TR Forums

.

I agreed with all of it. The last Star Trek wasn't half bad. I can just keep hoping J.J. Abrams is up to the task.

Youtube blocked at work can anyone provide a TL;DR?

It's inconsequential fanboy wanking.

I think one of the points it makes misses the context of episodes 1-3. It talks about having a gritty, broken-down, frontier setting but doesn't take into account that episodes 1-3 are in a time and set in locations that are supposed to be a high water mark for the universe before the 'downfall' to the empire taking place. The frontier locations might be more compelling, but the story about the downfall of the republic wouldn't have made sense if the settings were already broken down. I suppose the story could have been told differently, say by having characters discuss events like the politics in the senate rather than show the events, so maybe that's what the criticism is saying but that wouldn't have given a sense of the grandeur of the republic.

.

bthylafh wrote:

It's inconsequential fanboy wanking.

Inconsequential in the sense of our immediate concerns, sure. But what's wrong with being a fan and having/expressing preferences?

I disagree with some of the video, however. Cities represent the seats of power in any civilization and so some of Star Wars can and should occur in cities. Also, it's not reasonable to think that everything can/should be second-hand. It's perfectly plausible that governments, royalty, and the military would have access to newer ships, and of course no big civilization would ever consist only of moisture farmers and paupers.

And I must have been the only one who actually liked the Jar Jar character. I thought he was real and likable. There was only one exception; and that's the storyline where his naivety was taken advantage of when he was a Senator. He may have been a bit of a goof, but we all know people who are goofs and still are good people at the same time. That was how I thought of the character. I just would have liked to have seen his character a little bit wiser by the time he became a Senator.

Oh sure, much of the script and the acting in episodes 1-3 was B-Movie quality. But that's part of its charm and there are a lot of B-Movies that are much much better than the crap that Hollywood continues to perpetrate on society today that is just so forgettable. Did you know that May 21st is "Talk Like Yoda Day"? Unofficially, sure I am!

The 2nd "new" Star Trek turned me around a bit and now I'm more confident that JJ will tell good Star Wars stories as long as he plays on its strengths. I think Star Wars is better told in a semi-generational timeline and when those movies are spaced 5-10 years apart and involve characters that grow up, go to war, come home, get married, have children, grow old, and die off before being replaced. Star Wars is a macro universe. It's big. It's dangerous. It can and should involve the stories of huge civilizations and whole planets.

Star Trek on the other hand, probably should still be a 60-minute television show. I say that not as an insult. I think you just can't tell those great interpersonal stories when you only have 90 minutes to stop the guy who's planning to destroy Vulcan and Earth and then after all the back-slapping is done, we don't see those characters for another 4-5 years. The original mission was 5 years, and here we are waiting that long between stories. The actors are already in their middle-ages and valuable time continues to slip away.

Star Trek's real magic always happened when its stories were not told in a macro manner, but are more about the ship, its crew, and how they deal with things happening to them and those they love. Uhura seeing a handsome mystery crewman in the corridors of the ship, Scotty falling for a pretty girl; Data learning to paint, play violin and perform Shakespeare or exploring his dreams, T'Pol dealing with addiction. You'll never see these fascinating interpersonal stories on the big screen because they require too much valuable screen time and the next episode is half a decade away. But you CAN see them in a weekly series.

.

My take on their points:

1. Wrong. Even in IV-VI, it was clear that politics were present. They were pushed to the side because the Rebel Alliance was a ragged, less refined force than the Empire, but the politics still existed, and I honestly think that the politics of episodes I-III could have made that trilogy better had it been handled better. We're talking about, as MMO mentioned, the high water mark for culture in the Republic before it fell apart.

Episodes VII-IX could be great if it has political elements. After all, it will be set in a post-Empire galaxy. The remnants of the Empire could be at odds with those who want to go straight back to the Republic, but many planets, remembering how the Republic fell, could be suspicious of the new one. On top of that, some planets might be enjoying their new independence and resist the new Republic, favoring their own ways. Putting the frontier of IV-VI at odds with the culture of I-III could be AWESOME.

2. I touched on this a bit, but I also think this is wrong. Again, I-III was high water for culture and technology and IV-VI was after the fall. The original movies were gritty, and it made sense because the rebels didn't have the resources of the Empire, and the Empire would have been focused more on efficiency than elegance. Again, putting these forces at odds could make for great stories.

3. This I agree with.

4. I...somewhat agree with this. The only problem is that as violent as this video tries to make the originals sound, those movies are still loved by kids. I don't think VII-IX need to go full Ewok and Jar-Jar, but they ought to still be mindful of the child audience.

Honestly, there were two main problems with I-III, and one is already solved. The main issue is that the sense of mystery was gone. As soon as Anakin Skywalker appeared, everyone knew that this kid was going to become Darth Vader. On top of that, it restricted the storytelling, requiring a lot of material that felt rushed so that all the characters ended up where they needed to be. Even taking nods to earlier movies, the writing will be more free to make a good story instead of forcing in fanservice.

The second issue is...well...George Lucas and the acting. I know that's two, but I think they are paired. Lucas has grown obsessed with the image that is Star Wars, much like how Disney is obsessed with their own image on anything branded with "Disney" (and I am assuming that these Star Wars movies are going to have other names in the opening credits like the Marvel movies do). With him gone, Abrams can leaves flaws in the movies as long as the characters are great and the story is good. With a veteran director, the performances should be better, too, and the right people can be chosen for roles. I'll also add that, since I am assuming the main cast will be new characters, no one will have to live up to someone from the older movies. You know, "Your character is going to become Darth Vader...so no pressure!"

Agree with "no cute", and "the force is supposed to be mysterious".
Disagree with the other two points.

I trust Abrams a lot more then I would ever trust Lucas.

As for the rules, I don't nearly agree with them.
Rule 1 and 2 - For one that read most of the expanded universe, there is nothing that says it have to be a frontier piece for everything. Once the rebel alliance moved to become the new republic, there was no reason to live in filth anymore, neither was there any reason to before the empire took power. Make a good story with settings that match the story, and who cares if it's gritty or clean. In episode 1-3, the things were new. Stuff was not made to work from cast off garbage and pressed into service because there wasn't any choice. Episodes 4-6 wasn't necessarily gritty, only some settings where. Onboard the empires ships/death star, it was squeeky clean for the most part. So that is settings-specific. Do specific settings that fit in and it will work, no matter if it's clean or gritty. I don't nearly have a problem with episode 1-3 for that reason. There are tons of other movies that has used the same thing to represent the ragged rebels vs. the squeaky clean big man. Firefly used the same tricks in part, as did others.

Rules 3 - Now those have some substance, science might be nice, but everybody know it's a movie, and using convoluted unexplained things works just fine if it works with the story. You don't need to explain the force, because most people aren't watching star wars expecting a scientifically correct universe according to our universe as we understand it, it's space opera. As long as the internal logic of the universe is there it's just fine. That said, I would like to have some internal logic to the science of guns, hyper-space, etc, you know, the technical parts of the universe. But for me, this is just as bad as if they would try to scientifically how magic worked in a fantasy setting. Being explainable, it would be science, not magic dammit.

Rule 4 - What can I say, some humor relief existed in the older movies too, IMO it just wasn't in your face kiddy silly until it came to the ewoks in the old ones. And I think lucas underestimate kids if he thinks that you need that stuff to make movies that kid's will like. I never took to those movies as a child, so why would todays children do? Have some dignity and treat the characters with respect even while having the comic relief.

Where's the petition asking JJ Abrams not to make Star Wars? That's the one I want to sign.

As a matter of fact, nobody should be making Star Wars. It's dead. Let it rest in peace.

.

Well...that escalated quickly...

That's definitely a twist that would have changed everything after that, but I don't think it's necessary, nor does it fit with where Vader's story ends in RotJ. "There's still good in him." However, I do like the idea of Anakin and Vader being two separate personalities to some degree.

The first major thing I would change about the prequels is simple...RAISE ANAKIN'S AGE. You don't have to raise it much...make him about 16 on Tatooine. At that point, he's already entered the phase where he recognizes evil in the world, but he's still basically a child. Yoda's "too old" comments make more sense considering how young they still take in Jedi recruits. Now, when Anakin begins to use his Jedi abilities in episodes II and III, he sees them as a tool to achieve what he wants, making him far more volitile of a character (and showing exactly what Yoda and Windu warned would happen). He wants to be good, he wants to protect those he loves, and he genuinely wants to be a good person. But he feels limited in his ability to fight evil, and maybe even uses dark force powers compulsively. Now his slip into becoming Vader makes more sense, and by the midway point in RotS, he's become very agressive trying to take down Dooku and/or Maul (we'll get to him soon), further turning him into what he's trying to destroy.

The second major change is STOP THROWING AWAY VILLAINS. I know the Clone Wars Series(es?) had more Dooku and Grievous, but their time on the Silver Screen made this seem like non-issues. Maul got the biggest build-up and conclusion, IMO, but at a major waste. He can still get cut in half at the end of Phantom, but keep him around as either Obi-Wan or Anakin's rival. Now you have two things going on. First, Obi-Wan and Anakin want to kill Maul, who had killed a father figure to them both. Second, the Sith seem much more menacing because they have more than one powerful force user able to defeat Jedi in duels. That alone would raise the stakes of the later movies and wars, and you could play into the Jedi Council's concerns, who cannot find nor defeat their Sith rivals. Of course in the end, Palpatine can still sell out Dooku and Maul, and the Jedi focus on the Sith leaves them blind when the Emperor issues orders to kill them all.

Well...that ended up longer than I expected it to be, but I think it still leaves good lessons. Don't waste your villains. Let them get built up as much as your heroes. And Jedi paths are interesting stories, so make sure your Jedi have plenty of internal conflict and don't end up in the extremely good category unless they are very old mentors like Yoda (in all movies) and Obi-Wan (in IV-VI). Let the power of the force scare the users and the audience will be on board...

.

clone wrote:

at the very least it would have made sense, that love story was so clumsy, so broken, it was agony.

Vader coming to the front and then eventually being overcome by Anakin would have fit fine in ROTJ given how they showed Vader struggling with letting luke die at the hands of the emperor, also understand by then all the whisperings of both Palpatine and the Vader side of Anakin would truly have become hollow well ahead of time leaving only the battle within Vader to be about whether or not their was any Anakin left and if so was he really going to let his son die.

in the end the reality is the prequels were done badly and could have been done so much better.

I do agree fully the villains were wasted in the prequels, and worse for the series the replacement villains weren't very compelling..... and then they were wasted as well making it all just a mish mash...... out of dozens of bad decisions in The Phantom Menace the best one was the villain..... and then they killed him.

I mainly just think that a rape scene in Star Wars might just go a little too far and be a little too dark...and I think you can achieve the same goal of dual personalities through other means. It would have been especially difficult, I think, to keep a PG rating on the film, or even a PG-13. I could see the scene getting cut quickly if they thought they'd get an R rating.

And Phantom had other okay parts. I personally liked Liam Neeson, and I think podracing was cool, too. Again, it could have been done better, like showing Anakin's ability instead of telling. If it was paired with two or three more scenes throughout the trilogy showcasing his capabilities as a pilot, that would have made the scene worth it, and would have been a good nod to Luke's abilities, as well as Vader's choice to personally fly in the first Death Star battle.

.

.

Eh, only 2 of them are right (no cute, and the force should be mysterious). I think it could beentirely possible for there to be new shiny stuff in the galaxy, and I don't see why you couldn't hanbdle this movie in the halls of power. ****, Vader's flagship was in the first 3 movies and damn right that counts as the halls of power.

I find it interesting that a movie I watched in its original release at age 13 can still engender such opinions.

.

clone wrote:

I find it interesting that a movie I watched in its original release at age 13 can still engender such opinions.

the majority of ppl loved Star Wars in the same way the majority of ppl appear to dislike the prequels. the old debates were Star Wars vs Star Trek, the prequels moved that debate to the back burner in another state.

Well there's something good that came out of the prequels

Seriously, Wars and Trek are completely different. Even though Abrams has made the movies more accessible, they are still Trek films. Wars could have all the space cut out and still be a great story to tell.

clone wrote:

I've been laughing about how awkward society is about certain social taboos/crimes since I first conceived of the scene which was shortly after watching the RedLetterMedia plinkett reviews a year ago or so.

Star Wars was ok with murdering children.... it doesn't get any darker than that and I'm just starting, Star Wars was also comfy with decapitation, impaling ppl, cutting ppl in half, dismemberment, genocide, poisoning ppl, showing a guy being dismembered and then slowly being burnt alive, doing a close up of a guy as his hands and head are cutoff...... I'm not saying rape isn't crossing a line but I'm pretty sure more than a few lines were crossed in the prequels and an accidental rape tastefully done would have been far more real and far less dark.

Well there is the general point that violence has a much higher tolerance in American media than sex, you can show the effects of violence and still get the same effect, while cutting out an "accidental rape" scene would remove the impact such an event would have. And since the MPAA will be rating the film...it's something to be mindful of. Also, a lot of the dismemberment stuff in Star Wars is pretty sanitized.

p.s. both Liam Neeson and the Pod Racing were nothing more than filler.

He was okay, and another role that could have been handled better.

with regards to the pod racing, pod racing is not an instructional tool for flying.... the race was yet another huge drawn out scene created for the sake of making a huge drawn out scene, it gets even worse later in the movie as it took pains to explain that Anakin had no idea what he was doing as he pulled the conveniently sized baby helmet onto his head and flew the Naboo fighter out of the hanger bay..... filler & nothing more.

Again, I'm not necessarily talking about the movies we got vs. how they could have been done better

And reflexes and instincts could be similar traits to podracing and starfighting. The problem was that they built up the podracing stakes in dialogue instead of showing the audience...anything, really. If they had spent the scene showing some fancy maneuvers and split-second decisions (slo-mo?), I think it would have been better.

The entire Battle for Naboo was poorly executed. It comprised of a ground battle, a space battle, an infiltration of the palace, and a lightsaber duel. The lightsaber duel could have stayed on its own, but the other three battles should have been intermixed better then they were. The primary goal was getting into the throne room to disable the Trade Federation's operation, so everything should have been in or near the city. The Gungans could have don guerilla-style attacks to lure forces out, and a few fighters could have provided minimal but tactical air support. They could then have kept Anakin running a fighter through buildings and/or forests providing support, drawing the parallelism...

Again, that was wordy, but let's take a similar battle that was done better: The Battle of Endor. Here, we have a ground battle, a space battle, and a lightsaber duel. Here, the ground and space battles directly influence each other. Luke is watching the the Rebels lose while the Emperor taunts him. These connections bring the necessary unity to have them all going on at once, instead of, "hey, the space battle is over so now the ground battle is over!" and, "Oh yeah, let's put in a lightsaber fight because we can."

.