OT: Star Wars rant

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » OT: Star Wars rant

OT: Star Wars rant [message #52179]

Mi, 01 Juni 2005 03:58

Morgil

Weird thought has entered my mind...

Could it be that George Lucas IS still a genious after all???

Could it be that once people get over the crappy dialogue and
acting, excessive CGI tricks, etc. and they get to watch the
entire prequel trilogy in peace from DVD and concentrate in
what is actually going on in these films, they will discover
a whole new level of depth in them, which will bring totally
new appreciation even to the much abused Episode I?? There
was a post in alt.fan.starwars that made me think of this,
and the idea brought forward is an example of what I mean.

One of the annoying things in Ep. I was the notion that the
Force came from midichlorians or something like that, and
that Anakin was "concieved" by them or something like that.
At the time this seemed completely foolish and pointless.

But then in the ep. III, we learn that the Sith Lords had
learned to "create life" from the midichlorians and suddenly
all the pieces fit together. Was it the Sith who were behind
birth of Anakin?? And if so, what does it mean, and how does
it fit with the whole prophesy thing? Now I'm not sure if
this is a good example or bad, but if there is a one thing
like this, who's to say there won't be others.

So if the movies have more of this kind of stuff that you
have to think, and think again, and rethink, and then think
the new reflections that these thoughts create, and thus the
whole fabric gradually reveals itself, doesn't it then mean
that these movies indeed have much more 'depth' then first
would appear? Oh well, jsut a thought. Time will tell.

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #52187 ]

Mi, 01 Juni 2005 10:38

Yuk Tang

Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:d7j4nm$ol0$1
[at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>
> Weird thought has entered my mind...
>
> Could it be that George Lucas IS still a genious after all???

No.

--
Cheers, ymt.

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #52194 ]

Mi, 01 Juni 2005 12:42

Morgil

Yuk Tang wrote:
> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:d7j4nm$ol0$1
> [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>
>>Weird thought has entered my mind...
>>
>>Could it be that George Lucas IS still a genious after all???
>
>
> No.

Good to see you keeping an open mind.

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #52195 ]

Mi, 01 Juni 2005 14:20

Yuk Tang

Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:d7k3ea$cia$1
[at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
> Yuk Tang wrote:
>> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:d7j4nm$ol0$1
>> [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>>
>>>Weird thought has entered my mind...
>>>
>>>Could it be that George Lucas IS still a genious after all???
>>
>> No.
>
> Good to see you keeping an open mind.

Did you read my comments on RotS? How am I not keeping an open mind
if I admit that my opinion of the film changed during the film
itself? There may have been good points about the prequels.
Midichlorians wasn't one of them.

Journo: Were you ever in Neighbours?
Cate Blanchett: Of course not, I'm an actress.

And yet the acting in the SW prequels was actually sub-Neighbours
standard (aided by a sub-Neighbours standard script). One wouldn't
have thought it scientifically possible to keep Jake Lloyd from
aging, but there he was as the youngling in the temple. I could
actually see (in the dim light) a number of people cringe as he
recited his line.

Strangely though, McGregor's line to Christensen, "I loved you", did
not draw any puerile giggles from the audience, which showed just how
willing they were, as I was, to be immersed in the world. Despite
that, there were quite a few snorts through the particularly bad
parts.

Order 66 was the Bridge of Khazad Dum moment for me: a perfect
realisation of the story as I'd imagined it. However, there weren't
any Ring in the snow, Lothlorien fireside chats, or other such
moments which surprised me, and there wasn't anything like the
mourning outside Moria or Boromir's encounter with Frodo that IMO
transcended the book. And, of course, none of the SW acting compared
with McKellen and Bean's interpretation of their roles.

--
Cheers, ymt.

Re: Star Wars rant [message #52199 ]

Mi, 01 Juni 2005 17:04

Venger

"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7j4nm$ol0$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Weird thought has entered my mind...
>
> Could it be that George Lucas IS still a genious after all???

No.

> So if the movies have more of this kind of stuff that you
> have to think, and think again, and rethink, and then think
> the new reflections that these thoughts create, and thus the
> whole fabric gradually reveals itself, doesn't it then mean
> that these movies indeed have much more 'depth' then first
> would appear? Oh well, jsut a thought. Time will tell.

This appears to be an attempt to convince oneself.

The prequels are what happens when George Lucas writes dialogue. He is
unable to coax emotion without pure exposition. In the original movies, he
had others around him to guide the movie - the actors and his wife in Star
Wars, a great script and direction in TESB - and the slide begins in ROTJ.
Few people can make a front-to-back great story without input from anyone
else. Which is why the prequels are grossly underwhelming.

Venger

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #52201 ]

Mi, 01 Juni 2005 17:05

Morgil

Yuk Tang wrote:
> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:d7k3ea$cia$1
> [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>
>>Yuk Tang wrote:
>>
>>>Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:d7j4nm$ol0$1
>>> [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Weird thought has entered my mind...
>>>>
>>>>Could it be that George Lucas IS still a genious after all???
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Good to see you keeping an open mind.
>
>
> Did you read my comments on RotS? How am I not keeping an open mind
> if I admit that my opinion of the film changed during the film
> itself?

It was my suggestion that people might change their opinion
*once* they get over the bad acting and dialogue, *and* have
time to review the whole trilogy as one entity instead of
three separate movies. You obviously have done neither, yet
you state as certainty that my speculation can not be right,
so open mind you have not.

Morgil

Re: Star Wars rant [message #52202 ]

Mi, 01 Juni 2005 17:28

Morgil

Venger wrote:
> "Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d7j4nm$ol0$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...

>>So if the movies have more of this kind of stuff that you
>>have to think, and think again, and rethink, and then think
>>the new reflections that these thoughts create, and thus the
>>whole fabric gradually reveals itself, doesn't it then mean
>>that these movies indeed have much more 'depth' then first
>>would appear? Oh well, jsut a thought. Time will tell.
>
>
> This appears to be an attempt to convince oneself.

Nope, it's for those people who think that Lucas lacks 'depth'.

> The prequels are what happens when George Lucas writes dialogue. He is
> unable to coax emotion without pure exposition. In the original movies, he
> had others around him to guide the movie - the actors and his wife in Star
> Wars, a great script and direction in TESB - and the slide begins in ROTJ.
> Few people can make a front-to-back great story without input from anyone
> else. Which is why the prequels are grossly underwhelming.

I think everyone agrees that dialogue is not his strong suit.
The point is to see what people will find, once they get over
the fact that dialogue is not like what they are used to hear.

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #52215 ]

Mi, 01 Juni 2005 20:29

kfuzzbox

Lucas never had an origianl idea in his life. Most of it ripped off
British WWII movies such as 633 Squadron and Dambusters hoping that
nobody in the USA has seen these movies.

Personally I never got Star Wars. Even as as kid it bored me. The irony
now is that following the LOTR movies SW looks dated, sad and
obsolete/second-rate.

cheers,

***********************************************
www.celticcrossarts.com
***********************************************

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #52220 ]

Mi, 01 Juni 2005 21:20

Morgil

kfuzzbox [at] tinet.ie wrote:
> Lucas never had an origianl idea in his life. Most of it ripped off
> British WWII movies such as 633 Squadron and Dambusters hoping that
> nobody in the USA has seen these movies.

Picking up ideas from wide variety of sources and creating something
fresh and original out of them is a completely respectable talent.
One guy called Tolkien created an entire mythology that way.

> Personally I never got Star Wars. Even as as kid it bored me. The irony
> now is that following the LOTR movies SW looks dated, sad and
> obsolete/second-rate.

You mean the LotR movies that don't have a single original idea,
and mostly just rip off modern special effect movies and other
popular films like, oh I don't know - Star Wars movies?

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #52230 ]

Mi, 01 Juni 2005 23:30

the softrat

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:42:17 +0300, in alt.fan.tolkien Morgil
<morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote:

>Yuk Tang wrote:
>> Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in news:d7j4nm$ol0$1
>> [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi:
>>
>>>Weird thought has entered my mind...
>>>
>>>Could it be that George Lucas IS still a genious after all???
>>
>>
>> No.
>
>Good to see you keeping an open mind.
>
>Morgil

I have seen more than ten movies by George Lucas. The word 'genius'
never crossed my mind. '20th century crowd-pleaser for 13-year olds'
did.

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
"But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many?
Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering,
will think of these things truly as they happened."
-- Socrates to Crito, in "Crito"

Re: Star Wars rant [message #52235 ]

Do, 02 Juni 2005 00:41

Venger

"Morgil" <morestelx [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7kk7q$nq5$1 [at] nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> Venger wrote:
>
>> The prequels are what happens when George Lucas writes dialogue. He is
>> unable to coax emotion without pure exposition. In the original movies,
>> he had others around him to guide the movie - the actors and his wife in
>> Star Wars, a great script and direction in TESB - and the slide begins in
>> ROTJ. Few people can make a front-to-back great story without input from
>> anyone else. Which is why the prequels are grossly underwhelming.
>
> I think everyone agrees that dialogue is not his strong suit.
> The point is to see what people will find, once they get over
> the fact that dialogue is not like what they are used to hear.

Well, considering we communicate with language, it's kinda important.

When LOTR came out, the first one, it was good, but I still felt the OT was
a better story. Upon completion - I am not sure. And if you put in the
prequels, it ain't close...

Even the OT had occassional dialogue groaners - but a really great movie has
momentum, like TESB. But every "No, it's because I'm in love with YOU"
shoots the momentum. It actually becomes farcical after a while, where you
simply wait for the next groaning brick of dialogue. People may try and
excuse this by saying Star Wars has never been a great actors movie, but
Alec Guiness is a hell of an actor, as is Harrison Ford (though he should
put a stamp on his mail-in during ROTJ), and they elevated the acting level
notably.

Venger

Re: Star Wars rant [message #52239 ]

Do, 02 Juni 2005 00:58

Yuk Tang

"Venger" <venger [at] augustmail.com> wrote in
news:qQqne.1348$JQ6.1049 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
>
> Even the OT had occassional dialogue groaners - but a really great
> movie has momentum, like TESB. But every "No, it's because I'm in
> love with YOU" shoots the momentum. It actually becomes farcical
> after a while, where you simply wait for the next groaning brick
> of dialogue. People may try and excuse this by saying Star Wars
> has never been a great actors movie, but Alec Guiness is a hell of
> an actor, as is Harrison Ford (though he should put a stamp on his
> mail-in during ROTJ), and they elevated the acting level notably.

The prequels were packed with recognised acting talent. What happened
to it?

--
Cheers, ymt.

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #52241 ]

Do, 02 Juni 2005 01:32

Venger

<kfuzzbox [at] tinet.ie> wrote in message
news:1117650555.357110.18050 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Lucas never had an origianl idea in his life. Most of it ripped off
> British WWII movies such as 633 Squadron and Dambusters hoping that
> nobody in the USA has seen these movies.

It's funny how eerily close the feel of Dambusters is to Star Wars. I'll be
generous and call it an homage, but ripped off ain't far...

> Personally I never got Star Wars. Even as as kid it bored me. The irony
> now is that following the LOTR movies SW looks dated, sad and
> obsolete/second-rate.

Can't agree here. I love the LOTR movies for the same reason I loved the
original 3 SW flicks - they have it all. The charge of the Rohirrim on the
Pelennor Fields against Mordor's siege strikes me as the same as the rebel
attack on the Death Star - a desperate act against what appears to be
hopeless odds. Great music, wonderful visuals, pitch perfect cinematography.
In fact, I'd say Star Wars pulls it off a little better - the appearance of
the Falcon at the trench is better than Aragorn with the oathbreakers.

Both series had an undercurrent of Western struggle against evil tyranny.
Both are heavily stereotyped, with Mordor and Sauron as unequivocal evil,
and Darth Vader and the "dark side" in same. Look in each trilogy, and
you'll see all the great stories - coming of age, redemption, going home -
and I think that's why they were.

The prequels, however, are poor.

Venger

Re: Star Wars rant [message #52245 ]

Do, 02 Juni 2005 07:53

Venger

"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9668F3DD4A85Cjimlaker2yahoocom [at] 81.174.12.30...
> "Venger" <venger [at] augustmail.com> wrote in
> news:qQqne.1348$JQ6.1049 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>> Even the OT had occassional dialogue groaners - but a really great
>> movie has momentum, like TESB. But every "No, it's because I'm in
>> love with YOU" shoots the momentum. It actually becomes farcical
>> after a while, where you simply wait for the next groaning brick
>> of dialogue. People may try and excuse this by saying Star Wars
>> has never been a great actors movie, but Alec Guiness is a hell of
>> an actor, as is Harrison Ford (though he should put a stamp on his
>> mail-in during ROTJ), and they elevated the acting level notably.
>
> The prequels were packed with recognised acting talent. What happened
> to it?

I think I know where Lucas packed it... or where it got impacted...

Venger

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #52252 ]

Do, 02 Juni 2005 08:58

Christopher Kreuzer

Venger <venger [at] augustmail.com> wrote:
> Look in each trilogy, and you'll see all the great stories - coming
of
> age, redemption, going home - and I think that's why they were.

While not forgetting that this is a common theme of many great stories.
Both Lucas and Tolkien were aware of this, with Lucas citing the
mythological theories of Campbell (I think), and Tolkien writing about
the Cauldron of Story in his essay /On Fairy-Stories/ (1939).

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53421 ]

Do, 02 Juni 2005 13:32

Baronjosefr

"Venger" <venger [at] augustmail.com> wrote in message
news:dArne.1367$JQ6.330 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <kfuzzbox [at] tinet.ie> wrote in message
> news:1117650555.357110.18050 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Lucas never had an origianl idea in his life. Most of it ripped off
> > British WWII movies such as 633 Squadron and Dambusters hoping that
> > nobody in the USA has seen these movies.
>
> It's funny how eerily close the feel of Dambusters is to Star Wars. I'll
be
> generous and call it an homage, but ripped off ain't far...
>
> > Personally I never got Star Wars. Even as as kid it bored me. The irony
> > now is that following the LOTR movies SW looks dated, sad and
> > obsolete/second-rate.
>
> Can't agree here. I love the LOTR movies for the same reason I loved the
> original 3 SW flicks - they have it all. The charge of the Rohirrim on the
> Pelennor Fields against Mordor's siege strikes me as the same as the rebel
> attack on the Death Star - a desperate act against what appears to be
> hopeless odds. Great music, wonderful visuals, pitch perfect
cinematography.
> In fact, I'd say Star Wars pulls it off a little better - the appearance
of
> the Falcon at the trench is better than Aragorn with the oathbreakers.
>
> Both series had an undercurrent of Western struggle against evil tyranny.
> Both are heavily stereotyped, with Mordor and Sauron as unequivocal evil,
> and Darth Vader and the "dark side" in same. Look in each trilogy, and
> you'll see all the great stories - coming of age, redemption, going home -
> and I think that's why they were.
>
> The prequels, however, are poor.
>
> Venger
>
>

The prequels prove, without a doubt, that Howard the duck was no fluke thing

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53427 ]

Do, 02 Juni 2005 14:28

borromini

"Morgil" wrote:
> It was my suggestion that people might change their opinion
> *once* they get over the bad acting and dialogue, *and* have
> time to review the whole trilogy as one entity instead of
> three separate movies >snip>...

You may be putting too much faith in the *miracle* that takes place when
folks actually "get over the bad acting and dialogue". It's what made the
prequels and GL eternally exempt from genius status. What would have been
genius of GL was to just produce the prequels and have others write the
script and direct the films!

borromini

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53446 ]

Do, 02 Juni 2005 22:42

Morgil

borromini wrote:
> "Morgil" wrote:
>
>>It was my suggestion that people might change their opinion
>>*once* they get over the bad acting and dialogue, *and* have
>>time to review the whole trilogy as one entity instead of
>>three separate movies >snip>...
>
>
> You may be putting too much faith in the *miracle* that takes place when
> folks actually "get over the bad acting and dialogue".

No miracle or faith required. People already like the Ep III
despite the bad acting and dialogue. Not *all* people of course,
but a great deal anyway, most of whom didn't like the previous two.
Will they grow to appreciate them as well, that is the question.

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53456 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 03:23

Flame of the West

Morgil wrote:

> Weird thought has entered my mind...
>
> Could it be that George Lucas IS still a genious after all???
>
> Could it be that once people get over the crappy dialogue and
> acting, excessive CGI tricks, etc. and they get to watch the
> entire prequel trilogy in peace from DVD and concentrate in
> what is actually going on in these films, they will discover
> a whole new level of depth in them, which will bring totally
> new appreciation even to the much abused Episode I??

Apparently you mean as a writer rather than a moviemaker,
since the existence of "crappy dialogue and acting,
excessive CGI tricks, etc." shows his limitations there.

> So if the movies have more of this kind of stuff that you
> have to think, and think again, and rethink, and then think
> the new reflections that these thoughts create, and thus the
> whole fabric gradually reveals itself, doesn't it then mean
> that these movies indeed have much more 'depth' then first
> would appear?

I have my doubts about genius that is so heavily disguised
that you have to meditate deeply on his story again and
again just to convince yourself that it isn't as superficial
as it appears to everybody. It sounds more like brainwashing
yourself to see depth that isn't there, sort of like those
pictures that look 3-D if you stare at them hard enough.

> Oh well, jsut a thought. Time will tell.

Yes, and perhaps all of Europe will conclude some day that
George W. Bush is an inspired genius. Time will tell, right?

-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53461 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 04:51

Morgil

Flame of the West wrote:
> Morgil wrote:
>
>> Weird thought has entered my mind...
>>
>> Could it be that George Lucas IS still a genious after all???
>>
>> Could it be that once people get over the crappy dialogue and
>> acting, excessive CGI tricks, etc. and they get to watch the
>> entire prequel trilogy in peace from DVD and concentrate in
>> what is actually going on in these films, they will discover
>> a whole new level of depth in them, which will bring totally
>> new appreciation even to the much abused Episode I??
>
>
> Apparently you mean as a writer rather than a moviemaker,
> since the existence of "crappy dialogue and acting,
> excessive CGI tricks, etc." shows his limitations there.

I wasn't thinking on any specific area of filmmaking
- more on a general level of cinematic myth-creating.

>> So if the movies have more of this kind of stuff that you
>> have to think, and think again, and rethink, and then think
>> the new reflections that these thoughts create, and thus the
>> whole fabric gradually reveals itself, doesn't it then mean
>> that these movies indeed have much more 'depth' then first
>> would appear?
>
>
> I have my doubts about genius that is so heavily disguised
> that you have to meditate deeply on his story again and
> again just to convince yourself that it isn't as superficial
> as it appears to everybody. It sounds more like brainwashing
> yourself to see depth that isn't there, sort of like those
> pictures that look 3-D if you stare at them hard enough.

I've never read James Joyce, but from what I've heard, you
got to study his texts pretty deeply before they start to
make any sense.

But you misunderstand. I didn't say you have to meditate
deeply to find the genius. I said that the genius comes
from having stuff you have to meditate deeply to discover.

Also you ignore that more then enough people already think
that the latest episode is not as superficial as you suggest.
I'm just wondering if it will make the other episodes look
less superficial as well, and how much.

> > Oh well, jsut a thought. Time will tell.
>
> Yes, and perhaps all of Europe will conclude some day that
> George W. Bush is an inspired genius. Time will tell, right?

There's no way to get all of Europe to agree on anything.
Nor all of America for that matter.

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53462 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 07:31

the softrat

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:51:17 +0300, Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I've never read James Joyce, but from what I've heard, you
>got to study his texts pretty deeply before they start to
>make any sense.

As _The Da Vinci Code_ demonstrates, you can make 'sense' out of
anything if you study it hard enough.

That is why *Professors of English Literature* love James Joyce. "If
they are hard to read, they must have been hard to write. Thus:
GENIUS!" Unfortunately for me and English (or any other) Literature as
expoused in 'kolich', or even worse in 'hi skul', I think that the
professors are f*** o* s***, if you get my drift. As has been
demonstrated more than once, outside mathematics and the hard
sciences, any random collection may be mistaken for genius, and the
professors love stuff the no one else can understand. Of course each
of them has a different interpretation, but ..... And in a few years,
when tastes change, ....

How about _The Portrait of an Artist as a Demented Young
Self-Indulgent Sod_ .... Or _Ulysses_, a portrait of a middle-aged
Irish Jew's masturbatory and other fantasies over a 24 hour period.
Then there is _Finnegan's Wake_, a full volume of infantile babble and
proof-positive that at least one Irishman could not think straight. So
much for the great Irish writer who spent most of his adult life, and
died, outside of Ireland.

I'll take my 'genius' straight over ice and unstudied.

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink? -- Steven
Wright

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53469 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 06:49

Wylie Wilde

"Venger" <venger [at] augustmail.com> wrote in message
news:dArne.1367$JQ6.330 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

> Both series had an undercurrent of Western struggle against evil tyranny.

Unfortunately, not according to Lucas. Lucas envisaged the Star Wars saga
about left-wing rebels fighting against a US-style Empire. It was his
commentary on Vietnam.
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/05/open-letter-to-george- lucas.html

It is quite likely that given half the chance Lucas would have join the
deluded Symbionese Liberation Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army#Form ation_and_initial_activities

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53470 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 09:22

Cheeze

The "genius" of george lucas is he imagined light sabre duels. He
imagined thos AT-At walkers. He imagined those x-wings. All of which,
despite my age, and despite the age of these movies, are still very
cool.

It was not in the plot. The plot is a cliche of themes from other
movies. Its the old farmer boy turns out out to be a mesiah and saves
the princess story.

It was not in the medichlorians. That took away a lot of mystery.
That the Sith Lords could create life from the force could still have
been conceptualized even if there were no medichlorians.

Finally, good luck trying to convince Tolkien fans that Lucas is a
genius. For all the coolness of Lucas's creations, nothing matches the
sheer depth of Tolkien's imagined world.

Not to mention Tolkien's relatively better consistency in his stories.

Morgil wrote:
> Weird thought has entered my mind...
>
> Could it be that George Lucas IS still a genious after all???
>
> Could it be that once people get over the crappy dialogue and
> acting, excessive CGI tricks, etc. and they get to watch the
> entire prequel trilogy in peace from DVD and concentrate in
> what is actually going on in these films, they will discover
> a whole new level of depth in them, which will bring totally
> new appreciation even to the much abused Episode I?? There
> was a post in alt.fan.starwars that made me think of this,
> and the idea brought forward is an example of what I mean.
>
> One of the annoying things in Ep. I was the notion that the
> Force came from midichlorians or something like that, and
> that Anakin was "concieved" by them or something like that.
> At the time this seemed completely foolish and pointless.
>
> But then in the ep. III, we learn that the Sith Lords had
> learned to "create life" from the midichlorians and suddenly
> all the pieces fit together. Was it the Sith who were behind
> birth of Anakin?? And if so, what does it mean, and how does
> it fit with the whole prophesy thing? Now I'm not sure if
> this is a good example or bad, but if there is a one thing
> like this, who's to say there won't be others.
>
> So if the movies have more of this kind of stuff that you
> have to think, and think again, and rethink, and then think
> the new reflections that these thoughts create, and thus the
> whole fabric gradually reveals itself, doesn't it then mean
> that these movies indeed have much more 'depth' then first
> would appear? Oh well, jsut a thought. Time will tell.
>
> Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53471 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 09:25

Cheeze

Recent Time article considers the dilemna of a now very productive and
successful vietnam and asked if US soldiers who died there actually
died for nothing.

Maybe Lucas was a genius after all!

....

Nah! :-)

Wily Wilde wrote:
> "Venger" <venger [at] augustmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dArne.1367$JQ6.330 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > Both series had an undercurrent of Western struggle against evil tyranny.
>
> Unfortunately, not according to Lucas. Lucas envisaged the Star Wars saga
> about left-wing rebels fighting against a US-style Empire. It was his
> commentary on Vietnam.
> http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/05/open-letter-to-george- lucas.html
>
> It is quite likely that given half the chance Lucas would have join the
> deluded Symbionese Liberation Army.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army#Form ation_and_initial_activities

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53474 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 09:47

Morgil

Wily Wilde wrote:
> "Venger" <venger [at] augustmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dArne.1367$JQ6.330 [at] newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Both series had an undercurrent of Western struggle against evil tyranny.
>
>
> Unfortunately, not according to Lucas. Lucas envisaged the Star Wars saga
> about left-wing rebels fighting against a US-style Empire. It was his
> commentary on Vietnam.
> http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/05/open-letter-to-george- lucas.html

Evil tyranny is evil tyranny wheter it is left or right wing.
But nowhere does Lucas say the Empire represented United States.
That is all in your head. The Empire is Lucas' *warning*
that even a great democracy like US can turn into an evil
dictatorship if things go wrong. However, it should be an
alarming sign to you all that so many American rightwingers
identify their country as the most brutal dictatorship in the
movie history.

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53475 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 09:56

Morgil

Cheeze wrote:
> The "genius" of george lucas is he imagined light sabre duels. He
> imagined thos AT-At walkers. He imagined those x-wings. All of which,
> despite my age, and despite the age of these movies, are still very
> cool.

Not only imagined. Made them *work* too.

> It was not in the plot. The plot is a cliche of themes from other
> movies. Its the old farmer boy turns out out to be a mesiah and saves
> the princess story.

It takes a genius to make something fresh and original out of old
archtypes and cliches.

> It was not in the medichlorians. That took away a lot of mystery.
> That the Sith Lords could create life from the force could still have
> been conceptualized even if there were no medichlorians.

You're probably right about that.

> Finally, good luck trying to convince Tolkien fans that Lucas is a
> genius. For all the coolness of Lucas's creations, nothing matches the
> sheer depth of Tolkien's imagined world.

Apples and oranges. Movies cannot be expected to have similar depth
as books, as is evident from the complete lack of depth of LotR movies.

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53476 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 09:58

Morgil

Cheeze wrote:
> Recent Time article considers the dilemna of a now very productive and
> successful vietnam and asked if US soldiers who died there actually
> died for nothing.
>
> Maybe Lucas was a genius after all!
>
> ...
>
> Nah! :-)

"We had to destroy Alderan in order to save it"?

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53477 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 10:02

Henriette

Morgil wrote:
>
> I've never read James Joyce, but from what I've heard, you
> got to study his texts pretty deeply before they start to
> make any sense.

Thus far I have only read one short story from James Joyce: "The Dead",
which is part of "Dubliners". I found it moving and beautiful and it
makes perfect sense without any study or meditation.

Henriette

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53487 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 10:40

Cheeze

Morgil wrote:
> Cheeze wrote:
> > The "genius" of george lucas is he imagined light sabre duels. He
> > imagined thos AT-At walkers. He imagined those x-wings. All of which,
> > despite my age, and despite the age of these movies, are still very
> > cool.
>
> Not only imagined. Made them *work* too.
>
> > It was not in the plot. The plot is a cliche of themes from other
> > movies. Its the old farmer boy turns out out to be a mesiah and saves
> > the princess story.
>
> It takes a genius to make something fresh and original out of old
> archtypes and cliches.
>

Anyone can make something fresh and original. Not everyone can make
something good. That said, the things that are good in SW are limited
to light sabre duels, AT-AT walkers, and the X-wing. Hmmm... better
add the Darth Vader Costume.

But your posts claimed genius in Lucas's plots. As if there is
something deep and profound in them. If that genius is there but not
revealed, I liken him to a great scientist who didn't know how to speak
and communicate.

The ability to communicate it however, is the essence of the art form.
If Lucas couldn't communicate his genius or he failed to do it
eloquently, that made him a bad movie maker.

But the sheer joy of Star Wars is not that it is deep and profound. It
is its coolness.

> > It was not in the medichlorians. That took away a lot of mystery.
> > That the Sith Lords could create life from the force could still have
> > been conceptualized even if there were no medichlorians.
>
> You're probably right about that.
>
> > Finally, good luck trying to convince Tolkien fans that Lucas is a
> > genius. For all the coolness of Lucas's creations, nothing matches the
> > sheer depth of Tolkien's imagined world.
>
> Apples and oranges. Movies cannot be expected to have similar depth
> as books, as is evident from the complete lack of depth of LotR movies.
>

The LotR movies are deep in its own right because the essence of the
books were translated into a new medium which I initially thought was
impossible. My favorite scene is the Galadriel speech, when she
imagined what she would do if she had the ring. Peter Jackson's scene
was way more enjoyable than how I imagined it.

Another scene in the movie worthy of mention is the conversation in
Bilbo's home between Bilbo and Gandalf. I remember the book described
Gandalf as seeming to be larger when he scolded Bilbo about keeping the
ring. Peter Jackson was superlative in using the lighting to translate
Tolkien's description into cinema.

But I agree that SW and LOTR are apples and oranges. What I'm saying
now is I wish you good luck convincing people who like apples to eat
oranges.

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #53488 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 10:40

Cheeze

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #55168 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 15:53

Wylie Wilde

"Cheeze" <csmarasigan [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117783511.351058.190510 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Recent Time article considers the dilemna of a now very productive and
> successful vietnam and asked if US soldiers who died there actually
> died for nothing.
> Maybe Lucas was a genius after all!
>
> Nah! :-)

Productive? What? You mean like in South Korea? Nah! :-)

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #55169 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 16:37

Wylie Wilde

"Cheeze" <csmarasigan [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117783374.163361.120790 [at] g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The "genius" of george lucas is he imagined light sabre duels. He
> imagined thos AT-At walkers. He imagined those x-wings. All of which,
> despite my age, and despite the age of these movies, are still very
> cool.

His assistants invented the X-wing. Not Lucas.

http://www.toysrgus.com/images-paten/xwing1.html

Lucas wanted to write stories about some dude named Starkiller until other
people told him it - it won't work. Lucas now disassociates himself from
those same people. That's why we got Jar Jar Binks and a whinny teenage brat
for Vader.

http://www.towson.edu/~flynn/stptwo.html

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #55178 ]

Fr, 03 Juni 2005 22:28

the softrat

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:56:10 +0300, Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>It takes a genius to make something fresh and original out of old
>archtypes and cliches.
>
It *is* too bad that Lucas failed here, impressing only the unschooled
and the illiterate.

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
"The sad thing is not that we have our price, but how low it
really is." -- Hobbes (of Calvin &)

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #55182 ]

Sa, 04 Juni 2005 00:53

Flame of the West

Wily Wilde wrote:

> Unfortunately, not according to Lucas. Lucas envisaged the Star Wars saga
> about left-wing rebels fighting against a US-style Empire. It was his
> commentary on Vietnam.
> http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/05/open-letter-to-george- lucas.html

What a shame that Lucas' evil Empire was nothing other than
an allegorical representation of my country. Knowing that
will diminish my enjoyment of the movies. I suppose it
explains Morgil's enthusiasm for them, however. ;-)

-- FotW

Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #55185 ]

Sa, 04 Juni 2005 01:29

Morgil

Flame of the West wrote:
> Wily Wilde wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, not according to Lucas. Lucas envisaged the Star Wars
>> saga about left-wing rebels fighting against a US-style Empire. It was
>> his commentary on Vietnam.
>> http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/05/open-letter-to-george- lucas.html
>
>
> What a shame that Lucas' evil Empire was nothing other than
> an allegorical representation of my country. Knowing that
> will diminish my enjoyment of the movies. I suppose it
> explains Morgil's enthusiasm for them, however. ;-)

Yeah, and Reagan's too. Who would have known he was a closet-commie.

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #55186 ]

Sa, 04 Juni 2005 01:33

Morgil

the softrat wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:56:10 +0300, Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It takes a genius to make something fresh and original out of old
>>archtypes and cliches.
>>
>
> It *is* too bad that Lucas failed here, impressing only the unschooled
> and the illiterate.

So Star Wars only appeals to unschooled, illiterate leftwing crackpots.
And yet it is the most popular movie of all time. 'ow queer...

Morgil

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #55187 ]

Sa, 04 Juni 2005 02:13

Morgil

Wily Wilde wrote:

> Lucas wanted to write stories about some dude named Starkiller until other
> people told him it - it won't work. Lucas now disassociates himself from
> those same people. That's why we got Jar Jar Binks and a whinny teenage brat
> for Vader.
>
> http://www.towson.edu/~flynn/stptwo.html

Thank you *so* much for this link! It is a great testimony of
the genius of George Lucas, as it clearly demonstrates how all
the most innovative ideas and concepts indeed came from *him*
and not from some group of unappreciated underlings. Great
reading for anyone who at some point have thought that Jar-Jar
and the Anakin/Padme romance are the best that Lucas could
manage on his own :-D

" March 1976--The fourth screenplay was actually the one that George
Lucas chose to film...George Lucas also changed Luke's surname from
Starkiller to Skywalker, and took out any references to the Kiber
Crystal or Leia's witch-like powers. The final product of Star Wars,
which many consider to be one of the great motion pictures of all time,
is a testament to Lucas's persistence and creative imagination."

Morgil

OT to Star Wars rant: Origin of names [message #55189 ]

Sa, 04 Juni 2005 03:12

Cheeze

Morgil wrote:
> Wily Wilde wrote:
>
> > Lucas wanted to write stories about some dude named Starkiller until other
> > people told him it - it won't work. Lucas now disassociates himself from
> > those same people. That's why we got Jar Jar Binks and a whinny teenage brat
> > for Vader.
> >
> > http://www.towson.edu/~flynn/stptwo.html
>
> Thank you *so* much for this link! It is a great testimony of
> the genius of George Lucas, as it clearly demonstrates how all
> the most innovative ideas and concepts indeed came from *him*
> and not from some group of unappreciated underlings. Great
> reading for anyone who at some point have thought that Jar-Jar
> and the Anakin/Padme romance are the best that Lucas could
> manage on his own :-D
>
> " March 1976--The fourth screenplay was actually the one that George
> Lucas chose to film...George Lucas also changed Luke's surname from
> Starkiller to Skywalker, and took out any references to the Kiber
> Crystal or Leia's witch-like powers. The final product of Star Wars,
> which many consider to be one of the great motion pictures of all time,
> is a testament to Lucas's persistence and creative imagination."
>
> Morgil

Luke Skywalker's name was taken from Loki Skywalker, the Norse god.

I believe that the name was chosen simply because it sounded cool. :-)

Re: OT: Star Wars rant [message #55190 ]

Sa, 04 Juni 2005 03:46

the softrat

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 02:33:05 +0300, Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:

>the softrat wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:56:10 +0300, Morgil <morestelx [at] hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>It takes a genius to make something fresh and original out of old
>>>archtypes and cliches.
>>>
>>
>> It *is* too bad that Lucas failed here, impressing only the unschooled
>> and the illiterate.
>
>So Star Wars only appeals to unschooled, illiterate leftwing crackpots.
>And yet it is the most popular movie of all time. 'ow queer...
>
>Morgil

You left out the rightwing crackpots......

In re: 'popular', see Plato, _Crito_ for my opinion.

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.

Re: OT to Star Wars rant: Origin of names [message #55192 ]

Sa, 04 Juni 2005 04:04

the softrat

On 3 Jun 2005 18:12:01 -0700, "Cheeze" <csmarasigan [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Luke Skywalker's name was taken from Loki Skywalker, the Norse god.
>
I have heard of Loki, the Norse god, since I was a child. 'Loki
Skywalker', however, is a new one. Whence coneth this 'Skywalker'?
Some 'illustrated novel'?

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
"I notice that you still think that vulgar is 'strong'. It's
not; it's weak. It demonstrates a lack of vocabulary, courtesy,
culture, education, and limber mental processes." -- the
softrat, 6/25/99

Seiten (3): [1 2 3 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	More FOTR/BR crossover, this time by PJ!!!
Nächstes Thema:	e-text?

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:37:38 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,21795 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.