It just occurred to me that the same description applies to later Star Trek. (Excluding the most recent film.) It's like any franchise, if it lasts long enough, naturally devolves from swashbuckling adventure to dry, conference-room discussions of treaty negotiations. I wonder why that is.
Um, no. I was 21 when I saw Star Wars in 1977. I saw it six times. I don't even remember if there were Star Wars toys in 1977. I remember my roommate made his own lightsaber with an old flashlight, a colored lens, and a lucite curtain rod.
What amazed me about the film was that the pulp science fiction I had grown up with could finally be realized on the big screen. Turns out that largely didn't happen, but that's another story. There finally existed a film that could show what I had to imagine up to then.
That's where my fond memories lie. Not some seven-year-old childlike wonder. I saw Star Wars as an adult, liked it as an adult, and then saw The Phantom Menace as an adult, and hated it as an adult. I think this "childlike wonder" argument is hogwash.
There's another thing we have to understand here -- 1977 turned around a decade-long downer trend in science fiction films. It seemed like there was an ironclad industry rule that scifi films had to have a black or at least frustrating ending. Star Wars, for all it's flaws, turned that around, and allowed you to leave the theater feeling good instead of wretched. Now, perhaps we've gone too far the other way, but at the time, it was what the audience needed.
Star Wars worked in spite of it's flaws. The Phantom Menace was merely an exercise in "more is not better".
It just occurred to me -- what TPM really needed was the Star Trek TOS costume designer. I mean, other than a brief shot of Portman's midriff in Eps 2, the costumes were practically burkas.
Exactly. At least Bey understood that the answer to boring robots is to have them chase a pretty girl. Lucas apparently though that the answer to boring robots is to have lots more boring robots. Lots and lots more.
It wasn't lost on me that one could argue Jar Jar was the ultimate villain of the entire story arc. But that bit of irony wasn't enough to make up for three terrible movies.
Last weekend I suddenly had a "Bing" icon on the top row of my Tour. First thought was "I don't want this" and moved it to the "unused" folder where all the built-in apps go for which I have no use.
> Read Mr. Cranky and he will make the greatest film on the planet sound terrible. Every film is flawed.
That's true.
> The prequels on the whole failed to live up to lofty expectations. But they aren't terrible on a Batman and Robin scale either.
Um, yeah, I'd say they were, for a lot of the same reasons. A too-complicated plot, too many characters who were just empty suits, bad acting, bad scriptwriting, and not one likable character with the possible exception of Alfred. Um, I'm sorry, I mean... Yoda. No I don't, he started to piss me off about half way through the film... Sorry, I can't think of one.
> I don't understand the massive vitrol aimed at films that ultimately aren't half as terrible as people would like us to believe.
I'm not certain what people you're talking about. I personally went through the classic five stages of grief starting with the final spittle-flying cheek-wobble of whoever-the-hell-that-was, when I realized there weren't any scenes left that might redeem what I had just witnessed. I certainly didn't need anyone to tell me that I had just seen shite dripping down the screen for 133 minutes.
> The same person who wrote this probably sat through Transformers 2 without having an aneurysm. Really, which film was worse?
That's a good question. I think the trivial answer is that Transformers 2 had Megan Fox.
Let's go back to 1977. My dad and step-mom go to Star Wars with me. They hate it. They think it's trite, the acting is wooden, the plot is predictable, that if it weren't for the special effects it would have disappeared without a trace. And to a certain extent they were right.
Flash forward to 1999. Us original fans have grown up, but we're still fans and we're lining up to see the first Star Wars film in a decade and a half. And... it sucks. It's trite, predictable, wooden, and leans heavily on special effects.
So, I have to ask myself, is it because I'm seeing Episode I as an adult, with an adult's expectations, and have lost the childlike innocence with which I watched the first film?
That's a fair question. The answer is no. I was in my twenties in 1977. I wasn't exactly brimming with childlike innocence. Besides, Menace didn't have only the flaws of the first film, it was also overly complicated, had incomprehensible plot holes, and didn't have one likable character, flaws that the original Star Wars demonstrably did not have.
But, you know, it's a grey area. I think that to say Star Wars was a character driven film that succeeded despite the absence of digital effects, is misremembering what we were all saying when we came out of the theater that Spring in 1977. "I never thought I'd see anything like that on the screen", not "I really thought Hamill portrayed Luke's spiritual growth in a believable fashion".
Star Wars was an effects-driven film that succeeded despite it's flaws. The Phantom Menace was all the bad things in Star Wars, hugely exaggerated. The flaws of the original film and the dependency on effects magnified ten-fold, plus a bunch of new flaws. What was amazing to me was that Lucas did not figure it out from the backlash, and bulled on to make two more unwatchable films.
Sorry to interrupt the political sniping. It's interesting to me that TFA says "The new program would jettison Ares 1". Does this mean Jupiter could be considered, or is this a hard reset going back to square one? TFA is unclear.
Psystar could have the last laugh by open-sourcing their technology before going belly-up. Or, if there is an injuction against that, there's always "leaking" it to the torrent sites.
Yes, that's the way to do it. Before the industry even comes close to reasonable wireless throughput, they're going to take careful aim and shoot themselves right in the foot. With wifi becoming more and more ubiquitous, and providing a user experience an order of magnitude better than 3G, and more and more devices coming out with wifi standard, what the hell do we even need data service for? It's expensive (a wireless data plan costs as much or more as a DSL line) butt slow, quirky, has huge latency, and now, it's going to be even more expensive. Way to kill an industry.
This just occurred to me -- perhaps they've been secretly using the autistic as first line managers for years. That we've been accurate (although non-PC) all this time and didn't realize it?
Slashdot Mirror
It just occurred to me that the same description applies to later Star Trek. (Excluding the most recent film.) It's like any franchise, if it lasts long enough, naturally devolves from swashbuckling adventure to dry, conference-room discussions of treaty negotiations. I wonder why that is.
Um, no. I was 21 when I saw Star Wars in 1977. I saw it six times. I don't even remember if there were Star Wars toys in 1977. I remember my roommate made his own lightsaber with an old flashlight, a colored lens, and a lucite curtain rod.
What amazed me about the film was that the pulp science fiction I had grown up with could finally be realized on the big screen. Turns out that largely didn't happen, but that's another story. There finally existed a film that could show what I had to imagine up to then.
That's where my fond memories lie. Not some seven-year-old childlike wonder. I saw Star Wars as an adult, liked it as an adult, and then saw The Phantom Menace as an adult, and hated it as an adult. I think this "childlike wonder" argument is hogwash.
There's another thing we have to understand here -- 1977 turned around a decade-long downer trend in science fiction films. It seemed like there was an ironclad industry rule that scifi films had to have a black or at least frustrating ending. Star Wars, for all it's flaws, turned that around, and allowed you to leave the theater feeling good instead of wretched. Now, perhaps we've gone too far the other way, but at the time, it was what the audience needed.
Star Wars worked in spite of it's flaws. The Phantom Menace was merely an exercise in "more is not better".
Don't forget the short shorts.
It just occurred to me -- what TPM really needed was the Star Trek TOS costume designer. I mean, other than a brief shot of Portman's midriff in Eps 2, the costumes were practically burkas.
Exactly. At least Bey understood that the answer to boring robots is to have them chase a pretty girl. Lucas apparently though that the answer to boring robots is to have lots more boring robots. Lots and lots more.
It wasn't lost on me that one could argue Jar Jar was the ultimate villain of the entire story arc. But that bit of irony wasn't enough to make up for three terrible movies.
Last weekend I suddenly had a "Bing" icon on the top row of my Tour. First thought was "I don't want this" and moved it to the "unused" folder where all the built-in apps go for which I have no use.
> Read Mr. Cranky and he will make the greatest film on the planet sound terrible. Every film is flawed.
That's true.
> The prequels on the whole failed to live up to lofty expectations. But they aren't terrible on a Batman and Robin scale either.
Um, yeah, I'd say they were, for a lot of the same reasons. A too-complicated plot, too many characters who were just empty suits, bad acting, bad scriptwriting, and not one likable character with the possible exception of Alfred. Um, I'm sorry, I mean... Yoda. No I don't, he started to piss me off about half way through the film... Sorry, I can't think of one.
> I don't understand the massive vitrol aimed at films that ultimately aren't half as terrible as people would like us to believe.
I'm not certain what people you're talking about. I personally went through the classic five stages of grief starting with the final spittle-flying cheek-wobble of whoever-the-hell-that-was, when I realized there weren't any scenes left that might redeem what I had just witnessed. I certainly didn't need anyone to tell me that I had just seen shite dripping down the screen for 133 minutes.
> The same person who wrote this probably sat through Transformers 2 without having an aneurysm. Really, which film was worse?
That's a good question. I think the trivial answer is that Transformers 2 had Megan Fox.
Maybe they could digitally insert him into the original holiday special.
Let's go back to 1977. My dad and step-mom go to Star Wars with me. They hate it. They think it's trite, the acting is wooden, the plot is predictable, that if it weren't for the special effects it would have disappeared without a trace. And to a certain extent they were right.
Flash forward to 1999. Us original fans have grown up, but we're still fans and we're lining up to see the first Star Wars film in a decade and a half. And... it sucks. It's trite, predictable, wooden, and leans heavily on special effects.
So, I have to ask myself, is it because I'm seeing Episode I as an adult, with an adult's expectations, and have lost the childlike innocence with which I watched the first film?
That's a fair question. The answer is no. I was in my twenties in 1977. I wasn't exactly brimming with childlike innocence. Besides, Menace didn't have only the flaws of the first film, it was also overly complicated, had incomprehensible plot holes, and didn't have one likable character, flaws that the original Star Wars demonstrably did not have.
But, you know, it's a grey area. I think that to say Star Wars was a character driven film that succeeded despite the absence of digital effects, is misremembering what we were all saying when we came out of the theater that Spring in 1977. "I never thought I'd see anything like that on the screen", not "I really thought Hamill portrayed Luke's spiritual growth in a believable fashion". Star Wars was an effects-driven film that succeeded despite it's flaws. The Phantom Menace was all the bad things in Star Wars, hugely exaggerated. The flaws of the original film and the dependency on effects magnified ten-fold, plus a bunch of new flaws. What was amazing to me was that Lucas did not figure it out from the backlash, and bulled on to make two more unwatchable films.
Sorry to interrupt the political sniping. It's interesting to me that TFA says "The new program would jettison Ares 1". Does this mean Jupiter could be considered, or is this a hard reset going back to square one? TFA is unclear.
Ok, so out of curiosity, what value add was Psystar providing?
Psystar could have the last laugh by open-sourcing their technology before going belly-up. Or, if there is an injuction against that, there's always "leaking" it to the torrent sites.
Why should space be any different?
It appears I've stumbled into the path of your issues. So sorry.
Wow. Where did THAT come from.
Again, this sounds remarkably like the manager at my last job. He was a sociopath who thought he had people skills.
Sounds like the manager at my last job.
Yes, that's the way to do it. Before the industry even comes close to reasonable wireless throughput, they're going to take careful aim and shoot themselves right in the foot. With wifi becoming more and more ubiquitous, and providing a user experience an order of magnitude better than 3G, and more and more devices coming out with wifi standard, what the hell do we even need data service for? It's expensive (a wireless data plan costs as much or more as a DSL line) butt slow, quirky, has huge latency, and now, it's going to be even more expensive. Way to kill an industry.
That's true.
This just occurred to me -- perhaps they've been secretly using the autistic as first line managers for years. That we've been accurate (although non-PC) all this time and didn't realize it?
> The Politically Correct teach us to be "differently abled"
Eesh, that should say The Politically Correct teach us to say "differently abled"
"The company says autistics have a talent for spotting imperfections, and thrive on predictable, monotonous work."
Sounds like manager material to me.