Greenhilt afterlife conundrum.

[Bastian Weaver]

The whole cycle of western->eastern->western retelling on the same basic story beats (see Seven Samurai/Magnificent Seven) but improved in every iteration is the greatest argument against copyright restrictions longer than a handful of years.

In general, yes, but frankly, Seven Samurai was so much better than Magnificent Seven (which was rather cool by itself). Not so much as improved in every iteration, but rather spreading the good thing around, enriching the genre.
See also: Buster Keaton/Jackie Chan.

[The Pilgrim]

One highly original film with revolutionary effects, followed 3 years later by another with brilliant writing and directing and a cliffhanger ending, were the foundation of the franchise's success. Then marketing made up for the weaknesses in the next four (or five, or six, or seven; YMMV) films.

Except that there was little in regards to originality in the original film. It was just a standard "Heroe's Journey", and even the choreography of the thrilling climatic scene at Yavin was just a ripoff of WW2 dogfight scenes which were common at movies of the time. Take away the cool imagery and Star Wars would have been forgotten as another sci-fi B-Movie.

Over the years, and specially after the prequels, George Lucas has got a lot of flak questioning his skill as a director and story teller, to the point that many people doubt he has any skill as a filmmaker at all. What no one has ever questioned is his talent at coming up with good ideas, great concepts, and cool stuff in general. That was his stenght and, therefore, the foundation that made Star Wars a success.

In adittion to that, is the fact that Lucas was a nobody back then and his cut from the original Star Wars movie was slim. But he had the vision of keeping for himself the rights for the merchandise, whose potential the film producers overlooked. Thefore, again, the foundations of George Lucas' fortune laid in coming up with cool stuff and having the skill to turn them into highly marketeable merchandise.

So, when Grey Wolf said, regarding Bobba Fett's popularity, "I'm guessing he had a cool armour?", the answer is, yep, you nailed it. That was what make every child want to buy his action figurine and every fanfic writer expand his background. George Lucas designed him to be "a bounty hunter with a cool armour that will sell well as a merchandise product" , and he got it right.

In my oppinion the Prequel's equivalent to Bobba Fett was Darth Maul, an one-dimensional generic villiain character with little to no dialogue or character development in Phantom Menace, but with a cool design that make him popular and got people to expand his background, give him a personality, and, like Bobba Fett, was ultimatelly allowed to survive his original death scene.

[Fyraltari]

Yup, and we all know that TR-8R (okay, FN-2199) is going to be back someday.

[Peelee]

You are a fraud and a bad role-model for our children.

Well, yes, but that's unrelated.

[Fyraltari]

Or Vaarsuvius could learn ressurection.
BECAUSE WHO NEEDS RULES WHEN YOU HAVE MAGIC!!!

Hey fyraltari want to create a vaarsuvius fanclub.

No, I do not.

[The Pilgrim]

Yup, and we all know that TR-8R (okay, FN-2199) is going to be back someday.

The new triology provides further proof that Lucas was a genius at his trade. The Disney guys came up with a great concept, Captain Phasma, and totally screwed it, to the point that a plain stroomtroper with 15s of screen time became more memorable than her.

Lucas wouldn't have failed at that. At many other things, perhaps, but not at that.

[Bastian Weaver]

In my oppinion the Prequel's equivalent to Bobba Fett was Darth Maul, an one-dimensional generic villiain character with little to no dialogue or character development in Phantom Menace, but with a cool design

Exactly. But at least Darth Maul managed to kill a Jedi.

The new triology provides further proof that Lucas was a genius at his trade.

"Was"? You mean, of course, that he IS a genius. Selling the work of your life to a soulless corporation doesn't change that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

"Was"? You mean, of course, that he IS a genius. Selling the work of your life to a soulless corporation doesn't change that.

Selling your life's work for several billion dollars to fund your retirement seems like genius to me, honestly.

Souls are overrated anyway.

Grey Wolf

[Vinyadan]

Lucas wasn't a nobody before SW. American Graffiti was a big deal when it came out.

Also remember that there is more to a character than simply "design" and "words". Acting, writing, and filming don't stop at dialogue.

And Phasma is overrated. Unlike Darth Maul and Boba Fett, she really is just a random peon covered in chrome. For some odd enamouring among fans that happened during VII, they gave her more room in VIII, but it didn't add anything to the appeal of the movie -- simply because she has no history, no personality, and nothing special that would make her a more dangerous test than any other trooper.

[Kish]

Lucas wasn't a nobody before SW. American Graffiti was a big deal when it came out.

So was Howard the Duck.

Probably not in the way you mean, though.

Lucas gets way too much credit for Star Wars, credit that rightfully belongs to his now-ex wife, to Harrison Ford, and to lots of people in Hollywood. It wasn't even his decision that Darth Vader was Luke's father rather than a random juggernaut of motivationless evil, and when that got changed on him, he introduced the Emperor also being a Dark Jedi (retconning the explicit statement in Star Wars that Vader was the only Imperial remnant of the Jedi) so that the Emperor could be a random juggernaut of motivationless evil.

He (Lucas, not the Emperor) deserves all the "credit" for the prequels, though.

[Peelee]

Lucas gets way too much credit for Star Wars, credit that rightfully belongs to his now-ex wife

IIRC Lucas himself credits her with practically single-handedly saving the first movie.

[Vinyadan]

It wasn't even his decision that Darth Vader was Luke's father rather than a random juggernaut of motivationless evil, and when that got changed on him, he introduced the Emperor also being a Dark Jedi (retconning the explicit statement in Star Wars that Vader was the only Imperial remnant of the Jedi) so that the Emperor could be a random juggernaut of motivationless evil.

Source? The version I know is that Brackett's draft did have Anakin as a different person from Vader, but, after Brackett died one month after she gave him the draft, Lucas reworked the script and had it reviewed by Kasdan, and, at the end of the process, Vader had become Anakin. There also are descriptions of Kasdan's surprise at Lucas revealing to him this plot point, so I think it probably was Lucas' idea (possibly inspired by Prowse's jocular comments to fans: San Francisco Examiner, July 24, 1978, 4. ).

[woweedd]

So was Howard the Duck.

Probably not in the way you mean, though.

Lucas gets way too much credit for Star Wars, credit that rightfully belongs to his now-ex wife, to Harrison Ford, and to lots of people in Hollywood. It wasn't even his decision that Darth Vader was Luke's father rather than a random juggernaut of motivationless evil, and when that got changed on him, he introduced the Emperor also being a Dark Jedi (retconning the explicit statement in Star Wars that Vader was the only Imperial remnant of the Jedi) so that the Emperor could be a random juggernaut of motivationless evil.

He (Lucas, not the Emperor) deserves all the "credit" for the prequels, though.

You're being too harsh on Lucas. Man has his flaws, ranging from cringe-inducing, vaguely offensive comic relief, to an inability to get believable performances out to his actors, to being one of the worst dialogue writers in Hollywood, but even the Prequels demonstrate quite the knack for world-building and some pretty strong character CONCEPTS, even if the execution leaves something to be desired. The world of the Prequels is a fascinating one, i'd argue more so then the OT. I mean, politics is already pretty interesting and anything but boring, as anyone who's watched the news recently can tell you. A story of an ancient and increasingly corrupt republic slowly sliding into dictatorship, all against the backdrop of a galaxy-spanning war? In concept, that actually sounds a lot more interesting than the generic "good guy Rebels VS Evil Empire" thing. That's why TCW animated series was so great. It took a world that was already inherently interesting, and figured out how to use it well. Plus, i'd argue Anakin Skywalker IS a great character...JUst maybe not in the way George intended. As a tragic hero, brought low by the very qualities that amd him great, he's an utter failure. But, as the lead in what is essentially the origin story of a serial killer? Well, petulant rage, narcissism, possessive envy...Yep, that sounds like the kid who'll grow up to be Space Hitler alright.

[Bastian Weaver]

So was Howard the Duck.

Probably not in the way you mean, though.

Lucas gets way too much credit for Star Wars, credit that rightfully belongs to his now-ex wife, to Harrison Ford, and to lots of people in Hollywood. It wasn't even his decision that Darth Vader was Luke's father rather than a random juggernaut of motivationless evil, and when that got changed on him, he introduced the Emperor also being a Dark Jedi (retconning the explicit statement in Star Wars that Vader was the only Imperial remnant of the Jedi) so that the Emperor could be a random juggernaut of motivationless evil.

He (Lucas, not the Emperor) deserves all the "credit" for the prequels, though.

Okay.
A) The prequels were good films. So no need for quote-unquote here.
B) According to Mark Hamill, the decision to make Vader Luke's father was known to Irvin Kershner and Lucas. "I'll tell this to you, and you'll also know. And if someone else finds out", Kershner said to Hamill, "we'll know that it was you!"
So it doesn't seem that it was "changed on him".
Here's the video of Hamill telling the tale.
https://twitter.com/BBCOne/status/1124605836742090752
C) When was it explicitly stated that Vader was the only Imperial remnant of the Jedi? Also, the novelization of A New Hope called Vader "the dark lord of the Sith" in the first pages. No such thing as a "Dark Jedi" was mentioned there (but it was mentioned that there were other Sith Lords, and Vader was the scariest).

[hamishspence]

C) When was it explicitly stated that Vader was the only Imperial remnant of the Jedi?

Tarkin's "You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion" may be what's meant. It does imply that Vader is the only former Jedi working for the Empire at this point.

[Bastian Weaver]

Tarkin's "You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion" may be what's meant. It does imply that Vader is the only former Jedi working for the Empire at this point.

True that. Then again, the second and third film continue with the same idea. Vader is the only former Jedi, and the Emperor seduced him with the power of the Dark Side.

[Peelee]

The prequels were good films. So no need for quote-unquote here.

Leaving aside that this is obviously subjective, surely you are aware that a significant percent of viewers disliked the prequels.

[Kish]

Okay.
A) The prequels were good films. So no need for quote-unquote here.

The prequels were awful films, built around an idiot plot, with a villain who lacked any trace of a personality but made up for it with skill at Xanatos Roulette.

[Bastian Weaver]

Leaving aside that this is obviously subjective, surely you are aware that a significant percent of viewers disliked the prequels.

It's not that subjective. The visual effects, the music, the plot, the acting were all good. Ewan McGregor did a great job playing a very young Obi-Wan, he even sounded like Alec Guinness.
Since I'm a nice person, I keep my opinion about the viewers who disliked the prequels to myself.

The prequels were awful films, built around an idiot plot, with a villain who lacked any trace of a personality but made up for it with skill at Xanatos Roulette.

Once again, objectively they were great.
The plot of Phantom Menace was awesome and multi-layered. The politics of the Senate, the strange boldness of the usually cowardly Trade Federation, and some good old lightsaber hack-slashing and explosions in space. And the villain was charming when he needed to, and recognizable as the Emperor-to-be in other moments.

[Peelee]

It's not that subjective.

Sure it is. Case in point:

It's not that subjective. The visual effects, the music, the plot, the acting were all good.

The visual effects look noticeably dated, the plot (especially Ep I) is disjointed, and the acting is terrible.

Once again, objectively they were great.

You're choosing a remarkably poor hill to die on.

[Kish]

It's not that subjective. The visual effects, the music, the plot, the acting were all good. Ewan McGregor did a great job playing a very young Obi-Wan, he even sounded like Alec Guinness.
Since I'm a nice person, I keep my opinion about the viewers who disliked the prequels to myself.



Once again, objectively they were great.

Rather, they were garbage, and you're being passive-aggressive, but you are doing a remarkable job of conveying that attempting to actually engage with you would be pointless.

The visual effects were a string of goofy fight scenes. The plot...well, I already said this one. And the acting was remarkably wooden, though I do believe the actors did as well as they could have done with explicit instructions by the hack Lucas to act wooden (or "stoic").

Shall we go around again?

[Peelee]

And the acting was remarkably wooden, though I do believe the actors did as well as they could have done with explicit instructions by the hack Lucas to act wooden (or "stoic").

Now let's be fair, reportedly his direction style consists of saying "faster" and "more intense."

[Ruck]

objectively

You keep using that word, etc.

[The Pilgrim]

Tarkin's "You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion" may be what's meant. It does imply that Vader is the only former Jedi working for the Empire at this point.

And, indeed, he was. Because Emperor Palpatine was not a former Jedi. Unlike Anakin, he was never trained as a Jedi, was never taught the Jedi religion, and never belived in it. He did not fall from the Light to the Dark Side of the Force. He enrolled on the Dark Side from the beginning.

[LadyEowyn]

Here’s how I think the OT differs from the prequels.

Episode 4 has a pretty generic plot (Call to Adventure, rescue princess, defeat bad guys) and pretty basic characters (wizard mentor, princess, everyman-hero with a famous legacy, rogue), so it’s not those things that made Star Wars famed and loved.

I’d say it was a combination of:

1) Music. John William’s score is a huge part of what makes Star Wars iconic.

2) Visuals. The opening scene, Star Destroyers, Vader, life ghtsabers, the Millennium Falcon, the all manage to strike a chod with people. Contrast with Avatar, which also got a lot of focus on its visual spectacle but failed to create iconic images in the same way.

3) Ad-libbed lines and charismatic actors. Lucas can’t write dialogue, but Harrison Ford in particular made up for it by inventing his own lines. The original series is endlessly quotable, whereas the Prequels are pretty much omly quoted to mock the wooden dialogue. The dialogue and acting in the OT makes the characters better than they would otherwise have been.

The prequels have a more complex and involved plot with a lot of potential, but unlike in the OT, the actors don’t succeed in saving the uninspired dialogue, and the visuals (aside from Maul) don’t stand out as much - a lot of them are things we’ve already seen in the OT.

[woweedd]

As I said earlier, the Prequels are bad movies, but they aren't ALL bad. Like lots of George Lucas's work, they have a lot of interesting CONCEPTS, waylaid by poor execution. George Lucas, to me, is a lot like M. Night Shyamalan: He's very creative, and has great ideas, but he's not the best at implementation, and REALLY needs someone to help tell which of his many ideas are good. Honestly, reading the Prequel novelizations shows me that, honestly, George would probably have been better as a novelist then as a filmmaker. His famously awful dialogue reads a lot better written down, and when not conveyed by bad actors, and I think a medium where he's allowed to worldbuild more could have played to his strengths better.

[Darth Paul]

As I said earlier, the Prequels are bad movies, but they aren't ALL bad. Like lots of George Lucas's work, they have a lot of interesting CONCEPTS, waylaid by poor execution. George Lucas, to me, is a lot like M. Night Shyamalan: He's very creative, and has great ideas, but he's not the best at implementation, and REALLY needs someone to help tell which of his many ideas are good. Honestly, reading the Prequel novelizations shows me that, honestly, George would probably have been better as a novelist then as a filmmaker. His famously awful dialogue reads a lot better written down, and when not conveyed by bad actors, and I think a medium where he's allowed to worldbuild more could have played to his strengths better.

Question: Weren't the novelizations ghost-written from the scripts anyway? So I think (if I'm right about that) Lucas would be a decent co-author at best.
He has a good head for concept, but the actual script is best when put in the hands of someone like Lawrence Kasdan. Empire was hands down THE best written of the films, and for that matter Irv Kirshner got the best acting out of the cast as well. It makes one wonder what might have happened if someone else had written and directed the prequels.

Speaking of which:

It's not that subjective. The visual effects, the music, the plot, the acting were all good. Ewan McGregor did a great job playing a very young Obi-Wan, he even sounded like Alec Guinness.
Since I'm a nice person, I keep my opinion about the viewers who disliked the prequels to myself.


Once again, objectively they were great.
The plot of Phantom Menace was awesome and multi-layered. The politics of the Senate, the strange boldness of the usually cowardly Trade Federation, and some good old lightsaber hack-slashing and explosions in space. And the villain was charming when he needed to, and recognizable as the Emperor-to-be in other moments.

I say this as someone who can tolerate the prequels: they are fair at best.

Great music, but what can you expect? It's John Williams. But the majority of the dialogue is horribly stilted (when's the last time you heard any actual kid say "Yippee!"?), some is actively painful ("I don't like sand") and while the politics could be interesting, it's hindered by the need to wedge Palpatine's machinations in with an action-adventure plot along the way. The true highlight is seeing the Jedi gunned down and watching the Anakin/Obi-Wan duel.

It's kind of sad commentary that the Darths & Droids webcomic parody takes the plot of the prequels and ends up with them making more sense as coming about from an RPG group making stuff up on the fly. I can't explain because of spoilers, but Anakin's origin in particular is a lot more convincing than the way Lucas told it.

[Bastian Weaver]

Sure it is. Case in point:

The visual effects look noticeably dated, the plot (especially Ep I) is disjointed, and the acting is terrible.

You're choosing a remarkably poor hill to die on.

Pfft. Compare the visual effects to the original trilogy and then come tell me which look noticeably dated.
And no matter how long you repeat "the acting is terrible, the acting is terrible", it won't make Ewan McGregor any less awesome as young Obi-Wan. He actually plays the younger version of Alec Guinesses's character. The voice, the accent, the manner are perfect.
But feel free to give any examples you find relevant. That's what civilized people do, after all - using arguments, not saying something about death of people they talk to. Would you kindly take that last remark back, by the way?

[Bastian Weaver]

Rather, they were garbage, and you're being passive-aggressive, but you are doing a remarkable job of conveying that attempting to actually engage with you would be pointless.

The visual effects were a string of goofy fight scenes. The plot...well, I already said this one. And the acting was remarkably wooden, though I do believe the actors did as well as they could have done with explicit instructions by the hack Lucas to act wooden (or "stoic").

Shall we go around again?

By "a string of goofy fight scenes", you mean the underwater travel, the flight of the Nubian, the Coruscant landing? Because these are the visuals, and they were stunning.
But you, my friend, are being active aggressive instead of actually discussing the films. By all means, let's go around again. I can do this all day.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Please lets not just repeat the same argukents over and over.
I personally like te originals best. But I also enjoy the prequels (albeit for different reasons).
Maybe we can just accept that we all have different opinions and appreciate different things in movies.
I might like te music, lightsabres, and space explosions, but others may appreciate an intriguing plot more.
Heck, maybe tgere is someone here who likes Jar Jar!