ST Should a George Lucas story always be preferred?

So what exactly is your argument? Make it clear and concise.

 

Oh, there's good and fair criticism. I have lots of problems with the PT myself, and in fact I rank AOTC last in the series. I think there's a ton of bad acting, dated effects, unclear scripts and poor dialogue in all of them, the first two especially. But I also think that they have some great, great stuff and a lot of just beautiful scenes. I think ROTS is overall a really good movie and is great at times. TPM has some terrible stuff but I'll rank the podrace and final Jedi duel up there with any action set pieces from the OT. I wish there was more racing in the other movies, to be honest, be it a race or a chase scene like the speeder bike chase in ROTJ.

I consider ANH to be the best SW movie, then ESB. I rank ROTS third, ROTJ fourth and TPM fifth. Although AOTC is my least favorite, I still love a ton of things in it, and I like all of Obi-Wan's story. I wouldn't change any of it.

GL blew it by casting Hayden and Natalie, he blew the love story, he blew it with Jake Lloyd (who I feel really sorry for), and he blew it with JJB. He did great with Ewan, Liam, bringing back Ian, the clones and the TF villains and the battle droids, Maul, Dooku and Grievous and most of the storyline and visuals. I like about 75% of the PT and about 95% of the OT. My only flaw with the OT is I wish there were more scenes with the Rebels and not the Ewoks fighting the Empire on Endor. Like not necessarily cut any of the Ewok stuff out, but add in more stuff with the Rebel forces. That is literally my only problem with the entire OT.

 

To me, George lucas is Star Wars, and that will never change. He went through a lot to make Star Wars & I feel the people, in their effort to discredit him because of the prequels, are being inequitable. The person who creates a foundation should be respected, this also applies to whom the foundation is improved upon.

 

Yeah, I'm lost now.

If Ken is not going to move from his starting position of - I wish they had made George's version instead, regardless of whatever factors went it o the decision to reject his story, and I know that JJ's version will be inferior regardless of the actual quality, then I guess there is zero point in this thread until new **** comes to light. It's an opinion, and that's as valid as any other opinion I guess, even though I disagree with it. But trying to pretend there is any grounds for logic beyond subjective bias seems a complete waste of all our lives.

Zero - I don't feel anyone here is disrespecting George Lucas or his contribution to the saga unfairly. Maybe one or two, but on the whole, everyone appreciates that none of us would be here without George and that we all owe him a huge debt of appreciation.

 

So, to be clear, the fair criticism is the criticism that you agree with, and the hate is the criticism of the bits that you personally like? So, if I said that I personally quite like Hayden as Anakin, feel his performance is exaggerated and that clunky lines aside, he's pretty damn good in ROTS, but that the cartoony, unconvincing CGI and the lack of threat from poorly designed unthreatening battle droids is what ruins it for me, would that be hate, or valid?

 

Actually, if you know how Zack Snyder feels about Superman and the fact that he is a big fan of Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns-one of the most anti-Superman comics ever done, you can see how the creators of MOS have no respect and dislike the character. Mark Waid, who wrote Superman: Birthright said that when he was at DC that the executives from WB had no use at all for Superman, that they thought he was too powerful, outdated and corny and needed to be more like Batman. So yes, MOS was literally a Superman movie made by people who hate Superman with the intended target audience being people who hate Superman and think he is too pure and good.

Unfortunately there has never been a really, really great Superman movie although Christopher Reeve himself was great. They've never embraced the most successful Superman comics in film-the ones from the 60's. But those books are too bright for today's grimdark market, especially because WB/DC wants to cater to that market in particular. Krypton in MOS looked like GOT in space when it was supposed to look like Flash Gordon.

That's part of why I love the PT so much too-it is so art-deco in it's design and there is so much color, especially in TPM. Some of the acting bites but I love the look.

I would say that is a valid and fair criticism but I disagree with it. I think some of the battle droids are threatening enough, and the keystone cops rank and file battle droids are fun and make for good fodder. And I think a lot of Hayden's performance in ROTS is actually good and sometimes great. He can't make crappy dialogue sound good like Ewan can, but his physical acting and facial expressions are spot-on. And when he screamed "I hate you!" as he burned he expressed pure hate as good as I've ever seen it done. I've seen him in other things and he has the same issues-he is a really good physical actor who has issues with line reading. I'd cast him as a silent character such as Black Bolt in a second. I'd much rather have him as Black Bolt than Vin Diesel.

 

This is the thing, when people are prepared to meet in the middle and engage on where there is common ground, the debate flourishes. I actually like a lot about the PT, but find them hugely flawed on certain levels, but there is much I can enjoy. I agree with a lot of your post, and would probably give Jedi a little more grief, although I still rank it higher by some distance than the PT. Oddly, I have a soft spot for a lot of TPM, find ROTS packed with incident but find the look of it and the turn really problematic, and AOTC is way, way down the list, although there is still fun to be had at times. I see no way TFA will be perfect. but equally, I see no way it does not fit right in a alongside the other films (depending on preference of course). I think the footage shown to date suggests we may actually get the best looking SW film to date if nothing else. I just hope the story, script and characters match the quality of the visuals. If they do, then we're in for a treat.



I think if your primary reaction to the amazing SW footage shown to date is to carp on about George's mistreatment, or to claim (without a hint of self-awareness or irony) that watching the trailer was like watching JJ violate SW in an alley, you're cutting your nose off to spite your face and your ultimately, it's your loss (again, not aimed at you Applessed).

 

That post is so all over the place that I'll just leave you to it.

But I'll confirm - you're now firmly in the camp of people who act victimised when their fandom is criticised, but have no qualms about loudly and vocally slagging off the things you don't like. I like The Dark Knight Returns. Is it OK for you to hate on the thing I like? If so, why?

You're being a hypocrite.

 

The Dark Knight Returns comic is a complete and total assault on Superman. Frank Miller has expressed his hatred of Superman for years now. I never understand how anyone can say they like Superman can like that book. And yes, it's completely okay for me to hate on DKR because Frank Miller did not create Superman or Batman. Having hatred for George Lucas and then claiming to be a Star Wars fan is a big problem for me because he created SW to begin with. I've never said he was above criticism, but hating the guy to the degree some people do is just over the top. It would be like if I was a huge fan of Sin City but I hated Frank Miller. Luckily for me I am neither a fan of Sin City nor a hater of Frank Miller, I just wish he'd stay away from Superman because he clearly has it in for him.

Well, as we've discussed before, I am all over the place as far as my feelings towards TFA go. Sometimes I feel so happy about it that it warms my heart, sometimes I wish it wasn't even being made.

 

So you're rationalising a reason for it to be OK for you to hate something?

Interesting. Because before, it seemed that you simply felt that hate was something one was a victim of and that made one upset. So apparently, my potential upset or victimhood of your hate isn't worth anything, because my like isn't justified?

So, by that logic, if the people who "hate" prequels can rationalise it, then that's fine, then?

Or, once again, is it just that you don't like criticism of things you like?

Regarding your "I don't see how you can like TDKR and Superman" - no, I suspect you can't. Personally speaking, the best thing about created worlds as opposed to one off novels or continuous series' is seeing lots of different takes on characters, including seeing how characters are written by people who don't love the character - sometimes these can shed light on unexplored areas.

 

My issue with people hating GL and being nasty to fans of the PT is that it's been non-stop for 20 years now, and it is just never ending. An occasional person hating something I like I can ignore just like you can. It's not so much the hatred of GL and the PT, it's the volume of hated-just on and on and on for over 20 years. It's completely inescapable and has become part of the SW narrative.

My reasons for disliking Miller's version of Superman are partially because I have been a Superman fan for over 40 years so I was not introduced to the version of him that you most likely grew up with. The Superman that you grew up with in all likelihood was developed by John Byrne in 1986 and was done in cooperation with Miller's take on the character. The version I grew up with was much, much different from that version and would have never betrayed and maimed his friends and would have never allowed himself to be treated like a pet by Ronald Reagan and be a puppet of the US Government or any other government. So what to you seemed to be an interesting exploration of the character was to me the character being written out of character by a writer who didn't like him. Although to be honest, the single most insulting piece of Superman bashing done by Miller was probably his drawing of Krypto with Nazi symbols, as that was just insanely racist considering Superman is a Jewish character at his core.

 

"It's completely inescapable"


Nonsense. The only place you'll actually see any opinions on Star Wars prequels is if you put yourself in situations where they are being discussed. The "full on hatred for twenty years" is nothing of the sort - it's an exaggeration of that when they are referred to in media, it's generally not favourable.

As I say, you've just shown that you offer hatred about things you don't like (when was TFKR released, out of interest? Oh, it's OK for YOU to hate something that's been out a long time, right? Silly me, I forgot)

Now there's an arbitrary time scale during which people can offer their opinion?

Unfortunately, I suspect that if people who "hate" prequels simply said "no comment" when asked, you'd see that as coded hate. You essentially don't think it's OK for people to dislike the films you like, and you want to live your life sheltered from people whose opinion differs from yours.

And I'm not even going to engage with your comments about Superman being "Jewish at his core" - for someone who doesn't like to be disagreed with, you certainly don't mind being forthright about your opinions.

 

Here's the only way to escape negative comments about the Prequels-never read a single news article or a single discussion about Star Wars ever again.

As for Superman, the character being Jewish at his core is very much common knowledge-he was created by Jews, his origin is adapted from the story of Moses, his secret identity as an anglo-saxon is a parallel with the experiences of American Jews in the 20th Century, and his position as being an immigrant who does not fit completely with either his new world (Earth) or his old world (Krypton) is another parallel. Almost all scholarly writings about Superman cover this. He came from Jerry Siegel's real life, and part of Jerry's real life is that he was Jewish. This isn't really an opinion, this is pretty much a known fact. In fact, whitewashing Superman is what a lot of people point to as the beginning of the character's decline.

 

I think though, that rather than expect everyone else and the media at large to share one's own love for something, the answer is to ignore the negativity and be glad you love the films. It's not realistic to expect a trilogy of films where the general consensus is mixed at best to be given a free pass.

 

So maybe whoever wrote about Moses should be upset about fan fiction adapting their character into an American who has superpowers? Or is there some other rule about creative ownership of ideas and characters and appropriation that you're going to invent on the hoof to justify your own set of opinions, likes and predispositions?

 

That last bit is just foolish. Is every WWII story the same?

 

Quite.

 

None of what you wrote really changes the gist of what I was saying, although there are a lot of counter points to what you are saying which would take too long to type (e.g. some close to Lucas say the re-write changed the direction Lucas was going, meaning it had a lot of influence, the story changed because of his work with others).

My point was that:

1) ESB wouldn't be what it is without others, and in a different way than the analogies of music we were talking about. Yes, it was Lucas's baby, but it was also a collaborative effort.

2) Like Roddenberry, Tolkien, Hubbard, etc., Lucas created a frame work that others can just as capably fill in stories, movies, TV shows, etc. Lucas is not required for it to be quality SW.

What you said about Roddenberry was my whole point- one can take the framework and write their own stories. Roddenberry IS like Lucas in that he created the basic framework. They had other Sci-Fi writers of the time writing the stories in the original series after he created that framework, which they could also do with SW. The only difference is that Lucas took his framework and made a big body of work (while yes, exerting more control than Roddenberry, but still collaborating) before he entirely handed it over to others to write and create.

 

I built a life size X-Wing so I could feature it in a short psychedelic film about a man who paints an X-Wing bright pink while listening to The Beatles.
Unfortunately, the existence of an X-Wing in shot meant that I accidentally remade Star Wars Episode IV. Should have known better.

 

Not really.
The Rebellion becomes the New Republic and the Army uses captured Star Destroyers, Tie Fighters, AT-AT's etc alongside the X-Wings, A-Wings, B-Wings, Snow speeders etc.
The Rebellion and an Imperial Remnant work together to stop a new threat. No need to rehash the OT war.

 

While Ken and the other misery guts are determined not to enjoy this experience, I'm out of this thread because as the new TV spot proves, every damn second of this film looks incredible, and while story and script still need to be judged, I'm going to enjoy the run up rather than crying over who came up with the ideas or not.

 

All in all, none of us (and I mean none of us) knows the full story of what happened. The Making of TFA book won’t be coming out until October 2016 (which I find quite strange, actually). All we have is people using their own biases and prejudices to paint a picture of what they think must have happened. In reality, we’re all 100% in the dark.

 

This is just a meme. This was never actually a thing, ever.

 

I fail to see how that is more interesting than the galaxy struggling and failing to achieve order and peace after the turmoil caused by the rise and fall of the empire. Look at Europe after the fall of Rome. It was a mess for centuries. This rings true to me and doesn't require inventing some new outside threat.

 

I was throwing out ideas as to how X-Wings and Tie Fighters and stuff could be used in the ST without repeating the OT story.
Not ideas as to the entire ST.