Slashdot Mirror
Obi-Wan speaks out against franchise
Spazmoid wrote to us with (we sure don't link here often)
a Eonline story talking about an upcoming interview with Sir Alec Guinness. Guinness talks about how much he hates Star Wars, dimissing the script as "those bloody awful banal lines." Now, before people go calling him a heretic, I'd argue that TPM has shown Lucas' negative side to a great degree. The sheer franchisization of the movies is stunning, IMHO-but what do you folks think?
Star Whores is not "Sci-Fi" though.
And fwiw, I've been wanting to see SW get a 'mst3k' treatment or such since '77. And I was 10 then.
Everyone knows Carrie Fisher became a Script Doctor, but has anoyne considered that Star Wars dialog was what drove her to choose that path?
i wish i was you
ha
Lucas is perfectly capable of making truly excellent films (witness Indiana Jones)
Lucas is capable of making truly excellent films (witness THX-1138), but I think we should go ahead and credit Spielburg for Indiana Jones.
Exactly. Ever read Paradise Lost?
Salon, like'em or lump'em, has a great story with Irvin Kershner, the man behind Empire Strikes Back here
:P
:)
I still think Empire is the best, and for many a good reason:
a) Lucas wrote the story, not the Screenplay
b) Two decent writers wrote the actual Screenplay
c) A seasoned Director behind the camera
d) A Producer who let the Director go overbudget when it was clear that to do so otherwise would have comprimised the whole shebang (see the Salon article)
Too bad Kershner hasn't done much of note lately, unless you count RoboCop 2
pope, playing Way too much with that new Lego Y-Wing/Tie Figher combo
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
If at 85, he cannot be honest, when will he every be! I don't understand why you are trading honesty with money...
A whore will always comb her hair when there's a camera present in the room.
What's surpising about that?
Hmmm...
The things that made Star Wars successful in 1977 were (in no particular order) the effects, the storyline, and the brilliant acting of Alec Guiness, Harrison Ford, and Peter Cushing. The dialogue was uninspired, but effective, and it didn't detract from a very good story. The great acting raised the movie far beyond the limitations of Lucas's skill as a writer.
"The Phantom Menace" also had great effects, but the storyline was nowhere near as compelling as "A New Hope". Worse yet, the dialogue throughout Lucas's movies (not just Star Wars) has deteriorated to the point where even such fantastic actors such as Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, and Samuel L. Jackson are incapable of making their poorly written lines sound convincing. Only the most experienced and mature actors in the movie are fairly believeable, specifically, Liam Neeson and Terrance Stamp (Chancellor Valorum).
If there is any justice, Ewan McGregor will not be remembered for his horribly written part in the Star Wars movie. He is a fine actor, and deserves recognition for his achievements in projects worthy of his talent. That said, McGregor is still young and relatively inexperienced. Perhaps as time passes McGregor will have the opportunity to hone his skill and become an equal of Alec Guiness in movies like "Bridge on the River Kwai", but he has not yet done so.
Some people have a gift for dialogue, others do not. Lucas, clearly, is one of the others. As he has aged, his skill at writing dialogue has gone from mediocre to poor.
I'm sure I've seen this on the web before. Next time just post a link, eh?
Communication is only possible between equals
But that doesn't mean you can get off with a slipshod job. I've seen better, and for less money too. I don't think realistic human emotion is too much to ask for.
You were a moderator with 5 points. You should have read the moderator guidelines before you did any moderating
I have to say, I really agree with Guiness; I went to see Star Wars as a kid when it first came out, and it was innovative, exciting and great. But watching it again today as an adult, it's a really lame movie with appalling dialog, bad acting, stupid costumes and a dumb and cliched plot. Its sole redeeming feature in the 70s was that most other SF movies were much worse!
Now as crap goes it's still much more entertaining and intelligent crap than many of today's movies, like Independence Day, Godzilla, TPM or The Big Boat Movie. But that still doesn't change the fact that it's crap and that the seriously obsessive Star Wars fans are almost as sad as obsessive Star Trek fans.
IMHO, the best Star Wars movie by far is 'Troops', which has much better acting and much, much better dialog than either the original Star Wars or TPM.
Actually, Episode II (also known as "the fifth flick" by the unwashed) will be based on the "My Dinner with Andre" format. It will consist of Jar-Jar in conversation with the little boy whatever-his-name-was who they put on the Pepsi bottle. The one described as "Slave to something-or-other" on the caption.
The chick with the bruised lower lip was the best part of the trailer.
Haven't seen the movie. (notice I didn't say "yet.")
I always wondered why I liked Star Trek so much more than Star Wars, and the article about the underlying class structure in the two movies spoke to my feelings about the two universes. In Star Trek anyone can rise to captain a star cruiser - in Star Wars a born class of elite rulers are destined to rise to positions of power. I don't have time now to look up the URL to the review - but it would be worth anyone's time to look it up. I also don't have time to register - big implementation/conversion coming up in just a couple weeks.
Loathe am I to leap to the man's defense, but I'm sick of hearing about the Hidden Fortress reference and how he stole the whole idea from Kurosawa.
Have you actually seen The Hidden Fortress? The simililarities are there, but are well on the side of inspiration as opposed to thievery which he is constantly accused of.
Where do you think Kurosawa got HIS ideas from? Do a little 'research' on that.
ALL writers beg, borrow and steal, consciously or otherwise, whether they like it or not. VERY FEW works are purely original. Skill and effectiveness lie in choosing your heroes and role models carefully.
People regurgitating the old Hidden Fortress complaint is getting to be more tiresomely repetitive than a Beowulf cluster of VIC-20's.
Star Wars, warts and all, rang the bell and will for decades to come. Lucas gets credit for choosing the elements of his inspiration effectively, and breaking a few rules ('space' being a bit grimy and dinged-up as opposed to squeeky clean) that changed the genre forever more.
**>>BELCH
In his interview Guiness trashes "Bridge" and Lean as well.
"what the heck do you mean by that anyway? Guinness has every right to complain about the movie or its effects on him after making it."
What? No he doesn't. He wasn't forced into making the film.
Guinness is just a snotty, bitter old man.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
You know what would have been great, if Lucas had a scene where Jar Jar accidentally walks off a cliff, but doesn't realize it until he looks down, at which point he turns to the audience and waves bye bye before he plummets.
(His body, of course, not falling uniformly, but rather his torso will fall first and his neck will stretch really long before his head falls as well)
Some goofy "doink","boing" type sound fx would also have helped round out the movie!
--
panduh
My favorite character was that kitchen-trash-can robot. Whatever it's name was. Haven't seen the movie since 1977 so it's hard to remember names.
I've been wondering for quite awhile.
I'm sure there are other people that don't know as well.
Is there really a "Phantom Menace" novel?
haha haha haha haha
yikes.
I guess the only question I have is, then why bother making the movie? Why waste over two hours of the audience's time to just hint at what is going to happen next?
Because it is a series of movies that are all tied together. He couldn't show us everything that was going to happen in this one because there would be nothing left to show. Hence they are titled Episode I, II, III, IV, V, and VI.
What he did show us is what is happening that gets Palpatine into power and the state of turmoil the galaxy is in at the moment. Also, from what I've heard, what happened in the first movie will result in much larger events in the next one.
Granted, mundane things must happen in the galaxy all the time - trade ships plying their wares, gov't officials moving around constantly. But this wasn't what star wars was about. Look at the title - Star Wars - it says a lot about what you should expect. Its not Land Wars, just Star Wars.
You apparently have not read the first chapter of the original novel. The entire plot of the first trilogy (Episodes I-III) is outlined right there in about a page and a half. That is what Star Wars is about.
you mispelled regurgitating
You misspelled misspelled.
Yeah, he really ought to hire Princess Leia..eh..Carrie Fisher to rewrite the awful dialogue.
Oh, damn. Excuse me. ;-)
How silly of me to think in REAL chronological time instead of the Star Wars Universe FICTIONAL time.
However, I never turn down a good flogging.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
As it has just recently gone up in some places in Europe I saw it a couple of weeks ago. Having read the slashdot comments I was not expecting much. And seeing it I was rather unmoved. An accidental victory by undeveloped characters over virtually gagged 'supposedly' bad guys (during the whole movie I dont think I ever saw them do anything that would remotely classify them as being bad, or build any antipathy. Upholding trade sanctions against a world treating half its population like dirt doesnt exactly strike me as being particularly vile)? 'Senator, our people are dying!' What people? The 20 well treated pilots in the hangar? Im not impressed.
Yeah, the special effects were pretty nice. Yeah yeah whatever. Seen it before. Done that. Fer chrissakes, get on with the film, I know you can make animated fish after the first one.
To sum it up, the average Disney cartoon has more storyline, philosophical content and character development.
The first two films were pretty good. In the third they should've fried the bears with flamethrowers. In this one they might as well have skipped the actors and sound and just run a demo of how to make alien masks and do CGI (and shown it to Paramount). The next one Im not even going to see unless it gets complete rave reviews on Slashdot. Id rather spend my money renting sci-fi B movies, which actually tend to be better than expected at times.
So Sir Alec says that he convinced Lucas to kill him off. In that "Lucas is a god/genius" book Skywalking it says that Lucas didn't know what to do with Obi-Wan's character so then decided he'd be better off dead, which supposedly pissed off Sir Alec to no end (by having a role in a movie reduced to the first portion and then voice-over). The real story please?
I should cut him a little slack, though. Conversational dialogue is, from what I hear, the hardest literary skill to master, and very few do it well. Few do it as poorly as Lucas does to such a wide audience, though.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I think Lucas made a big mistake with TPM. When you have three movies (the original series) that are absolutely great and live on, and have a legacy like they do. You should not go and ruin it with a big money-making scheme like TPM. The movie itself was good in the movie sense, but it wasn't a starwars movie, it just didn't fit. It's like on sesame street -- "one of these things is not like the other doo doo doo"...anyway that's my rant.
I would agree that the language is simplistic, but am I the only one who is pissed about TPM's biological rather than spiritual explanation of The Force?
If you don't like it, don't watch it. They are god damn PG family movies. They're all the same. This is nothing new. If you liked the first trilogy as a kid, but not TPM, get over it. You're not a kid anymore. I'm tired of hearing about it.
Of course, one of the things I find amusing-yet-scary is how nuts all the little kiddies are going over Darth Maul. Yeah, that's a wonderful role model ... ;)
Hmm , not sure of you point here, I mean people went crazy over Boba Fett(sp?) as well. I mean bad guys are usually slicker and more attractive in many ways.
Signing a contract to do a movie does not in any way commit one to never saying anything against the project, unless he signed some kind of agreement to never say anything against the movie. He didn't, so he has the right. Just because you love the movie doesn't mean he has to. You're right, he wasn't forced into making the film, but what the hell does that have to do with whether or not he can now regret it and say so, and even urge people not to see the movie? You seem to like the movies; good, go ahead. He doesn't, he says so. Good, he can go ahead.
I'm glad he's willing to rise above the capitalist incentive of his residuals and tell us what he really thinks. I wonder if he fought at all during the filming to make the lines better, though? It is a little sad that more people don't respect the fact that not everything in this world has to be deep. There is a place for mindless entertainment.
It seems rather silly to defend Star Wars by lowering your standards. The fact that TPM is aimed at children is no excuse for mediocrity -- bad dialog, bad directing, irrelevant actors, contrived plot, over-reliance on CGI, and the other all-too-valid criticisms that have been leveled at it.
To hell with double standards: good art is good art, regardless of the audience. All the most enduring childrens' books, for example, are the ones adults find interesting as well: Alice in Wonderland, The Chronicles of Narnia, etc. I'm sure there are some movies that fit the bill too, but unfortunately all I can think of at the moment is bland and over-sanitized Diznee crap.
Oh, and for the record: I've seen TPM and had a great time. Basically, a few weeks before it came out, when I found myself succumbing a little too much to the hype, I had an epiphany:
STAR WARS SUCKS.
SUCKS, SUCKS, SUCKS.
...And then it was OK, and I knew I could properly enjoy TPM, which I did. It was even better the second time, much to my amazement.
"and he throws all fan letters into the trash."
:\
:-). However, I just fail to see the wisdom or benifit of tearing kids heads off because you are afraid of their "obsessive"-ness.
That's a good sport.
IMHO, if one does not like the franchise element of something, that's no reason to take it out on your throng of adoring fans. Yes, Lucas is taking all of this too far(I think
phtphtpht
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
Hamill? I'm fairly certain Mark Hamill spent a good twenty years or so distancing himself from Star Wars because he hated the typecast. In everything I've ever read about him, he's always quick to point out that he has done work other than Star Wars.
That's odd; the IMDB lists him as appearing in movies up to 1996. Or maybe it was Obi-Wan's ghost.
Alec Guiness is right. I love Star Wars, but frankly the merchandising is outlandish, and made TPM a much worse movie than it had to be. Jar-Jar, the Ewoks - let's face it, since Lucas got bit by Empire Strikes Back, with a challenging plot line that didn't do so hot at the box office, he's made the whole Star Wars universe into a kids' universe, with simple plot lines and no detailed exploration of character. And who can blame Lucas? He earns more on the merchandise than on the movie itself.
Whatever you do... don't read this.
Sir Guinness definately IS one of the finest actors of this century.
So what?
What he is telling people is that they should not invest their time, energy, or life into following Star Wars. He's entitled to his opinion, but that's all it is. If people decide that following Star Wars is how they want to spend their time, energy, etc., then they should go right ahead and do so, Sir Mucky-mucky be damned.
It would be one thing if Guinness were saying, "I don't like the whole mess, fans please leave me alone." I could respect that. But he's saying, "It's all crap, and since I know better than you, you unwashed snot-nosed idiots, you should do as I tell you and not follow Star Wars anymore." A very different message, and one I have no respect for at all.
He's just an old actor, and I guess they get cranky. Just ignore him, he'll be dead soon enough.
But maybe he can do that bluish ghost thing to get his ideas across...
--Lenny
...because so far he's told us basically the same "heros rush around a lot, get in trouble and meet comedy action figures, then blow up the opposition" story three times, in Star Wars, Return of the Jedi, and now TPM. Gets kind of dull third time around...
I remember a certain amount of surprise in '77 that such a thesp as Alec Guinness would star in such a cheesy, effect-ridden movie. He's right, though; the dialogue is pretty dire. Same with everything since; right up to the appalling lines some of the characters in B5 had.
Having said that, there's no excuse for verbally abusing a 12-year-old. I may never watch The Man in the White Suit again. Okay, maybe once more.
One thing most fans seem to miss is that Star Wars was never supposed to be a deep, filosofical, artistic film with a social/intelectual/whatever message. It's quite simply entertainement (no, I can't spell). It was a simple story aimed at the younger section of the population, by which I mean about 10-16 years. It couldn't be very complicated, mistical or obtuse or those people wouldn't be interested...
.... *CRUNCH*)
What no-one remembered is that sci-fi appeals to people of all ages, and many (more mature) people who saw the films thought : "not bad but if the plot was such and such it would be so much cooler".
Well, yes, of course, but it was never supposed to make you think, it was supposed to make kids say "Mom! I wanna play with luke/r2d2/". Lucas marketed Star Wars toys from the outset, I remember seeing those toys appear right after the second movie.
No, I can't spell!
-"Run to that wall until I tell you to stop"
(tagadum,tagadum,tagadum
-"stop...."
20th Century Fox needs to get paid, idiot.
the voice of the pod racer is the guy from VS. on comedy central
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotected sex.
Bite the hand.
I, for one, refuse to believe that marketing Pod Racer on the N64 was the purpose for the Pod Racing sequence. If I might say so, it was more of Lucas' chance to do something he'd wanted to do for a loooong time- a Ben Hur sequence. Everything in the Pod Racing sequence smacked of Ben Hur, and the famous chariot racing scene is considered one of the masterpieces of film... I swear...geeks are so **** bitter sometimes.
Sorry to nitpick, but I'm hearing people use "Immaculate Conception" as if it meant "Virgin Birth" more and more lately, and it really grates.
(And I'm not even a Catholic.)
The "Immaculate Conception" was Mary's conception. Catholic doctrine is that she was concieved without "Original Sin", thus the "immaculate" (though otherwise by the usual means) conception.
Most Protestant churches don't teach this. I'm not sure about the Orthodox churches.
The Virgin Birth is something else entirely.
If Lucas has sold out, it was way back when he made Return of the Jedi with those Ewoks.
And yes, Lucas knows the character is childish, but that is what he created it for, kids, people between the ages of 10 and 15 (or something like that).
I actually expected Jar Jar to be worse than an Ewok. But, since he couldn't kill any Battledroids with his stupid antics and at least the ewoks could kill stormtroopers with their antics, I didn't find him as annoying. Sure, he is annoying, but not as bad as I thought he'd be. I do find some of the things he does funny (like eating the food by grabbing it with his tongue), but most things I did find annoying.
And no, I did not leave the theatre pissed (I actually went back for two more showings later that day and I think 3 more that weekend) because I thought it was a good movie and it made me feel like a kid again (exactly what it was supposed to do).
A little know fact is that Alec Guinness is in Episode I (in a way). The junk dealer, Watto, is based on Alec Guinness' voice and grotesque face as Fagin in the 1948 Oliver Twist. I read in a magazine article that the animators studied Guinness in Oliver Twist to base the Watto character. What gave Lucus the inspiration to make Anakin Watto'a slave? See Oliver Twist (1948)...
Dude, have you even SEEN the Hidden Fortress? There is nothing similar about the two movies... NOTHING! There is no master/apprentice relationship. There is no dark knight. There is no gambler-scoundrel with a boat. There is no grunting bear-like creature helping out. Anyone who has actually seen the hidden fortress will tell you flat out - they are two totally different movies.
Before condemning the guy as a bitter old fool, I think reading the actual interview, with Guinness' own words, would be appropriate. E!'s style of "journalism" strikes me as the over-exaggerating, sensationalizing type.
Anyone know if the original interview is/will be available online somewhere?
-Justin
Dude, you really need to just link to the article. I know you credit David Brin at the bottom, but you really, really need to not do that - just post the link to the original article. Even if you had put a simple 'This article appeared in the June 15th edition of Salon Magazine and was written by David Brin,' at the top; that would have been better than what you did. Because basically, unless you read the entire article, people don't know you didn't write it, and that's one step above plagiarism, but not by much.
Ross
P.S. Unless, that is, you actually are David Brin, in which case you should have made that fact more clear. (Somehow I doubt it)
"Obviously you've never seen any of Alec's other movies or else you'd know how low he stooped to deliver most of his lines in Star Wars."
WTF? So what?
"If he felt the dialog was so bad and beneath him, why did he accept the role in the first place ?!? Of course, as usual, money comes before principle."
Can you read? The above has nothing to do with his acting ability. Nothing whatsoever. If he felt it was beneath him, he shouldn't have done it in the first place.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I can remember, as a child, the exiting trips to the toy store to buy the new "2001: A Space Odyssey" action figures.
My favourite game was to spend hours pondering the deep, inscrutable surface of the Monolith, awonder with the obscure cosmic possibilities it intimated. Dave Bowman and Frank Poole were idols in my childhood fantasies. I wanted to be just like them when I grew up - incomprehensibly altered by a mysterious alien intelligence; annhiliated in the cold depths of space. Hal was a favourite, too - an insane intelligence driven into a murdering fever by contradicted loyalties. Many happy hours were passed recreating these fun conflicts on the playground.
Have I made my point?
Star Wars has been a marketing exercise from the moment Lucas procured the merchandising rights. Quality storytelling? No room for that.
Chris Stearns.
I am infintely disturbed by the rage that is shown in some of these posts towards Alec Guiness because he told a kid who had "seen it [Star Wars] 100 times" to "never watch it again." He also claims that he throws his fan mail in the trash.
A number of people have posted claiming that Guiness "owes something" to the fans.
I hardly think so. The notion that an actor (or a writer or a director) is a puppet who must perform in his life as "the fans" expect is painfully barbarous. Are people seriously suggesting that, if a person is popular or successful, that he must, from then on, conform to the expectations of those who made him successful? That because something he did for money (and I can't imagine that Mr. Guiness made Star Wars for any other reason) was a huge success, he no longer owns his own life?
Forget the fashionable vampires. They are merely the product of the trendy sexual undead. Try "fans" if you want a howling, bloodsucking, all-consuming, shreiking, soulless hunger.
A person has a right to own his or her life for themselves and they owe exactly nothing to the fans.
Creating something for young people should not be an excuse to use simplistic caricatures that insult the intelligence of a mature audience, nor should it be an excuse to use a story that doesn't make people think. Consider things like Sesame Street and Dr. Seuss which, while aimed at children, are challenging and clever. That Lucas seems to have intended to make Star Wars intellectually empty should not make him immune to criticism.
Heh, I think Guinness should be a regular on "Highlander" the series.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Anyone know how to download ASP files? I remember it is something like $DATA at the end of a url.
I am infintely disturbed by the rage that is shown in some of these posts towards Alec Guiness because he told a kid who had "seen it [Star Wars] 100 times" to "never watch it again." He also claims that he throws his fan mail in the trash.
A number of people have posted claiming that Guiness "owes something" to the fans.
I hardly think so. The notion that an actor (or a writer or a director) is a puppet who must perform in his life as "the fans" expect is painfully barbarous. Are people seriously suggesting that, if a person is popular or successful, that he must, from then on, conform to the expectations of those who made him successful? That because something he did for money (and I can't imagine that Mr. Guiness made Star Wars for any other reason) was a huge success, he no longer owns his own life?
Forget the fashionable vampires. It is hardly a revelation that humans are obsessed with sex and death. Try "fans" if you want a howling, bloodsucking, all-consuming, shreiking, soulless hunger.
A person has a right to own his or her life for themselves and they owe exactly nothing to the fans.
Well think about it this way: Its like that Episode of "Just Shoot Me" with Mark Hamill. The stars of Star Wars must get *really* tired of being assailed by obsessed fans. Wouldn't you be sour if every time you went into public you was asked stupid questions about a movie you were in 20 years ago? I think is Guiness has a beef about the way Lucas has taken his franchise, he has every right to express it.. Sure, taking it out on a 12 year old is going overboard, but I think it just goes to show how much it bothers him - I doubt he does that sort of thing as a general rule.
Everybody know the good guy eat BigMac and drink Coke!
I wouldnt really call that a "replacement".. I doubt Prowse was really suitable for a speaking (gasping) part. Lucas needed an old fogie like
Shaw. Why would Prowse be pissed because they used another actor for that particular scene?
Do you think Ray Park was pissed that they used a voice over instead of his voice?
Doesn't give him the right to treat a 12 year old kid like dog shit.
He's still an asshole...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
That was my point - that even as entertainment, it failed, because it was essentially a two-hour toy commercial. The blatant product marketing in TPM was, to me, distracting in the extreme. I'm fully aware that the Star Wars movies are supposed to be for a younger audience, but TPM even failed at that level. The bottom line is, if Lucas could have sold all that merchandise without even making the movie, he would have. The movie wasn't the central thing - the Jar Jar inflatable chairs and "Making Of..." videos and Taco Bell posters were the sole reason for this movie's existence, and neither Lucas nor the studio made any effort to hide that fact.
Many singers experienced the same; they made a great hit which sold very good. After the hit they made a song which was 'not as good' and people lost interest. Another one; why do you think groups like Abba are still very populair? They quit when they we're at a certain peak. People remember them being in that peak and remember them as being great.
And like I said; this isn't just one occasion; these things happen. And being a professional actor (and we all know Sir Alec is) I can't believe that you are not familier with this.
hmm, when looking at the preview I think I should go back to Netscape in order to read /. :)
Ever actually read Campbell? he basic point is that ALL stories can be reduced to a few archtypes.
and Tattoine is nothing like Dune, Fremen? Sandworms? Spice?
You'll note the great variety of sources you claim he ripped off from... but there is no consistant theme or pattern! every word in your message has been spoken by someone before, therefore you just ripped off what you said from other people.
Well, it's pretty extensively mentioned as an influence. Having seen it, I'd certainly say that some of the aspects of the plots of the two movies are parallel--the sniping between R2D2 and C3PO is similar to the two yojimbo (sorry, it's been a long time and I can't remember their names) in THF, e.g.--but I agree that it's an oversimplification to say that Lucas stole the whole damn thing. And if Lucas was lifting, I'd hope that he'd choose a better Kurosawa movie, although THF features one of my favorite two-line exchanges in the history of Japanese cinema. ("You stink of death!" "You make my teeth hurt.")
Now, Resevoir Dogs to City on Fire? That was outright theft. Lucas has many, many sins to atone for, but plagarism isn't one of them.
I didn't know what a meme was, so I asked five friends. They didn't know what a meme was, so they asked five friends.
The LadyKillers- how could I miss that one out!
Mind you Guinness's performance, strong as it is, isn't the centre of the film as it is in the other three, as it is more of an ensemble piece.
I wonder if the Ealing comedies are out on DVD yet?
I just went and saw Muppets in Space ( or was it Muppets from Space) I'd say the two were pretty close as far as the quality of the script. Might even see it again when it comes out on video. Hell, I'm over forty and STILL like the muppets. There are some deep sillyfosical meanderings in the scripts of any Muppet show. Tim
(s.) Most of you have noticed that 'The Phantom Menace' wasn't as good as Episodes 4,5, and 6... That's why Lucas made those first! One would think that by default, you would make the first part of the story first, but Lucas knew that was a bad idea. So he made the most interesting ones first! If he had started with TPM, he wouldn't have been able to make any more after that. So, TPM sucks, Lucas KNEW it would suck decades ago, so it was rather expected. Your fault for not knowing what was common knowledge.
THEE Hiawatha Bray?
I agree with your comment, but you certainly have some nerve slamming someone else's inflammatory statements. Seems to me, it's a constant battle royale between you, Dvorak, and Berst to see who can elicit the greatest amount of impotent flamage.
BTW, what's the banner clickthrough rate on your BG column?
> Didn't anyone else see the "twist" ending coming right from the start?
...
I did. Even a reviewer at CNN(?) mentioned that the movie has a twisted ending. So, I spent two hours hoping that the ending is not what I expected, but
Still, It's nice to see the town I live in the movie. I live in Philly and saw some filming. I'm glad the movie did well.
wow with "fans" like you its a wonder anyone wants to do anything these days... ::sigh::
The linked Prowse story has a picture of him sans Vader garb.
Yeah real great movies for brain dead ww2 war vets.
Both movies BRK and LOA are the worst sort of crap that Hollywood makes. I think people take these two movies too seriously!!
Movie about a SM-Gay-Homicidal-Maniac is rewitten to be uplifting hero story, and an Idiot POW story that has ignores all the historical data about the period.
(Now dont get me started on my rants about SW.)
Guinness is a meat puppet, He is not paid to nor expected to think. He does a good Job of it too.
Spouting&Ranting pure Flamebait as usual, [/:-)
PS: when that kid who watches SW 100 times makes his/her first movie, I bet I know who does not get a Call.
What have you made?
Having your live revolve around a crappy movie is unhealthy. Try renting Enemy Mine or Planet of the Apes for good sci-fi.
I'm sorry, but I believe this is false.
We _do_ have every right to be upset. There is in fact a point at which something, whether it be a work of art, a story, or a movie, becomes such a large part of a culture (or subculture), that its influence moves beyond profound. It is at this point that there is a kind of cultural ownership as well.
This is aggravated in the case of Star Wars by Lucas' intense push to make the franchise as "universal" as possible. Not only was there extensive reference to myth, but Lucas himself continually hyped that aspect of it. Anyone who has the digitally remastered trilogy tapes that came out before the 2nd edition knows this: The ads at the beginning with their blathering on about how "Star Wars is for all times, and all peoples" or whatever.
The end result is this:
Lucas has burrowed into our collective psyche, quite intentionally. It's his creation, but he has sought to involve us (not collaboratively, but mentally) in it as much as he can.
He then proceeds to do something that feels rather yucky (makes bad preachy movie, endless product tie-ins, blaming Internet users for bad press).
Of course we have a right to say what he may or may not do at this point. Will he listen? Probably not, but I do not doubt that the movie would have been better if he _had_ been willing to listen to his fans, as opposed to using the "benevolent despot" approach to filmmaking.
I'm right there with you, brother. When I found out "The Force" was nothing but science, I almost walked out of the movie (in retrospect perhaps I should have). So, The Force is not some "hokey religion" as Han Solo put it but rather some "hokey science". I think John Stossell should do a new "Junk Science" special on ABC about The Force.
>Did you know at one time, Francis Ford Copella(sp?) approached Lucas with the idea of starting a religon based on "The Force"?
The Force is based on Taoism. Lucas has mentioned that he used Taoism as his influence (plus probably quite a bit of Chinese mysticism - you know, like lifting spaceships with one's mind)
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
I'm sorry, but Star Wars as a whole can't hold a candle to Star Trek (original, not the one with the hammy bald guy), which in turn pales in comparison to almost anything Asmiov or Ellison ever wrote. (I haven't read all of Asimov to say this unequivocally; I'm about 400 or so books short. =-) )
Guinness has a dead-on grasp of the situation. The original movie was the only one close to being watchable, and its dialogue was dubious at best. (Lucas lifted some of the plot from Kurosawa's "Hidden Fortress" anyway.)
Thanks, Alec, for proving that not all octagenarians have lost it.
-----
".sig,
The stars of Star Wars must get *really* tired of being assailed by obsessed fans. Wouldn't you be sour if every time you went into public you was asked stupid questions about a movie you were in 20 years ago?
I'm a Talk subscriber, so I'll have a chance to see whether Guinness has a legitimate beef in terms of how fans have treated him. I don't expect he has been treated badly enough to justify his verbal bitch-slap of a 12-year-old kid, though.
Basically, there's a limit to how sour a person gets to be over a project that made him fabulously wealthy. I like my sourpusses to be embittered, screwed-over sourpusses, not unbelievably fortunate, ungrateful ones.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Bridge on the River Kwai
is the best Alec movie by far.
Its probably esteemable as one of the greatest ten movies in history.
"Madness! Madness!!"
-last line of the film
Why did he play the Emperor in The Empire Strikes Back? (Yes, I know he wasn't the Emperor in Return of the Jedi, my father believes that Lucas changed the whole story after a story outline was leaked in Playboy magazine which involved good and evil clones and the Clone Wars. I don't know if this story is just the typical conspiracy theory that grows up around this type of thing, but Guiness did play the Emperor in Empire Strikes Back)
Mainly I just think it is interesting, and I think that we shouldn't neccessarily believe that story in E! online about Alec Guinness. I'd have to see him say he brought a twelve year old to tears on tape before I'd believe he did something like that. He gives the impression that he's a gentleman, and even if it is just a pose I don't think he'd make an admition like that to a reporter. I also thought he was dead, but I guess I was wrong.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Except that TPM needed no marketing. People were going to see it. Period.
memorabilia
It's been awhile since I've heard that term used to describe SW crap (toys, posters, etc.), although (if you ask Lucas) that's exactly the correct term.
Kind of ironic that in a movie with so little to make it memorable, there is so much "memorabilia" avaliable to remind us of it.
The best Guinness I have ever seen was his portrayal of George Smiley in Le Carre's "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and later "Smiley's People". Made-for-TV as 6-part series' rather than films, these BBC productions may not be well known across the Big Pond in the USA....
Given the sheer acting quality shown in of some of his roles, it doesn't really surprise me to see him sick of Star Wars.
S
"The Man in the White Suit" - brilliant. The perfect nerd parable, as you say.
Last line: "Wait, I think I've figured it out..."
--Philip
"It's amazing how our industry is strewn with beautiful, dead technology and bitter engineers." --M. Huyck
I'm not; but I'm curious as to whether anyone's tried to concentrate the midichlorians of others into themself (within the fictional context), genetic engineering, etc....
Some of you take this stuff too seriously. I saw the first 3 movies as a kid and I love them today because of that simple fact. They were visually and musically appealing and that nostalga won't ever wear off. I've seen them dozens of times and revel in the fact that I know the movie word for word. My borderline obsession makes me happy isn't hurting anyone so I don't know why anyone would care. The fact is, these are and always have been simple, straight forward movies. Why some of you complain about that now is bewildering. And yes, the movies use other's stories heavily, that argument can be applied to just about every movie/book/show and doesn't make these movies any less special.
I hate Jar Jar as much as the next guy now that I'm older but I don't think TPM should be disgarded as marketing trash. Its not some artsy fartsy, esoteric masterpiece like some of you require of a movie but it fit the storyline as expected and I'd be willing to bet most of you pee'd in your pants when Williams powerful music came booming over the speakers when Obiwan leaped up and halved Darth Maul. That's my rant, take it or leave it.
--Let's hack root on 127.0.0.1 --panZ
Of course, Guinness has every right to have his say. I just have this old-fashioned idea that you don't knock people who've written very large checks with your name on them. You nod, say thanks, and keep your views to yourself. I'm well aware that others don't feel this way, and there's something to be said for the opposite point of view. So...I guess it's just me.
Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe
Spielberg directed Indiana Jones, he didn't create it. Lucas has writing credits on all three Indiana Jones films and exercises creative control of the character. If you want to get really picky, then quit blaming Lucas for the Star Wars movies. He didn't direct Empire Strikes Back or Return Of The Jedi, either, and people are still bitching about bad acting, poor characters, and shoddy writing. Lucas appeared for writing credits on these films as well.
Fame has damaged an otherwise great career. Alec has over 60 years of acting experience in wonderful movies like:
Bridge on the River Kwai, The (1957)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
...to quote some names that some may be familiar with. Despite his dramatic roles, he is a wonderful comedic actor. Dig into his rich film history and you might be shocked to realize that he is more than a man in a tunic with a British accent that uttered the words "Use the Force Luke."
Like today's child actors, who at an early age get type cast into their TV or film rolls, Alec (with more than an established film history), has been type cast as the old Jedi, Obi-Wan.
Other than Harrison Ford, who has been able to escape the Star Wars type-cast? Harrison Ford only succeeded because of his role in Indiana Jones that allowed him to play off the "scruffy" Han Solo and open peoples minds to other roles. Who has seen the movies (other than Apocalypse Now and Empire Strikes Back) that Harrison did between Star Wars and Indiana Jones?
Force 10 from Navarone (1978)?
More American Graffiti (1979)?
Frisco Kid, The (1979)?
Hanover Street (1979)?
Not that Alec didn't go on to other roles, but he can never escape the role he played in the Star Wars films. Now what was so bloody banal about his lines in the movie? If after all of your history in film, the only line you were known for was "USE THE FORCE LUKE," you might think it all banal too.
Give the guy a break. Alec's historical contribution to film goes MUCH, MUCH, MUCH farther than Star Wars. Go to your local video store and discover for yourself. He has well over 60 movies under his lightsaber belt.
My $.02,
"Perhaps most amazingly, votaries of 'diversity' insist on absolute conformity." -- Tony Snow
Twelve year old children who go to see a single movie one hundred times are treating themselves like dog shit.
'nuff said.
The banter in the first 3 Star Wars films
Heretic! Report for your flogging at once!
The style book requires that these films be referred to as:
Episode IV
Episode V
and
Episode VI.
Please turn in all StarWars brick-a-brack you may have accumulated, and vacate the lifestyle dome immediately.
The first 'Star Wars' Film owes a lot more to other films than to Joseph Campbell.
1. "Hidden Fortress" Basic plot
2. "Guns of the South Pacific" Escape from the Death Star sequence
3. "Metropolis" Hi, Threepio
4. "Triumph of the Will" Closing scene
etc.
The plot was fundimentally that of a pulp western.
Itwas an intentional pastiche of every pulp cliche in film, and intentionally so. An early interview quoted Lucas as saying "It's really all about people liking dumb movies."
Guiness is just pissed that he hasn't been able to cash in on the latest round of Star Wars fanatisism and that he hasn't recognized for anything else that he's ever done. I think it was Don McLean (sp) that wouldn't play "American Pie" because it was the only song of his ever requested by people. it's understandable that Guiness would feel this way, but IMHO he shouldn't be spouting anti-Lucas sentiment because of it. The real irony is that he is using his noteriety as ObiWan to get people to listen.
--bc
--------------------------
the amazing bc
just another guy doing IT
webnaut, music junkie, holes-in-head
Damn I bet that guy took debate AND english in school (and possibly didn't flunk). Cool.
Those wanting to really understand Star Wars must turn to the films of Akira Kurosawa. George Lucas has 'fessed up to the fact that Star Wars is based on Kurosawa's Sugata Sanshiro (1943) as the main idea behind a lad and his quest to understand "the force". Lucas lifted the comic relief aspects of Star Wars from Kurosawa's Kakushi toride (1958). Those who get Turner Classic Movies on cable can see Kurosawa films every Friday night in September. Take a look. Learn about the real man behind "the force", and the beginning of the franchise.
So desu, it was a Salon article. Here is the original:
/ 15/brin_main/index.html
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06
To seek, to strive, to find, and not to yield.
Serious actors have no respect for movies such as Star Wars. Alec Guinness is a serious actor--not a movie star, but an actor. There is a difference. As such, he only sees the "banal" lines, and trillions of $$ of toys, games, jar-jar crap, crazed fans, etc. It's my impression, from all the interviews I've read, etc, that Neeson and McGreger have similar contempt for Star Wars.
And let's not forget Patrick Stewart. I can't picture him saying anything good about Star Trek, can you? He has absolute contempt for it.
People like Shatner and Hamill made their names (not to mention their fortunes) on Star Trek/Wars. It's all they'll ever be, so they praise the movies/shows, and collect the royalty checks. People like Stewart or Guinness never needed Star *.
-----------------
Your attention please everyone, if I could just say a few words... I would be a better public speaker.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Actors are routinely given scripts ahead of time before they decide to take on a role. I assume that Sir Alec was afforded the same. Being sixty-something at the time, he certainly can't claim the "young and naive" defense.
He is right about the lines, I cringe after hearing Vader/Emperor utter "turn to the dark side/it is your destiny" over and over and over and over....
However Star Wars is still enjoyable, and I'm sorry that he's come to hate it.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
A New Hope was released first. Yeah the movies are similiar. It's the saturday-morning cartoon thing. Ever see the Transformers? The good guys beat the bad guys every episode. And they are usually the same plot with a twist.
Does anyone else find it funny that an article about a man trying to rid himself of the image of Obi-Wan is titled "Obi-Wan speaks out about franchises"?
Shockwave Rider was a classic, but as you mention, it was a precursor of cyberpunk. Action takes place mostly IRL if I recall correctly. For True Names I was referring to cyberspace, virtual reality, avatars, online identities, all that stuff... seems banal now, but back then it was a huge eye-opener.
Both Shockwave Rider and True Names are worth a re-read. BTW, another science fiction novel that foretold cyberpunk was The Centauri Device by M. John Harrison... a weird novel about a decadent universe populated by artistes, addicts, pirates, and nasty government agents.
Of course, one of the things I find amusing-yet-scary is how nuts all the little kiddies are going over Darth Maul. ... ;)
Yeah, that's a wonderful role model
Well, let's take a peek, shall we? *grins*
We have a duplicitous sovreign who makes a habit of deceiving their subjects for their own gain.
(Amidala/Padme. . . the "Heroine.")
We have an authority figure who disregards the advice and teachings of the governing body that helped give him his status and ability.
(Quai-gon Jinn, the "Rebellious Teacher.")
We have a blind follower of the Rebellious Teacher who doesn't question some highly suspect motives.
(Obi-Wan Kenobi, the "Aspiring Master.")
We have a kid who is indentured because he was caught stealing.
(Anakin Skywalker, the "Child of Destiny.")
We have a power-hungry and manipulative political despot who coerces and tricks others for his advantage.
(Senator Palpatine aka Darth Sidious, the "Corrupt Official.")
We have Jar Jar Frigging Binks. 'nuff said.
And then we have a strong, charismatic, self-directed and unambiguously focused Darth Maul. So he happens to play for the "bad guys." He's tough, he's fearless, and he commanded instant respect from everyone he dealt with.
Sounds like a damn fine role model to me.
And that's without even getting into his excellent fashion sense. *grin*
Rafe
V^^^^V
Rafe
Opinions expressed by the author may not actually exist in the wild.
One day Sir Alec was accosted in the street by a woman and her 12-year old boy.
"He's seen Star Wars over 100 times" she said proudly. "Can you give him some of your wise advice?"
Guinness walked over to the boy, bent down and looked him in the eye and slowly said "Never - watch - it - again"
I still think is best films are 'Kind Hearts and Coronets', 'The Lavender Hill Mob' and 'The Man in the White Suit' - a nerd parable if ever there was one.
Protect that little baby, dad.
All those Star Wars freaks are probably crying right now. TPM was the number one reason I quit my job at a movie theater before this Summer and got into programming...the pay increase is twentyfold :)
Way to go Alec, stick it to the man!
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
Little Dorrit from the Dickens novel. In my top-5 list. Actually two movies; from two people's viewpoints. A strange thing, but it worked for me. AG is Little Doritt's father and gets lots of camera time. His performance just blew me away the several times I watched these two three-hour movies back around 1987. I've now got them on videotape (Warner). If you like AG, don't miss this/these.
Put Star Trek, and Star Wars, and a number of other things into a can. Weld the can shut. Dump it in the ocean somewhere.
Get on with life.
I think Lucas sold out, and has been raping Star Wars for as much money he can possibly glean from it. A good example of this is the existence of Jar Jar Binks. Lucas has got to know that the character is stupid, childish, extremely annoying and that it ruins the (dare I say it) seriousness of the movie reducing it to a high-tech kiddie movie. He could've stuck that purple dinosaur in there and would get more laughs from me than Jar Jar ever could... anyone leave the theatre pissed because of that freaking lizard?
Yikes.
Rescued by Read the Rest of This Comment yet again.
Thanks, Rob.
The more I read about Lucas, the more I lose respect for him. I think it would be absolute hell to work under such a control-freak.
:) to get into Star Trek. Call it the Lazy Man's Star Trek if you will. Granted, you can get almost as obsessed and read all those horrible books (I quit after about 5), but being a Star Wars fan is not a full-time job.
Did you know at one time, Francis Ford Copella(sp?) approached Lucas with the idea of starting a religon based on "The Force"? I am actually suprised Lucas declined. He seems to be so ego driven. well, despite this... i still love the story, and kenobi (as played by guinness or macgregor) continues to be my favorite character.
While I am a big fan od Star Wars, I like the fact that I can get into the story without the dedication it takes (as well as loss of one's life
and my point was?
woah.. i think the last remnant of my idealism towards the computer/geek community just got ripped to shreds. to think that someone could manage to use a homophobic slur in a discussion about STARWARS! even though i know that you are in no way a representative of the geek/slashdot culture you've still tarnished my idealism concerning the population of slashdot.
I'm getting heartily sick of this. It's not only Liam Neeson and Sir Alec Guinness who have expressed contempt for Star Wars and its following. I saw an interview with Ewan MacGregor on TV recently and he was just as condescending about the fans.
Were they forced to do these films? I don't think so. The problem is, because they've achieved a measure of success in their careers they think they're better people than everyone else.
What would it have cost them to keep their mouths shut and continue to support the illusion that they, the actors, might in _some_ small measure embody the graceful spirit of they characters they played?
At least Sir Alec kept his mouth mostly shut for some years. But Neeson and MacGregor couldn't keep quite for five minutes. I enjoyed Neeson's performance. But if George Lucas's first choice of actors are all going to stand up and burst the balloon right after his films are released, maybe he should concentrate on even lesser known actors without these grandiose pretensions.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
He does owe us.
He owes me his share of 100 movie tickets I bought to see him, money that I paid HIM because I liked his performance and he got a share of the profits.
And for that money, which has made him a wealthy man, he can't even be bothered to read, much less return, a simple letter?
A letter in which I told him I may never have watched "Bridge over the River Kwai" if I hadn't seen "Star Wars" first?
He owed that 12- year- old kid too. He owed him something more than "Never see it again" for the money that that kid paid him.
Celebrities and authours DO owe the fans, because without the fans' appreciation and money they would be working in the Burger Pit with the rest of us.
And no, celebrities don't owe us every frigging petty detail of their lives.
They do owe us courtesy, though.
No Longer a Menace to Society.
Alexandria Morrigan born 2/22/01 l. 20.5in wt. 7 lbs. 5 oz.
It's easy to call him an heretic, but I don't think we should. I disagree with him that the dialogue sucked; granted, it wasn't Shakespearian, and certainly not the best lines he had been given. I'm not sure how this piece deserves news, other than it acts as counterpoint to the hype. But this type of comment comes along for every majorly successful movie series. Star Trek's Shatner is another example.
Hey, that's fine. When the 6 movies are done filming, we'll remember McGregor as Obi-Wan, not Sir Alec Guinness. Not to say the first three movies will be better, but McGregor would make a convincing Jabba the Hut if they cast him as that!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
How much effort does it take to really just ignore the posted comment. Is it toooo. Logical for you. The author makes some points which make sence if you think about it.
TPM is about as banal as movies can get. The plot was recycled from previous movies with:
An immaculate conception
A slapstick plot "resolution"
ten billion annoying CGI creatures
ten minutes of screen captures from a mediocre video game
thrown in for kicks. Cmon, yousa thinkin, yousa people gonna die? Just read the abridged script:
http://ter.air0day.com/phantommenace.shtml
Can your IM do this?
Amidala is supposed to be 14 years old... :P
the kid probably really didn't see it a hundred times, its called exageration, most of us use it all the time. Hell I say I've seen stuff a million times, while most like in reality I've only seen it 2 or 3 times.
It seems these days that Lucas is merely the extreme of what has become the norm. With few exceptions, if I want to enjoy a movie it seems that I have to leave the room or cover my ears and eyes whenever a commercial for it comes on the tube. Some of the toys they come out with and advertise are simply silly (although I love the fact that you can get a "Fat Bastard" action figure from Austin Powers II).
Fast food and soft drink tie ins just inundate us with movie images and they do detract from the movie. Sometimes they even ruin the movie altogether.
But as for the complaints of Guinness and Neeson, well I don't think they should complain about being meat puppets. After all, they are actors and are paid to do a job.
On the other hand, Lucas's writing seems to have gone down hill since the first trilogy. Hopefully, the quality of the dialogue and plot will increase with practise.
btw, anyone see the Southpark with strange female critter who talks like Jar-Jar?
anyway...
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
C3PO is a fag.
I wasn't a big fan of Episode I. I thought that it was long. And slow. Specifically, the pod race seemed to drag on forever. Sure it's an important event that has a direct impact on the plot (Anakin wins his freedom by winning the race and can therefore leave Tatooine and begin his Jedi training) but I felt that there was too much time spent on it. It's as if the movie was built explicitly as a vehicle to sell the Nofriendo 64 pod racer game. [slightly off topic] there is a thread in the fourm over at Ars Technica about an article that postulates that Darth Vader may not be Luke's father, rather Obi-Wan is Luke's father...
BLOCK STRUCTURE breathing apparatus required for special maneuvers!!
You use fag like it's a bad thing, when being one most certainly is not... :-)
Adam
"this old-fashioned idea that you don't knock people who've written very large checks with your name on them."
Don't take this personally, but I've never heard a better explanation of tech journalism.
He's just a bitter old man. He's been bitching about Star Wars for years. Check out his Autobiography. He's just managed to latch on to the most recent criticism of star wars.
So it was a movie he wasn't proud of. Wonderful -- more power to him. But it's just downright unprofessional to belittle something others consider so important.
I wonder if, after throwing away all fan mail and reducing 12 year olds to tears, he throws away the royalty checks he's still raking in off being in three of the top selling movies of all time. And it also seems interesting that he wanted Obi-Wan dead when it wasn't anywhere near certain that there would be two sequels when the first film was made. This guy just seems way too bitter and weird for someone of his stature.
riiight. he needed the money... you think he's not completely capable of living on the money he has? want to talk about crass commercialism? there's your greed.
Not very chivalrous for a knight, is he?
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
He mentioned in an interview that he was definetly not happy about George using somebody else for the "ghost" Anakin.
/ 012399.shtml :)
I found some comments (not a very a very reliable source IMHO) here :
http://red.affiliation.com/jedicouncil/editorials
Again, I'd rather quote the magazine article I read, but this is as close as I get with a reference
Sorry, I don't remember the name of the magazine, just that is one of the main Star Wars fan mags (maybe SW Insider?).
- sigs are for wimps.
TPM bit...
1 232&mode=nested 8 232&mode=nested
The original movies, although a bit corny, still had some zen in them...TPM is just pure pop-culture trash...
See David Brin's articles:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/06/15/141
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/07/04/204
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
This is absolutely the wrong mentality that will cause us all to become manipulated in life into consumer drones. It may be George Lucas's "creation", but it's my money! If I'm going to pay _my money_, I'd better get something that's good. I demand it. I do not pay money to make directors feel better about themselves, I pay money to see good quality stuff, period.
I'm not going to refrain from complaining about the quality of a work because I think the director has some sort of "right to his creation." Consumer products/movies/entertainment are only going to get good if we actually refuse to give money and/or publicly pillory crap, so I'll call a spade a spade, thank you, without regard to whether it's "his creation".
-Dean
Sir Alec Guinness, one of the finest actors of this century, is essentially saying that the movie is not worth the obsession that millions of fans have developed. I'm a big Star Wars fan, and yes, I even have an Obi-Wan calendar here in my cubicle. But I can't say I've seen the movie 100 times like the 12-year-old mentioned in the article. If a youth is that interested in movies, or mythology, or science fiction, that's great -- but widen out a little bit!
Sir Guinness would, I'm sure, prefer to be remembered for his truly great roles, such as in Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. The fact that another fine actor, Liam Neeson, feels likewise about the series lends support to the view that maybe we're taking Star Wars just a little too seriously.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
I wondered about that too. Not that I mean any slight to Amidala's abilities, but how does a 14 year old get elected to leader of a whole planet? Although I do believe that a person can be just as competant at fourteen as at the arbitrary age of say, eighteen. However, in most democracies, people with no prior political experience don't usually get elected to such high office. On the other hand, most leaders democratically elected to office seem to turn out to be highly corrupt. This seems to be necessary to get into the kind of position where you will be elected to high office. Maybe the people of Naboo are aware of this and elect on the principle of innocence. Anyone who has been playing at politics too long (like our good friend Palpatine, now that I think about it) is immediatly a suspect of corruption. The whole idea of the system could be to elect someone who would truly be a public servant. Maybe the candidates also have to be screened by other factors too. Maybe Amidala has a really high IQ, so she got to be a candidate for queen.
Another possibility is that Naboo is some sort of Constitutional Monarchy, and Amidala is a hereditary ruler (or, perhaps she was elected, but from a noble class of some kind). It's hardly implausable with the technology in the Star Wars universe (which, as has been pointed out, seems to be more advanced in episode I than in IV, V, and VI), that the actual decisions of the government could be put to a direct vote by the people. So, Amidala would be the chief diplomat, chairperson, what have you, and decisions would be put to population at large to vote on. Of course, any direct democracy like this would require checks and balances for individual voters to make sure that they understood the issues before being allowed to vote on them. Also, voter turnout for any given issue would need to be large enough so that, even if someone bribed thousands for their votes, it would vanish into the statistics without affecting the outcome. Anyway, there are a number of solutions that are actually quite rational given the circumstances.
Or, another possibility is that Amidala (does Lucas come up with these names? It sounds like Amigdala, which is a portion of the brain and also some kind of almond based desert topping or something), who must be strong in the Force if she produces Luke, was just mind controlling all the voters. Hey, why not.
I know I'm in the minority, but I think it's too childish for adults. I did like it when I was a teenager though.
I hate to be the one to break this to you. Not only is C3PO a fictional character, he's portrayed without genitals. How much room for a sex life would that leave?
Ok, I've never seen this article before and the whole time I thought it belonged to the person who posted it. Not that it matters. I don't even know who David Brin is.
:)
But I will definitely check out his books.
That was an incredible commentary! Something that I believe every Star Wars fan should read. It's a type of writing that will get them at least to "think" about the stuff that's being consciously/unconsciously fed into the mind.
I'm a Star Wars/Star Trek/Sci-Fi fan but I've always been hesistant to place Star Wars/Star Trek as a "true" sci-fi, meaning I'd prefer to keep it more as an eye-candy/pop-brainless fliks. Some of the scifi I've enjoyed most were stuff by Asimov and 1984. Now, though, this dude's opened up a new persepective. It's time we ask ourselves, just what are we watching and for what reason and question the motives behind the existence of them.
And I will watch the other movies by Sir Alec so I won't be referring him as "that guy who played Obi-Wan"
Peace
Basically what things like star trek are trying to do is to replace the absolute lack of investment in the space program with an imagined future where people actually have accomplished a great deal. While this is not 100% possible it is better than the worthless antiutopian socialistic futures that abound in most of what is perceived in the future. Perhaps all attempts to make humans slaves to themselves and the worthless environment should be abolished first and then worry about how we should advance instead of putting artificial barriers so that all the magical spotted stink bugs can survive without seeing humans.
Or as MST3K once put it, "nominated for Best Performance By A 2x4."
Indeed, having been in numerous fiction workshops, I can attest that conversational writing is one of the hardest things for newbies. Lucas is not a newbie. The banter in the first 3 Star Wars films was made digestable by the chemistry between Luke, Leia and Han. I will wholeheartedly agree that dialog in Star Wars TPM was a sugary Disney-feeling made-my-skin-crawl experience. Having a 9-year old and a cartoon as main characters didn't help much. :-)
Yes, yes, mindless entertainment. It should have been marketed as mindless then. Like Spacballs...
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
When George Lucas made the original Star Wars in the late 70's, he reduced his 'salary' from Fox in exchange for a larger cut of the licensing rights for the merchandise that would accompany the release of the movie.
Much of Lucas' millions derive directly from that licensing arrangement following the success of Star Wars and the rest of the original triolgy.
To criticize him for it now completely misses the point and ignores the history Lucas' whole post Star Wars career. Without that money, much of what he's done (and he has undoubtedly done a lot to advance the technology of movie making) may never have been possible.
Remember that TPM takes place 50-ish years before Star Wars (Episode IV, A New Hope, whatever you choose to call it).
Midichlorians (sp?) are just a theory. Perhaps a side effect of being strong with the Force.
In our own past, scientists have made guesses as to why things work, and have often been wrong. (the sun revolving around the earth, ether, phlogestan (yet another sp?))...
So, within that 50 year period, perhaps they realized that their theory was wrong. We'll find out in Episodes 2 and 3, if we bother to watch them...
I seriously thought he was too.
Alec Guiness shattered my fragile ego, sending me spirling into a life of crime! I'm writing this from jail!
Seriously, though, I think it's pretty interesting that it took so long for him to speak out against it. Maybe it's because he hasn't had any significant roles or media attention in a while... Hmmmm...
Although I've never been a Star Wars fan, I have nothing against George Lucas, nor against Star Wars, nor against merchandising. What bothers me is actors who agree to play parts they don't like, only to demand changes and/or claim they were treated as puppets. I guess it's a matter of money, but I really have no respect whatsoever for actors who work in movies with scripts they dislike. It's irresponsable, if you ask me. Just my personal opinion, of course.
Thank u, I think he should have gotten sucked into the turbines of that speeder he was phukin with.. Killed the little hope that movie had!! What about Samuel L. Jackson's dreary dialog?? I was so shocked because I REALLY like his acting. (not in TPM!!!, cold and monotone) zI
I think Guiness is right. My 13 year old nephew is a fat beefy slob who spends all his time sitting in a bedroom decorated with every piece of Star Wars crap imaginable. His skin has the color and texture of a cold bowl of tapioca. He is completely devoid of social skills. He has no interests in science fiction. He is completely obsessed with Star Wars. Ignorant relatives call him a "computer whiz" because he spends all his time in Win-98 web surfing Star Wars sites. But the kid isn't even able to write a "Hello World" program in Basic. I don't get it. This kid is a prime reason that the military draft should be revived in the USA. He should be put in boot camp, with a drill sergeant that would make a man out of him, and put some calcium in his spine. Nothing in sadder than to realize that the next generation of your extended family are defects.
It's not just another one who says that "The phantom menace" was worse; he is saying that the original one was also crap to begin with.
That stupid annoying two-headed pod-race commentator ruined the movie for me more than Jar Jar. I can buy the Force (despite the mass appeal to peoples' grand ignorance with that "midichlorian bull), I can buy that some 6 yr old is a mechanical genious...but that stupid commentator broke all semblence of reality for me.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Yeah. Right.
If you did a random sampling survey and asked the question "Do you know who Alec Guiness is?" and if the answer to that question was "yes" the follow up question was "What is he famous for?" and eliminated the answers that had something to do with a book of world records, the overwhelming majority of the answers would have "Star Wars" prominently featured in them.
Star Wars *is* his claim to fame. It wasn't always that way, but it *is now*. (I'm not saying that it should be... Just that it is.)
Don't Kill Me. Eric
He may have hated the lines, but he delivered them
like a champ. The new Obi-Wan didn't get any
lines that were better. When you analyze the performances in the first Star Wars, I don't think many people would be likely to call Guiness' a bad one.
So, he did his job well, and having done so, let him criticize all he wants.
From what I remember, David Prowse was unhappy at having his voice dubbed in by JEJ, but more peeved at the fact that he wasn't the face they unveiled in RoTJ - understandable *if* he was built up to believe that he would have an appearance, if not a voice, in the films. Personally, I found him scarier as the Green Cross Code man, which may be showing my age...
Hmmm, you sound like Lucas is forcing you to watch his movie and forcing you to buy all the merchandise. Last time I checked, it was not against the law to not watch or buy Star Wars.
It's his creation, and he can do with it as he sees fit, regardless of whether we think he's screwing things up or not. In his eyes, he's finally made the movie he's always wanted to make. We should all be so lucky to have our dreams fulfilled as his had.
I can imagine an alternate timeline, Lucas is writing his autobiography, and he goes, "Yeah, sure TPM won Best Picture and Best Screenplay, but it wasn't the movie I wanted to make, it was what the fans wanted."
Go to babelfish and translate father from english to German
/., it seems the evil empire has located our current location."
Digit^H^H^H^H^HCompa^H^H^H^H^HAltvista, Inc log man: "Captain, thousands of requests keep flooding in. All of them just translating one word: father."
Altavista, Inc IS manager: "To what language? What is the translated word?"
Altvista, Inc log man: "German, sir. The word is, 'Vater.'"
Altavista, Inc IS manager: Dear lord. Hit the red button.
Deep beneath the company HQ, klaxons go off in a secret section of the building that does not appear on any blueprints. A lone man is sitting at a console looking at the word 'Vater.' A figure comes up behind him, and asks in a light finnish accent, "what is it?"
"Sir, it's a message from the rebel outpost
"Damn, and I'd just gotten used to this new building. Digital, Compaq, and now a separate entity for the search engine. How are we going to make this move this quickly without drawing attention?"
"I don't know, sir. Perhaps another Linux World Expo to cover the shift."
"That might just work. Stand by to release that episode 2 of Star Wars movie, just in case. Now get me Maddog, Alan, and that Robot."
As the young rebel turns to execute the orders, Linus mutters to himself, "at least Bill hasn't tried that 'Linus, I am your father' bit."
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Wasn't Sir Alec Guinness the only star in the original trilogy to be paid with the profits from the movies?
If I were Sir Alec I would just be happy with the continuing revenue.
1.3L, 3 moving parts, 280 HP, no Turbos, wanna Race? RotaryNe
Actually I think that he has alot of nerve complaining about Star Wars. When he was initially presented with the script, he turned it down saying that Lucas had found the wrong man, then he turns around and decided that it may be something he would do after all. He is the only one to blame for his bieng in the films. Nobody twisted his arm.
I would argue that Lucas has always been a quite mediocre writer. This is evidenced by the original Star Wars novel, written by Lucas himself, and is also reflected in the low quality of the dialogue in the current Phantom Menace novel (doubtless based on a raw version of the movie's script). The reason that the first movies achieved such stellar dialogue is because Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford are superb at taking rather bland lines and creating memorable and interesting characters. This is especially true for Ford, whose dialogue had to adumbrate the characters of both Han Solo and Chewbacca.
I saw the Star Wars trilogy for the first time during the theatrical re-release a few years ago. Didn't see them as a teenager when they first came out, never caught them on video or on TV.
It was a big letdown... bad acting, bad dialog, cheesy special effects, totally clichéd plot.
The passage of time explains some of it... the effects were advanced for their time, and the plot ideas only seem clichéd because they've been copied so often since. But still...
So I actually consider TPM to be the best of the four movies so far... but that's kind of faint praise... none of the movies were really memorable, none left any lasting impression.
PS, Some of you younger folks might want to try an experiment on how fresh ideas become clichés... go read the short story True Names by Vernor Vinge, originally published in the early 80s.
You'll probably shrug -- the cyberspace theme is quite old and familiar -- but it was the first story of its kind, before Neuromancer or anything else. And when I read it, back then, it made my head spin for days and days and permanently altered my perception of the future and computing.
So I can understand how some of you felt when Star Wars changed your world 20 years ago. But that magic is lost to me, just as the magic of True Names is lost for modern first-time readers.
I think Mr. Guinness has every right to be scared by the fact that a fan has seen his movie 100 times. That scares me. What is there in star wars that is so fundamentally true that it needs to be watched 100 times? There was something wrong with that kid. THe movie I have watched the most was Trainspotting, and I saw it 4 times, and most of the time I was renting it again to show my friends because I thought they would realy like it. But 100 times? I wouldnt even watch that movie more than 8 or 9 times in my whole life. I have had friends that know every single little fact and detail about who is who in star wars, why he is like that, or why something happens. The only explanation I can think of for this is that they are substituting for something else they are missing in their life. I'm sure this is exactly how Guinness feels, except it must be worse on him becaues HE was an actor in the film. Whenever someone bashes star wars, people defend it by saying that "it's just a story". I agree, it's just a story, and obsessively watching it and decoding it, and finding out everything about it, is a sign that something is wrong. Now dont get me wrong, I like star wars. They're fun movies. I liked all 3 originals, and the phatntom menace, but that is where it stops. Were I ever forced to watch a movie 100 times, I would choose something that is at least worth it, maybe Apocalypse Now - where there ARE subtelties that you can discover. Anyway I'm off to have a 100 bowls of ice cream. -Laxative
Murder by Death
gives Star Wars its much deserved criticisms. IMO, he's a lot like Pete Townshend talking about the successes and failures of The Who.
How would you like it if you're an oscar winning actor with some great movies under your belt and the press and the public only want to talk about a small role you played at the end of your career. The Star Wars effect has branded almost everyone associated with the project except Harrison Ford, mainly because he was in some great movies AFTER Star Wars, so to the fans he's not just Han Solo. But Alec made a lot of great movies BEFORE Star Wars, and not kid movies (lets be real SW IS a kid's movie)so he's forever Obi-Wan. I'd be pissed too.
He kind of walked that fine line between the 'old school' productions where movies were good stories acted out well and today's big-ass-hyped-blow-stuff-up productions. SW did change the the movie industry, not through any fault of its own, but because studios realised that theres big money in fanatic moviegoers.
Personally, I have little respect for people who just love one thing out of a huge genre. SW fanatics and Trekkies should go get a library card.
Did anyone notice how everyone was praying that Jar-jar would die, and then suddenly John-John bites the dust. Creepy. Geek Mojo, bad aim, horrible combination.
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
I'm surprised George Lucas didn't have computers write the dialogue for TPM.
Maybe for the next prequel he can put his cluster of high powered computers to a better use than doing cheesy animations that look like video games.
I'm sure this will be labelled as flamebait or as a troll, but I don't get why people don't like the commentator at the pod race. Now, I've only seen TPM once, so I'm sure that I'm in the minority here when it comes time to count ticket stubs, but Jar Jar's character was much more unappealing to me than the commentator's character. The commentator had a small part in the movie (ironic, I think, considering that the pod race scene itself was entirely too long). If Jar Jar's part was as short, I probably wouldn't dislike it as much. Now the sand people taking pot shots at the racers - that was comedy...
Nope.
The trailer gave away the fact that the kid sees dead people. So when Bruce Willis got shot at the beginning of the movie, I figured... he's DEAD!
Didn't anyone else see the "twist" ending coming right from the start?
Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I guessed that "plot twist" about a week before watching the movie. Yeah, it was a nice ghost story, but just like every other movie this summer, completely overhyped. TPM - dialogue sucked, acting sucked, aliens were all arguably racial stereotypes; ooooh a trade dispute, how positively enthralling. Austin Powers II - I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called Austin Powers I (yeah, I know it wasn't called that). And jokes about a midget and a fat guy just aren't that funny once you leave the 5th grade. Blair Witch Project - Anyone else find that Real World rejects running around the woods screaming is not particularly frightening? Sixth Sense - The kid's face is stuck on scared (why is that great acting?). Pamela Anderson would have been as convincing a psychologist as Bruce Willis was.
And you had a billion dollars you can make your OWN Star Wars movie but until then, you can rant all you want. I don't see any of you guys creating an epic movie series that has universal appeal and has lasted the test of time (22 years). Now we have a new one and all are so ready to rip it apart. Some are rooted in truth (the gungans just have to go.). Some was unduly harsh (ever read the first few chapters of the Lord of the Rings? Boring! Hardly any plot! Dialogue was cheesy! Sound familiar?).
Is Sir Alec correct about his lines? Yes. Does he have to treat a child in such a way? No.
If you guys are so sick and tired of the hype machine and all of the despot-like way George makes his movies, DON'T GO SEE THEM AND DON'T GO SEE EPISODE II!!!
Sure I led the original movie (and the others less so) but lets face it, they (especialy) the first one are just immitations of the Samurai movies of the 50s & 60s. The honoroable wondering Samurai with apprentice or 2 in tow (Jedi Knights) defend innocent villagers against bandits or evil warlords with phalanxses of uniformed Samurai.
Lucas took the plot of The Hidden Fortress and exapnded the entire genre to galactic proportions and cast it into SciFi special effects land. Sir Alec is just pointing out that Lucas can't write and comes up with a bunch of light-weight PC ideas to replace the original Samurai ethos.
It's a space western, folks. Lots of people like John Wayne's movies, too, but that doesn't mean he didn't have to wrap his mouth around some of the lamest, most pretentious dialogue ever written. At least Alec Guinness has the presence of mind to take himself less seriously than the Duke.
Sure, Star Wars is entertaining. Many children's movies are. I enjoyed all four. But people who think they're high art need to get out more often.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Actually, I think the pod racing scene was in the movie because Lucas saw Ben Hur one day and said "Hey, I'm so rich, I'm lawsuit-proof. One risky high-speed race scene coming up!"
Because we didn't go to TPM to get radio morning show DJ hijinkies. At least I didn't. Not that I'm saying that I enjoyed Jar Jar, but he was less intensely annoying even though he was on screen a longer amount of time.
I don't think I've ever heard your voice. I have no doubt it's a fine voice. You are, after all, a professional actor, someone who makes his living in part from his voice. But I'm afraid that whatever else Lucas may have gotten wrong, he was dead on with this one. I simply can't imagine anyone but James Earl Jones doing Darth Vader's voice.
--
Someone you trust is one of us.
It seems a little strange here. Guinness claims he persuaded Lucas to kill him off and make him a ghost, yet he couldn't exercise enough influence to change his lines a little? I'm a big Alec Guiness fan (including his Star Wars role), but this sounds a bit fishy.
On the other hand, he's not the only unsatisfied Star Wars actor. There's a link to David Prowse's comments, but also I've read that Denis "Wedge Antilles" Lawson didn't enjoy making the movies. I suspect that any time you have a director who is also the creator (such as Lucas, but also JMS of Babylon 5), the director is going to want to exercise more creative control in creating his "vision."
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
well, you have never read nietzsche, because of your little reference to him and his uebermensch that was completely irrelevant to him; the nietzschean uebermensch has greater self-control (not control on others; and it's not physical, it's in the mind) and he got his power because he wants, not because he inherited something from god XYZ.
From the story:
Guinness also regales the magazine with a very un-mentor-like story his treatment of a 12-year-old fan. The actor harshly reprimanded the child, who approached Guinness and told him he'd seen the original 100 times, bringing the boy to tears. "There was something obsessive there that really frightened me," Guinness recounts.
Reducing children to tears strikes me as fairly obsessive behavior, too.
If Sir Guinness finds the lasting success of Star Wars so distasteful, he can send back those residual checks that he gets as a consequence of that success.
Surely, Guinness and the other actors who signed on to these movies did so because of the money-making potential rather than artistic satisfaction. No one could have mistaken the original Star Wars script for Shakespeare in the Park.
His two-decades-late development of artistic sensibilities strikes me as sour grapes, and it says more about a grumpy old man than it does about the supposed faults of George Lucas and his dreadfully over-marketed movies.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
Lucas, however, takes it beyond the extreme into the realm of absurdity. Why was the pod race scene in TPM? To sell video games. Period. It had no relevance to the overall plot (such as it was) of the movie. Same thing for the underwater scene on the way to the Gungan city - let's make a cool submarine, it'll sell more toys! So much of the movie was put in for the sole purpose of selling toys and merchandise that I felt awkward watching it. Forget that it was a horrible movie - I've enjoyed myself watching really bad movies before - it wasn't even a fun movie.
thread at ars
BLOCK STRUCTURE breathing apparatus required for special maneuvers!!
I donno about Alec Guiness. good actor, but wow, he's been on a personal crusade for the last several years to let everyone know how much he dislikes Star Wars.
...Even though it unfortunately honed us on the art of cheesy dialogue and Way Too Simple Action Movie Plotlines (tm). :)
:) Hopefully Carrie Fisher will bring a nice touch to the 2nd movie when she ghost writes the dialogue for several characters.]
He does have an excellent point - obsession over a story is a dangerous thing. Watching a movie 100 times at such a YOUNG age is ridiculous... I think he gave the kid good advice.
Alec Guiness seems to feel that Star Wars is destructive for youth (according to an old interview I read with him). I disagree here. Almost all fantasies are constructive, especially for young people. The mind grows through play & imagination. Star Wars has opened the imaginations of many kids, and inspired many of us...
[Tangent:
Looking at the original Star Wars, it was *JUST AS BAD* as TPM plot-wise... but we had never seen ANYTHING like Star Wars before it came out, so it was such a novelty. Now, 22 years later, our taste for involved plots & good dialogue has risen... Apparently, Lucas' hasn't.
What I *don't* like about this article is the way it throws in Liam Neeson's decision to quit acting and David Prowse's complaints in order to paint a "dirtier" picture. Journalistic FUD at its best. Neeson's decision has little to do with Lucas' specific treatment of him (I read that Redbook article), and if Prowse's story sounds way too left-field.. (a "black" voice? Why did you wait 2 decades to bring this up?)
-Stu
When you've had the kind of career he has, doing all the serious acting he has, and suddenly you're remembered only for playing a Jedi Knight -- and the role has you speaking a whole lot of mumbo jumbo that is, at times, very trite -- you're going to be bitter.
"Hi Obi-Wan!"
"My name is not Obi-Wan."
"You're a great actor!"
"What have you seen me do?"
"Uhh... Obi-Wan Kenobi!"
*sound of molars grinding and head striking wall repeatedly*
Actors just can't help being upset about things like that. It may seem stupid to the casual observer, but when you spend your entire life doing theater full time and then in the later stages of it you're remembered only for one role -- in a movie that's admittedly cool, but definately NOT your best work -- it will get to you.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Sir Alec briefly touches on it when he says, "I throw away all fan mail." The real problem here isn't that the movie was so awfully bad. It was that it was so damned popular. Hell, you could say that same thing about Godzilla and Batman & Robin. The thing is, for some reason, fans continue to flock to Star Wars. How many of you 20-30-year-old geeks went and saw Star Wars opening night, despite the bad lines and awful characters found in Return of the Jedi and the pre-release denunciations of the movie? Any other movie with acting as bad as TPM or ANH or ROTJ would've flopped, but Star Wars has a mythic stature to it that generates a market for it. Everyone bitches about how it doesn't live up to their expectations, but everyone continues to watch the movies. Why? Because it's a simple story with lightsabers.
Star Wars isn't over-hyped. The populace is over-enthusiastic. Alec isn't pissed off at Star Wars. He's pissed off at the people who raise it to a platform it shouldn't be on. Lucas is perfectly capable of making truly excellent films (witness Indiana Jones), but Star Wars doesn't need to be. He's marketing that towards the kids and the middle-age and parents come along for the nostalgia and the excitement.
Sir Alec is pissed at you and me.
anyhow, my original intent was to agree that AG's policy of throwing fan letters in the trash is lame.
Why not recycle them?
Looking at the E! Online site, I noticed that it credits Billy Dee Williams as one of the actors in the 1977 release of Star Wars.
I'm under the impression he only played Lando and that character's first appearance was in ESB.
Am I missing something here?
Also, are the only pictures of David Prowse ones of him in full Vader garb?
One of the marks of a truly great actor is the ability to give an outstanding performance even though you think the script is crap. What is really interesting about this is that Guiness got what he thought to be a part in a crappy movie (obviously a "for the money" role) and yet gave an outstanding performance. Many actors would have just farted around and done little more than read their lines in such a situation.
The cake is a pie
Surely he's right in what he said. The dialog in Star Wars films is hardly Restoration comedy. But it's kind of rude of Sir Alec to be so blunt about it. He has every right, of course, but I kind of wish he hadn't...
Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe
Leaving the whole issue of the quality of the dialogue etc aside, was Alec Guinness *forced* to take on the role of Obi-Wan in Star Wars? Did he not get a chance to peruse the script at all beforehand? I can understand that he may be sick of all the hype and obsessive fans, but with all his comments trashing the movie script/dialogue, I really wonder why he did it in the first place ...
YS
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender
Well, Alec... Who's the more whorish... The whore, or the whore who not only appeared in his movie, but two sequels?
Ok, I think he has a valid point. And I can see how annoying it must be to have done something 20 years ago and still have it haunting you.
But! The first thing I thought when I read he was 85 was This is just a crazy old guy. With crazy old men, you just nod your head and smile. No need to argue.
"Sure, you were the one who came up with the idea of Obi Wan dying."
"Yes I believe you. That 12 year old boy is after you. Put down the knife, Alec."
:)
-Lisa
One of the great triumphs of advertising, which is the only art left to us.
Now excuse me while I take a break to suck on a battery powered Jar-Jar-Binks themed tootsie pop twirler/noisemaker.
support gun control: take guns from cops
, and a damn good one, and he works for money sometimes out of neccesity.
Perhaps later he just got fed up with it. Remember, he's not going around preaching this shit, the magazine asked him in an interview.
support gun control: take guns from cops
Sixth Sense was one movie that was well advertised but didn't show too much. The teasers were just that: teasers. They didn't give the whole plot and all the best lines away. I watched all the commercials and trailers and still really enjoyed the movie.
Kudos to the producers of that flick.
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
> The actor says he's mystified by the movie's
...
... what a loser.
>"obsessive fans, and he throws all fan letters
> the trash
I have never sent a "fan letter", but I'd imagine that most people who do so are not "obsessive fans".
Like it or not SW is a series that has touched and continues to touch many generations. Obviously, people will want to express their admiration. If he doesn't care or doesn't read them, he doesn't have to tell fans that their admiration is so meaningless to him that it belongs in the trash.
If he felt the dialog was so bad and beneath him, why did he accept the role in the first place ?!? Of course, as usual, money comes before principle. Now that we have a new (and better) Obi-One and he's not needed, he has no problem expressing his real feelings.
What a jerk
And don't get me started on Prowse. The guy didn't understand that no, he's not considered an actor, just a guy in a suit !!! He could never accept that Darth Vader is the voice, James Earl Jones. He also got pissed because he was replaced. The funny think is, that he's been telling magazines that he would like to play Darth Vader on EP3 when he goes cyborg.
Yeah right
- sigs are for wimps.
I know I'm in the minority, but I think it's too childish for adults. I did like it when I was a teenager though.
I think this may be the crux of the matter in comparing ANH and TPM. Your critical judgement changes as you get older, and the same stuff that knocks your socks off as a teen becomes infantile, predictable and obvious as an adult.
Of course, the only way to test this hypothesis is to get a few samples of children (preferably under 2), let them grow up in a non-Star Wars contaminated environment, and then expose one set to TPM and the control set to ANH, and see which one they prefer.
Now if I could just get a grant for this, or maybe we could grab a few Amish teens.
George
I have inside information that Lucas saw The Blair Witch Project and was very impressed. He feels that the Star Wars movies have become huge money-wasters and wants to try a different approach. Here is the plan for Episode II:
:)
Episode II will take place entirely in the Dagobah swamps. There will be only three characters -- Jar Jar, Yoda, and Jedi-in-training Anakin Skywalker.
Yoda is recording Anakin's progress on a Sony Handycam. Most of the film is shot from this perspective.
Here is a portion of the script:
Anakin -- "I kicked the map into the swamp."
Yoda -- "Kicked the map into the swamp, did you? Why you kick map into swamp? Map we need!"
Jar Jar -- "Oh no! Weesa gonna die!"
Anakin -- "You're a Jedi master! Just use the force and get us out of this!"
Yoda -- "Powerful is the force, but map we need! Foolish you are!"
Jar Jar -- "Weesa gonna die!"
Anakin -- "Wait! What was that? Did you hear that?"
Yoda -- "Do not change the subject. Map you lost!"
Anakin -- "Where's Jar Jar?"
Yoda -- "Standing here he was. I know not where he went."
Then again, I could just be making the whole thing up because I'm bored.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Ok, somewhat on topic (it does deal w/ SW though not the article really)
People speak of the first 3 as being epic, and wondrous. How many people remember when they were originally released? The first (or rather, 4th) was loved. It was a complete story. Then came trust numba 5, which was criticized because it left off. This was because at this point Lucas new there would be a sequel. Then, good ole number 6 came and was praised again, because it was a complete story.
Now, he started something with TPM, but it's being criticized and with reason - it's in the same rank as episode 5, it's not a complete story. Lucas knows he will do more so he didn't finish ep1.
Just my spare change.
I mean, it just ripped so _much_ from TPM! Luke going off with Obi-Wan? Just like Qui-Gon picking up Anakin, right down to the slavery (slavery to his uncle and aunt). The "kill Obi-Wan" bit was so much a rip on "kill Qui-Gon" it's not funny... And don't even get me started on the whole 'assault on the Death Star' (which was so obviously a clone of the assault on the Trade Federation ship, right down to the single assault by a Skywalker to destroy it...).
"I don't believe that there is one, single, perfect spiritual way and, in realizing that, obviously you become a lot more open."
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
He's right to some extent too, it's a movie. It's fun and exciting but some people take it a bit far. As one of the greatest actors around it's got to sting a little to have done some amazing roles and then be primarily remembered by some younger generations for a bit role in a pop movie.
Falling down the detonator and blowing up the bridge was a little over the top though also..
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
An actor complains about the script and the director...what's so new and surprising about that? Actors always complain how their directors are stifling them because the director is the person in charge of the movie, so much so that the obligatory cliche in any interview with an actor is, "But I really want to direct." Thus, it seems to me that all the charges about the dictator-like nature of directors in general (and Lucas in particular) is ridiculous. Directors are supposed to be like that; that's why they're directors. It's one of the perks. Actors are just paid to do a job.
/. which generated yet another ridiculous wave of Lucas/TPM/Star Wars bashing. I don't think I've ever seen so many public unfair criticism when it comes to a movie before in my life (David Brin's atrocious analysis comes to mind.) This just generated more of the same. A shame, that.
As for the social commentary on the "obsession" some have with Star Wars, Guinness is just following a well-established Hollywood tradition: making a living pretending to be other people automatically grants you a forum and the right to do social commentary. Moreover, he lets his irritation show that he's been typecast (the bane of any actor) and consequently resents the fan base that did that to him.
Of course this isn't news; there's nothing new about it. It is, however, conflict and controversy, which is the real goal of the mass media because it sells. Unfortunately, it got a link to
I'm not fond of the Star Wars franchise, and I understand what Guiness is saying, yet I agree with those here who take him to task for his biting the hand that is feeding him caviar.
But he's old. And one of the few consolations of old age is that you can say exactly what you think without a grain of reservation or diplomacy. Frankly, I think that the older segment in our society should be given their pensions only if they are willing to roam our civic spaces and declaim their crotchety screeds, as a sort of public service.
Frankly, I can't wait!
the fact that Obi-Wan really hated being there, or the fact that such poor grammar was used in a professional web site...
"royally pissed of"...the word is "off"
"And even the Force can't keep him quiet."... fragments?
"Guinness also regales the magazine with a very un-mentor-like story his treatment of a 12-year-old fan."... um, is this english?
Anyway, I'm glad that someone that has been involved with the Star Wars projects is speaking up against the blantant and excessive merchandising that Lucas is getting away with. The Phantom Menace was awful, yet it raked in a boatload of cash only because of the hype and devoted following of the fans. Clearly an inferior product cashing in on the history of the trilogy.
It's just a shame that we'll all go to see the next movie as well... hopefully jar-jar won't be in that one.
The Ladykillers? Every time I see this movie, I just about lose it. It's as sideslapping as The Party. :-)
I vaguely remember her saying in an articale she the worst lines of any job she ever did in Star Wars. Her favorite "I should have known that foul stench was yours ..."
Vidi, vici, veni. (I saw, I conquered, I came)
The plot could certainly have used work, but that can be overlooked in cases of characters such as were in the trilogy. The movie seemed to be mainly just a rehash, but with some younger, implausible people tossed in to force some differences. It's interesting that the trade federation can't obtain battle droids that are capable of more than simple dialog ("um, er, that doesn't compute."?! WTF is that?), but a 10 year old kid can build a protocol droid and a model of racing pod better by leagues than anyone else's. Geez, I've been alive 18 years and I haven't even programmed HAL yet! And Queen Amidala. How can Lucas expect anyone to believe that a sane body of people could possibly "elect" a 16-year old monarch? Good lord, a child could have thought up a more probable explanation as to why she's ruling, but to try to pass it off as a democracy? It's a kid's movie, sure, but that's not an excuse to pass off implausible crap as realistic. I won't even go into Jar Jar. Yes I will. Jar Jar was a bumbling oaf! The slapstick thing entertains kids to an extent, but literally every single scene in which Jar Jar appeared he had to trip over something or say something inane, with absolutely no consequence! I thoroughly encourage every fan to read Terry Brook's adaptation of the movie, in which at least he attempts to give some much-needed depth to the characters.
---
Silly rabbit. Sleep is for class!
"Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists
... Adolf did save the life of his own son!"
... and even logical! Common folk got almost as much chance to be heroic as the demigods. Clichés were few and terrific surprises abounded. There were fine foreshadowings, promising more marvels in sequels. It was simply a great movie. Homeric but great.
Why is George Lucas peddling an elitist, anti-democratic agenda under the guise of escapist fun?
"But there's probably no better form of government than a good despot."
-- George Lucas (New York Times interview, March 1999)
Well, I boycotted "Episode I: The Phantom Menace" -- for an entire week.
Why? What's to boycott? Isn't "Star Wars" good old fashioned sci-fi? Harmless fun? Some people call it "eye candy" -- a chance to drop back into childhood and punt your adult cares away for two hours, dwelling in a lavish universe where good and evil are vividly drawn, without all the inconvenient counterpoint distinctions that clutter daily life.
Got a problem? Cleave it with a light saber! Wouldn't you love -- just once in your life -- to dive a fast little ship into your worst enemy's stronghold and set off a chain reaction, blowing up the whole megillah from within its rotten core while you streak away to safety at the speed of light? (It's such a nifty notion that it happens in three out of four "Star Wars" flicks.)
Anyway, I make a good living writing science-fiction novels and movies. So "Star Wars" ought to be a great busman's holiday, right?
One of the problems with so-called light entertainment today is that somehow, amid all the gaudy special effects, people tend to lose track of simple things, like story and meaning. They stop noticing the moral lessons the director is trying to push. Yet these things matter.
By now it's grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. After four "Star Wars" films, alarm bells should have gone off, even among those who don't look for morals in movies. When the chief feature distinguishing "good" from "evil" is how pretty the characters are, it's a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look.
Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?
* Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.
* "Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.
* Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.
* True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.
* Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.
That is just the beginning of a long list of "moral" lessons relentlessly pushed by "Star Wars." Lessons that starkly differentiate this saga from others that seem superficially similar, like "Star Trek." (We'll take a much closer look at some stark divergences between these two sci-fi universes below.)
Above all, I never cared for the whole Nietzschian Übermensch thing: the notion -- pervading a great many myths and legends -- that a good yarn has to be about demigods who are bigger, badder and better than normal folk by several orders of magnitude. It's an ancient storytelling tradition based on abiding contempt for the masses -- one that I find odious in the works of A.E. Van Vogt, E.E. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and wherever you witness slanlike super-beings deciding the fate of billions without ever pausing to consider their wishes.
Wow, you say. If I feel that strongly about this, why just a week-long boycott? Why see the latest "Star Wars" film at all?
Because I am forced to admit that demigod tales resonate deeply in the human heart.
Before moving on to the fun stuff, will you bear with me while we get serious for a little while?
In "The Hero With a Thousand Faces," Joseph Campbell showed how a particular, rhythmic storytelling technique was used in almost every ancient and pre-modern culture, depicting protagonists and antagonists with certain consistent motives and character traits, a pattern that transcended boundaries of language and culture. In these classic tales, the hero begins reluctant, yet signs and portents foretell his pre-ordained greatness. He receives dire warnings and sage wisdom from a mentor, acquires quirky-but-faithful companions, faces a series of steepening crises, explores the pit of his own fears and emerges triumphant to bring some boon/talisman/victory home to his admiring tribe/people/nation.
By offering valuable insights into this revered storytelling tradition, Joseph Campbell did indeed shed light on common spiritual traits that seem shared by all human beings. And I'll be the first to admit it's a superb formula -- one that I've used at times in my own stories and novels.
Alas, Campbell only highlighted positive traits, completely ignoring a much darker side -- such as how easily this standard fable-template was co-opted by kings, priests and tyrants, extolling the all-importance of elites who tower over common women and men. Or the implication that we must always adhere to variations on a single story, a single theme, repeating the same prescribed plot outline over and over again. Those who praise Joseph Campbell seem to perceive this uniformity as cause for rejoicing -- but it isn't. Playing a large part in the tragic miring of our spirit, demigod myths helped reinforce sameness and changelessness for millennia, transfixing people in nearly every culture, from Gilgamesh all the way to comic book super heroes.
It is essential to understand the radical departure taken by genuine science fiction, which comes from a diametrically opposite literary tradition -- a new kind of storytelling that often rebels against those very same archetypes Campbell venerated. An upstart belief in progress, egalitarianism, positive-sum games -- and the slim but real possibility of decent human institutions.
And a compulsive questioning of rules! Authors like Greg Bear, John Brunner, Alice Sheldon, Frederik Pohl and Philip K. Dick always looked on any prescriptive storytelling formula as a direct challenge -- a dare. This explains why science fiction has never been much welcomed at either extreme of the literary spectrum -- comic books and "high literature."
Comics treat their superheroes with reverent awe, as demigods were depicted in the Iliad. But a true science fiction author who wrote about Superman would have earthling scientists ask the handsome Man of Steel for blood samples (even if it means scraping with a super fingernail) in order to study his puissant powers, and maybe bottle them for everyone.
As for the literary elite, postmodernists despise science fiction because of the word "science," while their older colleagues -- steeped in Aristotle's "Poetics" -- find anathema the underlying assumption behind most high-quality SF: the bold assertion that there are no "eternal human verities." Things change, and change can be fascinating. Moreover, our children might outgrow us! They may become better, or learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. And if they don't learn, that could be a riveting tragedy far exceeding Aristotle's cramped and myopic definition. "On the Beach," "Soylent Green" and "1984" plumbed frightening depths. "Brave New World," "The Screwfly Solution" and "Fahrenheit 451" posed worrying questions. In contrast, "Oedipus Rex" is about as interesting as watching a hooked fish thrash futilely at the end of a line. You just want to put the poor doomed King of Thebes out of his misery -- and find a way to punish his tormentors.
This truly is a different point of view, in direct opposition to older, elitist creeds that preached passivity and awe in nearly every culture, where a storyteller's chief job was to flatter the oligarchic patrons who fed him. Imagine Achilles refusing to accept his ordained destiny, taking up his sword and hunting down the Fates, demanding that they give him both a long life and a glorious one! Picture Odysseus telling both Agamemnon and Poseidon to go chase themselves, then heading off to join Daedalus in a garage start-up company, mass producing wheeled and winged horses so that mortals could swoop about the land and air, like gods -- the way common folk do today. Even if they fail, and jealous Olympians crush them, what a tale it would be.
This storytelling style was rarely seen till a few generations ago, when aristocrats lost some of their power to punish irreverence. Even now, the new perspective remains shaky -- and many find it less romantic, too. How many dramas reflexively depict scientists as "mad"? How few modern films ever show American institutions functioning well enough to bother fixing them? No wonder George Lucas publicly yearns for the pomp of mighty kings over the drab accountability of presidents. Many share his belief that things might be a whole lot more vivid without all the endless, dreary argument and negotiating that make up such a large part of modern life.
If only someone would take command. A leader.
Some people say, why look for deep lessons in harmless, escapist entertainment?
Others earnestly hold that the moral health of a civilization can be traced in its popular culture.
In the modern era, we tend to feel ideas aren't inherently toxic. Yet who can deny that people -- especially children -- will be swayed if a message is repeated often enough? It's when a "lesson" gets reiterated relentlessly that even skeptics should sit up and take notice.
The moral messages in "Star Wars" aren't just window dressing. Speeches and lectures drench every film. They represent an agenda.
Can we learn more about the "Star Wars" worldview by comparing George Lucas' space-adventure epic to its chief competitor -- "Star Trek?"
The differences at first seem superficial. One saga has an air force motif (tiny fighters) while the other appears naval. In "Star Trek," the big ship is heroic and the cooperative effort required to maintain it is depicted as honorable. Indeed, "Star Trek" sees technology as useful and essentially friendly -- if at times also dangerous. Education is a great emancipator of the humble (e.g. Starfleet Academy). Futuristic institutions are basically good-natured (the Federation), though of course one must fight outbreaks of incompetence and corruption. Professionalism is respected, lesser characters make a difference and henchmen often become brave whistle-blowers -- as they do in America today.
In "Star Trek," when authorities are defied, it is in order to overcome their mistakes or expose particular villains, not to portray all institutions as inherently hopeless. Good cops sometimes come when you call for help. Ironically, this image fosters useful criticism of authority, because it suggests that any of us can gain access to our flawed institutions, if we are determined enough -- and perhaps even fix them with fierce tools of citizenship.
By contrast, the oppressed "rebels" in "Star Wars" have no recourse in law or markets or science or democracy. They can only choose sides in a civil war between two wings of the same genetically superior royal family. They may not meddle or criticize. As Homeric spear-carriers, it's not their job.
In teaching us how to distinguish good from evil, Lucas prescribes judging by looks: Villains wear Nazi helmets. They hiss and leer, or have red-glowing eyes, like in a Ralph Bakshi cartoon. On the other hand, "Star Trek" tales often warn against judging a book by its cover -- a message you'll also find in the films of Steven Spielberg, whose spunky everyman characters delight in reversing expectations and asking irksome questions.
Above all, "Star Trek" generally depicts heroes who are only about 10 times as brilliant, noble and heroic as a normal person, prevailing through cooperation and wit, rather than because of some inherited godlike transcendent greatness. Characters who do achieve godlike powers are subjected to ruthless scrutiny. In other words, "Trek" is a prototypically American dream, entranced by notions of human improvement and a progress that lifts all. Gene Roddenberry's vision loves heroes, but it breaks away from the elitist tradition of princes and wizards who rule by divine or mystical right.
By contrast, these are the only heroes in the "Star Wars" universe.
Yes, "Trek" can at times seem preachy, or turgidly politically correct. For example, every species has to mate with every other one, interbreeding with almost compulsive abandon. The only male heroes who are allowed any testosterone are Klingons, because cultural diversity outweighs sexual correctness. (In other words, it's OK for them to be macho 'cause it is "their way.") "Star Trek" television episodes often devolved into soap operas. Many of the movies were very badly written. Nevertheless, "Trek" tries to grapple with genuine issues, giving complex voices even to its villains and asking hard questions about pitfalls we may face while groping for tomorrow. Anyway, when it comes to portraying human destiny, where would you rather live, assuming you'll be a normal citizen and no demigod? In Roddenberry's Federation? Or Lucas' Empire?
Lucas defends his elitist view, telling the New York Times, "That's sort of why I say a benevolent despot is the ideal ruler. He can actually get things done. The idea that power corrupts is very true and it's a big human who can get past that."
In other words a royal figure or demigod, anointed by fate. (Like a billionaire moviemaker?)
Lucas often says we are a sad culture, bereft of the confidence or inspiration that strong leaders can provide. And yet, aren't we the very same culture that produced George Lucas and gave him so many opportunities? The same society that raised all those brilliant experts for him to hire -- boldly creative folks who pour both individual inspiration and cooperative skill into his films? A culture that defies the old homogenizing impulse by worshipping eccentricity, with unprecedented hunger for the different, new or strange? It what way can such a civilization be said to lack confidence?
In historical fact, all of history's despots, combined, never managed to "get things done" as well as this rambunctious, self-critical civilization of free and sovereign citizens, who have finally broken free of worshipping a ruling class and begun thinking for themselves. Democracy can seem frustrating and messy at times, but it delivers.
Having said all that, let me again acknowledge that "Star Wars" harks to an old and very, very deeply human archetype. Those who listened to Homer recite the "Iliad" by a campfire knew great drama. Achilles could slay a thousand with the sweep of a hand -- as Darth Vader murders billions with the press of a button -- but none of those casualties matters next to the personal saga of a great one. The slaughtered victims are mere minions. Extras, without families or hopes to worry about shattering. Spear-carriers. Only the demigod's personal drama is important.
Thus few protest the apotheosis of Darth Vader -- nee Anakin Skywalker -- in "Return of the Jedi."
To put it in perspective, let's imagine that the United States and its allies managed to capture Adolf Hitler at the end of the Second World War, putting him on trial for war crimes. The prosecution spends months listing all the horrors done at his behest. Then it is the turn of Hitler's defense attorney, who rises and utters just one sentence:
"But, your honors
Gasp! The prosecutors blanch in chagrin. "We didn't know that! Of course all charges should be dismissed at once!"
The allies then throw a big parade for Hitler, down the avenues of Nuremberg.
It may sound silly, but that's exactly the lesson taught by "Return of the Jedi," wherein Darth Vader is forgiven all his sins, because he saved the life of his own son.
How many of us have argued late at night over the philosophical conundrum -- "Would you go back in time and kill Hitler as a boy, if given a chance?" It's a genuine moral puzzler, with many possible ethical answers. Still, most people, however they ultimately respond, would admit being tempted to say yes, if only to save millions of Hitler's victims.
And yet, in "The Phantom Menace," Lucas wants us to gush with warm feelings toward a cute blond little boy who will later grow up to murder the population of Earth many times over? While we're at it, why not bring out the Hitler family album, so we may croon over pictures of adorable little Adolf and marvel over his childhood exploits! He, too, was innocent till he turned to the "dark side," so by all means let us adore him.
To his credit, Lucas does not try to excuse this macabre joke by saying, "It's only a movie." Rather, he holds up his saga like an agonized Greek tragedy worthy of "Oedipus" -- an epic tale of a fallen hero, trapped by hubris and fate. But if that were true, wouldn't "Star Wars" by now have given us a better-than-caricature view of the Dark Side? Heroes and villains would not be distinguished by mere prettiness; the moral quandaries would not come from a comic book.
Don't swallow it. The apotheosis of a mass murderer is exactly what it seems. We should find it chilling.
Remember the final scene in "Return of the Jedi," when Luke gazes into a fire to see Obi-Wan, Yoda and Vader, smiling in the flames? I found myself hoping it was Jedi Hell, for the amount of pain those three unleashed on their galaxy, and for all the damned lies they told. But that's me. I'm a rebel against Homer and Achilles and that whole tradition. At heart, some of you are, too.
This isn't just a one-time distinction. It marks the main boundary between real, literate, humanistic science fiction -- or speculative fiction -- and most of the movie "sci-fi" you see nowadays.
The difference isn't really about complexity, childishness, scientific naiveté or haughty prose stylization. I like a good action scene as well as the next guy, and can forgive technical gaffes if the story is way cool! The films of Robert Zemeckis take joy in everything, from rock 'n' roll to some deep scientific paradox, feeding both the child and the adult within. Meanwhile, noir tales like "Gattaca" and "The 13th Floor" relish dark stylization while exploring real ideas. Good SF has range.
No, the underlying difference is that one tradition revels in elites, while the other rebels against them. In the genuine science-fiction worldview, demigods aren't easily forgiven lies and murder. Contempt for the masses is passé. There may be heroes -- even great ones -- but in the long run we'll improve together, or not at all. (See my note on the Enlightenment, Romanticism and science fiction.)
That kind of myth does sell. Yet, even after rebelling against the Homeric archetype for generations, we children of Pericles, Ben Franklin and H.G. Wells remain a minority. So much so that Lucas can appropriate our hand-created tropes and symbols -- our beloved starships and robots -- for his own ends and get credited for originality.
As I mentioned earlier, the mythology of conformity and demigod-worship pervades the highest levels of today's intelligentsia, and helps explain why so many postmodernist English literature professors despise real science fiction. When Joseph Campbell prescribed that writers should adhere slavishly to a hackneyed plot outline that preached submission for ages, he was lionized by Bill Moyers and countless others for his warm and fuzzy "human insight."
Indeed, his perceptions were compassionate and illuminating! Still, a frank discussion or debate might have been more useful than Campbell's sunny monologue. As in the old fable about a golden-haired king, no one dared point to the bright ruler's dark shadow, or his long trail of bloody footprints.
I admit we face an uphill battle winning most people over to a more progressive, egalitarian worldview, along with stirring dreams that focus on genuine problems and heroes, not demigods. Meanwhile, Lucas knows his mythos appeals to human nature at a deep and ancient level.
Hell, it appeals to part of my nature! Which is why I knew I'd cave in and see "The Phantom Menace," after my symbolic one-week boycott expired. In fact, let me confess that I adored the second film in the series, "The Empire Strikes Back." Despite Yoda's kitschy pseudo-zen, one could easily suspend disbelief and wait to see what the Jedi philosophy had to say. Millions became keyed up to find out, at long last, why Obi-Wan and Yoda lied like weasels to Luke Skywalker. Meanwhile, the script sizzled with originality, good dialogue and relentlessly compelling characters. The action was dynamite
You already know what I think of what came next. But worshipping Darth Vader only scratches the surface. The biggest moral flaw in the "Star Wars" universe is one point that Lucas stresses over and over again, through the voice of his all-wise guru character, Yoda.
Let's see if I get this right. Fear makes you angry and anger makes you evil, right?
Now I'll concede at once that fear has been a major motivator of intolerance in human history. I can picture knightly adepts being taught to control fear and anger, as we saw credibly in "The Empire Strikes Back." Calmness makes you a better warrior and prevents mistakes. Persistent wrath can cloud judgment. That part is completely believable.
But then, in "Return of the Jedi," Lucas takes this basic wisdom and perverts it, saying -- "If you get angry -- even at injustice and murder -- it will automatically and immediately transform you into an unalloyedly evil person! All of your opinions and political beliefs will suddenly and magically reverse. Every loyalty will be forsaken and your friends won't be able to draw you back. You will instantly join your sworn enemy as his close pal or apprentice. All because you let yourself get angry at his crimes."
Uh, say what? Could you repeat that again, slowly?
In other words, getting angry at Adolf Hitler will cause you to rush right out and join the Nazi Party? Excuse me, George. Could you come up with a single example of that happening? Ever?
That contention is, in itself, a pretty darn evil thing to preach. Above all, it is just plain dumb.
It raises a question that someone should have asked a long time ago. Who the heck nominated George Lucas to preach sick, popcorn morality at our children? If it's "only a movie," why is he working so hard to fill his films with this crap?
I think it's time to choose, people. This saga is not just another expression of the Homeric archetype, extolling old hierarchies of princes, wizards and demigods. By making its centerpiece the romanticization of a mass murderer, "Star Wars" has sunk far lower. It is unworthy of our attention, our enthusiasm -- or our civilization.
Lucas himself gives a clue when he says, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away."
Right on. "Star Wars" belongs to our dark past. A long, tyrannical epoch of fear, illogic, despotism and demagoguery that our ancestors struggled desperately to overcome, and that we are at last starting to emerge from, aided by the scientific and egalitarian spirit that Lucas openly despises. A spirit we must encourage in our children, if they are to have any chance at all.
I don't expect to win this argument any time soon. As Joseph Campbell rightly pointed out, the ways of our ancestors tug at the soul with a resonance many find romantically appealing, even irresistible. Some cannot put the fairy tale down and move on to more mature fare. Not yet at least. Ah well.
But over the long haul, history is on my side. Because the course of human destiny won't be defined in the past. It will be decided in our future.
That's my bailiwick, though it truly belongs to all of you. To all of us.
The future is where our posterity will thrive.
---------------
By David Brin
June 15, 1999
-- You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Thou shalt not bite the hand that feeds thee! How's that for a banal line Obi Wan? May the Swartz be with you!
Star Wars was an amazing movie because it was set in another galaxy that seemed *real*. The only previous movie that came even close in terms of special effects was Kubrick's 2001 (which still holds its own today). Amazing visuals aside, Star Wars felt like a comic book, with wooden characters, grand "we must save the world from a superficial megalomaniac" plots, and, yes, corny dialog.
I saw Star Wars in theatres when I was nine, and I was blown away by it. I still have some original Star Wars trading cards around here somewhere. As the series progressed, I started seeing the flimsiness of it all: supposedly elite stormtroopers that just mindlessly run out in the line of fire and get killed, races of people who can build enormous battle cruisers but can't seem to get the hang of weapon targeting systems, the good guys making impossible escape after impossible escape. A lot of people--myself included--put down the third movie because of the obvious Ewok kiddie-bait. Now, years later, I think it's just that I wasn't nine when I saw it.
With TPM, lots of people who saw the original--either in theaters or later on video as a kid--are returning to the Star Wars universe. Many of them are putting it down as a kid's movie: sophisticated battle droids that use US-revolutionary war era tactics (march forward in a wide line so you can get mowed down), bad guys that wear corny makeup and don't take care of their teeth, etc. Truth be told, it *is* a kid's movie, and so were the other three.
From Alec Guiness's point of view, he did a bit of acting with weak material in a kids action movie. And he's had to live with it being thought of as the greatest role of his career.
He died probably 10 years ago....
If Alex ever makes my kid cry, I'll make Alex cry. :-)
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Southpark has better dialog than Star Wars.
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
To negate both of your assumptions:
1. Although the movie was rated down (I presume this is due to the desire to get a better turnout) it also was rated down in some of the violent content that is possible with special effects techonology today (severed heads, intestines, large ammounts of blood, etc).
1.1. Lucas is doing something that is time/resource intensive and is therefore not "obcessed" in the strictest sence of the word but motivated
1.1.1. You can take your pick of things he is motivated for
1.1.1.1. Greed
1.1.1.1.1. I guess you would be too if that's how you pay the bills. Does this connotate greed?
1.1.1.1.2. If my life's work is doing something I wish it to succeede irregardless of what others wish to critize it.
1.1.1.1.2.1. (Example) Suppose I win the Nobel peace prize does this mean that I am "greedy" even though I have spend all that greed related energy into something that is worthwile?
1.1.1.2. Fame
1.1.1.2.1. Everyone has fame to some small degree others substantally more all births in the United States in any large metropolitan area are listed in the newspaper so are all deaths.
1.1.1.2.1.1. Births are usually short and give factual information and leave out things without positive proof so as not to prejudice the event.
1.1.1.2.1.2. Deaths have more information usually due to the fact that meaningless lives are not things that we want and so we list everything we do even if it were something potentially denegrating that the person did? Garbage man?
1.1.1.2.2. Through the application of renoun with an act and appling this to what is done fame for the most part is created from others and not from self alone; however this can be helped along with deceptions and other non-truths.
2. By your second and last statement I conclude that you are concerned with classical star trek (aka "The Original Series as interperted in circles favoring the series)
2.1. Since this is the case it would also be possible with Spock/Kirk/Federation that it is also concerned with strictly the actions of the USS Enterprise with Captain James Tiberius Kirk at the head.
2.1.1. Under the actions of Kirk many great and noble things were done that routinely questioned the orders of supperiors and what they did in policy and current events.
2.1.1.1. Questioning of events was a prime feature of humanist thinking and of independent thought.
2.1.1.2. Many controversial topics (at least for the day) were discussed.
2.1.1.2.1. African-American individuals in positions that were superior to those of white individuals
2.1.1.2.2. Prime directive/non interference with other species as opposed to actions by colonialists in most of the world.
2.2. Spock was an individual who was rather held to logic and it's application.
2.2.1. Logic is tightly held with ethical behaviour in ordered societies and is not characteristic of ones in which repression is the norm.
2.3. The federation was created out of the ruins of what earth had become after the end of WWIII. Humans had beocme civilized enough to attract notice of other species more advanced and more ordered.
2.3.1. This condition attracted notice of the vulcans.
2.3.1.1. Vulcans favor logic and order since their society was disordered at it's beginning (actually much worse than humans due to use of telepathy/telegenic weapons)
2.4. I therefore conclude that since all three of the invididuals or anyone of them seperately could constitute a person who would be a Natzi, they are in fact and the who group is not properly categorized as Natzi/fascist in the least.
Reason is more important that always being right. There are many things that were done improperly with the federation that no one could see (due to writers not writing them). The Next Generation does a better job of showing some of the problems with the Federation as a "system" and make it more closely mirror current later 20th century political structure.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Ever notice that when throngs of fans scream for blood, Lucas claims that it's a simple line of kids' movies, but when a reporter asks him to explain such and such themes of Empire, he's all too willing to sing his heart out?
---
Silly rabbit. Sleep is for class!
Although, I'm not really suprised. I grew up loving the Star Wars franchise, it does have kind of a silly side(Not intended to be flamebait). Perhaps he's just upset he wasn't in the new one.
-- Moondog
I think that people don't realize that this is George's Creation. If he wants to market the hell out of it, thats his right. People have this delerium that once somthing becomese so big and large and everyone loves it that they have a right to say what the creator may or may not do with it.. they need to relax and get on with thier lives.
Yea, Star Wars sucks, Star Wars fans are jerks.
It is a very childy and violent movie with excessive special effects that put it on the void. George Lucas is as obsessed as his fans.
Long live Spock and Kirk and the Federation, fuck those Imperial nazis
-- You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sir Alec Guiness was / is famous , not for Star Wars, but for being one of the greatest Shakespearean actors of our era.
... well, history will have its say, but as for now he has a point.
Comparing the dialogue and longevity of Shakespeare to that of Lucas
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
This is almost disturbing.
/. and bash the franchise, then the franchise isn't for you. It's that simple. It's for those of us who can put our snobbish pretentions aside for a few hours and remember what it was like when we were kids and we actually believed anything was possible.
Okay, so we know SW wasn't high art. Did this honestly and truthfully surprise anyone? Was there really anyone who was so naive as to think that SW was going to be some uber-epic, Wagner reincarnate? I really hope not.
So it wasn't anything you'd find at Cannes. You won't see me crying. The point of the SW universe, I believe, is to tell a story - nothing more. George Lucas had a story somewhere in him that he wanted to get out, and it just so happened that he had a big stump to tell it on. What's so wrong with that? Sure, the dialogue isn't the best. Maybe some of the ideas have their origins in other places. So what?
Answer me that. So what?
You think the dialogue's crap? Fine. Don't go watch the movies. You think the effects are cheesy? Great. Stay home. You think it's puerile/juvenile/childish? Wonderful. I'll happily claim your seat at the next one.
The movies are all about willing suspension of disbelief, about putting down your latte-drinking, Explorer-driving arrogance for a while and letting the kid in you come out for a while to enjoy what is, when all is said and done, a good story. And if you're not capable of getting over yourself long enough to have a good time...
Well, nobody's twisting your arm, are they?
If you need to get on
Will Acheson, The Virtual Gypsy will@starweaver.net
Phantom Menace
1. Problems
1.1. There are problems with the flow and the background for someone who dosn't have the complete story (such as I).
1.1.1. Flow
1.1.1.1. The story jumps around and is not centered as to any particular event thouroughly enough to make a lasting bond between the observer and the character/characters in question.
1.1.2. Background
1.1.2.1. Who are the Jedi?
1.1.2.1.1. Obviously they are some form of quasi-religious group but what is their history? What are their motives? They are most closely related with oriental philosophy dictating honor and ritualistic fighting.
1.1.2.1.1.1. This is seen in the context of fighting with some form of compressed energy field weapons which are handled like rapiers or swords. Assasination of a particular person could be more easily and cleanly accomplished with the use of directed energy weapons or high intensity particle field. This is not just a method of choice for the author alone but a method of logic and efficiency. This would illustrate that since the action is not utilitarian in nature that it is at least partly dedicated to some higher philosophy.
1.1.2.1.1.2. Religious priciples are also demonostrated in the appearance in a group which is specifically mentioned as evil called the "Sith" this group is not treated merely as a group that has ideals that counter those of the established group but they are treated as evil by their very nature and not by their actions.
1.1.2.1.1.2.1. This would preclude them from making any peaceful resolution to their problems much in the way that the Christian Satan, Beazealub (sp?), Devil could not resolve what he did in the past and make ammends.
1.1.3. Characters
1.1.3.1. Focusing on one character who offers little in terms to actual intrigue as the young Skywalker child. Which eliminates the possibility of anything more than just happenstance and unpredictability of his deeds.
1.1.3.1.1. (Example) Skywalker just happens to save everyone when he commits an act of disobedience assists in the dogfight which is taking place at the orbital defense station.
1.1.2.1.1.2. He magically manages to distroy the core of said station without actually realizing it. This is another role of the person who cannot actually do anything but who according to the film maker wishes to be seen as a quick hero and deal with fame.
===========================================
These are just some of the things wrong but I still think that the movie had merit in the way that it added continuity in the line of a science fiction epic. Perhaps if Mr. Lucas did not wish to seek spiraling additions to an already large pocketbook and concentrate in things of style perhaps it would have been a little better. An illustration of this technique is that involved in the "Blair Witch Project" with it's low budget and crappy special effects and focused on the actual narative.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Slashdot gave TPM a good review. Thats really all you need to know about the editors here. TPM sucked, plain and simple. It was movie making at its most Hollywood-esque sucky bad. And Slashdot editors ate it up. What a farce. But as to the topic of this post: so the evil editor/moderators will have less cause to immediately moderate this one down. The dialog of the original was IMO really good. Sure it was banal in parts but at least it was loyally and realistically banal to the Sci Fi world. Guess what? Sci Fi is almost by nature a banal genre. The genre has to balance its focus on cool toys / mytical crap with human drama, so the characters are often less than realistic. The dialog of the original was good precisely because it was so simple and banal. I only wish there had been some simple, banal classical Sci Fi characters in TPM to give it real Sci Fi atmosphere.
Excellent film - Guiness as Sharifs communist brother is excellent. In fact both are great. See this movie.
Mr. Guiness, get back to making beer. You're just upset because 12 year olds can't drink it...
Does that mean that I can take my ticket stub to the next movie, and they'll let me in for free to see the rest of the episode?
That would be cool.
--
QDMerge 0.21!
how to invest, a novice's guide
Jar-Jar thinks you look cute when you get all hot like that.
He stole the plot from Akira Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress (one of Kurosawa's crappier movies if you ask me). I was raised a Star Wars fan, but after TPM I think I'm done.
From what I've heard and seen, Patrick Stewart *loves* Star Trek. He likes to have fun with it, and is the worst practical joker on the cast.
Was that entirely necessary?
George Lucas took his scetches, stocked up on literature of the genre, which reached from Edgar Rice Burrough's classics and Frank Herbert's DUNE to J.R.R. Tolkiens LORD OF THE RINGS and wrote the script to STAR WARS. STAR WARS - A new hope (1977) The Empire strikes back (1980) Return of the JEDI (1983) STAR WARS © 1977, 1996 Lucasfilm Ltd.; The Empire Strikes Back © 1980, 1996 Lucasfilm Ltd.; Return of the Jedi © 1983, 1996 Lucasfilm Ltd.; Lucasfilm, LucasArts, ILM, Skywalker Sound and THX are registered trademarks of Lucasfilm Ltd. © 1997. All Rights Reserved. I got this from some website... I can't remember the name of it though.. doh!
Insert mind here.