Slashdot Mirror
When Did Star Wars Jump the Shark?
stm2 writes "As a long time fan of the stories, I watched as Star Wars transformed from one of the better sci-fi stories told to 'Whedon is my master now.' An article at the TechRepublic blog explores the weakness of the sequel trilogy and states that the Midi-chlorians are the culprit. Was it the Midi-chlorians, Jar Jar Binks, the actors? When did Star Wars jump the shark?. A bonus question: Did George Lucas redeem himself in Episode III?"
Ewoks. 'nuff said.
First post!
The trillogy ending where it did in 1983 was just fine. Coming back to it two decades later was jumping the shark.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Jar-Jar and Midi-chorlians were just a symptom of the underlying disease. He only directed one of the first three movies (IV, V, & VI), and in that one, there were people who felt like they could challenge him when the dialogue was crap...Harrison Ford was famous for it, and I doubt very seriously that Alec Guiness would have spouted some of the tripe that came later. Other directors on the other movies made the whole thing more palatable.
Fast forward to the second set (I,II,III) and you see that not only does he feel that he is capable of directing all three movies now (ha!) but no one dares to dispute his character or dialogue choices and unnecesarry plot wankings...Things thrown in just as an excuse for visual effects masturbation. If there had been anyone who felt like they could stand up to him, I can't imagine some of the horrible bad calls (like the dialog of the whole of episode II) would have gone through.
Episode III was by far the best of the new set, but I wouldn't call it great by any stretch. The movie fricking starts with them landing half a fricking starship on a landing strip, rather than, you know, in a giant self-made crater. I know it's sci-fi, but come on. I'd have bought one of them levitating them to the ground using the Force (which doesn't make a ton of sense), but not a fricking crash landing.
In short, the whole mess had potential, but the dialog was terrible, and the actors looked uncomfortable, and there was waaaaaaaay too much "Hey this would look cool!" without a thought to what it meant for the plot.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
In my humble opinion, it was going back and taking the myths and legends which awed us (who the Jedi and Sith had been, how the Empire changed the galaxy) and acting them all out, while giving the prequels few myths and legends of their own to compensate. It made the series feel too much like some self-contained construct, a fantasy world dreamed up in its entirety, with no mysteries that the audience's imaginations could explore. The huge number of links into the "classic" trilogy also destroyed the sense of scale by making it seem like everybody in the series new everybody else. I know about small world networks, but that's not how an epic should feel. So you wound up with something that had all the enormity and mystery of a plastic diorama.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
and realized the original trilogy was never that great after all.
Yeah, midichlorians were a pretty big issue for me. I was more than happy to forgive Lucas' usual faults and excesses, but that one was stupid.
It's been mentioned before, but you also have to remember that he's a shit storyteller. I like to call him the anti-Stephen King: He comes up with some great plots, but when it comes to writing a coherent narrative or three-dimensional characters, he's always been hopeless, and the original trilogy bears that out to a great extent. Most of us were kids at the time and mostly missed all that, we were too busy gawping at the lightsabers and other cool stuff.
As for Episode 3 being some kind of redemption, sorry no. Granted, all the work he put into 1 and 2 reach some neat and satisfying conclusions, but he still managed to deliver a highly-flawed and (as usual) stodgy movie.
Plus, it would have helped if we saw more of Darth Vader than than pathetic and brief scene we get of him in the end. I'm not one for ragging on artists when they don't deliver exactly what the fanboys want, but the "birth" of Darth Vader scene was very weak sauce.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
He says it was Midi-chlorians because "Jedi, you see, aren't made, they're born. They're of the blood, nobility, maybe even a master race". So no point fantasising about training yourself to be one - as the author did during the first trilogy.
But I think if you had been paying attention in the first trilogy you might also have come to the conclusion that Jedi are born not made - or was is coincidence that two of the most powerful Jedi just happened to be FATHER and SON!?
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
people are fickle. it really isn't the plot, characters, acting, writing or special effects that people fall in love with -- its how it made them feel at the time. and when a sequal fails to reproduce those feelings, it automatically becomes "not as good as the original," regardless of the technical aspects. this is something you can see the world over in many different areas of interest. (computer games for example.) i don't believe the first trilogy is any better or worse then the prequel -- just different.
Easy. Ewoks.
_Return of the Jedi_ ended about five minutes early. After the Rebels blow up the Big Round Thing II, there are a bunch of perfectly good Star Destroyers left in orbit. While the credits are rolling, they fire up their blasters and start toasting Ewoks.
I would pay to see that.
Everything in the SW universe was crap after the first Ewok appeared on screen. That was the moment I realized George Lucas had sold out whatever integrity he had as a story-teller, and that from then on his real customers were the ones collecting cheap tie-in garbage at MacDonald's, Burger King and Toys-R-Us. (The appearance of Jar-Jar merely epoxied shut any hope that Lucas had of redeeming himself. I went to the remaining films only because they were "group morale events" that my employers paid for; I would not have spent my own money going -- and frankly, these events did not do much for anyone's morale, that I could see).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
star wars is fairly cool in other peoples hands (Original trilogy, KOTOR, KOTOR 2, Republic comanda etc..) but when Lucas has direct and unchecked control of it he ruins it because basically he isn't a fan of his own work. That and he gets really bad ideas along with pretty good ideas. When othe rpeople have their hand in it it editorilizes his ideas and the shit gets dropped.
Before:
Lucas: "hey harrison, I want you to shoot after guido shoots at you."
Harrison: "You know what george, fuck you. Han is supposed to be a bad ass with a good side not a boy scout with a furry for a friend."
Now:
Lucas: "I want you to put in a CG rhasta with teeth grindingly bad dialogue"
ILM grunt: "Yes mr. pays my bills and whose opinion my career hinges on"
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Eps 1-3 are dull because they tell the backstory. We already know how it ends, we already know pretty much what happens. So there's no tension and no surprise. They stretch out what made an interesting few paragraphs in the original trilogy to 3 films.
My secret? I just relax and enjoy the ride. I know that this is not MY story, not MY movie but the vision of GL (good or bad). Even today I enjoy reading fairy tales to my son. And inmensly enjoy Pinoccio, Sleeping beaty , etc, and I'm not trying to search the explanation of why the she woke up with the princes kiss... Accpt it: it just happened so.
With the new trilogy I had NO EXPECTATIONS whatsoever. Yes, the episode 1 was sometimes silly whith tehe kid, but I like it. Midiclorians? The force? No diference to me. The could introduce the "infinite Delphian gravity cloack" and I would have accepted it. Jar jar? Silly but OK, as a silly sidekick can be.. The effects where great in my opinion and adeded a lot to the atmosphere.
People bitch as well with any new chapter of a sequel: Harry potter, StarTreck, Lost, you name it. Me? I enjoy the ride . And like them all? I'm I stupid? maybe, but hey, I have double fun.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
with it.
Many good movies will often have a concept, or a message, or something for you to think about after the credits roll. However, good movies also let you draw your own conclusions from the film and aren't usually incredibly overt in presenting it. This is what the first starwars trilogy did. You had the concepts of good vs. evil, predestination vs. free will etc, but you weren't constantly beat over the head with those themes. The prequels are more like the Matrix sequels in that the messages are repeated over and over again till you just don't care. Also, hiding behind intentionally confusing and/or terse dialog doesn't make you "profound" it makes you annoying....
Monstar L
Hmm. For the Star Wars Holiday special to have been "jumping the shark" it has to meet the definition of "jumping the shark" and it has to have taken place after the term "jumping the shark" was in use.
in terms of dates, Fonzie jumped the ahark in September 20, 1977. The Star Wars Holiday Special was broadcast on November 17, 1978. So, technically, it could have been, though the JumpTheShark.com web site claims that the term "jumping the shark" was invented in 1985, in which case the 1978 special couldn't have been "jumping the shark".
In terms of substance, the Star Wars Holiday Special is undoubtedly horrible. But to "jump the shark" a TV show needs to be declining, then attempt an "over the top" stunt in order to try to regain popularity. In 1978 Star Wars was incredibly popular, so the special couldn't have been an attempt to recover declining popularity. And, if you've watched it, there was nothing even remotely "over the top" in the special, just pathetically bad.
So I'd say that, both in terms of dates and substance, the Star Wars Holiday Special wasn't when Star Wars "jumped the shark". It was horrible, certainly, but it was a reverse "jump the shark" in that it was a pathetically bad attempt to capitalize on Star Wars' popularity.
Luckily Lucas was smart enough to prevent it from ever being shown again - it was only broadcast once, and never released on videotape or DVD.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I thought casting Hayden Christensen is on this list. The original Vader was played by a fellow who was nearly 6' 7" / 250lbs and a former champion-contender level bodybuilder who has remained committed to his work ever since. The voice was provided by the most iconic voice actor of the last century.
His replacement is about 6' 1" / 190lbs, needed a special effects suit to fake the transformation, and at one point decided "Hollywood no longer interested him" after being handed the role of the decade over some 400 other applicants. (Though IMDB reports he's been involved in a few things since.)
http://www.askmen.com/gossip/hayden-christensen/hayden-christensen-to-quit-acting.html
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I was 10 when I watched The Return of the Jedi, and I liked the ewoks. Specially funny was the part when Luke used the Force because C3PO refused to impersonate a deity.
I also loved how the Ewoks managed to defeat the imperial forces with lo tech. That was a big plus for me, and in the end, Luke defeated the dark side and rescued dad.
And what's wrong with selling toys? I loved the Jedi action figures and the little two legged transports.
In my opinion, the movie was perfect. Now let me tell you, it was Ep 1 that jumped the shark. Midichlorians, no father, and let's not forget the new adventures of R2D2 and C3PO!
Ep2 was less awful, but Ep3 really screwed it. Even I could have come up with a better plot! I was hoping to see Anakin's corruption and how he began desiring power and destroying cities all along. Big disappointment.
When 800 years old you have reached, a grumpy old muppet you will be. Deter others from training you will attempt. Rely on the old standbys you will.
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
In most medieval tales, people have free will to choose between good and evil. Darth Vader chose evil. Han Solo also made the wrong choices, but at the end of Star Wars IV, he made the right choice to not abandon the rebels. Han Solo saved the day by protecting Luke Skywalker as his space ship ultimately delivered a blow against the Death Star -- the ultimate symbol of evil. Of course, in "Star Wars VI", even Darth Vader chose good and became reborn as a good spirit.
In the first 3 movies, people who chose good and who committed their lives to the ideals of the Jedi could acquire the powers of the Jedi. Of course, one must be open-minded and must be sensitive to the true nature of the universe. This message is a wholesome one for all the bratty kids who adored these movies and who eventually grew up to shape our society (via, for example, the many discussions on Slashdot) for the better.
Now, fast forward to the 21st century. George Lucas changed the message of the original "Star Wars". In the new "Star Wars", the powers of the Jedi belong only to the people who inherit specialized midi-chlorians in their genes. If you do not have the special genetic material, then you are a loser like the rest of the humanoids.
In the new "Star Wars", the Jedis are the highest, most privileged class in a caste system (like the one in India). People are born into their fate. Regardless of the amount of effort in abiding by the Jedi ideals, a person can never be a Jedi. Being a good person means nothing.
George Lucas transformed the Western theme of free will (to choose good and become a Jedi) to the Indian theme of a caste system. That is a terrible message to send to today's children. Though both the old "Star Wars" and the new "Star Wars" have characters (e.g., ewoks and Jar Jar Binks) specifically appealing to children, the underlying message of the old "Star Wars" is a much better inspiration for children.
Yet, we should not whine about Lucas' tragic blunder. We should create another new "Star Wars" by re-writing the stories and re-developing them into an alternative prequel, which sticks closely to the original theme in "Star Wars IV: A New Hope".
Fixing a tragic blunder is the plan for a new movie about "Star Trek". This new movie is also a prequel and attempts to return to the original spirit of "Star Trek".
I know I'll be in the minority with this view (possibly a minority of 1) but here goes.
The Internet killed Star Wars.
Long ago, in a galaxy far far away, when people didn't like a film they told their friends not to go see it, then let it go. If you look at the box office records for TPM, you'll see it continued strong in theatres throughout the summer, and hung in all the way to October. This is not the box office of a film that had great hype but no substance; it is the box office of a film that impressed more than a few people.
Of course, the internet says otherwise. For three years the only thing more hated on the internet than George Lucas was Jar Jar. I'll be honest, I have no comprehension of how people can invest the kind of time I saw wasted complaining about TPM.
Worst of all, I think that the numerous online complaints got to Lucas. I think that AotC was dubious and RotS was pure crap largely because Lucas was trying to meet the demands of a group that probably couldn't be satisfied.
I think that TPM is much more like the original trilogy than some people want to give it credit for; most likely because OT was from their childhood, and so it got rose coloured. (movie goers from my mother's generation certainly didn't have as high an opinion about OT as my gen did; perhaps that says something)
(If anyone is dying to respond to this post with arguments about why TPM sucks, my lack of response is because I wasted three hours a day for three years on multiple forums fighting this fight, and at this point I don't care any more. You think that GL ruined SW for you, well people like you ruined it for me.)
Return of the Jedi was released five months after I was born. My parents bought me a few Star Wars toys that I must have kept for years because I distinctly remember playing with them as a kid. I also had an original Return of the Jedi blanket and movie tie-in books, so I consider myself to be at the extreme edge of the group who can claim Star Wars as part of their childhood.
I'm sure some of you who are older than me by a few years will say that the Ewoks ruined the Star Wars franchise, but for me, they have always been an intrinsic part of it. Yes, they were largely a comedic species, but in RoTJ, their nievity - their childish, silly actions and noises served as a contrast to the evil of the Empire. One of the most touching moments in the original trilogy was a scene where one Ewok is killed by an imperial laser blast, and another leans down beside him, prodding him, clearly not realising his friend is dead, and possibly even unfamiliar with the concept of non-natural death itself.
The Ewoks are often compared to Jar Jar, but I think this is very unfair. Yes, they made the audience laugh, and yes they probably made Lucas lots more money from merchandising, but they served a purpose in terms of the film's plot, and without the contrast that they created, the Empire's actions would have had a greatly reduced impact on audiences.
None of this can be said of Jar Jar Binks. His "zany antics" serve no purpose but outright slapstick humour, and even this is not done very well. He alone does not create a contrast with the Trade Federation, nor does his innocence underscore the central themes of the film(s). He exists purely because the writers needed a "funny character", and were too lazy to create something better.
As I have said, I am (by the skin of my teeth) a member of the "Star Wars generation", but because I was not old enough to be obsessively interested in movies, I do not think that the modern trilogy "ruined my childhood" by any means. However, there is a noticable drop in quality between the two sets of films, and for me, the most blatant example of this is the presence of Jar Jar Binks.
In my opinion, the biggest contributing factor to the failure of Episodes I, II and even III is the lack of one very important technique that was invented during the making of the original Star Wars. This technique helped make the original films believable, which also in turn made them immersive.
During the documentary of the making of Star Wars (on the 4th disc of the box set DVD release), one of the film crew members described a problem where C3P0s costume was initially a highly reflective chrome surface and was causing the cameras to be visible during their test shoot. To offset this problem they rubbed dirt and grease into the costume, dulling it enough so that it would no longer be reflective. They then used this technique with other droids, vehicles and anything else in the film. They called it the "used future" - and it was all the more believable because these objects, vehicles, droids and other things really did appear as though they had always been there.
As we all know, not only was there an overzealous amount of CG in Star Wars Episodes I, II and III, but the real sets and costumes were kept pristine and perfect throughout the films. Hair cuts, makeup, billboards, decorations, vehicles, aliens, etc, all looked perfect 100% of the time. Too perfect.
Just as human brains are capable of instantly detecting the subtle differences in something that is not really alive (which is a common problem when watching CG special effects in film), it also can detect when something is "too perfect".
This alone was enough to ruin any immersive qualities the new Star Wars films might have had, and this problem was compounded by the poor dialogue, stupid gags, dragging plot-lines, inconsistencies and the idiotic notion that everything needed to be explained in detail.
Also, the new films had a practically unlimited budget, and therefore there was less need to innovate or improvise, almost eliminating the possibility of creating "happy accidents" that were part of the magic of the original movies (some of which were later removed by George's "improvements" in the re-releases).
My favorite Star Wars film is the original Empire Strikes Back, which was not directed by George Lucas, and also happens to be his least favorite of the series. The original film is a perfect balance of action, romance and drama, and should have been left entirely alone. But I suppose until I am as successful as George Lucas in the entertainment industry my two cents are pretty meaningless.
Interestingly, the myth of Star Wars is stronger than the films. --My memories of Luke's training with Yoda is much more robust than what was actually on the screen. The Jedi and what they mean hold a place in my mind and heart which isn't going anywhere, and which fits into a larger perspective of life as I see it, and I am thankful to have those ideas contained in the myth of Star Wars.
It's like the stories of the Greek Gods; there are many different tellings from many different story tellers, some good, some less so, but they were just facets of a greater thing. An idea which is 3D to a story's 2D, and which must be approached many times from many different angles to be fully understood, and which cannot be diminished by a bad telling; only the story might be foggy. The idea itself is perfect, and we know this, or we wouldn't argue about how such and such a scene could have been done better. We KNOW there is a perfect idea within it all, and it is what we are all seeking to understand. --And of course I'm not talking about the Greek myths here. They don't do much for us today. I'm talking about the myth that Star Wars looks in upon and which still holds enormous power today even though Lucas coughed and lost his place a few times while telling it as we all sat around the fire.
There are so many great ideas from Star Wars which can be used to measure and reinforce other stories. A couple of my favorites. . .
"Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate, and Hate leads to Suffering. . . I see much Fear in you."
"You focus determines your reality" "I don't understand." "You will, Anakin. With time and training, you will."
Other films, even great stories like Lord of the Rings, don't cut to the quick of the experience of this world in quite the same way the Star Wars myth does. --Star Wars shows how politics works in our world, it shows how Spirit moves in our world, and it offers a means to navigate through these interesting times with grace and power. And that's why people constantly re-tell the same myths over and over. They inform our lives.
Yeah, I'd be happier if Teen-Anakin hadn't been such a weenie. But that was just a movie. The ideas are what count.
-FL
The original Star Wars leaned very heavily on Eastern narrative traditions (drawing particularly on Hidden Fortress by Akira Kurosawa.
The Eastern narrative commonly relies on two classes of hero: one who is pure of heart and destined for great things and one who initially joins the quest out of self-interest, but finds himself affected by the actions and idealism of his companions. The first type cannot succeed without the strength of the second, and the second cannot succeed without the first showing them the path to enlightenment.
This archetype can be traced back at least as far as Journey to the West (circa 1590, the source for the TV series Monkey) in which the pure hearted monk Tripitaka (Xuánzàng) is aided by three characters, all of whom have fallen out of favour with the gods and seek redemption.
Luke is pure archetype number 1. Han Solo was archetype 2, an unreconstructed rogue even to the point of casually shooting Greedo in the Mos Eisley cantina. When he flew back at the Death Star scene, he redeemed himself. Even so, in ESB he was still not fully converted, planning to head off just before the imperial attack started. His buddy Lando Calrisian stepped in to bolster the "soul in need of redemption" role, and by the end of the film, both Lando and Han were fully redeemed. Who did that leave for ROTJ? Yup, the big one: Darth Vader, whose hatred, bitterness and resentment was purged by love.
Now, when Lucas redid the original trilogy, he took away that first defining moment in Han's character, that cold-blooded, unflinching murder that showed us just how much of heartless, self-driven piece of scum he was. This was when Lucas started moving back into modern Western narrative. In the West, bad guys don't get reformed -- they get "what's coming to them!"
By the time he finally wrote the first three episodes, any aspirations to Eastern narrative was gone and he we had good people who were good, evil people who were evil and one good guy who was stupid and let the bad guys win. No-one was redeemed, and we made do with western "punishment": Maul, Dooku and Grievous were all cut to pieces before death.
Oh, if only the story had stayed eastern....
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'