Full Circle: 1977 to 2005

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Yeade, Sep 22, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Darth_Nub, Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn
  1. Yeade Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2003
    star 1
    In response to a LiveJournal post, I wrote the following:
    [W]hen the OT was first filmed, Lucas had to struggle to keep his ideas relatively intact while everyone from cast and crew to studio executives and bankers tried to change his movies, stop production, or otherwise tell him it was wrong. Nowadays, I don't think those listed in the previous sentence have any major issues with Lucas doing what he wants on the PT. No, nowadays, it's us, the fans. We try to get Lucas to change his movies, stop production, or otherwise tell him it's wrong. And, somehow, I don't think it's possible that Lucas doesn't notice the controversies in the fan community when every interviewer will ask him about the O-OT or question obliquely about PT criticisms. In fact, I would argue that there is more dissent and divisiveness than ever, and that the means of communicating this--the Internet, the media--are all highly tuned and capable.
    After I posted, I realized that the situation now is almost the exact flip of 1977. Then, opposition came from the groups mentioned above, though rife with dissenting support, and sci-fi fans provided a solid interest in ANH. Now it's almost a mirror image: fans are divided, with some strong and vocal opposition to the PT, while the studios and media are unified in hyping up interest, both positive and negative. Fans seem to be recognizing the rifts that have formed in the community though, and ROTS will certainly draw out fans as the last SW movie.

    Since I only got around three hours of sleep yesterday, I decided to pursue this train of thought. And found that there is another mirror situation.

    In 1977, SW redefined the fantasy and sci-fi genres both with its sweeping plot of good vs. evil, heroes and villains, adventure, and ultimately its hopeful story of redemption and the triumph of good over evil. This with theaters, and Real Life, filled with doomsday stories of death and corruption. In 2005, SW closes with ROTS, and the general structure of fantasy/sci-fi films that SW first set is still being played out in theaters. LOTR, The Matrix, the long list of comics-based movies contain much the same elements that SW initially introduced, complete with a good overcomes evil ending, fulfilled destinies, redemption, and reincarnation.

    Then there's ROTS. Where evil wins the day, prophecies go unresolved, and there's more than enough corruption, exile, and death to go around. [face_devil]

    I'm sure there's also a mirror in the technology and special effects used to make the films. And, of course, in-film thematic cycles--though there are plenty of other more specific threads on those. I'm really interested in whether there are any other production and social impact parallels.

    At any rate, I thought this might be amusing as the premiere of ROTS and the end of the Saga comes ever nearer. I'll of course be sad to see the end of SW films (re-re-releases and ultimate editions aside), but I think it's nice to know that the circle is complete. :)
  2. NZPoe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 21, 2001
    star 4
    Don't forget the socio-political environment of today. Is it me or do our SW movies seem to reflect the state of the world more and more as the years go past?

    Great post man.
  3. _dArTh_SoLo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 11, 2002
    star 4
    The circle is not complete.

    It won't be until the ultimate box set is released.
  4. NZPoe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 21, 2001
    star 4
  5. Yeade Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2003
    star 1
    NZPoe
    Don't forget the socio-political environment of today. Is it me or do our SW movies seem to reflect the state of the world more and more as the years go past?

    Yes, agreed. Not only is what you mentioned above true, NZPoe, but SW also has a seesaw relation to other popular fantasy and sci-fi film franchises. In 1977, sci-fi/fantasy films were gloomy, realistic reflections of their times; SW wasn't, was instead essentially the exact opposite. Now, in 2005, the fantasy and sci-fi genres have followed SW's lead whereas SW, which has been getting progressively closer to reality, darker, and more graphic, is more reflective of our times. Will what happen in 1977 happen again in 2005? A SW redefinition of the content and direction of fantasy/sci-fi films?

    My answer? Maybe.

    ROTS would have to be hugely successful, amazingly unique and stunning. This is difficult to accomplish with today's crowded theaters and with today's jaded audiences, but if any film can do it, I think it'd be ROTS. With the mass appeal of SW, the weight of a large, much loved, nearly thirty-year-old multimedia franchise, and a known plot that's exceptional from other movie fare, ROTS has a foundation for success that few films have ever enjoyed. If both Lucas et al and the fans come through... Well, we'll see what happens then. :)

    _dArTh_SoLo
    The circle is not complete.

    It won't be until the ultimate box set is released.


    [face_plain] :p

    I might take a bit of flak for this, but I have to say I don't think Lucas is doing anything he hasn't always done. Lucas fighting for the rights to his space opera--hell, Lucas bicycling from sound stage to sound stage during production--in the 1970's, 1980's is another manifestation of the proprietary outlook towards SW that leads Lucas, I think, to change the films when he can and feels he should. And he does have a right to take such a stance because he is, no matter how much people complain about him having lost his old touch or his mind or whatever, the original creator and writer, the producer, the director, and the head of Lucasfilm.

    He fought the studios and Hollywood establishment for the first three films. What makes people think he won't fight the fans?

    I think Lucas's stubbornness and will just isn't so I'm-independent-and-a-rebel-against-the-establishment inspiring when he has a corporation to back him and it's us who are feeling the effects. Simple as that.

    And of the many battles Lucas has fought over SW, the fan community is the most worthy, formidable opponent he has ever faced. The studios and Hollywood were inspired by money, and that devotion will never, ever be equal to the passion of thousands of lifetime SW fans who believe something sacred of their childhood has been corrupted, or that the PT should be stripped of the Star Wars title and all the passion and mystique that goes with it, or any number of other injustices.

    Lucas has met his match in the fans because we are people who are as devoted and possessive of SW as he is. And I think he (or somebody at Lucasfilm) recognizes that. Else why hire a fan relations director? Why bother to address fan issues? (Albeit this is sometimes done in a roundabout way and with the side interest of making money.) Why undo what you did? (Case in point, Luke's scream in ESB.)

    We fans so often take the view that we've been totally and completely wronged by a man (his little twit corporation, too) that doesn't hear our protests, but I at least just don't see it that way. For one thing, I don't see how it's possible to not hear fan complaints when those complaints are aired loudly and continually. Really, I believe Lucas and Lucasfilm hear the fans; they just don't always listen to the fans. And in my mind, not listening does not equate with not hearing. Not listening doesn't even equate with not responding when Lucas and others who have contributed officially to SW are called on to defend their more controversial decisions again and again.

  6. KÃ¥l Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2000
    Watching the DVD editions, I was reminded that the original trilogy is still as great as it ever was. While I think that the original versions should be released on DVD for historical purposes, the so-called fans who moan about the changes "destroying" the movies should really get a perspective. The films are essentially the same. The whole Greedo fixation must appear deeply weird for non-hardcore fans (although I'm glad the new version of the scene looks better than the last!)

    I am constantly appalled by the bashing the Special Editions, the prequels and Lucas himself get from so-called fans who are obsessive about SW but cannot seem to enjoy anything new.
  7. Raz Zaphon Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2000
    star 4
    I also thought about this sort of thing while watching Empire of Dreams. One part that struck me was when he talked about the irony of becoming what he used to hate: a corporation. Then I thought of this from the Episode III preview:

    As he sought more and more power to try and change peoples fate so that they're the way he wants them, that greed goes from trying to save the one you love, to realising you can control the universe.

    If you read between the lines, this really translates to:

    As I sought more and more power to try and gain independence so that my movies are the way I want them, that greed goes from trying to tell these stories I love, to realising I can control the film industry.

    What you don't have right is believing that the fans have power over Lucas. The sad truth is that fans enjoy hating Star Wars as much as they ever enjoyed loving it. People would go to repeat viewings of Phantom Menace so they could argue more points as to why they hate it. Meanwhile the rest of it see it for what it is - art. I gather the only thing Lucas really cares about is making enough cash from his current movie to make his next movie. The fans of Star Wars can't stop that from happening, because there are too many true fans, and regular people, that will deeply love his movies despite who shoots first. However, as far as Star Wars goes, he's already won. RotS will be released and when that happens he will have completed his Space Opera the way he envisioned it. If he were to go bankrupt after this next movie it wouldn't matter, some un-fans would rejoice but the fact is Lucas would be very satisfied with his life achievment. Too bad for them that won't happen anyway and they'll watch RotS more than once, buy heaps of toys, and then watch the Star Wars TV series every week a year later.

    So why hire a fans relations director? Why not. If we think they care, we'll spend more money on LucasFilm products. Everyone has seen the quote where he said he was sorry that people fell in love with an incomplete product, but he wanted to do what he wants with it. At the end of the day he's an artist. Keeping a business to pay for his canvas is just a means to an end with him.

    I hate it when people say he has no right to take away the O-OT. What the hell does that mean? He doesn't have the right to do what he wants with his intellectual property? Oh, but wait, you fell in love with the crappy version that he released, and once he let it out into the world he lost that right. Nonsense. Saying that is the same as saying highly famous celebrities don't have a right to go into seclusion (away from all their fans) for the rest of their life because once they put themselves up on the silverscreen they became public property. People forget that Star Wars is a part of Lucas, and not the same way that it's a part of all us. It's his creation. He put it there in us. It's his. Therefore it's George Lucas that's inside of us, as much as it is Star Wars. I watched that doco and saw how much hell he went through just to get it out in the first place. He has every right to do it the way he always wanted to do it, and to fix other things in hindsight to fit better with the rest of the story.

    I don't know if this has been on topic, but I just had to say all that, because it's true.
  8. Yeade Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2003
    star 1
    Raz Zaphon
    What you don't have right is believing that the fans have power over Lucas. The sad truth is that fans enjoy hating Star Wars as much as they ever enjoyed loving it. People would go to repeat viewings of Phantom Menace so they could argue more points as to why they hate it. Meanwhile the rest of it see it for what it is - art. I gather the only thing Lucas really cares about is making enough cash from his current movie to make his next movie... [snip]

    So why hire a fans relations director? Why not. If we think they care, we'll spend more money on LucasFilm products.
    [snip] At the end of the day he's an artist. Keeping a business to pay for his canvas is just a means to an end with him.

    I wouldn't say the fans have "power" over Lucas; this seems to imply a more absolute control, and this is certainly not the case. However, I can see how you may have gotten that impression from my last post. All I meant to point out is that the SW fan community is very active, vocal, and well publicized; Lucas would have to be deaf, blind, and dumb not to know of the more vehement controversies among the fans. I agree that Lucas's main goal is to make enough money from his current film to continue funding his art, and at least mollifying fan concerns, I think, is well along that vein. So, it's not just that we think Lucasfilm cares, but that Lucasfilm does. Word of mouth marketing has always been a powerful tool for the SW franchise, and while I can imagine die-hard fans going to see TPM to find more things to nitpick, the casual viewer or average moviegoer might turn away or at least see the film less after hearing highly negative reviews from acquaintances or professed SW fans through the media. If someone who loves SW hates this new movie, what's in it for someone who feels indifferent toward SW on a good day? Not much at all, I would say. This is not the kind of publicity that anyone would want, and to soften this negative edge, Lucas might compromise with fan wants... just enough to stop the screaming protests that might significantly hurt his business. I think he could care less if fans grumble a bit. (And probably rightfully, as fans will always be able to find something to grumble about.)

    I hate it when people say he has no right to take away the O-OT. What the hell does that mean? He doesn't have the right to do what he wants with his intellectual property? Oh, but wait, you fell in love with the crappy version that he released, and once he let it out into the world he lost that right. Nonsense.

    Yes, you've stuck your finger on what I, too, believe is the root reason for the O-OT controversy, or at least what makes people get so worked up about it. Yet, I think SW is a special case. The O-OT is so engrained in popular and film culture that its images, ideas, and innovations resonate even today, after nearly thirty years. So, yes, the SW films are Lucas's artistic vision and work, but it can be argued the films have become public domain because they are history. Thus, for many, changing the O-OT is like the defacing of a historical document. This, and the passion behind the debate, makes the situation hard to unravel.

    I, for one, am perfectly fine with Lucas dictating what version of the films he wants released and sold. I believe this is his right. However, I hope that in his artistic fit, he doesn't destroy all remnants of the O-OT. Like any historical document, I feel the O-OT should be restored and preserved for archival purposes even if it never again sees the light of a store shelf. Many fans won't be satisfied until a copy of the O-OT is in their possession... Well, tough luck. I feel for the loss of your childhood love, but this pain absolutely does not justify trashing the man who brought you that dream, at great personal cost, in the first place. I suppose that's really what I have an issue with - that people can be so disrespectful and demeaning to someone who has poured his heart out to make the very things everyone is fighting ove
  9. Yeade Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2003
    star 1
    Kal
    The films are essentially the same. The whole Greedo fixation must appear deeply weird for non-hardcore fans (although I'm glad the new version of the scene looks better than the last!)

    Absolutely, and from what I've heard (my DVDs shipped to my home, and my current residence is on a college campus) the films have never looked nor sounded better. I don't know many SW fans in person--in fact, a number of the people I know have never seen the films at all--and, believe me, I've gotten many strange looks when I discuss changes like Greedo shooting first. Your phrasing of "deeply weird" is a perfect description.

    Raz Zaphon
    I don't know if this has been on topic, but I just had to say all that, because it's true.

    Yeah, I think we've probably gotten a bit off-topic. Hey, if the mods don't mind, I'd love to just go with the flow of discussion. My topic wasn't all that descriptive in the first place, and both you and Kal have given some courteous, insightful comments. An intelligent dialogue is what I wanted to start with my original post, and in my mind, the fact that we have that is more important that whether it's still on-topic. So, please, feel free to continue making valuable contributions.

    I do hope we haven't broken any forum rules or anything though... :p
  10. xoliver Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2001
    star 2
    Star Wars has certainly succeeded in returning imaginative, mythological storytelling to the mainstream of culture. At the same time, too few of those who are moved by it understand the mythological reasons why, preferring -- if they think about it at all -- to discuss minutiae of plot and production. And as we've also, seen, the current films get verbatim the same 'special effects are the bane of movies!' reviews we got in 1977. Yet films like Hellboy and Sky Captain can now get made, and CG technology promises new visions we've never seen or imagined before.

    There's also an integration of the mythopoeic good-evil tradition and the 'cool' antihero tradition, as we see in the Matrix films, Chronicles of Riddick, etc. I think the 'jadedness' of audiences is really very superficial and the 'cool' trappings are just to make the essential heroic content go down better for a particular demographic.

    I'm perplexed to see the films' theme about possessive love applied to Lucas, of all people. It's the nostalgic fans who just want their memories flattered and preserved in aspic who are hanging on with misplaced, fetishized, corrupt love like Anakin, and rail at aspects of the Star Wars vision they didn't already know 10 or 20 or 27 years ago. Those people should watch the movies more carefully.
    I hate what that says about people and human nature.
    Luckily, not many people. People saw Episode I multiple times because they loved it. If any substantial group of people really abhorred the changes to IV-VI, the DVDs wouldn't be selling in such quantities. The numbers speak more accurately about how people really feel than any online or flesh and blood discussion.
    However, I hope that in his artistic fit, he doesn't destroy all remnants of the O-OT.
    There's no reason to think he would. And that's what matters from a film archival point of view (the argument that the original versions can only be preserved by issuing them as relatively low-resolution DVDs is plainly spurious).
  11. Raz Zaphon Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2000
    star 4
    In the context of right now it does seem important to archive what was created in the 70s. But what if the completed saga is more important than that, say, 100 years from now?

    Star Wars will be seen as a work that took 30 years to complete. It won't matter if people can't see what it was like when Greedo shot first. There are plenty of historical records of all sorts that document the release of "Star Wars" back in 77, and the effect it had in that time. Those who study the movies in the future will understand all about how the first movie that was released changed the film industry. Seeing a copy of the O-OT won't be neccesary in knowing about that. You can't erase history. What if you found out today that there was a very slightly different version of The Iliad that Homer changed, just a few lines that he modified, right before writing The Odyssey? It wouldn't matter a damn, and we all know it. He would have changed it for a reason, and modern intellectuals would see it.

    Case in point: Greedo shooting first. Observe David Begor's Defence of the Clones where he observes -

    "The most obvious way Lucas condemns violence continues to be by showing on the narrative level that aggression is the surest road to defeat. Obi Wan's assault on Jango Fett leaves him hanging below the city in a clear parallel to Luke's defeat in Empire. Attacking Count Dooku at the climax, Obi Wan and Anakin also assure themselves of a terrible loss at his hands. The tide of this battle does not turn until the arrival of Yoda, whose appearance significantly marks Dooku's shift from a defensive to an offensive strategy and in turn triggers his own loss. The pursuit of would-be assassin Zam Wessel provides a more subtle case in point: it succeeds only when the hunters allow themselves to become the hunted. It is a testament to Lucas' creativity that this pattern plays out in even the smallest of subplots without (five films and ten hours into the saga) becoming stale or self-evident.12"

    Along with the important footnote:

    "12. This is presumably the explanation for the controversial "Greedo edit" in the special edition of the first film. By altering the confrontation between Greedo and Han Solo in A New Hope to show Greedo firing first, Lucas eliminated the inconsistency between this particular conflict and the overarching theme of the film as a whole."

    You think people in the future are going to care that a few thousand peoples feelings were hurt when the Greedo scene was altered? I sure hope they don't. The sad truth about preserving the saga for future generations is that it does need to be perfected for it to happen, or the saga won't work as well.

    If you want to make an omlet, you've got to break some eggs.
  12. Yeade Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2003
    star 1
    xoliver
    Star Wars has certainly succeeded in returning imaginative, mythological storytelling to the mainstream of culture. At the same time, too few of those who are moved by it understand the mythological reasons why, preferring -- if they think about it at all -- to discuss minutiae of plot and production.

    I think part of the reason why fans are so keen on breaking down and analyzing every minute detail of the SW films is because the films have had such a huge impact on the content of movies and the process of making them.

    I've always found digging down into the layered structure and presentation of the SW story--down to set lighting and coloration, specific character actions and lines--very rewarding and enriching in terms of the myth that's told. When someone does this sort of decomposition, the deeper aspects of the mythology becomes clear. Of course, for example, the OT can be summed up as a coming of age story or through the framework of the hero's journey, but the support for this lies in the details, as do a number of other supplementary mythological or moral tales.

    The production of the film is scrutinized for, I think, two main reasons. One, as a glimpse into the creative process and the behind-the-scenes development of the mythological story. And two, for insights into those advances in technical wizardry that, as you mentioned, make the films of today possible. Either of those two analyses can deepen and broaden understanding of the SW films, in-universe, in the mythological sense, and as it directly impacts the real world.

    So, I believe it's worth the time, effort, and frustration to debate the minutiae. It's like treating the SW saga to a critical reading usually not found outside of English courses.

    I think the 'jadedness' of audiences is really very superficial and the 'cool' trappings are just to make the essential heroic content go down better for a particular demographic.

    What concerns me is whether audiences today will still appreciate the heroic content or any other mythological story if the presentation weren't so cool. This might be a valid question to ask about the PT. There is no cool antihero, the heroes are a part of a rather rigid order of warrior-monk types, and the main character is a blunt young child who grows into an awkwardly earnest young man, whose romance is equally uncomfortable. Is the so-called PT backlash partly the result of the audience's discomfort with this decidedly not-cool performance? Because the audience--or, more specifically, that demographic that prefers gloss with content--expect something cooler?

    Luckily, not many people. People saw Episode I multiple times because they loved it. If any substantial group of people really abhorred the changes to IV-VI, the DVDs wouldn't be selling in such quantities.

    Yes, I agree. When you're involved in the fan community, it's sometimes hard to remember that there are thousands of casual filmgoers out there that enjoy the movies no matter what. We fans love it too much. This can be a bad thing--the angry, possessive love you mentioned--but I believe it speaks to the power of the SW saga and makes SW the phenomenon that it is. That these films can inspire such depth and breadth of human feeling is nothing short of incredible, and the fans in turn nourish SW in more ways than just financially.

    There's no reason to think he would. And that's what matters from a film archival point of view [snip].

    [face_blush] I got a little panicky there. Sorry.

    Raz Zaphon
    In the context of right now it does seem important to archive what was created in the 70s. But what if the completed saga is more important than that, say, 100 years from now? [snip] What if you found out today that there was a very slightly different version of The Iliad that Homer changed, just a few lines that he modified, right before writing The Odyssey? It wouldn't matter a damn, and we all know it. He would have changed it for a reason, and modern intellectuals would see it.

    I
  13. xoliver Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2001
    star 2
    When someone does this sort of decomposition, the deeper aspects of the mythology becomes clear.
    Sure, but not to someone who's deliberately or inadvertently tuned out of them, as also happens. Trying to fill a need with a familiar but unsuited behaviour is common, no?

    Is the so-called PT backlash partly the result of the audience's discomfort with this decidedly not-cool performance? Because the audience--or, more specifically, that demographic that prefers gloss with content--expect something cooler?
    I think so. The people who like lone-Force-choking-Luke, sarcastic-Greedo-murdering-Han, and the Rebels for being rebellious tend to scorn childish vulnerability (young Anakin, Jar Jar, young Luke) and social responsibility to a government, even (in Episode I still) a near-utopian one. Americans harbour fantasies of rebellion (one of the DVD reviews talks about this) while conforming strictly to social norms in their daily lives; the character of the bad capitalist (such as the Company representative in Aliens, or Nute Gunray) is absolutely standard, while capitalism is barely challenged. Pandering to this adolescent mentality -- spending more time establishing the benevolence of the Republic, making Anakin older in Episode I, having Anakin and Padmé speak like 1990s-movie lovers and not 1940s-movie ones, dubbing in jaded wisecracks -- would clearly weaken the films for anyone not suffering from cynical naivety.
    That these films can inspire such depth and breadth of human feeling is nothing short of incredible, and the fans in turn nourish SW in more ways than just financially.
    It may be a demonstration of the films actually acting as myth -- along with the movies and the story existing in multiple forms -- though the Force knows that doesn't always, these days, run smooth. (Apart from anything else, the 'George Lucas killed my puppy' stuff is too damn Freudian for me.)

    This excellent link will also be new to some.
  14. Yeade Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2003
    star 1
    xoliver
    Sure, but not to someone who's deliberately or inadvertently tuned out of them, as also happens.

    Yes. It's very discouraging, at least for me, to read some of the threads around here where posters won't budge an inch even when presented with excellent, solid evidence contrary to their ideas. I have no issue with these fans sticking with their beliefs in the end, but some can't seem to even agree to disagree with their opponents.

    Trying to fill a need with a familiar but unsuited behaviour is common, no?

    [face_blush] I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by this. Could you perhaps clarify?

    I probably shouldn't suck up board space by quoting your entire paragraph on the PT and American audience perceptions, but I do agree with you. The PT thus far has gone against what some of the audience has come to expect from blockbuster movies. I wouldn't exactly call this mentality adolescent, because I believe it is understandable. There is a gap between expectations and reality, and this has hurt TPM and AOTC in the eyes of some SW fans. Not anything to blame people for, just something to understand and keep in mind.

    And thanks for the link. I'm starving and heading out for lunch, but I'll definitely bookmark the article for later perusal. I skimmed a bit, and it looks fantastic.
  15. a2dmusic Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2001
    star 3
    Pandering to this adolescent mentality -- spending more time establishing the benevolence of the Republic, making Anakin older in Episode I, having Anakin and Padmé speak like 1990s-movie lovers and not 1940s-movie ones, dubbing in jaded wisecracks -- would clearly weaken the films for anyone not suffering from cynical naivety.

    I agree with most of what you say but have to disagree vehemently with this. Han and Leia play more like 1940's movie lovers (think Tracy and Hepburn - talk about jaded wisecracks) than Anakin and Padme do - indeed, Ani and Padme sound right off of Dawson's Creek. Looking at sincere movie relationships in vintage film - 1930s - 1950s, one would be hard-pressed to find dialogue akin to the fireplace scene or the 'sand' speech. Philadephia Story? Casablanca? Now, Voyager?

    Sorry. You can like the dialogue (and delivery), you can dislike it. But it's not a harkening back to classic film style.

    Other dialogue might, I won't debate that (at least not in this post! :p )

    EDIT: emphasis to clarify the part I was disagreeing with.
  16. Concord Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2000
    star 2
    I love this thread title.
  17. Yeade Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2003
    star 1
    Thanks, Concord. :p

    I'd like to change the subtitle of the thread to something that better describes the discussion, and for a while I used "Dissension and Social Impact of the SW Films," but we seem to have moved away from even that vague subject.

    Not that I know how to change the thread title. <sigh>

    If anyone has ideas for a better thread title, please feel free to suggest. It'd also be nice if someone could tell me how to go about changing the title. Rather than spamming the thread, please PM me. Thanks.
  18. KÃ¥l Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2000
    Regarding the Anakin/Padme romance in AOTC, it's pretty obvious it was written in a certain way as a counterpoint to the Han/Leia romance. Anakin is inexperienced with women, and I found his earnest and sometimes awkward pursuit of Padme quite touching. It was clever of Lucas to foreshadow Anakin's future as a tyrannical figure when they talk about politics during the romantic scene on the meadow. It definitely gave an edge to a supposedly innocent scene!
  19. xoliver Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2001
    star 2
    You'll notice that George Lucas doesn't think or talk in terms of 'cool', though he does use 'neat', which is a quite different and much less overbearing concept.
  20. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    ANH came out as sort of a post Vietnam "cleanser" ROTS will come out during "Vietnam II" cough*Iraq*cough, and has little positivity to chase those blues.

    Its like back to the future or something
  21. Magnum Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 16, 2004
    star 1
    But that's why I think Ep. 3 will be successful because it's playing during an era where emotions are kind of heightened due to the war.
  22. ObidioJuan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2002
    star 3
    Some random comments on preserving history, and the overall good, etc.

    I first saw the King Kong version of the 80's (Jeff Bridges), then I found out that there was a B&W version. To me the new version will always be the 'right' version and the old version will be the 'funny lookin' version. That's because I saw them in that order. I wonder what will happen once Peter Jackson shows his version?, will I feel he bastardize the myth?, I don't know. I wonder if old people that saw the original King Kong found the other version to be a ripoff.

    You may say, well King Kong is too shallow a story and doesn't resonate as deep as SW, and I would agree.

    I think the same thing happened to "Dune". I happen to like the Laurentis film version of Dune. I still recall fans of the book really angry about the version. Then there is a newer version but it doesn't feel right to me. But to the younger crowd that doesn't even know the Laurentis version with Toto music they don't care about it. They only know the new versions.

    What about Tolkien's work?, people all over the world are fans (much like SW fans).

    I read the Hobbit in the early 80's and then LOTR in the late 80's. To me the scene with Gollum and Bilbo has always been the same. But then I found out that there was an older version of The Hobbit written before LOTR that had a different account of what happened in that scene. JRR went back to his book and changed the story to reflect what he needed for LOTR.

    Not surprisingly, fans of the Hobbit in the 60's were outraged at this. But to me there has only been one version of Tho Hobbit so I can't understand people that complain about this.

    In 15 or 20 years time people will only experience the Saga in wathever the last revision will be. And they will not even understand of the O-OT. To them there is no earlier version or anything, and would never care about the changes, there is just no reason for them. Even if they could see an old tape or Laserdisc version of the O-OT, they're starting point will be the newer version so to them the O-OT would feel bad.

    The O-OT exist in many LD and VHS copies all over the world. There are plenty of copies also in the internet, so they will live on.

    GL has the right to go back and modify the OT to fit with the PT as he likes. My kids see the differences but they don't obsess over them like some "older" people here do.

    the only constant in the universe is change (can't remember who said it)
  23. FigmentJedi Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Of course, the difference between the 1976 King Kong and the 1933 King Kong is that the 1976 version is a dull movie that seems more based in reality while in the original, it was more interesting because Kong fought a bunch of dinosaurs on Skull Island. In the 1976 version, Kong just fought a unrealistic rubber snake. That and the expedition's purpose in the 1933 version, to find and capture a mythical giant ape, is much cooler then the oil expedition in the 1976 version.
  24. xoliver Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2001
    star 2
    Not surprisingly, fans of the Hobbit in the 60's were outraged at this.
    I never heard this, and it certainly would surprise me if it was so. The current Star Wars 'controversy' is almost uniquely perverse.

    It's true that people exposed first to later versions of works see them as the standard version, and that the 'original trilogy'/'prequel trilogy' distinction will fade. But the phenomenon of people forming egotistical attachments to later versions isn't any more natural, sane, or healthy than with earlier versions. I like the Flash Gordon serials better than the Mike Hodges movie, prefer the Hellboy comics to the movie, and the current versions of Episodes IV-VI to the original versions, despite seeing the other version first in each case.

    John Keats talked about 'negative capability', the capacity to immerse yourself in art and take it for what it is rather than what you think it is, want it to be, or what it can do for you. It's a really valuable human technique.
  25. NZPoe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 21, 2001
    star 4
    To me the scene with Gollum and Bilbo has always been the same. But then I found out that there was an older version of The Hobbit written before LOTR that had a different account of what happened in that scene. JRR went back to his book and changed the story to reflect what he needed for LOTR.


    Interestingly enough Tolkien has even (arguably) flubbed this change :) In the text of the LOTR Gandalf talks about Bilbo claiming to him that the Ring was a birthday present when in fact the does nothing of the sort in the text of "The Hobbit". The birthday present excuse is from the original "Hobbit" text which is now lost to the pages of history and very old copies of the book. So even though Tolkien changed the context of several scenes of "The Hobbit", he actually pre-wrote an excuse in "LOTR" which he didn't need in the end, but forgot to remove.

    Even the masters let a thing slip or three ;)
Moderators: Darth_Nub, Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.