Chefelf.com Night Life: 84summers - Viewing Profile

A good observation, "Snake Logan."

I have little problem with symbolicism in general. After all, Star Wars (aka EpIV ANH) works so well because we clearly have a good vs. evil story. And at least he never went for a Jesus symbol, like Matrix Revolutions (which, if you ask anybody, will be cited as the reason nobody liked the film). On that, I wouldn't say the "virgin birth" explicitly counts as a Jesus reference, just lame writing.

I have more of a problem with Lucas's frequent, almost irrelevant and certainly formless use of symbolism. Your examples alone prove how he does this. How many different groups can be America, and how many Vietnam/Iraq?

I applaud your effort at intelligent discussion. Don't let yourself be stopped from speaking on your ideas/theories just because most people are only interested in bashing Hayden Christensen, making pointless video game references, or defending the original trilogy with fundamentalist zeal, all just because they wrongly mistook ChefElf's original observations as some sort of free for all party against Star Wars.

Anyway, good call, good post.

I wrote "almost non-existant" because I remember a moment in one of the Episode 3 "Making of" features where Lucas told Christensen to turn toward Portman (away from the blue screen) when saying the line "My loyalty is to the Republic," or something such. Nothing on how he should deliver the line. Never anything like that. But Lucas does recognize the existence of humans in his movies.

Yet Lucas still always treated his cast members like puppets. "Faster and more intense," was his only direction, Mark Hamill recalled in the Bonus Disc "Making of" documentary. Actors are only another prop in Lucas's vision, one that Lucas has made clear is solely his.

Yes, he is a great filmmaker. He understands movement, mythology, storytelling, etc.

I just do not get why he is considered a "creative visionary."

He visits his various art departments, makes the occasional comment, chooses one of their designs, and that is that. It ends up in his film. The rest is based on things he liked from childhood, and while you can't blame him, Spielberg, Tarantino, you or me for wanting to pay homage to the things that bring us joy, it is not at all an original effort.

Examples: naming a character "Commander Cody"? Having Jango twirl his gun like a gunslinger? Han coming out from the blinding light of a star in the background like in a western? The Tarzan yell? The Wilhelm scream? Opening Return of the Jedi with a musical number? Even the mythological aspect of "the hero's journey" is not his (I don't remember the names of the stuff he read in college).

The first half hour of Star Wars (Ep.4, ANH). That is the work of a visionary. Nobody had ever seen anything like that before. I will admit that.

But I am a little disappointed that no one (except in maybe one or two of nine posts) has been able to argue for or against this thought, or even articulate why I'm wrong, which is always welcome (if polite).

A brilliantly articulated piece.

As for myself, I love the original Star Wars trilogy, as represented by my unaltered 1989 CBS-FOX videotapes, because they are great films with minor flaws.

I love my Star Wars Droids tape because it is fascinatingly cheesy.

I love the new trilogy because they are truly terrible, but not really dead-awful, and I find such films to be endearing and thus enjoyable.

I've only read one book, Shadows of the Empire. The only games I've played are Shadows of the Empire for N64 (excellent), and the Star Wars NES game my parents rented for me when I was six back in 1990, which I recall as being dreadful, or more simply, as I probably said at the time, it sucked. Oh, and Star Wars Episode I Racer, which was distractingly boring (all played on friends' systems, as I'm not a gamer).

Other than that, I've never read any of the other books or any of the comics, never collected the toys, and haven't watched either the Ewoks cartoon, TV movies, or Clone Wars (I caught one episode on Cartoon Network. It looked odd and hyper).

I guess I love/hate Star Wars as a film fan who worships at the temple of Mike Nelson and such, but not really as a true and through "Star Wars Fan."

Am I alone?

I understand why Lucas & Spielberg together are great. They were the entire 80's cinema experience.

I just don't get why Lucas is considered a "CREATIVE VISIONARY" when he has so few original ideas.

Watching the Making of Docs on all the new Star Wars films, we see all the characters, ships, worlds, etc. were designed by various departments and just selected by Lucas. He gives free reign on the CG designs and editing as long as it comes together the way he likes it. His writing in the new films is cheap, his direction of actors almost non-existant.

Yes, George Lucas made "Star Wars," the second highest grossing movie of all time, and it has legions of fans, inspired generations, etc. But I just can't see him as a "Creative Visionary" anymore.

So RandomThoughts is trying to get everyone to pointlessly bash Hayden Christensen?

Sure. Hayden Christensen should be shot dead, or killed violently some other way, with his blood sprayed out onto the streets War of the Worlds remake style. He's ugly as a mule, smells like a sock and is dumb as a button!

Is that the stuff you're looking for RandomThoughts?

Because Hayden Christensen is just an actor, and Darth Vader was just a part he played. If you didn't notice, everyone gives the same mediocre-level performance under the direction of George Lucas in the new trilogy. That includes Liam Neeson, Sam Jackson, Natalie Portman, etc.

Christensen was great in Shattered Glass, good in Factory Girl and...well, Jumper looks dumb (like 2006's The Covenant), but Sam Jackson (reunited!) looks the silliest in that.

I bet RandomThoughts is the sort who spent the entire late 90s making snide jokes at the expense of Leonardo Di-CRAP-io, hoping someone would praise him for going after a person he's never met just because its popular to do so.