easily take what I said in the first paragraph and apply it to me. Only time will tell, I suppose.

[snaithbert]

Well first off all hats off to you, your post was very well written. And you're right, we're both biased so I guess the best we can do is agree to disagree.

I guess the one point I'd argue is that it's impossible to create something with the impact of a new hope, etc. It's difficult, sure, but not impossible. Just because Mr. Lucas failed to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. One thing that would help is that if Lucas DIDN'T make a "special effects" movie but rather just made a good movie with a good story, etc. It all starts with the story and it seems like in the case of the prequels, they just don't cut it. My feeling is that special effects should enhance the story- not the other way around. I'll admit that George had a lot to live up to, but just because he couldn't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. He put all his eggs in the special effects basket and though the films look nice, those effects aren't enough to save them. It turns out that good characters and an engrossing story are more important than special effects and in the case of the prequels, once you strip away the CGI- there ain't much left to work with.

And to be honest, I also have to disagree that the last two star wars films were any better than "The Chronicles of Riddick" or the "Matrix" movies, etc. Again I must say that if the words "Star Wars" didn't appear in the title of these movies, they would have been but a mere footnote in the world of lousy CGI laden, special effects summer craptaculars, etc. DO these movies actually fire up kids imaginations? Or are they just excited because they've seen the better movies and now they're programmed to think ALL "Star Wars" movies MUST be good? God knows I wish that was the case, but sadly, it is not.

Again I say that time will settle this arguement once and for all. In 30 years, I'm fairly certain which trilogy will be getting rereleased and which one will continue to fire up imaginations, despite the lack of CGI and a flying R2D2, etc.

Lastly i must say something I forgot to say in my previous post but that's very important, which is that everything I write is purely my opinion in no way would I ever try and pass it off as fact. It's just my take on the situation, but by no means do I feel everyone should emulate my opinion.

Frankly if everyone did- I'd be kinda scared.

[barend]

Paladin, mate, listen to yourself. If you really want to make Lucas "pay" as you put it, then why bother watching Episode 3 at all? Why on earth would you buy the DVD? What this obligation you feel? To give Lucas even more money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the sound FX... personally.

[civilian_number_two]

Well snaithbert, welcome to the forum. Glad to see new folks wanting to discuss these movies. Obviously I agree with what you say aboutt he STAR WARS name, and obviously we've been having this out with Jariten for some time now.

I think it's intereting that the two of you mentoin THE MATRIX, in terms of benchmarking the importance of the new SW films. I dare say that if the MATRIX sequels had been crowd-pleasers rather than mind-boggling collections of random eschatology, then that series might live on in public memory. I think you both evaded the inevitable longevity of LOTR, which frankly is the STAR WARS for this generation, moreso than the new movie series will ever be.

I sure hope there are no more movies, because I think the damage is done. On the other hand, the possibility that there may be a tv series is promising. Different heads could make something of this whole EU thing that folks seem to like so much.

Anyway, welcome again.

[snaithbert]

Thanks civilian number two, it's great to be here. I'm really enjoying the posts I'm reading at this board, both the ones I agree with and the ones I think are nuts, etc.

You're right- I totally forgot about LOTR. The LOTR movies seem to contain the magic and wonder that the PT is sadly lacking. I have to agree that LOTR is the Star Wars of this generation. People relate to the story, connect with the characters and want to come back for more. It's a perfect example of how it's possible to make a big budget trilogy where the story and characters rival the special effects. LOTR will be long remembered after the PT is reduced to nothing but Jar Jar jokes and comparisons to the far superior OT.

LOTR has the heart and soul that is noticably absent from the PT and so people connected with it and I think that connection will endure. For star wars, I think it'll be around while there are films in the theater, but nothing about the new movies have really captured people's imaginations and hearts and I think time will prove that the PT is easily dismissed and forgotten.

Lastly I'd like to say that it wasn't until just now that I figured out what bugged me so much about George Lucas' "green house" analogy. Basically it's that he's unwilling to even consider the fact that his movies are bad. Every critic on the planet hates them, but as long as HE think they're good- then they're good. So basically if ONE person like a movie- it's a good movie? So what if he's writer and director? If anything, that gives him LESS validity when judging the films. Of COURSE he's going to like them- he made them. But he seems totally unwilling to consider the fact that if every professional critic says they're crap, that maybe they ARE crap.

I just wonder what made him think that he could do by himself on the new trilogy what it took many writers and three directors to do on the old one. I think 20 years later he started beliving his own press and figured "I must be a genius, I'm George Lucas." Then came the prequels and so much for the "George is a genius" theory. Turns out he's just another mediocre hack (and that's being generous). If he wasn't GEORGE LUCAS he'd now be directing episodes of Stargate: SG1. Money and power and position do not automatically equal talent, no matter how much George seems to think it does.

In any case, someone oughta tell the guy that if everyone on the planet hates your green house- maybe they're onto something. George wants to make it look like he's taking a noble stand for what he believes in, but all he's really doing sinking deeper into the mire, as he refuses to admit that he's in way over his head and beyond the special effects- he has absolutely no idea what he's doing.

Okay then, hopping off the soapbox.

For now.

And thanks again for the welcome.

I think I'm gonna like it here.

Well snaithbert, welcome to the forum.  Glad to see new folks wanting to discuss these movies.  Obviously I agree with what you say aboutt he STAR WARS name, and obviously we've been having this out with Jariten for some time now. 

I think it's intereting that the two of you mentoin THE MATRIX, in terms of benchmarking the importance of the new SW films.  I dare say that if the MATRIX sequels had been crowd-pleasers rather than mind-boggling collections of random eschatology, then that series might live on in public memory.  I think you both evaded the inevitable longevity of LOTR, which frankly is the STAR WARS for this generation, moreso than the new movie series will ever be.

I sure hope there are no more movies, because I think the damage is done.  On the other hand, the possibility that there may be a tv series is promising.  Different heads could make something of this whole EU thing that folks seem to like so much.

Anyway, welcome again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[jariten]

I think you're right about LOTR. Although I personally didnt go as nuts as a lot of people, they were obviously in a totally different league to the majority of the other films that I pay £6 to see and instantly regret.

Theres something about SW though, and I always try to get this into any SW related conversation that I have with friends. The real problem is that i'm totally unable to elucidate the main reason that I like Star Wars (both PT and OT). Lets just call it 'the rewatchability factor'.

As much as I liked LOTR, I really had no desire to sit through any of them again. Its the same for most films I see at the cinema, even ones that are clearly vastly superior to SW in terms of characters (American Beauty springs to mind). SW is different though. Theres just some spark, something in his films that I dont get anywhere else that makes me want to see them again and again. Its only the OT and the PT that i can really name as having that 'spark'.

I disagree about the critics. Those who didnt like AotC will print "everyone hated it", but even a cursory check of the internet will reveal that AotC (and even TPM, here in the UK at least) attracted a lot of positive reviews.

I think I'm gonna like it here.

yeah you will, and its going to get a lot more interesting post-RotS.

[HK 47]

I disagree about the critics. Those who didnt like AotC will print "everyone hated it", but even a cursory check of the internet will reveal that AotC (and even TPM, here in the UK at least) attracted a lot of positive reviews.

Really? The PT not very different from the OT in terms of critic response? I think not. Here is a metacritic guide, courtesy Rotten Tomatoes:

OT:
Star Wars
ALL: 85% CREAM OF THE CROP: 93%
Empire Strikes Back
ALL: 98% CREAM OF THE CROP: 91%
Return of the Jedi
ALL: 80% CREAM OF THE CROP: 64%

PT:
Phantom Menace
ALL: 62% CREAM OF THE CROP: 39%
Attack of the Clones
ALL: 64% CREAM OF THE CROP: 41%

ALL : All reviewers
CREAM OF THE CROP: The big papers (not people running their own little critic websites).

[jariten]

CREAM OF THE CROP: The big papers (not people running their own little critic websites).

Yes, because their opinions are obviosuly more valid

Hey, they earn more money, so it must be true!

Well ok, i'll play along for a second.

The BBC gave AotC five stars (out of five)

Empire Magazine (the biggest selling film magazine in the UK) gave AotC 5 stars.

The Daily Mail, The Guardian, the Times and the Express (I dont have exact circulation figures, but they're all 'big' newspapers) all gave AotC reviews of 'good' to 'great'.

All from the UK's 'cream of the crop' is what i'm trying to say.

[Despondent]

Well, Jariten, I'm certain you're happy to reside in the UK.

Your point of there only being six movies in the past six years to capture the imagination is a little pale. OT releases were as big as Chuck and Di's wedding.



And the people who clamor that Episode 4 is the keystone, Most of them will never accept "A New Hope" as the title.

(Snaithbert, welcome to the forums.)

[HK 47]

The BBC gave AotC five stars (out of five)

Empire Magazine (the biggest selling film magazine in the UK) gave AotC 5 stars.

The Daily Mail, The Guardian, the Times and the Express (I dont have exact circulation figures, but they're all 'big' newspapers) all gave AotC reviews of 'good' to 'great'.

All from the UK's 'cream of the crop' is what i'm trying to say.

I had no idea things were this bad in the UK. My God Jariten, flee while you can! I found numerous articles on Star Wars by that BBC guy by the way. He is a gusher if I ever saw one.

This post has been edited by HK 47: 22 March 2005 - 11:28 AM

[Paladin]

Heckhouse, I don't know if you're still around over here, but I have this to say. You're writing style reminds me a lot of someone I knew before. Were you ever a moderator at a free-form RPG called Alleria, by any chance?