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?"
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.
everyone said that episode I and II were not as good as they had hoped.
AFTER they went to the theatre to see the movie and bought the DVD and the special DVD with 5 seconds of extra footage.
Yes, it is too late, because a boycott of episode II after episode I's horrible blunder would have possibly saved the third movie, because they listen to box office sales, not slashdot.
But if they make a movie that as many people as possible can go to, and sell a lot of tickets, they make a lot of money. And episode I and II made a lot of money.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
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.
Ah, but who took the kids to the movie? Who bought them the plastic lightsabers? The Jar-Jar dolls? If, as consumers, we neglect the consequences of our actions, is that not the same as choosing their ill-effects?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
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'.
No, it's definitely Lucas. If you look at movies that he's worked on--Indiana Jones, the original and special edition Star Wars--he really seems to have a thing for 'kids movies.' "The Temple of Doom," for example, was a terrible movie and the worst of the three Indiana Jones movies. It was also the one in which Lucas was most involved. He seems to have a penchant for making terrible kids movies, and I think it's just getting worse with age.
With the original Star Wars trilogy, he was limited by technology... but now, he can throw whatever he wants into a movie to fulfill his 'vision.' If the special edition 'improvements' he added to the original trilogy were really making Star Wars into what he wanted it to be thirty years ago, you can see that trend: adding useless scenes with robot antics, Han stepping on Jabba's tail, and loads of other childish slapstick crap like that. The best he could do thirty years ago with Ewoks.
In conclusion, any guy who dreams up Jar-Jar Binks is obviously nuts. You can't blame market pressure for a guy who seems to get off on terrible kids movies.
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.
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.
(cough cough) patriot act (cough cough)
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
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
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