Chefelf.com Night Life: Reasons to Hate Star Wars - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Star Wars Fan Convention

  • (17 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

Reasons to Hate Star Wars About my articles.

#46 User is offline   josta59 Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 09-November 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 09 November 2004 - 05:40 PM

Hi, I'm happy to see that you guys don't hate newbies, and that you're so passionate about your topic that you stay focused! Chef Elf, you are wise and have brought balance to the Force. I was terribly uncomfortable while sitting through the prequels, having been a huge Star Wars fan as a child. I didn't have the time, energy or passion to investigate the reasons (though there were many obvious ones--your point about Boba Fett compared to Boskk and IG-88 was spot on!), and I'm very grateful to you and everyone who posts here (...almost everyone) for taking the agonizing time and effort to pick this thing apart. I really feel a lot better now that I fully understand why I was so disappointed!

The one thing I was surprised about was that I haven't seen my biggest disappointment mentioned much at all. One of my very favorite things about the original trilogy was the starships. I can't help it. They were just awesome. Maybe I'm in the minority, but as soon as I saw that all the ships (as well as droids and even living things!) in Ep. I were basically glorified cartoons, the whole thing was a huge disappointment for me. It might as well be a Rice Krispies commercial, with the real people holding conversations with cartoon characters. And am I the only fan who thinks that the models in the OT looked far, far superior to their CGI counterparts in the pT? I could never get tired of watching the space battle in Ep. VI--yes, VI! I now realize how dumb that movie was, but those battles! And no one could deny that the destruction of the second Death Star was a true triumph of cinematic special effects. Done with MODELS! Why, when such a thing is so vastly successful, would they forget all that and do it all with a computer? Does ANYONE really think it looks better? I think it looks much, much worse.

This post has been edited by josta59: 09 November 2004 - 05:41 PM

0

#47 User is offline   Swordfish Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 06-November 04
  • Country:Canada

Posted 09 November 2004 - 09:00 PM

For my money, one of the biggest problems with the overall continuity is the introduction of Midichlorians.
It bothers me for two reasons.
ONE: It was not necessary. Nobody was questioning the Force or the reasoning behind it. The audience, as a whole, happily understood and accepted that the Force was a form of Religion and/or Magic. Period.
TWO: There is no continuity. When Ben explains The Force to Luke for the very first time, he defines as an binding energy field that is created by all life. (He obviously learned the definition from Yoda). Yoda later gives almost an identical definition in ESB. Again....no mention of Midichlorians. Why then, is everyone (including Ben & Yoda) talking aboot "Midichlorian counts" 40 years prior to that?!
What happened to Midichlorians between the prequel trilogy and the OT?

Thin. Very thin.
0

#48 User is offline   Chefelf Icon

  • LittleHorse Fan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,528
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY
  • Country:United States

Posted 10 November 2004 - 10:10 AM

Welcome to the forums, josta59! smile.gif I agree that the ships in the prequels are not that great. I do think that they did a good job in creating the precurssors to the Star Destroyers and the AT-ATs though. Of course it begs the question: Will things look that different in 30 years? Battleships look essentially identical to how they did 50 years ago, but that's another debate to explore.

I think the ships in the originals did have a very realistic feel to them because they were real. Models, like humans in costume, appear more real because they are. There's something about designing something via CGI that takes away that realism because you are capable of creating shiny objects that just wouldn't be possible in real life.

I agree though, midichlorians probably destroy the universe more than anything else as far as I'm concerned.
See Chefelf in a Movie! -> The People vs. George Lucas

Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video

Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
0

#49 User is offline   Mnesymone Icon

  • Champion
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,836
  • Joined: 08-April 04
  • Location:Somewhere near my collarbone
  • Interests:Food, books, movies, history, languages, religions (though I'm an atheist), miracles of nature and marvels of technology.<br /><br />Particularly: steak, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Dark Ages in Europe, the 'created' languages, the mythologies of defunct European cultures, fish and cars.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 13 November 2004 - 05:20 AM

Mr. Chefelf.
As much as I admire this world you have created, I feel I must oppose you this once. You say you liked the precursors to the AT-ATs and Star Destroyers?
Here we have our problem.
I kind of posted a thing that said pretty much this, but didn't you get the feeling that the precursors, the clone troopers, clone carriers and those air-deployed tanks looked - well, more advanced, with more... florid styling than the things they were supposed to be the precursors of.

To me it just seemed that they looked too much more modern than the OT stuff.

But at least we agree that the models looked far superior to the lifeless CGI.
I believe CGI is useful in supplementing or enhancing scenes - but it cannot provide an entire scene - especially when it is used to provide sets and ACTUAL CHARACTERS too. Now something like Shrek, exclusively CGI, is allowed - is supposed. But Star Wars are supposed to be live-action movies. Episode II - digitally film of digital sets with digital characters, digital armies and digital shite.
There's only so much digital I can take before I take down my trusty ol' sniper rifle.
0

#50 User is offline   use the force Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 28-November 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 November 2004 - 11:29 AM

So far I have enjoyed all the moveis. Though TPM gets a lil boring at times.
0

#51 User is offline   Chefelf Icon

  • LittleHorse Fan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,528
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 November 2004 - 01:03 PM

How do you feel about AOTC? I find a lot of people say it is very entertaining but I found it to be really, really boring, particularly in the middle.
See Chefelf in a Movie! -> The People vs. George Lucas

Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video

Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
0

#52 User is offline   use the force Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 312
  • Joined: 28-November 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 November 2004 - 04:45 PM

I like AOTC a lot to. But I still think it had the potential to be a lot better. It does get a little bit boring to me though, but thats probabley cause I see it way to much and need to take a break for a while.
0

#53 User is offline   Skittle Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 30-November 04
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 30 November 2004 - 01:12 PM

Can I suggest a problem I had with Attack of the Clones? Apart from generally I mean...
This is supposed to be the golden age, when civilisation is at its peak. They are also meant to be more scientifically advanced, aren't they? So why, when luke could have a perfect replacement hand created 20/30 years later in a rebel hideout, can't Anakin get anything better than a claw fitted, when he's on the Jedi payroll?
0

#54 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 30 November 2004 - 01:50 PM

I agree. And using "hand-tech" as a standard, oughtn't we have been teased with a Cube-shaped prototype for the Death Star?
0

#55 User is offline   Jarth Mader Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 30-November 04
  • Country:Canada

Posted 30 November 2004 - 04:04 PM

First let me start by saying, WOW, great job Chefelf. My friend turned me on to your site a while back and I have been passing it along to anyone that will listen to me. We've put tonnes of time into complaining about the prequels to date, and debating just how bad ROTS will be this coming May.

Hopefully I'm not reiterating anyone else's comments here, but this was my main problem with the prequels. The timeline just doesn't seem to make any sense between the prequels and the OT. For example, obi wan is what, 35 TOPS in AOTC. So in ANH, he's like 30 years older at most, so that would make him less then 70 years old. Did humans only live till they were 40 back then because Tarkin states that "surely he must be dead by now" to which Vader replies "don't underestimate the powers of the force" or something along those lines. That would mean that Obi Wan should really be abnormally old, like over 100 at least.

Also, if Luke and Leia are conceived a year or so after AOTC, that would make them 30 in ANH (which they obviously weren't). This never sat right with me, did anyone else notice this anomoly?

Personally, I think this was worth at least two flying R2's on the scale of prequel inconsistency!!!
0

#56 User is offline   Stongbah Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 15-June 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 30 November 2004 - 04:46 PM

Actually the Luke and Leia thing isn't an issue because ATOC is supposed to be 29 years before Star Wars. The Obi-Wan thing makes no sense.
0

#57 User is offline   Stongbah Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 15-June 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 30 November 2004 - 04:49 PM

QUOTE (Chefelf @ Nov 10 2004, 10:10 AM)
I think the ships in the originals did have a very realistic feel to them because they were real.  Models, like humans in costume, appear more real because they are.  There's something about designing something via CGI that takes away that realism because you are capable of creating shiny objects that just wouldn't be possible in real life.


Off topid, but I want to point out that King Kong is going to have some minature work done for the jungles. That's pretty cool.
0

#58 User is offline   The Scornful Roman Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 25-October 04
  • Country:United States

Post icon  Posted 01 January 2005 - 11:04 PM

Regarding Luke and Leia's ages, and the consistency between the OT and PT, I was under the impression that at the beginning of ANH, they were around the age of 18-19, and no older. ROTS would have to be another 10 years after AOTC to make sense, on that issue.
0

#59 User is offline   Mushroom Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 03-January 05
  • Location:UK
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 03 January 2005 - 02:12 PM

I was linked to this series of articles from another forum, and was rather astounded that one point that particularly bugged me with regards Attack of the Clones was missed out of the Episode II reasoning.
The point is this:

Shortly after Yoda catches up with Dooku, and lightning bolts have been thrown around in a powerful yet acrobatic fashion, Yoda 'amazingly' absorbs the final lightning bolt and utters the immortal phrase "powerful you have become Dooku, the dark side I sense in you." Now, considering that Dooku has just tried to execute three people he knows in gruesome and overly elaborate ways, overseen the deaths of many Jedi in the rescue effort and attacked and wounded two more Jedi a few minutes earlier, was this line really necessary? Despite Yoda's affirmations that his power is weakening, surely he doesn't need the force's intervention to put two and two together a little earlier?

To add insult to injury, Dooku replies with the phrase "I've become more powerful than any Jedi," a phrase presumably intended to remind the viewers of Obi-Wan's last words, just in case they'd somehow allowed themselves to forget momentarily.

Maybe a small point, but it annoys me immensely.
0

#60 User is offline   Chefelf Icon

  • LittleHorse Fan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,528
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY
  • Country:United States

Posted 03 January 2005 - 03:14 PM

Mushroom, welcome to the forums! smile.gif

That is a great point. I suppose that, and numerous points could all be summed up with one simple point: The Jedi in the prequel trilogy are just really, really dumb.

Glad to make your aquaintence, Mushroom. As a reward I have designed an avatar for your trouble. Welcome.
See Chefelf in a Movie! -> The People vs. George Lucas

Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video

Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
0

  • (17 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked