Slashdot Mirror
Can Star Wars Episode III Be Saved?
mcwop writes "MSNBC is running a commentary asking: 'Can "Star Wars: Episode III" be saved?' It proposes changes such as ripping off Akira Kurosawa, getting the otherwise good actors to emote, and even firing Lucas. It is one year away, but is it too late to save Episode III?"
It can't be saved, because it is exactly what people demand. American culture makes this movie inevitably what it will be. Does this condemn Lucas, or the low standards of the viewing consumer?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Does Lucas know how people feel? Does he listen to the criticism? Does he realize it is hurting his reputation as a filmmaker? Is that his real neck or did he get implants? Am I asking too many questions???
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
I.e. to cash in on the success of the original series. It doesn't have to be *good* to do that. It only has to have "Star Wars" in the title.
It'll serve it's purpose. Unless you are planning not to bother going to see it, which as geeks and nerds, I frankly don't believe.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
If you save episode 3, you lose the result of finally driving a nail into the star wars franchise.
Think of it: one good move after at least 3 crappy sequels. Statistically, if you encourage this jackass to keep on making movies 75% will be shit.
Please. Let it die.
When Lucas shows up, knock him out, encase him in a block of frozen carbonite and put him out of the way somewhere until the movie is out in theaters.
The only problem being, of course, that you shouldn't let him out after Ep. 3 lest he decide to somehow sully my other fond childhood memories, perhaps by stealing my box of photos and defecating in it.
Anyhow, the article addresses the basic irony of Star Wars: That the guy who created it has also done the most the drive it into the ground, and that success has allowed him to do so more completely than ever. We all knew going in that Lucas can't direct, he can't write dialog, and yet here we go again...
Personally, I just thank God that this decade has had the LOTR trilogy to call its own. It was what we were hoping the new Star Wars movies would be.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Note to everyone not named "George Lucus": Star Wars isn't yours. Yes, I know you're a fan. Yes, I know you grew up with these films. But it's a few pieces of entertainment, and the brainchild of another person.
I'm sorry you viewed the first films through the rose-tinted glasses of youth, and are unable to view the latest three in the same way. Feel free to bitch and moan about how it's not up to some mythical "standard" you create, but it comes down to it being Lucus' movie, and he can do as he pleases.
The question "Can Episode III be saved?" begs the question of whether it needs to be saved in the first place. People can be amazingly blind to the fact that the first three movies were not stunning pieces of filmmaking in the first place, and that Lucas really hasn't changed the formula for the prequels. Are there things that could have been done better in the prequels? Certainly, but the same could be said for the original trilogy, too. I've seen all five movies multiple times in theaters, and not once have I felt like I wasted my money. I also never felt like I saw a masterpiece, just a series of enjoyable movies.
Just your friendly, neighborhood Dark Lord of the Sith
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
I'll go see Episode III for the same reasons I went to see Episodes I and II. It's there. It's more Star Wars. It's a decent enough story, but deep down it's just schlock.
Face it. Episode IV is just a good schlocky Sci-Fi Fantasy that was both fantastic and familiar.
I hated the ewoks about as much as I hate Jar-Jar. It was just cutesy, kiddy crap added to appeal to the younger audience. I tried not to let it destroy the fun of having more Star Wars.
If Episode I was the best Lucas wanted to give us, then that's what I'll take. Episode II was a vast improvement, and I expect Episode III will be good enough for me.
In the meantime, if I want to watch something with real quality, that isn't schlock, I'll watch LOTR.
Visit Lockjaw's Lair. He won't bite.
i know i'm gonna get flamed for this but actually, jar-jar is absolutely necessary to the story as it exists: nobody else is stupid enough to be palpatine's tool by suggesting giving palpatine emergency powers. w/out jar-jar, there's no emergency powers and hence, no clone wars. i happen to resent it, but that's the way i think it shakes out.
I saw that, and realized that there was a reason why Lucas made Jar Jar the Uncle Tom of the SW franchise for a reason after all. But it still boils down to poor writing and a lack of imagination (where "imagination" != "special effects"). If the plot was so transparent that only Jar Jar could fall for it, what of the other thousands of supposedly intelligent members of the Senate?
A good writer would have found a way to make Palpatine's plot more devious, more plausible... so inescapable that even Padme would have to agree to it. There are plenty of examples to draw on from recent American history, from McCarthyism to the present.
It didn't take a Jar Jar character in the US Senate when it voted to give Bush the power to wage war -- just incontrovertable "facts" that weren't what they seemed. The Imperial Senate didn't require a fool to lead them astray -- all it would take would have been a well-meaning but fundamentally flawed desire to do right.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
The whole Star Wars franchise was always, from day one, supposed to be a pulp "Saturday Matinee" sort of pulp serial.
It has a campy, heavily derivative space opera story line. It's been pieced together with black and white heroes and villains, both of which make the audience boo and giggle at the same time.
To fix one is to break the series. Most die-hard Star Wars fans are fans because they were kids when they saw the originals. Hell, many of you weren't even BORN to watch the original in the theaters in 1977. The series hangs together precisely because it is all schlock, and yet we love the characters anyway.
[
I'm a Kurosawa fan myself. I just want to clear things up. I've been hearing a lot about the origional Star Wars "ripping off" Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress. The article says the entire story was lifted from that movie. Have any of you seen the Hidden Fortress? Sure Lucas was inspired by that movie, but Star Wars is nothing like The Hidden Fortress.
As far as the article. I agree that Hayden Christensen is terrible as Dart Vadar. As well as most of his other points, especially the typical overuse of cgi effects which made me feel as if i was watching an videogame cut-scene the whole time. But one that he forgot to mention is the unbelievably forgetable characters who populate the script.
Ya, it should've been modded INSIGHTFUL.
Empire Strikes Back was directed by Irvin Kershner and written Leigh Brackett (a master of pulp SF and Ray Bradbury's mentor) and Lawrence Kasdan. Some would argue that it is the best movie sequels ever made.
I have ben a huge fan of the SW movies since I was a kid and saw them i a theater. I followed the universe and looked forward to the new movies.
The general story form the original 3 movies is rediculously thin. The original Matrix put more plot in that single film than was in ep4, ep5, and ep6 combined. That didnt make them suck... it made them simple and fun.
In the prequels, he added a story line, political complexities, and actual character development - all of which was completely abscent in the originals. While they may not be "better" in the sense that the style changes made them mode fun to watch, but they are certainly not garbage. They are simply different types of movies. They only get condemned because of peoples memories of how much they loved SW back in the late 70s and early 80s.
SW has always been made for 12 year olds to love. The new movies accomplish exactly the same thing the originals did... only this time you arent 12.
You can tell that Harrison feels like a goon saying that line.
Maybe he's just acting. I mean, Han Solo would feel like a goon saying that.
One thing I can't help wondering is if many people form a final opinion about the movies that is based on the loud public sentiment. My reaction to Star Wars 1 and 2 is that I loved them. The sci-fi backgrounds and effects were impressive, the action scenes intense, and the storyline was palatable. And I found several scenes to be quite memorable -- to name a few: the Obi-Wan/Darth Maul fight, the Yoda fight, and the huge jedi battle.
So yeah, I'm committing the unimaginable sin -- I liked Star Wars 1 and 2. Am I a stupid person? My career achievements would speak otherwise. Is my taste inferior? Perhaps, although the only thing I give a damn about is whether or not *I* enjoyed it. Am I unable to recognize poor-acting and plot-holes? No, I was cognizant of it all. Anakan and Amidala were cheesy (although I still love to say "you're making fun of me" in that cheesy tone to my wife to which she replies in an reciprocally cheesy tone: "I'd be much to frightened..."). However, I also juxtapose the shortcomings against the composite package of the movie. And in the case of Star Wars 1 and 2, the positive elements outweighed the negative ones to provide me a viewing experience which surpassed that of most movies.
And here's my main gripe -- I think there are others like me, who honestly enjoyed the movies when they were sitting in the theatre seats. But then, the popular and intellectually respectable position came to be that you were "absolutely miserable" during the movies. I mean, only a complete idiot could actually enjoy those movies, right?
All I ask is for you to consider this: at the time of your viewing -- were you enjoying the movie? If you were miserable, fine -- then the movies didn't jive with your refined taste. But if your hatred for the movies didn't develop until you read the comments on three dozen slashdot articles, then consider whether or not you are speaking your own opinions. Be honest enough to admit you enjoy what you enjoy. If you like Enterprise, great. If Farscape and FireFly raised your standards high enough that you can no longer enjoy Star Trek, then that's fine too. If the Matrix 3 plot resolution left a foul taste in your mouth (as it did for me), then live it. Just live your own opinions. I'm sure many critics out there genuinely hated the movies -- but I also believe there are many more who initially did not.
(cough cough) patriot act (cough cough)
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
This is certainly true. And I have no complaints about the plot lines/story of Ep I & II. (except maybe Jarjar). My problem with the new episodes is the dialoge. The original episodes were so great because of all of the one liners. No matter how many times I hear 'I've got a bad feeling about this' and 'Look at the size of that thing', they are still hillarious. The dialog in Ep II was more like something out of a cheezy romance novel or a drama movie, and that was why they sucked. Lucas just needs to keep each line to 10 words or less!
The thing that was great, too me, about the first three movies was the innovative and realistic galaxy that was created. I loved how everything was dirty and ships would break down or get stuck. Han Solo was a smuggler driven by money (in the begining at least) and he fired first at Guedo. Darth Vader and the Emperor were menacing and the music was incredible.
....
The prequels were un-inspired vanilla squeaky clean space movies. The characters were flat and Lucas can't direct a movie to save his life. Natalie Portman was great in Léon, Cold Mountain and Heat. As with most young actors though, she needs a good director to make her shine. Even Samuel L. Jackson's performance was weak. Samuel L. Freaking Jackson for christ's sake. I think it is very telling that they wrapped up shooting the 3rd prequel ahead of schedule
Lucas: "Take 1, Action"
Actors give half-ass performance
Lucas: "Cut. That looks good to me."
Lucas knob polisher: "Yes Heir Lucas, that looked great."
Lucas: "Ok, that's a wrap."
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Look at the Beatles now, while they should be reconized for what they did, most of the music itself hasn't aged well and the few gems that are there don't sparkle any more than current music. The "few gems"? I take it non of the moderators of this comment have ever listened to The Beatles then? Its hard to adequately explain how wrong the top poster here is. Sure the early work of the Beatles may be showing its age, but pretty much anything from Help! onwards any band worth its salt would kill to be able to write/perform today. If you had said the Bay City Rollers I might have agreed with your analogy. Like Star Wars they too were very popular with "the kids" in the 70s and in actual fact were commercial (although enjoyable) pap.
Randal: Which did you like better? Jedi or The Empire Strikes Back?
Dante: Empire.
Randal: Blasphemy.
Dante: Empire had the better ending. I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father. Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of Muppets.
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday