Saga What is wrong with the SW films being of their era?

I'm with Anakinfan here. It was laudable of Lucas to recast the Jedi as Palpatine's "useful idiots". In doing so, he illustrates the role religious institutions often play in legitimatizing warfare, making the enterprise more palatable for those who would otherwise balk.

There's something rather insidious--pun intended--about men of God who opt to give comfort and aid to government policy. They're so quick to shout, "God bless our troops!", without giving pause to ask why their particular god would have a stake in bloodshed in the first place. In ceasing to question, they abandon all principle, and relinquish their souls to worldly politicos and tyrants. Just like the PT Jedi.

 

Yes, Lando, Nien, and Wedge were responsible for the destruction of DS II, and the entire Alliance contributed to the war. The PT never intended or attempted to erase these facts from SW history, and wouldn't have had the power to do so in any case. However, the Emperor had an escape shuttle, and one Emperor trying to get to that shuttle moves faster than one Luke dragging one Vader. Thus, even in the utopian days before "Lucas shoved the prophecy into the prequels", the Emperor's death was still dependent on the actions of Darth Vader. As we saw in ANH, destroying a Death Star doesn't bring down the Empire. If Palpatine gets away it's not over.

 

But why? He's one old guy flying around in a shuttle. The stormtroopers aren't religious fanatics or droids. If the rebels pull off a coup and can make the payroll, there's no empire. (And the Biggs scene suggests some guys merely got drafted)

 

The Jedi, in addition to their religious aspect, are also guardians of peace and justice. So far as the public knew, the greatest threat to that was Count Dooku. That's not counter to their nature, it is part and parcel of their job.

One cannot one minute fault the Jedi for not acting against Palpatine earlier (despite lacking the authority to do so) and then fault them again a minute later for finally arresting him but failing to grant him due process of law. The only thing that Lucas did right with the Jedi was having Mace Windu try to arrest Palpatine, and having that used to paint the order as revolutionaries. In this sense, they are being villified not for what they did wrong, but what they did right.

The Alliance fought to restore the Republic, and Luke to restore the Jedi and his father. In the prequels, all three are deprived of their redeeming characteristics--making the entire enterprise of "restoring" them questionable. It's perfectly acceptable to make your heroes flawed. The problem is that Lucas picked the wrong one. Instead of Anakin the flawed hero, he makes everyone else the bad guy to make him sympathetic, and absolved of blame for his own fate.

 

Unless there was a Blame-O-Meter added to the Blu-rays, this never happened. It was never established in the films and is thus nothing more than subjective personal opinion.

 

Yet they marched off to war under the most nebulous of circumstances, with the clones of Count Dooku's personal bodyguard to boot.

On the spiritual obtuseness scale, Yoda's Holy Order of Schmucks rates a "9". (My ex-pastor, who supported the invasion of Iraq, rates a "11").

 

I don't really understand your reasoning.
The "Han shoots first" change and the "no-change" are issues that deal with a core aspect of story. Charakterisation... It is just as important as plot. The changes screw with the previous charakterisation of Han or Vader.
This is not just superficially inserting a rock in the landscape of Tatooine. It is changing how we view these charakters. You say you care for the "unique" aspects of Star Wars, I guess you mean its essence, but you are still okay with changes that directly effect what Star Wars is. Maybe you were bothered by Vaders reservedness in the first place or didn't care for it at least? That's okay, but really, is it that hard to understand that others liked this trait of his and do not want it removed?

 

Hans ruthlessness is a very important aspect of his personality just like reservedness was one for Vader. Changing his actions on ROTJ is turning him out of charakter in one of my favorite scenes of the saga (plus arguably "the" most dramatically important scene of the entire saga) and ruins it. It simply doesn't work with the Vader we have seen, it is an inconsistency. I'm not sure I will go to the screening of ROTJ in 3D despite the fact that I never had the option to see the OT on the big screen. So I can't ignore it either.

Then we are at odds here.

 

IMO the problem with the change isn't anything to do with Vader's characterization. It's the fact that the Emperor is now prematurely warned of Vader's resistance.

 

For the record, I was not really satisfied with Vader's silent turn in ROTJ. As a child (10-15 years ago) it definitely worked for me, but over time I felt that the end of the movie felt a bit empty, especially within the context of the saga.

And yes, to me it does change the characterization. It makes Anakin/Vader a weaker character, without as much depth, AND YET I prefer Anakin/Vader's final turn that way. Not a move a progress, but a move true to the somewhat stagnant character of Anakin/Vader. He's not a hero in the traditional sense, but he does save the day.

 

This I can accept. The story of the saga was changed in those intervening years, which is what led to the additions, which you prefer.

It's different for me, though. I can appreciate the story as it has become but overwhelmingly prefer it the way it was; I wish that version of not just the film but the underlying story/vibe were given its due.

 

Question, if the SW filmswere altered to be black and white would that change the movies?
Story and characters are not changed one bit, we have the same actors, same themes, same everything.

What about adding color to a black and white film? None of the characters are changed, the story is the same etc.
The only change is how the film looks.

Lucas of course DO think that adding color to B/W films is very wrong and changes them quite a bit.
As I recall he said that adding color to old films is trying to make them into something they are not, new films.

Regards
Nordom

 

Using this logic it should be perfectly ok to add color to old movies because surely those people would have shot in color if that had been avaliable right?

However Lucas do not agree with you, in his view adding color to old movies is plain wrong.

Regards
Nordom

 

The fact of the matter is that it is showing now that people are getting sick of the big deal the fanboys have been making for years now over the few additions and differences between the old horribly aged versions of movies that look great and sound great in 1080p on blu-ray.

You can spin it any way you want but the truth is that after the way the fanboys publicly embarrassed themselves (yet AGAIN) with the mass hysteria made over the blu-ray that ended up selling better and faster than anything in the history of the format people are just sick of having to entertain all the hate every SINGLE time something star wars comes out. People just like star wars and just want to keep watching it on tv, on blu-ray and in 3D and most people are willing to accept the fact that the PT films are just as classic and fondly remembered and enjoyed as the OT was and it keeps going. Because people LIKE STAR WARS and they dont care to hear fanboy arguments or nasty memes anymore.

 

Fanboys included. If we didn't, we'd shut up and ignore Lucas's efforts to destroy the original films.

 

Actually when you go to the review sections of the amazon page you will find a lot of self-proclaimed "non-fans" who seem just as upset. Star Wars is much, much larger than its fandom. In fact the OT-box only gets a meager 3,5 stars and the saga box a whopping 2,5 stars.

That they still selled so well may be because of the brand or misinformation (people who buy the boxes not being aware of the changes) and so on. What we definitely can't say is: Oh, the boxes sold well so everything is wonderful.

 

Also, in spite of all the problems this is still STAR WARS in the best quality home video presentation - a resolution that nearly rivals the silver screen.

I'm sure that for a lot of people "most of the Star Wars I want, on Blu-Ray" is better than "none of the Star Wars I want, on Blu-Ray".

 

I know what you mean. I get irritated when some new Starwars news comes out and (on other sites) the comments at the bottom ALWAYS go to the negative. "Anythings better than that crap Lucas dished out in the prequels." or "Lets hope Lucas doesn't screw this up the way he screwed up the prequels or SEs"

For example, the poster for TPM 3D has been released and rather than comment on the poster, people IMMEDIATELY start in with the prequel bashing.
I mean come on! I even see it when the story is about a NON starwars movie reboot or prequel. It always comes back to "Anythings better than the crappy starwars movies we got in 99, 02, and 05."

 

I think it's funny when it show up at random in a article (written by a professional journalist!) that has only a tenuous-at-best connection with Star Wars.

Personal favorite: the critic in National Review randomly bitching about the prequels in his review of the Watchmen movie. Yes, National Review, the William F. Buckley Jr. magazine.

 

HERP DERP! It's only a vocal minority on the interwebs that hates the prequels, guize!

Just stop it. Seriously. Knock it off with this victim complex.

 

Keep in mind that it's not always a matter of SW nerds getting one more jab in.

The fact is, the prequels (TPM in particular) occupy a prominent place in cinema history, and for many critics and viewers it isn't a flattering one.

Many if not most reviewers examine new movies in relation to what has come before, and these references work best if the reader has actually seen the film being referenced. And LOTS of people have seen the PT, so of course it's going to be a common point-of-reference.

Just as the original Star Wars was the launching point of big blockbusters (for better or for worse), the prequels were the start and/or is emblematic of a number of problems/big changes in Hollywood around the turn of the millennium:

-an overwhelming (some would say excessive) use of CGI
-a focus on resurrecting dead/dormant franchises (particularly from the 80s)
-horrifically wooden acting, even by blockbuster standards

And for what it's worth, all three of the above apply to Watchmen. Watchmen also seems to have been made with a fundamental lack of understanding of what made the original great in the first place, aside from a superficial fidelity to the visuals - a charge many have leveled against the PT.

 

Its funny how the prequels have, in a way, ushered in a new aesthetic and/or captured a turn-of-the-century zeitgeist. But, as with the originals, I would argue that Hollywood has, again, missed the boat; in fact, the boat, the port and the whole damn harbour. Star Wars has an indelible seal that cannot be minted. If theres a true successor to the prequels in recent years, I would submit The Wachowskis "Speed Racer" as the discerning-blockbuster-lovers movie-of-choice. Terribly haughty phrasing, I know; but its just too much fun to resist. Not much else, in terms of mainstream Fantasy/Sci-Fi, has really impressed me in the past few years.

 

I know dude. What, you actually think I take those people seriously? I just think they are amusingly weird.

Did you know that Yoda talks backwards too much now?