Jump to navigation
Star Wars & All That
R. Alex Whitlock
I can now read the other half of the blogosphere. For the past week or so I've been having to avoid any and all mentions of the latest Star Wars movie cause I hadn't seen it. Actually, I still hadn't actually seen the second one. With Camille out of town I decided I would take the opportunity to rent eps 1 and 2 and then on the third day see ep 3 in the theater. Unfortunately (and bizarrely), episode one wasn't at the video store. Doesn't matter too much since I've already seen it, but I found it odd that they would have ep two in stock but not ep one. Anyhow.
My thoughts on the prequel trilogy: Lots of fun.
Yes, the dialogue was pretty stiff. It was pretty stiff in eps 4-6, though. It's not as though its gone from Shakespeare to Jean-Claude Van Damme. In fact, only a few of the complaints I've seen lodged against the new trilogy don't apply in some form or manner to the old. The only huge criticism that only applies to the new set are the incongruities between the two trilogies. That frustrates me a little bit as an expatriate of the comic book world, but life goes on.
Frankly, I consider a lot of fandom's reverence of the first set (4-6) and scorn for the second (1-3) to be more a matter of perspective than anything else. Most fans saw the original Star Wars at a young age when special effects and adventure were enough to keep them locked to something. I suspect a lot of people were either looking for that "Wow!" feeling again, which the movie couldn't possibly deliver, or inversely were looking for the story to become more sophisticated as they have.
But in my opinion, the best thing that the original set had going for it was its pageantry. And if there's one thing that was retained from 1977 to 2005, it's the gusto. In fact, I'd say that my biggest complaint about eps two and three is that the actors themselves forgot that and took their roles a bit too seriously. Palpatine and Kinobe were the only one two that seemed to be having any fun playing their parts. Yeah, the series was darker than its post-dated predecessor, but this came across as more moody than dramatic (or even melodramatic, which would have been preferable).
Observations
heh, as people often tell me "You're so picky about your movies." I do tend to have a bit of high standards for the things I watch.
It was never the special effects of Star Wars that really impressed me. It was just a very engaging story. Episodes 4-6 had bad dialog as does 1-3, although lucas had the pleasure of working with some top notch actors in the 4-6 series. Come on, who doesn't love Harrison Ford.
I think that 1-3, as well as the remakes of 4-6, Lucas is letting the special effects and technology rule the movies too much. I honestly don't know why he didn't just release enchanced (retouched video and audio) instead of adding all the crap to the background. Oh, and the scene with Han Solo and Greedo (the bounty hunter set to capture Han), what was up with Greedo shooting first? (yes, they added a blaster shot from Greedo, in the original, Han just shoots him under the table, they now make it more of a self defense thing).
I rather enjoyed Episode III, I think that movie alone is the only one I'd consider putting close to the same level as the original trilogy. As my uncle aptly put it. It's a decent movie and it's probably the best Lucas could have done considering the corner he painted himself into with the first 2 movies.
BTW, this is teh greatest definition of a word I've ever read:
http://www.urbandictionary....
I tend to be picky about movies as well, but over the last couple years I've come to decide that it's better to enjoy movies for what they have rather than what they could have had. And to enjoy certain movies as an experience rather than a piece of art. That, I think, allowed me to enjoy Star Wars more than I would have been able to otherwise. I also have the great advantage of not having seen the trilogy until more recently* so that I didn't have particularly lofty expectations.
Harrison Ford is all well and good, but I don't know if I would classify him as a particularly good actor. Mark Hammill was somewhat grating throughout. But they worked in the confines of what it was.
As far as story goes, if anything I mildly prefered the 1-3 story arc. It was less derivative and a little more shaded. I tend to prefer those sorts of stories. It's not the route that I would have gone, but neither was the other trilogy (and my route probably wouldn't have been as successful). I thought they complimented each other quite well, though they were different. But they simply weren't different enough for one set to be considered 'great' and the other 'crap'
I am one with the consensus on the midichlorians, but in the end it was pretty easy to ignore and forget about.
* - I actually saw them, I think, when I was younger, but I didn't particularly remember them.
Mr. Poon said that if 4-6 came out today, none of them would earn higher than a "B" grade. I think both he and you (and me!) are right.
If 4-6 came out today... Well that's certainly not a fair statement. By that logic if Casablanca came out today it would receive an "F". As well as many old movies. They aren't impressive by today's standards.
I disagree. While all movies, and the criticism they receive while running, are products of the particular milieu they were produced and initially run in, I tend to believe the quality of some movies is more --albeit not totally -- transcendant than others.
I think Citizen Kane would receive an "A" today, and I certainly don't think Casablanca would receive an "F."
Depends on the genre, I think. Things fantastical tend to date pretty quickly. Even in cases where the movie isn't reliant on special effects (such as Ghostbusters) don't hold up as well as they might. And, generally speaking, comedy dates too because humor evolves. But I think character-based human stories tend to endure.
But I'm not sure I'm the best judge. I really like some of the old movies because the lack of money going in to them required creativity in other areas not so required today.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
