Saga Grouping the the two trilogies as the original saga due to VII. Is this wrong?

Or, if this trilogy is any good, we could group this and the OT as the good trilogies and the PT as the really bad one.

 

I wouldn't use quite those words (at least here. Lest I be annoyed by harping on about "vocal minorities"), but I have a feeling that this new trilogy, with the characters the public actually embraced, will be considered more a part of the OT than the PT ever will.

 

Just. Wow. While their views on movies are laughable and a pretentiously cringe inducing, the website itself, (if read aloud by someone able to keep a straight face,) would be a pretty good basis for a good drinking game.

 

The html definitely leaves something to be desired, but the commentary's legit. Deserves better than outright mockery on the boards, at least.

Seriously, though. That html needs to be cleaned up something fierce. Put it up in wordpress or something, at least. It's good stuff, and deserves better.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I think. Hack writers who are this self conscious about crafting words at the expense of clearly communicating their ideas need to at least provide links to, (or footnotes about,) what they are referencing.

 

I think we have some fairly different definitions of "good" and "deserves".

 

Good call. Despite the attempt to marry the OT & PT in 'The Tragedy of Darth Vader' vision, the division still exists to many, and the new ST will only serve to divide the trilogies even further. I can't see some sort of mass rallying behind the two 20th Century Fox SW trilogies vs the Disney one.

It won't be the same as the concept described back in 1979 - the PT isn't 'The Adventures of Obi-Wan Kenobi', nor is the OT entirely 'The Adventures of Luke Skywalker' - but we'll have our trilogy of trilogies, after all.

Plus some 'tangential' films, which should be fun. Bring on Sheriff Yoda: Today We Live, Tomorrow We Die.

 

The style of writing is paradoxical (2001 can't be a Star Wars prequel), so it's like a written moebius strip. Not a joke ha-ha, but a joke hmm-hmm. The writing suggests that movies like these two are far more complex than the written word can handle (can you dig it?)
You want some references http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/802
http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/1241

Read to learn. Sorry about the design, it's meant to look like an ancient digital archive we're not interfacing with too well anymore. Best read on iPads.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Yes. Yes, I see now. having never encountered that website before, it seemed like pseudo-intellectual hack garbage, but looking beyond that, I now understand the point of the post within the greater context of what the website is trying to accomplish and find it, simply, brilliant. Just so I'm not misunderstood... my gushing doesn't change the fact that I still do not think it is accurate. GL is no Kubric. One is an artist who creates, and one is a no talent kid with enough money to re purpose the master's techniques in a degraded manner. It's my opinion that if greater conclusions are able to be drawn from the imagery used in the PT, it is not a result of something GL did on purpose, (other than the usual standard shorthand use of lighting and imagery that he copied from the greats that are now standard shorthand for expressing a thought visually.) I think those conclusions are more the result of the viewer reading too much into that imagery. To answer the original post in a more succinct manner....While both GL and JJ are the same kind of filmmaker visually, merely copying the greats, JJ is able to make that story translate onto the screen in a way that doesn't need to have the Star Wars logo slapped onto it to make it a hit and will therefore, I think, not only surpass the appeal of the PT, but will actually supplant the definition of what a Star Wars movie actually is.

 

Hey, thanks for the rethink. It's much appreciated.

For a long time, I too thought GL was a Kubrick wannabe, but the graphic precision involved in Episode IV won me over. You have to really wonder how someone invented a myth outright, not from a novel (which is what Kubrick always had to start from), and got it onscreen in just under 18 months under conditions that are bleak to say the least. It was truly winging it. This is Dykstra's article from ASC magazine August 1977, on the process of layering effects. Remember, at this point, he's been fired from ILM for about 16 months after clashing with Lucas on the look and feel of the dogfight (and for botching the front screen effects). Lucas won both that argument, and the bigger one: obviously the product speaks for itself. What Lucas and company did was not just revolutionize effects, they revolutionized editing. Before this, effects were either popped on and off to hide the wires, or shown slowly and lovingly to convince the audience. Lucas was the first to treat effects like verite, equally with live-action. Lucas is nearly Kubrick's equal and JJ has a long way to go to take that mantle.

If you stare through the gonzo way (see log/1241 above) Lucas graphically matches the Destroyer's form with the Blockade Runner's floor, R2's head and Tattoine, or how the Lars Homesetead's entrance is dead-on the upper 1/3 of R2's form. Or watch the spinning Destroyer seen from inside the Escape Pod cut directly to a spinning Pod in space, you'll come to realize these are carefully planned. And they relate, not just aesthetically, but they create meanings solely through editing. It's pretty damn brilliant.

 

Yea they feel that way after purchasing tickets to the PT movies, buying the DVDs, buying the BluRays. Those guys don't have any credibility because they have invested tons of cash on the PT. Me, I won't invest a dime on the Disney Trilogy because again I have/own the 6 films I like. I won't buy tickets to the disney trilogy, buy the dvds for the Disney Trilogy, just to come here & hate on the Disney Trilogy. I'm just acknowledging that the Disney movies are not for me, because again I'm SATISFIED. Many other fans are not satisfied with the 6 film story & want 100 starwars movies, that's them though. I'm good with just 6 & will always remain in that stance.

 

I'm curious if anyone has the sales statistics for the Blu-Ray releases -- all 6 vs PT vs OT. That may shed some light. (Although the individual trilogy sets did not have the bonus disc, so that would also drive sales of the saga box set).

As for not spending any money on the ST, I guess we'll have to wait until they come out to see if you are true to your word.

 

Ill add Padme, Leia, Palpatine, Shmi, Obi Wan, Yoda & Han Solo to your list of immortal characters.

 

I can assure you, you will not see me hear saying the new movies suck or that they are great, by never seeing them I avoid that debate altogether. Don't get me wrong I hope the newer generation of fans like what Kennedy, Abrams & crew produce. I just know they will never be seen by me to avoid ill feelings.

 

I've been using the terms "Prequels" for 1,2,3, "Classic" for Eps 4,5,6 and just "New" for 7 onwards.

They'll all be the one story saga once complete, but just to define the era or specific film, I use those terms at the moment.

 

The Alan Arnold interview, combined with references to Palpatine surviving until Episode XII, make it seem to me that I-VI are based on ideas that existed before the release of ANH while VII-IX are based on ideas that GL came up with in between the release of ANH and the release of ESB.

 

Pretty much. What confuses matters is that there were separate, abandoned ideas about what happened after 'Star Wars 3' (ROTJ) that don't relate to the ST that was referred to in the Arnold interview - Luke's hidden sister Nellith, the Emperor appearing in the final episode (most likely Episode 12, not Episode 9). The trouble is, the redundant ideas that may have been included in these later stories get muddled in some accounts with the newer structure that simply isn't compatible with them in terms of plot or timeframe.

The structure of the SW Saga that was somewhat cemented at the time of the release of "Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back" put the kibosh on post-ROTJ adventures set during the OT era. Prior to that, the series (the 12-film plan) would have been more along the lines of the old Marvel SW comic series - Luke & friends continue their adventures, with the occasional one-off entry dealing with something tangential, including a PT-era story about Ben Kenobi.

 

I dislike Star Wars? Not sure where you got that but ok I guess.

 

I believe this as well, simply by the fact that the ST continues and concludes the OT, while the PT was the backstory to the OT.

I hope at the end of the day it's I-IX in everybody's mind, but if a division is made I think more people will divide it as IV-IX than I-VI.

 

I find grouping the two GL trilogies into the Original Saga makes a lot of sense.

 

I would just like to say that no fans of George Lucas's Star Wars Saga are "butthurt" over anything. Because nobody has lied to us about anything. We aren't the paranoid ones. Never have been.

George Lucas always had a "trilogy of trilogy's" in mind and I think its very cool (to say the least) that it actually, finally came true after all these years. Makes me even more proud than I already was.

In the famous leonard Maltin interview shown before the 1995 OT boxset what Lucas says makes even more sense now than before the ST was announced. His words were: "I cut the story down and put the other two thirds on the shelf and said someday if I ever get the chance ill make that into movies" Two thirds.

And of course besides that it matches perfectly with virtually everything he and others have ever been saying about SW what with all the comments and roomers all throughout the decades about a ST and a PT and the OT being the "core of the story that I started out with to design it as something the audience gets thrown in the middle of" and SW being something that could be handed off to other filmmakers to explore and add onto and all the rest of it. It all ended up coming true and getting made into films after all like Lucas always hoped for. So I love it!

While I will always hold the OS (Original Saga by George Lucas) to be the original true SW it is also a lot of fun and very nice and very satisfying to know that his original ambitious idea of "A trilogy of trilogys" got to come true in the end just as he retired.

I like this link in regards to the long, fascinating tale of how the ST finally came to be: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sequel_trilogy

 

Well I am not so certain about the "always" bit. Yes in the late 70's/early 80's he had plans for many SW films, first twelve then nine then a "trilogy of trilogies" just as you say.
But while making the PT Lucas seemed to diminish the possibility of a ST. In 2005 he went as far as saying that the ST NEVER had existed and it was just a joke on his part and ep VII-IX were mostly a creation by the media.

[/quote]

Obviously Lucas changed his mind from that last quote and that's cool. We will get more SW films and I am looking forward to that.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Not when Disney is continuing the saga with VII-IX.

 

@ Samuel Vimes

Yea I thought that went without saying seeming as all those quotes were very famous and just a few years ago after Episode 3 when everyone everywhere was asking him if he was going to do the long fabled ST now that his PT was finally finished and he said he wouldn't go forward and do it. Now that hes retired of course he naturally said to Disney "well if your going to do anything mine as well do the thing that was always planned/pondered/up in the air for so long since forever.

Its pretty much common knowledge that the ST was an idea essentially "given up on" by Lucas for a long while until Disney told him they wanted to make SW movies after George's retirement.