PT Red Letter Media and other Prequel Reviews

I have seen this been brought up before and I am not sure I agree with this reasoning.
What this says is that once you move past a certain age, movies can no longer wow you or at least movies in a series.
I have counter examples, Bond for one. I saw my first Bond film when I was twelve and that was wow to me. But I experienced very much a wow when I saw Casino Royale. In fact I view that as one of the best Bond films ever. And by that stage I had seen over over fifteen Bond films.
Star Trek, same thing. I saw TMP when I was 11-12 but some of the later ones wowed me more, even the latest one was a positive suprise.
I saw and liked the OS when I was a kid, some of TNG when I was a teenager and yet DS9 was also very good.
Or take Batman, I liked Burtons Batman films, still do, but I hold Nolans films to be better, esp that he made a trilogy that held together so well.

About the effects, to me if all the OT had were effects then it wouldn't be held as highly today as it still does. Other films that had ground breaking effects but weak stories have faded away in part. I would say that there were some films that were made ten years after ANH and still had less impressive effects.

Lastly, I was 13 when RotJ was released and I liked then and still do but it wasn't a universal acceptance, some of my classmates didn't like as much as the first film, some didn't care for it and other even disliked it. Even today if you poll how the OT movies are liked then RotJ tends to be rated a step or two below ANH and ESB.
It would certainly had been interesting to have seen a TPM that were made in 1985-86. Storywise Lucas could certainly have done it even with the effects of the time.

Bye for now
Old Stoneface

 

Samuel Vimes

I think the passage of time does explain some of the dissatisfaction with the prequels. You bring up James Bond as an example and I immediately think of my parents. They both despised Casino Royale and said that it didn't feel like Bond at all. And that Sean Connery was really the only "true" Bond for them. I, on the other hand, really liked Casino Royale, although I wasn't particularly attached to any of the Bond films. I'm also quite looking forward to Skyfall as well.

I think you're correct in saying that the effects of time will not change everyone's perception, but it can have a very powerful effect on some people.

 

I certainly didn't mean to imply that all the OT had going for it was special effects. It obviously had great characters and concepts that were heavily rooted in classic mythology, I think we all know that. But I do believe the special effects played a big part in the revolutionary impact the film had. I mean, most people say they were hooked the minute that huge Star Destroyer passed over their heads. The amazing spectacle was what truly set Star Wars apart from everything else out at the time and grabbed the attention of the world and the great characters is what kept people coming back.

And the fact is that the prequels simply could not offer that same level of surprise and awe because, like I said, we had watched the effects industry grow and seen the effects evolve.

 

@ PiettsHat

I lost interest in the Bond movies a lone time ago, mainly because I know he'll win every time and that there'll be no way they'll kill him off. It gets a bit old after a while.

Now, if they were to say that James Bond is just an alias/code name or whatever you want to call it for whomever they choose to be their agent at that time, then I would be more interested knowing there might be a chance where he would die. In my opinion, this is how they should approach the character, anyway, but that's just me I'm sure.

 

You might like the books DARTHVENGERDARTHSEAR. They don't make any bones about Bond probably not living to retirement.

 

DARTHVENGERDARTHSEAR

Oh, I'm not trying to make this into a James Bond debate. It was just an example that immediately sprung to mind because I remember my parents' extremely annoyed and exasperated reactions to our first viewing of Casino Royale (a film which I greatly enjoyed) and I can't help but think that they disliked the movie not because it was bad, but because it was called "James Bond" but it didn't feel like James Bond to them. Or, at least, the style of James Bond they were familiar with. They quite liked films similar to Casino Royale, such as the Jason Bourne series, which is what I based my conclusion on. Then, there's also the fact that I remember reading an article somewhere (I think it was Yahoo) about how Skyfall was getting high praise from critics. Interestingly, there were a ton of commentators saying that, nevertheless, nothing would ever be better than Goldfinger. I do think that there are some people (not everyone, obviously) who simply can't stomach change and thus reflexively dislike something if it's too different from what they are used to regardless of its inherent quality.

But then, I also think that a lot of people (myself included) also have the tendency to think that "I don't like something" means that "that thing is bad," when that simply isn't true. We don't dislike things because they are bad; we don't like them because we don't like them -- it's that simple. I didn't like Black Swan in the slightest, in spite of its accolades, for example. That doesn't make it a "bad" film, although I'm certainly capable of elucidating the reasons I found it disappointing and why it failed to resonate with me.

 

Oh, I don't mean that it's the only thing that gives your life meaning or purpose. I think individuals can find that on their own and are certainly free to do so. But I think of the prophecy or destiny more as a task that's been assigned to one person. Something that only they can complete. But whether they do so or not depends solely on them.

 

Nor is the path foreordained.

 

Not a fan of any Bond, but for other big series it seems like I always end up preferring the less popular ones. Motion Picture and Final Frontier are my favorite Star Trek. Alien 3 is my favorite Alien, and I liked Prometheus a lot.

 

Alien 3 got gutted by the studio. The assembly cut that is out now takes a movie that's basically OK and makes it one of the series' strongest entries, IMO.

 

Really? Are you referring to the Special Edition? I received the whole series' DVD collection as a Chrismas present a couple of years ago but never got around to watching it.

 

Dude. Watch it. It's not finished in parts (mainly some of the CGI) but it adds something in the neighborhood of 20 or 30 minutes of cut footage.

And yeah. "special edition" is really the "assembly cut".

 

I will. Thanks.

 

I didn't like the alternate version as much as I thought I would. In some places I liked the original version better, other stuff I could take or leave. And there still wasn't enough Paul McGann.

 

I was surprised by how much more I enjoyed Aliens and Alien3 after several years of not watching them. Though for me they are flawed when compared to Alien, I still think that the calibre of Sigourney's acting pretty much carries them and makes them fun to watch, even if at times she seems the most plausible character in the cast!

 

I thought the Aliens special edition's added scenes actually make the movie even better. Although I always felt it never needed help before, I came to realize I had been wrong. They had no business taking out that whole family finding the alien ship scene. It really explains a lot. I always wondered when and how the people came in contact with the aliens.

 

Well if we are to talk about our parents, both my parents saw the OT and loved them. They were in their late 30's, early 40's at the time. My mother has seen the PT and while she overall likes them, she rates them as less good than the OT. My father started to watch TPM on TV but turned it off and he hasn't seen the others.

Why I brought up Bond and Star Trek is that they are things I got into around the same time as SW. And some of the new additions to those series I really enjoy. So my point was that nostalgia will not forever make you unable to enjoy new things. To me it all depends how well they are made.

I think nostalgia can be a double-edged sword, it CAN cause you to be overly harsh and have a rigid mindset of what things can/can't be. But the opposite can also happen, that you are so fond of the story/characters/setting/etc that you overlook flaws that would otherwise bother you.

I really like Babylon 5 and I have seen some of the later additions (Legend of the Rangers, Voices in the Dark) and yes I think they are not as good as the original series but I am probably way more forgiving of the flaws than I would otherwise be. And the reason is that I like seeing more B5.

As for Bond, Casino Royale was possibly one of films that stayed closest to the books and the character therein.

Bye for now
Old Stoneface

 

I haven't read through most of the posts over the past couple of days, because, quite frankly, I'm at the office and have very limited time to kill on this board, but I noticed that the hot topic is midichlorians. Forgive me if I reiterate what's been said already, or if I have ignored some recent counter-arguments, but...

Oh, how I hate midichlorians.

Now, I undertsand full well what Lucas intended to do with midichlorians: he simply wanted to provide a method of directly measuring a character's Force potential/ abilities. Yes, I understand that the midichlorians do not equal the Force, but rather, they are conduits that allow life forms to channel it. The more midichlorians in your body, the stronger your Force potential. OK, I get it, but midichlorians still stink, for the folowing reasons:

1) I don't like the concept that an individual's ability to use the Force is governed and limited by symbiotic microbes. Just typing that sentence made me cringe. It's too hoaky and campy sci-fi for Star Wars.

2) Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan should not have required a blood test to determine (or confirm) that Anakin was unusually strong in the Force. They should have just been able to sense it. Qui-Gon could have simply said something like "I have never felt the Force so strongly in an individual before, not even Master Yoda." Done. No need for a distracting and contraversial blood test and hoaky "off the charts" readout.

3) There is no need for midichlorians to provide a scientific explanation as to why some family lines are stronger in the Force than others. There is such a thing as "the Will of the Force", in the same way that some people believe in the "Will of God". Who can question the Force's will? The reason the Skywalkers are strong in the Force is privvy to none other than the Force. Master Yoda knows the Force runs strong in Luke's family because it is the will of the Force. We don't need to see any kind of pseudo-scientific rationale for it.

4) There is no need for Anakin to have been "conceived by the midichlorians" to explain why there was no father (I hate the virgin birth concept, btw). He could have been "conceived by the Force", and the whole "chosen one" prophecy plotline would remain intact.

 

But actually, you didn't explain what makes midichlorians "hokey", or even why they stink. YOU didn't like them, and YOU didn't need them, therefore they stink. Right? Try again.

 

I gave my reasons for why I don't like them and why I think the film didn't need them, and that's all that is needed here.
Instead, how about you prove to me, with facts and reliable sources, that midichlorians are not hokey and that they are in fact needed for the story? You can't, because that's subjective. It's called an opinion, which is something I'm entitled to.
I personally choose to adhere to the concept of The Will of the Force, as it is more "Star-Warsy" and will simply ignore this midichlorian effluent.

 

Midis may not be needed, but that doesn't mean they must therefore be discarded. I'm neutral on their existance, personally.

 

Though I find them hokey, I would have a hard time demonstrating it by some sort of simple explanation, objective explanation, just as I think someone would have trouble convincing me otherwise somehow objectively. For me they are hokey in that they just scream out as an attempt to fix something that ain't broken. Especially since they weren't mentioned in the OT (and every opportunity was available to have them mentioned and no plot-driven reason not to). So they come off as "tacked on" and too sci fi and not Star Wars enough to some of us.

I think "hokey" is to a large extent a matter of taste and point of view. The closest I can come though to something "objective" is to say by definition hokey means "contrived", so for some of us the world of Star Wars, itself contrived, was doing just fine before this new contrivance came along and it stands out because it doesn't sit well with the earlier work. And since there is no mention of it there, the contrivance stands out more clearly as contrivance...therefore, hokey.

 

Not only are midis not needed, but they are an unnecessary distraction that only serves to hamper the role of the Force in the story. You see, it diminshes the concept of the Will of the Force. Instead, those individuals who are lucky enough to be born with enough midis are able to use the Force. I much prefer the mystical aspects of the Force in the overall story.

 

It does not eliminate the concept of the will of the force at all. As Qui Gon tells Anakin, the midichlorians speak to the Jedi, telling them the will of the force. He also explains that the midichlorians exist in all living things not just a "lucky" few and the reason why some people have a higher concentration remains mysterious.