Chefelf.com Night Life: Reasons to Hate A New Hope? Maybe - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Star Wars Fan Convention

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2

Reasons to Hate A New Hope? Maybe

#16 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 15 April 2004 - 09:05 PM

After reading this entire thread, I think it is safe to say that STARWARS (I,II,IV,VI) just plain sucks shit.

Civil, FW, and MIke have pointed out almost every single flaw with all the movies, save ESB.

I'm not certain at what point in your lives you really broke down the shear stupidity of the films, but it was not at youth. I m sure you all loved the OT when you frist saw them. But then after multiple viewings you realized that they are just cutesy fun fun hollywood crap.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#17 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 15 April 2004 - 11:53 PM

I personally love the imperfections, and don't really care how lame the ewoks and tarzan yell was.

My hate is pinned on the New Films.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#18 User is offline   Mike Mac from NYU Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 472
  • Joined: 23-February 04

Posted 16 April 2004 - 01:17 AM

QUOTE
Posted on Apr 15 2004, 09:05 PM
  After reading this entire thread, I think it is safe to say that STARWARS (I,II,IV,VI) just plain sucks shit.

Civil, FW, and MIke have pointed out almost every single flaw with all the movies, save ESB.

I'm not certain at what point in your lives you really broke down the shear stupidity of the films, but it was not at youth. I m sure you all loved the OT when you frist saw them. But then after multiple viewings you realized that they are just cutesy fun fun hollywood crap


Not at all, Jordan. I loved all three of the OTs and consider them all great films. I have watched them 167 times and am ready to for number 168 biggrin.gif. They were good films of my youth and they are good films now.

My reasooning for listing these faults in ANH was for the purpose of defending ROTJ. Their list of reasons to me were minute nitpicking compared to Elf's list of major flaws in Episodes I & II. What I did was show some other minute errors in ANH.

You can overanalyze any movie, it basically boils down to whether you were entertained by it.

The OT is brilliant, case closed.
0

#19 User is offline   Supes Icon

  • Sunshine Superman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 16 April 2004 - 04:23 AM

QUOTE (Mike Mac from NYU @ Apr 16 2004, 01:17 AM)
You can overanalyze any movie, it basically boils down to whether you were entertained by it.

Yes! I like to put it in these terms:

Favourite Film - Empire Strikes Back
Second Favourite - Star Wars
Third Favourite - Return of the Jedi

There are no prequels but those I develop in my own mind. And the 7th, 8th & 9th films can be taken from the books of Zahn and Anderson (preferably the Thrawn trilogy).

Star Wars was great even with its flaws as we all agree. Empire improved on things on all levels. Jedi dissapointed a little, despite still being much loved, through it's repeating of the Star Wars themes and providing lesser outcomes and developments for its characters.

You are all right... from a certain point of view. tongue.gif
Luminous beings are we... not this crude matter.
Yoda
0

#20 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 17 April 2004 - 04:55 AM

QUOTE (Mike Mac from NYU @ Apr 15 2004, 07:15 PM)
Not a cuss nazi. I just don't appreciate the lords name taken in vain.

Oh well, I wan't taking the name in vain. I was using it to make a rhetorical stance! laugh.gif

I think I'll avoid another big religious argument under this topic heading. Suffice to say I don't believe in anything.

Credits? Nothing worth noting here. I have worked as I said as AD on a few films, but the only things that are my own are shorts and I guarantee you have not seen them. I also work freelance as a videographer, most recently making promotional videos for a local modern dance company. Sadly, it's not my day job, but we'll see. And no, I don't fear criticism, but I like the anonymity, so no specific references will be made here.

The BOND films you name are all great, except for the campy LICENSE TO KILL; FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is the only acceptable Roger Moore film. Too bad Moore is so fricking old in it! I have a soft spot for GOLDENEYE, which you don't name, but not the other Brosnan films, which descended t camp nonsense pretty damn fast. GOLDENEYE is not so much a BOND film as a comment on what had changed in the world since the last one. Structurally it's great, true to BOND form as well as a very conservative piece of action screenwriting. You have to respect it if you're going to praise the structure of TPM. Naturally, it ends as many do on a huge set with a lot of unmotivated explosions, but at least the final fight has grit and, in a rare turn, character. Of course TOMORROW NEVER DIES is awful, but every scene that Michelle Yeoh is in is pure gold.

Vwing, I have heard that about Tarantino, and while I think it's a great idea, it will never happen. No important director will ever make a BOND film, since the producers like to be in charge of everything. I'd love to see a series like MISSION : IMPOSSIBLE where different directors with distinct styles are alowed in turn to make their own particular brand of film (I'd especially appreciate the long, slow, mopey M Knight Shyamalan episode). It would enliven the series, and it would make a great load of sense. Because frankly there's no point to the series as it is anymore, and stories that always involve the destruction of a large part of the entire world are pretty dull now. Why can't Bond just prevent a political assassination or protect a vauable artifact from time to time?
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#21 Guest_Guest_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2004 - 09:57 AM

To civilian,

QUOTE
Credits? Nothing worth noting here. I have worked as I said as AD on a few films, but the only things that are my own are shorts and I guarantee you have not seen them. I also work freelance as a videographer, most recently making promotional videos for a local modern dance company. Sadly, it's not my day job, but we'll see. And no, I don't fear criticism, but I like the anonymity, so no specific references will be made here.


Actually I was wondering if you needed an assistant. laugh.gif I work cheap and promise not to make any "ROTJ is a great movie" references" tongue.gif

My credits are three movies. One was a real low budget horror movie made by a friend of mine. In fact some of you REAL diehard horror buffs have probably seen it, it came on cinemax a while back. I was his AD and had a speaking bit part as the town sherrif. My acting was a bad as Jake Lloyd's in TPM. :yuck: I too, fear no criticism, but prefer to leave that movie and my name anonymous. The other was actually a very good quasi-documentary done in Scotland about macBeth and the plays origins. It has been seen on discovery a couple of times. To be honest I can't even remember what or if I was credited as on that film. I did a little bit of everything on that piece, including finding the locations and interviewing the locals and the college historians. The third, was a 18 minute short directed by me, and is recent. It was a 9/11 piece that satarized George W. Bush's policies. I played the role of Donald Rumsfield.{got his weird speech patterns down pat too.} laugh.gif . It is really hilarious in certain parts. Sufice to say i have not found a sufficient outlet for this piece, for obvious reasons. I have the film in my hard-drive as an MPEG, and hope to put it out on certain political websites specially during election time.

Maybe someday we will run into each other and collaborate. {And redo ANH, just kidding!!!! laugh.gif

QUOTE
The BOND films you name are all great, except for the campy LICENSE TO KILL; FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is the only acceptable Roger Moore film


I will go halfway with you on LICENSE. I think the premise was great , in having bond out for revenge. The action scenes were some of the most inventive and exciting ones that I have seen in any movie. I disagree about it being campy, in that it has some very serious themes it explores and probably has more violence than any bond film. it also had good plot movement and one of the more intriguing Bond villains in recent memory.

It's problems

1. i don't think Bond's motivation for revenge is strong enough. Felix Leiter has been scarce in the more recent bond films. There is not enough of a "friendhip connection between Leiter and Bond to convince us that he would give up everything to avenge Leiter's wife's death. If M or Q had been murdered or a girlfriend that bond was serious about was murdered it might be more of a stronger motivation

2. Th eproduction values are strangely poor for this film. It looks at times reminiscent of one of those Cinemax movies that has eric roberts or Dolph Lundgren in it. The acting, script and photography are sub-standard.

3. The movie ws never promoted as well as the Brosnan films. To me the real succes of the Brosnan era was in the re-establishment of James Bond as an icon in pop-culture and advertisement. It was non-existent in teh Dalton era.

GOLDENEYE

Goldeneye is the best of the Brosnan films. it is the only one that is even remotely realistic. The open teaser scene was fantastic, and had me excited. Unfortunately the movie deterioates into mediocrity once it get's going into it's story. Goldeneye also began some of the worst features in the Bondian lore.

1. The female M- I can't tell you what a horrible idea this{ No disrespect to Dame Judi Dench who is a terrific actress}. It destroys the whole feel of the series. I mean if you are gonna go down that female M path at least make her an attractive woman as to create some sexual tension, that could really have revived the series. Make her into some type of brunnette with glasses her hair tie behind her back and in a power suit. By making her and old and "mother hen"l-like you estroy any new opportunites and destroy a lot of old opportunites. {remember all those great exchanges between Connery/Moore and Bernard Lee} Just don't like it.

2. "Bond is PI theme- There is this stupid notion that a lot of what bond does is politically incorrect. which to me is hogwash. There are plenty of films out there that have men using and taking advantage of women, and it being acceptable behavior. Every go into a workplace? you have bosses hitting on their secretaries all the time. You know for all the uproar over Bond's hitting on Moneypenny, people forget that Moneypenny WELCOMED that behavior and the Bond never did anything with her or cross the line. It was a game that they both enjoyed!
Spies and counterintelligence people are not dinosaurs. In fact there in GREAT NEED now more than ever as recent events have shown. The computer and satellites can only do so much., you need the agents to work in the field. MI-5 and MI-6 are as active now as they have ever been [even prior to 9-11}. In fact they are desperately looking for new recruits. So the PIing of Bond is ludicrous. BTW, people still drink and smoke and live rich extravegant lifestyles as well too!!!!

3.-The destruction of the pacing of 007 films. Look at the structure of ESB and all the 007 films prior to goldeneye. Now look at Goldeneye. Night and Day.

4. The loss of the travelogue. Bond films always gave you a feel of the scenery of their settings. Goldeneye never give me the feeling that I am Russia or Cuba or whatever. In fact it always seems like the film is in the same setting.

5. Overdoing it with the sexual innuendo- In the early Bond films, thinks like "Pussy Galore' were great and interesting. In Goldeney a name like "Onatop" just seems stupid and anachronistic. I think the problem with Goldeneye's puns is that they are not subtle like in the earlier films. The come at you so perdictably and blunt. They are also never conductive to the plot. remember how neat and perfect it was to have all the patients in the Bleuchamp institute be females? {ONHMSS}

I see a great similarity between the fall of the 007 films and the fall of the Star Wars films? Do you concur, civilian?
0

#22 Guest_Mike Mac from NYU_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 17 April 2004 - 09:58 AM

BTW the above post was from me.

As if you didn't know that already. laugh.gif
0

#23 User is offline   Doctor X Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 01-April 04

Posted 17 April 2004 - 11:55 AM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Apr 15 2004, 02:34 PM)
PPS: Answering a question in another thread, "diatribe" = "a bitter or malicious criticism or denunciation." 

The very substance that fuels the Internet!

This post has been edited by Doctor X: 17 April 2004 - 11:56 AM

0

#24 User is offline   Doctor X Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 01-April 04

Posted 17 April 2004 - 12:29 PM

QUOTE (Mike Mac from NYU @ Apr 15 2004, 07:15 PM)
1. Goldfinger
2. Dr. No
3. From Russia with Love
4. Thunderball
5. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
6. For Your Eyes Only
7. Living Daylights
8. License to Kill

Timothy Dalton's James Bond is the closest to the literary character that is James Bond. Read any of Gardner's novels, the Bond portrayed in them is Timothy Dalton's bond. Timothy Dalton's bond films are my favorite throughout the series.The failure of Dalton's films is due to the fact that there was little marketing and the budget used in making the films was smaller than in previous Bonds. I can just imagine how more popular these films might have been had the marketing and budget used in Brosnan's films were used on Dalton's films.

Something about your list strikes a nerve, but it's too early in my day for me to sort out just what. May take issue with it later.

I'm one of the Bond fans who thinks Dalton didn't get a fair shake either. Living Daylights was written for Moore, and right after, he's saddled with License to Kill. Two films where the plots center around drugs, and drugs just aren't big enough for Bond.

I've just gotten into READING Bond in the present Raymond Benson era, and I'm enjoying those ones quite a bit.
0

#25 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 17 April 2004 - 11:54 PM

Wow - I can't believe how long it's been since I checked on this thread. It's gotten very juicy. I think I am a bit late in making my replies to the earlier things about The Temple of Doom and Return of the Jedi but everyone knows where my opinion stands on those. Thank you, Ferris for giving Temple of Doom the grilling it deserves. It's about time people said what a load of crap that movie was.... I had to buy it as part of the Indiana Jones DVD set because they wouldn't sell Raiders of the Lost Ark seperately - needless to say, there is a funny little space now among those DVDs (the box is just too wide cool.gif.

And everyone by now knows my stance on Return of the Jedi. But for the record, I just want to say that the what Temple of Doom is the worst offender of the two - it made sure it had NONE of the elements that made Raiders the enjoyable film it was. But credit where credit's due, Lucas said he wanted to make a sequel (actually a prequel - a big warning sign there) that was completely different from the original movie. No fun - check! No spunky heroine - check! No interesting characters - check! No excitement - check! No plot - check! Well, you succeeded handsomely, George. I take my hat of to you.

At least, I can watch Return of the Jedi. Not all of it. But I can watch 50 minutes of it and that's 50 minutes more than Temple of Doom.

The discussion about how old we all were when we saw the Original Trilogy was interesting too. I'm a lot younger than Civilian. I was born in 1980 so I was far too young to see these things at the cinema. I saw The Empire Strikes Back years later on video and was hooked. I then asked my parents to rent Star Wars for me so I could see what had preceeded The Empire Strikes Back. As The Empire Strikes Back had amazed me, so did Star Wars. I was aware of the difference in the production quality even at that young age and I could see Star Wars was made on a lower budget and felt very different from The Empire Strikes Back. That was never a problem for me. I then rented Return of the Jedi to see how it all ended but it really wasn't what I was anticipating. The continuity felt a little bit strange. At even at that young age, I had a problem with that slave girl/rancor incident in Jabba the Hutt, as well as the droid torture scenes. I'll make one last point about Jabba feeding the girl to the rancor. It has no place in Star Wars. In Star Wars, people are killed in one of four ways - 1. Shot with a blaster. 2. Instaneously blown up in their ship. 3. Decapitated with a lightsaber. or 4. Taking a fall, like the Emperor. If I wanted to see a terrified young girl devoured by a monster, I'd rent Jaws.

That said, as a young boy I certainly appreciated Leia in her bikini. That messed me up for years. And I LIKED the Ewoks (I have to confess it. It was true). And I loved the space battle and the Death Star and the way everything ended so happily. Return of the Jedi did not meet my expectations, it didn't deliver all the things I wanted but at the time, I didn't mind. I liked the HAPPY ENDING and I loved the HAPPY ENDING so much and how everything was all UPBEAT and so damn HAPPY, that it was my favourite Star Wars film for a long time. But on repeat viewing, my opinion really changed. I'm sure I've mentioned before I've seen these movies hundreds, if not thousands, of times. And while Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back (ESPECIALLY The Empire Strikes Back) seem better and better and better, Return of the Jedi has not aged as well. I feel a strong emotional unattachment when I'm watching it and the happy ending I loved so much is now annoyingly cutesy. The Ewoks are unbearable. Jabba the Hutt is unwatchable and the whole thing feels weak and poorly scripted (and acted). At this point, I would like to mention my favourite scene in Return of the Jedi. It's when Darth Vader comes down to land on Endor and you see an AT-AT walking out of the dark woods. You know why I love this scene so much? It's because for a few seconds, it feels like The Empire Strikes Back. It feels like the third movie was SUPPOSED to feel like.

And now onto BOND!!!!!!!!! Die Another Die? I agree with everyone on that one. Damn that movie sucked! Incidentally, Mike, I appreciate that you didn't like the exp​ression Civilian used. The fact that people like Civilian and myself are aetheists doesn't make it okay for us to mock your religion. But I don't think there was any mockery of Christianity intended. It's an exp​ression that's very commonly used. I'll try not to use it on this forum and I'm sure Civilian will try not to use it either... I just don't think you should worry it about it so much, that's all. No-one meant any offence.

Personally, most of the Bond films suck for me. I enjoy watching them once or twice but after a while, they wear me down. My favourite Bond is Sean Connery. Of course, he's the original. He's the best. We know this. Unfortunately, a lot of the Connery films were complete crap and he was wasted, getting older and older. I thought Roger Moore was awful - and he is one of the most boring actors alive. No charm on him. And I recently saw The Man With The Golden Gun. That movie annoyed the s%#t out of me. That irritating midget should have been beaten to a bloody and painful death! Argghhhhh! 2 hours of my life down the drain.

Timothy Dalton did a good job but he was wasted too on completely crap movies. And I LOVED Goldeneye! I loved it because at the time, it was fresh. There hadn't been a Bond film for a number of years. Pierce Brosnan, while not being Sean Connery, was great fun. The movie had fun with itself (it was too slow in places and I hated its attempts to be serious with Bond's character - especially his relationships) and Sean Bean was fantastic. My favourite Bond villain. But I just love Sean Bean - he's such a wonderful actor and he steals the screen every time he gets on it. And wasn't he wonderful as Boromir in Lord of the Rings? If you haven't done so, get the extended edition of The Two Towers so you can see the flashback scene between Boromir and Faramir (and because the Extended Edition is the movie we EXPECTED to see at the cinema and didn't).

Having said that, every subsequent Bond movie has got worse and worse. I thought originally that Tomorrow Never Dies was a good movie but I was wrong. I just thought it was a good movie because I loved every moment with Michelle Yeoh in it. The World Is Not Enough was utter crap - and it was right... the world is not enough reward for me to wish to sit through that again. And Die Another Day was one of the worst movies ever made. Die Another Day? It's died. And right now, it's pushing up the daisies.

And the best Bond movie is From Russia With Love (if you can ignore the infamous poison shoes scene - very sad). I loved the fact that it was just a good spy movie. Nothing about saving the world from being blown to pieces - just a simple plot with lots of fun along the way. And who doesn't love the German henchman sent to do Bond in and that little line after Bond takes him out?

"You won't be needing this, old man."

Ah, simple pleasures.
0

#26 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 18 April 2004 - 01:00 AM

I'm probably the biggest Bond fan in the world, when I feel up to typing up a big post on this matter...I will!

I even watched James Bond Jr., the cartoon.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#27 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 18 April 2004 - 03:04 AM

QUOTE (Guest @ Apr 17 2004, 09:57 AM)
Actually I was wondering if you needed an assistant. laugh.gif I work cheap and promise not to make any "ROTJ is a great movie" references" tongue.gif

Don't you live in New York?

QUOTE
I see a great similarity between the fall of the 007 films and the fall of the Star Wars films? Do you concur, civilian?


Not at all. Remember, I liked GOLDENEYE, and not just for the great Nintendo offering (note: my civilian avatar is from that very game). I thought it was a lot of fun. And the complaints you have, about political correctness and the new M and all that rubbish - you're taking about one scene, man. The Bond movies were never about spies or the science of espionage; they were about this superspy that went around giving everyone his first and last name, for crying out loud. They were about espionage in action movies. Those comments, and the new M, were thrown in to reference the amount of time that had passed since the last Bond film, and they certainly didn't tone down the sex and the gunplay at all. I don't think "Onatop" is any less subtle than "Pussy" as a name. I mean what the hell is subtle about "Pussy?" I do agree that it's a little more stupid, but there are far worse moments in your average Roger Moore flick.

Anyway, blah blah blah. To reply to the question, I think the BOND movies could be good again, since there is no continuity between them. In fact, I think they could make one that was really good, and then make another that is really bad, and then a good one again. So I don't think there is any similarity between the fall of BOND and the fall of STAR WARS. At the same time, of course, I firmly believe that while BOND *could* be good again, I don't actually believe it ever will. The plots are too formulaic, and even the titles follow a convention. The movies are constructed entirely out of elements of previous films, in a way as insulting and flat now as it was fun and nostalgic in GOLDENEYE (it felt like a Bond film when Bond walked up to a table and started playing Baccarat; who cares that Bond happened to just bump into someone associated with the mission that would link to his past, even before he had been assigned to a mission?) One film in, by TOMORROW NEVER DIES, it was dumb again, and my cynicism returned. I don't see BOND being funa agian, unless they change the formula (doubtful) or take anothert ten-year break before churning it all out afresh.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size