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

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon, Oct 3, 2011.

  1. ezekiel22x Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 5
    Why include a line at all if you don't want someone to refer to it? Especially obviously confrontational "_____ totally owned ______" rhetoric.


    I didn't claim to know a lot. Only pointing out that films by Lucas and Cameron both have obvious ties to a major mainstream media corporation, and as such it's kind of silly to suggest one is a real artist and the other a greedy corporate doing-it-for-the-money artist.

    Sorry for the misquote. I only wish the "effeminate" part was also a misquote, as I don't see what that has to do with anything or why there is anything wrong with effeminate characteristics in a person.

  2. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Sure, DNA degrades at the ends over time. The point of my statement was merely that the foundation remains the same, the building blocks of the person: their experiences, memories, and even general DNA sequencing structure are all the same. If DNA did not retain any of its individually unique structure, after all, then it would be impossible to do DNA testing decades after a crime was committed to exonerate criminals and cloning would be impossible as well.

    Your statement that Lucas is the same as when he was a fetus is correct, from a certain point of view. If you had DNA from that fetus and cut it with restriction enzymes and took DNA from Lucas and used those same enzymes to cut it, you would get the same banding pattern. The same markers of identity would still be present. My point wasn't that Lucas is exactly the same today as he was when he was 32, merely that he is the sum of all those experiences. We are what we were before plus our new experiences.

    I'm not attempting to be cryptic with my sources. Here's the book where Cameron refers to Ellison as a parasite: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nTIHmEmXe_IC&oi=fnd&pg=PT3&dq=the+futurist+the+life+and+films+of+james+cameron&ots=bypswJZqKJ&sig=WaIAsrxCvu5zvtxNwxKx77Og00o#v=onepage&q=parasite&f=false

    The others I didn't post because since I could not substantiate their claims from Starlog magazine, I didn't see the point in citing them in the first place, but here it is if you are interested: http://www.terminatorfiles.com/media/articles/moviesfacts_013.htm

    There's also this video of Harlan Ellison's take on the matter: http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=65520

    I think it's a bit unfair of you to be completely dismissive of Ellison's claims, though. He has a right to protect his work if it was truly plagiarized and, if the editing of Starlog actually occurred, it does raise a few eyebrows.

    Here's another blog detailing the story, but, without the magazine itself, I know I won't convince anyone and can't come to any solid conclusions anyway, so I'll drop the issue.

    "Starlog #89, December 1984: Harlan Ellison vs. James Cameron

    "Some of you might know the details of this better than I do, but this issue features what I think is the interview that played a role in a lawsuit between writer Harlan Ellison and director James Cameron over
  3. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    I don't really know what you're saying here.

    If you're saying that old people are the same as young people, I disagree.

    You continue to cite the mainstream media.

    In the first place, I'm aware of every single thing you've posted. I know all of this, but I don't want to carry on about it because (a) it's boring and (b) it's complicated. That makes for a bad combination.

    If you're claiming that Cameron is a plagiarist, watch 'Soldier' and make up your own mind. Then watch 'Star Wars' and read King Arthur, the Hidden Fortress, and the Wizard of Oz and see which has more similarities: Terminator to Soldier or Star Wars to those. It's not even close.

    I have no idea whatsoever why you're carrying on about this. If you're saying that you think that James Cameron is a plagiarist, fine. Yo
  4. StampidHD280pro Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2005
    star 4
    An athlete has an objective to win a game and play within a certain set of rules. There is nothing creative about such bottom-line goals. Lucas on the other hand likes to make his own rules, and I'd like to think his objectives are a bit more abstract than "winning", "brand consistency", or simply "sales." I think he wants to teach, keep a sense continuity, and of course "sales."
  5. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I'm saying that who we are today is the sum of who we were in the past. You can't separate who you were yesterday from who you are today.

    And I do think that old people are the same as young people. Age is just a number. And adults are only kids grown up, anyway. To quote Walt Disney.

    Blogs are the mainstream media? What do you consider to not be a part of the MSM, then?

    I realize the issue is complicated and that the original Star Wars is heavily influenced by "The Hidden Fortress." I brought up Cameron and Ellison because it seemed to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you were claiming that Cameron has more artistic integrity than Lucas. I don't believe this to be true since there has been significant controversy surrounding Cameron, not just Lucas. For the record, I'm also not trying to say that I think Lucas is better than Cameron. I don't know either men, but they've both made choices I heavily disagree with (Lucas telling Carrie Fisher to lose ten pounds while Cameron called Kate Winselt, Kate "Weights-a-lot" is just one example).

    Honestly, what I find bizarre about Cameron's behavior is that he alternatively plays up Ellison's contributions to his fills and then dismisses them.

  6. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    You also posted from a big publishing house book. The blog didn't even have any quotes.

    You started this by saying that SHoSW is bunk because it uses "secondary sources". You were dead wrong, but then YOU are the one who uses the mainstream media and "secondary sources" time and time and time and time again.

    Show me proof that Cameron ever called Kate Winslet "Weighs a Lot". (This is gonna be good.) Show me where Cameron EVER credited Harlan Ellison.

    Dude....you're COMPLETELY - I'm sorry to say this - but you're completely ignorant about this subject. (Sorry, mods! I mean that literally, not as an offense.) You have no clue what you're talking about but you're acting as though you do. What's more, you're TOTALLY contradicting yourself with your professed lack of trust in "secondary sources", but then that's ALL you use!

    This is surreal, man.

    I don't want to argue with you any more about how age is "just a number" (yeah, so's a bank account), or how athletes don't create or what the definition of "create" and "perform" are. Think whatever you want.
  7. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    Yeah, Lucas ain't bound by "rules". He's a cowboy. When he wants to make the most expensive movie ever, he does.

    Oh, wait, he operated on a relative shoestring budget for the PT. So the rules of capital he follows VERY closely.

    Lucas is above the fray. All us peasants are trapped in the grid, but Lucas is floating above us all. He's not bound by anything.

    Oh, wait, except for the fact that he's been locked into this idiotic "Original Vision was the Tragedy of Darth Vader" hilariously bogus lie for over a decade now. He can't seem to break from the clutches of that cage he's locked himself into.

    Yeah, athletes are stuck down at the "bottom line", but Lucas doesn't worry about any "bottom line"!

    Oh, wait. LUCAS: "There's only one issue for a filmmaker: Will this make its money back so I can make the next one?" -George Lucas as quoted in Time Magazine; April 20, 2002 LUCAS: "[After I finished the original trilogy] I got a divorce and that sort of set me back quite a ways. One of the reasons to go back to Star Wars was it would hopefully make me financially secure enough to where I wouldn?t have to go back to studios and beg for money."

    It's fine that you think that Lucas isn't motivated by money and that he became a billionaire by accident or whatever. I think that he's motivated PRIMARILY by money, that all the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that, and that if he weren't his company would be bankrupt in a year.
  8. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    That did not happen.
  9. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Very well then. Magazines and newspapers are out of the question as sources. They're part of the mainstream media and might be biased or falsifying according to you. So are books apparently. Unless that book happens to be The Secret History of Star Wars. For whatever reason, that is an acceptable source for you. And I never said that the SHOSW was bunk. I merely said I took its claims with a grain of salt because they are subject to the author's bias (unconscious or otherwise). I still think it's a great resource, but I feel I would be better served if I went back and checked the original sources that it cites to view the quotes in context.

    I would provide you for a source for the Kate Weighs-a-lot insult but I doubt you'd take it considering you've eliminated all forms of media as credible sources and you refuse to let me know what counts as an acceptable source for you. I will say though, that Kate was quoted in The Independent saying she would never work for Cameron again except for a lot of money and described the experience as "an ordeal." Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lights-cameras-blockbuster-the-return-of-james-cameron-431615.html

    Of course, it's from the mainstream media, so I doubt you'll take it into consideration. And I presume you fully believe the example I posted about Lucas since you don't require a source for that, am I right?

    The quote concerning Ellison by Cameron was made in Starlog magazine and was used in Ellison's complaint as evidence that Cameron had plagiarized. Without access to the magazine itself, however, I can't substantiate that Ellison is telling the truth. I would imagine something must have been said by Cameron, however, for Ellison to use it as evidence in a suit against him.

    I find it rather galling of you to claim that I am ignorant when I have at least attempted to source my points and meet you halfway. You, on the other hand, have not bothered to source your quotes, instead, you've simply made claims while rarely providing any form of citation such as the following:

    (1) Harlan Ellison's claim was about Terminator 1, not T2. So you're off to a bad start.
    (2) There was one story Harlan Ellison claimed was plagiarized, and that was an episode of the Outer Limits called 'Soldier' (the short story wasn't a factor). QUOTE FROM ELLISON: ?'Terminator' was not stolen from 'Demon with a Glass Hand,' it was a ripoff of my OTHER Outer Limits script, 'Soldier.'?
    (3) The similarities between 'Soldier' and T1 were, by Ellison's own account, limited to the first "3 minutes" of each respective story: a soldier from the future lands in a present-day alley. That's it.
    (4) Cameron didn't fight it because he had told a reporter how much he liked Harlan Ellison's works....along with Isaac Asimov's, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, AE Van Vogt, and many others. That "incriminating" statement would've been enough for a Hollywood jury.
    (5) By any sane meas
  10. StampidHD280pro Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2005
    star 4
    Well, no I'm not naive. In fact, I suspect malignant motives behind the SW films at times. It's clear Lucas is motivated in a large part by money.

    To me it seems that the political story HAD been planned out before the release of the first SW movie, and that Anakin's story as it turned out has many parallels to it. To assume that the "Tragedy of Darth Vader" storyline wasentirely made up after Return of the Jedi is more of a stretch than to think that maybe he was tinkering with these story elements since the 70's.

    But I have to ask you, as the creator of the False Flag Star Wars youtube doc, do you really think Lucas picked the most profitable story line for the prequels? What motivates someone to make a movie like THX-1138, spending money on it again in 2004, only to be received by a relatively tiny audience?
  11. Rowboatcop Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2011
    star 1
    THX1138 was CGI'd in 04 to make it appeal to modern audiences, especially college kids. Ideally, you'd get Blade Runner in 1991. That didn't happen but it sort of worked. THX has a much higher profile now (and more home video money earned) than it would have if merely left alone.
  12. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    Still waiting for the place where you quoted Cameron making fun of Kate Winslet's weight. That's the source I requested and you acted like you produced. You didn't. (Don't worry, I know why you don't have a source: because you just made it up.)

  13. StampidHD280pro Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2005
    star 4
    Maybe, but all the film snobs I met in college (people I made friends with anywho) wouldn't watch Lucas's special editions on principle. THX isn't a money-maker anyway, and cannot be just based on the nature of the film.

    I was looking for a response from DBrennan anyway. I'm actually quite curious about his point of view concerning Lucas as an artist. Personally, I can't decide if the Star Wars series is specifically designed to make money, or if it's meant to have a positive impact on society, or even a negative one. These are VERY powerful and culturally relevant films, and they definitely weren't put together haphazardly.
  14. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    Just for the record, I don't at all allege "malignant" motives with the movies. I don't think that wanting money is a bad thing at all, and so I wouldn't call that malignant, and I like all the movies (maybe with the exception of AOTC) and consider them to have good, moral themes and ideas. That's my opinion.

    Maybe it's too deferential of me, but I consider SHoSW absolutely definitive on the arc of the development of the entire SW stories - particularly about Father Skywalker/Darth Vader but also about the political and other elements.

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "profitable storyline". I believe that Lucas has said many times - and I don't believe that this is a lie at all - that he wanted to show a story of how large civilizations crumble which, according to him, is usually from internal corruption. This is generally precipitated with false flag terrorism (Nero burning Rome, the Nazis various scams like the Reichstag fire, and 9/11 here in the modern American empire, in my strong opinion). This was in SW from at least 1975 like my little documentary says.

    I mean, I don't know how this is a NON-commercial storyline: it's archetypal, just like lots of the OT was, only that was somewhat premised off myths, and this is somewhat premised off of history.

    But Lucas himself explicitly said that 60% of the PT storyline was crammed into ROTS. This means that TPM and AOTC were largely superfluous - and I think that's indisputable. (In terms of screen time, it was relatively sparse. Hell, AOTC probably had, like, 3 minutes of this story within it!) So even if it was non-commercial, it was largely marginalized, especially in AOTC. (Like the near-elimination of Jar Jar Binks, I don't think there's any doubt that all the arbitrary action in AOTC was done as a response to viewer complaints about TPM.)

    So I guess what I'm saying is that the story itself might or might not have been a very commercial, accessible storyline. But even if it wasn't commercial, the risk was hedged by the fact that it was spread out over several movies and Lucas clearly obliged viewer demands that the talk of "taxation" and "blockades" from TPM be marginalized in AOTC.
  15. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Here it is: Rolling Stones March 5, 1998 interview with Kate Winslet
    http://kateplace.tripod.com/stone.html

    "To be a veteran actress at twenty-two is also to be a veteran interview subject, and Winslet has mastered the trick by which even life's painful moments become riffs. Winslet explains her old nickname, which was Blubber, and one later (from Cameron): Kate Weighs-a-Lot. "I was chubby as a child," she says. "When I was sixteen, I was fat. It was a family thing."

    It is also cited by Susan Bordo in her book They Say, I Say: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55407648/79/SUSAN-BORDO

    Granted, it's not a direct quote, but it does say that Winslet was the one explaining the nicknames. Perhaps I misunderstood though, and it's only Rolling Stones making the claim rather than Winslet herself.

    You're right. And I am embarrassed. Though perhaps ashamed is a better word here. You clearly know a lot more on the topic of James Cameron. I'll admit it. I will say, though, I wasn't trying to lie when I posted the topic on Ellison -- it was something I had read a couple of articles on since I'm a fan of his short story "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream." Though I wasn't trying to say that I knew for sure what had happened, I was somewhat familiar with the controversy, though clearly misinformed in that regard. And I wasn't trying to pose as a media savvy sophisticate or deliberately lie about James Cameron. I hope, at least, you'll give me the benefit of the doubt there. The Kate Winslet insult was something that I had read years ago, I didn't pull it out of thin air just to try to discredit Cameron.

    Either way, we'll end this debate since it is off topic and you're clearly in the know concerning the Cameron/Ellison debate. We (or maybe I should say, I) have wasted enough of people's time debating it. So I'll end it here and concede. Almost everything you wrote above is correct: I did bring up Ellison out of thin air and tried to act like I had more than a passing knowledge on the
  16. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    Ah, very good! I stand corrected (not that it happened, but that the mainstream media claims that it did). Good job, there.

    The media is essentially useless because they lie all the time, especially about Cameron's meanness, especially in the 1990's, but the quote does exist and it is there. (My favorite oft-reported Cameron mainstream media lie was that he "forced" the actors in diving gear on 'The Abyss' to pee in their wetsuits and this sent Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio off crying. (1) EVERY DIVER PEES IN THEIR WETSUIT ALL THE TIME! and (2) the Mastrantonio incident had nothing to do with that and was not a diving scene. Just one of probably 1,000 lies I came across about Cameron.)

    Anyway, I can't fault you for bringing it up, and sorry for my insinuation that you were lying wholesale.

    What a man! Everybody can get heated and wanna win internet arguments and sink to bad depths to do so - whether it's by cursing, harsh insults, or tall tales and exaggerations. So I've dealt with this (and, who am I kidding, actually DONE this) many times. I think that your public apology is the first one that I've EVER seen.

    Maybe you'll start an internet trend that will forever undo the nasty message board/comments section hostilities. The act of withdrawing and apologizing for a "win at all costs" dialogue will forevermore be called, "Wearing Piett's Hat". As in, "I'm sorry that I called you all names for disagreeing with my opinion on taxes. I take it all back. I'm wearing Piett's Hat!" Or, "Okay, okay: I don't KNOW that that ballplayer took steroids, and when I said that I did, I was kinda exaggerating. I'm wearing Piett's Hat!"

  17. StampidHD280pro Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2005
    star 4
    Okay. I see where you're coming from now. I think you're simplifying a bit by claiming that most of the political story is crammed into ROTS. I would even argue that AOTC has just as much, but it's all kind of under the surface. The clones for instance. The way they're grown and the way they're trained to be arranged in rows. You can see it in the Jedi Order. If you're not in the database, you don't exist. Blablabla. Lucas in many ways has been remaking THX 1138 as a swashbuckling movie for kids over and over again. I'm sure you know this. The backstory for Star Wars (1977) was inevitably going to be "The Tragedy of ... Someone" so I really don't understand why the phrase "Original Vision" has become a sort of running joke among fanboys. Speaking of which, the insertion of Boba Fett into clone armor isn't as much fan service as some would like to portray. The vague backstory of Boba Fett and his Mandalorian armor has always been rumored to have a strong connection to the Clone Wars. Since the early 80's from what I understand.

    I think a lot of fans fail to see the fuzzy logic behind it all and are much too quick to call Lucas a liar.

    When I suggested that maybe Lucas had "malignant" motives (maybe I meant "malevolent" or just "bad") when making Star Wars, I wasn't suggesting that making money was bad. Not at all. But I wonder sometimes what the movies themselves do besides make money for Lucas. As you mentioned, there's a morality tale in there somewhere. Depending on your point of view, it can take on many meanings. I think ROTS and its storyline sort of injected a bit of moral relativism into the OT, but that's another topic. What concerns me about Star Wars is that yes, it's partly based on history and mythology, but I have to tell you something. When I first watched Revenge of the Sith, I got the distinct feeling that I was not only watching a warning but a promise. As someone familiar with Alex Jones, you may have heard the term "predictive programming". That's what I felt like I was watching, and at the time conspiracy theories were comple
  18. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    I think that your definition of politics includes a lot of philosophy. The idea about whether the Jedi were overly regimented and began to be like the clones is only a subtext of the movie, if anything, and I wouldn't necessarily call that political. (Although, I guess that it's a meaningful idea and therefore it SHOULD be political.)

    Even with the false flag terrorism, I definitely don't think that George Lucas intended it to be "political" in the way that modern Americans define the term. I think Lucas meant for the story to convey a common and serious trait of many governments and civilization. Conversely, when most Americans talk politics, I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of it is the cable news pundits arguing over, ya know, sexual flings and who trips over their words and who has business experience and who got this endorsement or who supports the troops the most. It's just all goofy fluff for amusement with a veneer of seriousness because they're "political". It's nothing at all like any of the thoughtful elements of the Star Wars movies.

    So....if I ever argued that Star Wars was political (and I don't know that I did), I definitely didn't mean it in the way we define politics in modern America.

    Alex Jones's talk about "predictive programming" (where he argues that governments and/or large entities incorporate ideas into pop culture to make people accepting of an idea - priming the pump - before later doing it for real: like having the military police the American public in violation of posse comitatus) is often right, I believe. But I don't at all think that Star Wars was doing that. Just the opposite: I think that Lucas copied governments....and governments are just continuing to do what they've been doing since at least Roman times. So what you might've sense when watching ROTS wasn't meant to be predicting the future, it was meant to be conveying the past. But it's just that history repeats!
  19. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    (Not to revert to the off-topic argument of earlier, but I just posted my old Terminator plagiarism article for free on Scribd.com: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71012648/The-Terminator-Plagiarism-Charge-by-Harlan-Ellison.)
  20. PANAKIN_Hightalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2003
    star 1
    DBrenn

    Not sure if u wanna bring up anything A.Jones-related in here man lol [face_shhh] . You might accidentally/incidentally invalidate all of your commentary due to the perception of what- or- who inspires your outlook and thought process lol.

    J/K (or maybe not...)[face_flag]
  21. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    Oh, thanks for reminding me! I haven't been to ol' Infowars.com in a few days, I'll go see what's up right now.

    No, really, I do definitely prefer the "alternative media" but I'm not overly trusting of any media entity. I mean, 99.99% of the stuff has zero influence on me and I can't affect anyhow, so it's not something I pay TOO much attention to. I first got into it when I saw Building 7 and, right after, 'Terrorstorm' back in 2006. I got really interested for a while, but it's kind of faded for me.
  22. PANAKIN_Hightalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2003
    star 1
    Yeah, there tends to be some very interesting information and commentary on that site and others, but it almost becomes sensory-overload at a certain point, when, really ya just trying to put together the REAL story from the middle-ground between all the posturing and grand-standing with what's being reported there and on the corp news outlets lol.

    Admittedly, ^^^^ that IS a Lonnngggg, off-balanced sentence [face_laugh]
  23. StampidHD280pro Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2005
    star 4
    Actually, I think the study of ideologies which are shall-we-say "Different" widens one's perspective and strengthens one's reputability. You can't rightly debunk something until you take it seriously. Same thing goes for the prequels. I may be crazy for liking the prequels, but at least I'm having fun! Delude yourself into liking the prequels, you get a dose of gratitude. Taking everything Alex Jones says without a grain of salt, you end up a paranoid wreck. At least in my experience.[face_alien_1]

    What really invalidates your opinion is when you liken prequel-bashers to the Tea Party Movement, for instance.[face_laugh] Sorry, it just sounds like something I would have said when I was a freshman in college.
  24. -NaTaLie- Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2001
    star 4
    Nothing's wrong with the era. I totally dig the 70s hair, for example :)
    While I don't like some of the changes, I'm not going to worry too much unless Lucas starts talking about replacing puppet Yoda or something.
  25. darth-sinister Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2001
    star 9

    Lucas said in the 1977 issue of "Rolling Stone" that he was disappointed in the final product of ANH. So the idea to go back and make changes goes that far back. The specific ideas weren't in place until he sat down to work on them, but there were a few things that he had wanted to do, but didn't have the money or time to deal with it and so he waited. His decisions are fueled in part by his dedication to achieving a desired look, which in some cases is to match up to the PT. Some, but not all.