The Star Wars Thread

[Numbers]

I remember hearing that Natalie Portman had made some comment about the material not quite being Shakespeare in those movies. And yep, spot on there, ma'am!

And thank goodnes it wasn't.

'Twas a mere act of trickery all along! Zounds!

On a more serious note, let's talk about the bad guys in the prequels. Boy, oh boy, were they underwhelming...

I know a lot of people liked Darth Maul, but then again, a lot of people liked Boba Fett too, and I was thoroughly unimpressed with both. Maybe if they were halfway competent fighters, that would be one thing. But I'm sorry, "looking cool" does not a good villain make. Grievous falls under this category, too, 'cause I admit, I think he looks cool...right before he starts hacking and wheezing.

Also, I'm pretty sure Christopher Lee was in the movies at some point, but his character was so utterly boring and devoid of screen presence that he's not even worth talking about. He died ten minutes into his last movie, and should've died sooner than that.

[GrahamRocks!]

Actually IIRC, in the EU there actually IS a reason why Grevious not only hacks and coughs, but also why he resembles a droid but has a heart and lungs.

[Blackthorne]

EU should never count in a film.  If it's not in the film, (or discussed in the film) it's bad film-making.


Bt

[Neonivek]

Actually IIRC, in the EU there actually IS a reason why Grevious not only hacks and coughs, but also why he resembles a droid but has a heart and lungs.

He hacks and coughs because he was force crushed by Mace Windu (previously a Dark power, but the differences between dark and light are more and more meaningless).

He resembles a droid but has a heard and lungs because he is a cyborg.

Both which you can find out in the Clone Wars cartoons and Tv series.

[inm8#2]

EU should never count in a film.  If it's not in the film, (or discussed in the film) it's bad film-making.


Bt

From Lucas' point of view, it's good marketing (to convince people to buy other products to get the "back story").

The prequel trilogy is fundamentally a major advertisement for toys, games, comics, and the whole SW brand. You could say the same for any movie, I suppose, but with SW merchandising the scope is just so much larger. The movies were not designed to tell the best story possible. They were designed to sell the most toys, by cramming as many digital, goofy looking aliens and exotic locations into each movie as possible. They had no heart like the original trilogy.

Between ESB and ROTJ Lucas' priorities changed drastically. This is all the proof you need, right from one of the real brains behind the OT - Gary Kurtz.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/gary-kurtz-outlines-original-darker-ewokless-endin,44162/

We had an outline and George changed everything in it," Kurtz said. "Instead of bittersweet and poignant he wanted a euphoric ending with everybody happy. The original idea was that they would recover [the kidnapped] Han Solo in the early part of the story and that he would then die in the middle part of the film in a raid on an Imperial base. George then decided he didn't want any of the principals killed. By that time there were really big toy sales and that was a reason."

Same thing from Harrison Ford:

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/11/05/star-wars-sequel-harrison-ford-han-solo-exclusive/

As Ford told ABC in the same interview: "I thought he should have died in the last one to give it some bottom...George didn't think there was any future in dead Han toys."

[Lambonius]

Han Solo dying in ROTJ is pretty much the worst idea ever.  Thank god for George Lucas.

[Neonivek]

Han Solo dying in ROTJ is pretty much the worst idea ever.  Thank god for George Lucas.

Honestly I kinda agree.

Especially with all these sad and bittersweet endings now adays.

[inm8#2]

You guys have (conveniently) missed the point of those two quotes entirely.

The point isn't whether it was a good idea or not to kill off Han. The point is that from the time between ESB and ROTJ onward, Lucas' decisions were made based on merchandising and toy sales potential rather than primarily on storytelling.

This is why I tend to avoid Star Wars conversations.

[Blackthorne]

Yeah.  I actually mentioned Gary Kurtz several pages ago, before we delved into a miasma of non-sequiturs. 

Yeah - definitely, the films began to service the machine between 1980 and 1983.  The merchandising went CRAZY then.  I know; I remember, I was there.  When ROTJ came out in 1983, the sheer number of Star Wars toys, playsets, lunchboxes, sheets, pajamas, curtains, tableware, t-shirts, etc that I owned was staggering.

Like I said, though - explaining WHY Grevious had those injuries/coughs in the EU is just bad film-making.  You shouldn't have to go outside of a film to get the answers you need or require within it.   The prequels, honestly, while entertaining in parts - were just poorly made films.  They were.


Bt

[Neonivek]

I don't really need to "get" the point inm8#2. Sometimes people stumble into the better choice by making the choice based on marketing. In this case letting Han Solo live.

Heck I can think of a show or two that were created PURELY for marketing purposes that because they were handed to good writers turned into a good show.

You shouldn't have to go outside of a film to get the answers you need or require within it

Honestly it felt more like they were trying to make an excuse as to why Grevious wasn't as awsome as he was in the cartoon.

[GrahamRocks!]

*sigh* Forget I said anything.

[inm8#2]

I don't really need to "get" the point inm8#2.

That is why you fail. You have made up your mind on a false notion and stubbornly reject all else.

Sometimes people stumble into the better choice by making the choice based on marketing. In this case letting Han Solo live.

Heck I can think of a show or two that were created PURELY for marketing purposes that because they were handed to good writers turned into a good show.

Your claims are deeply flawed and don't remotely refute any facts I've presented. Making a decision for "marketing purposes" then handing off writing duties to competent writers is different than one guy, who happens to be a terrible writer, making decisions for "marketing purposes" then commencing said writing.

Nevermind that Star Wars was saved in the editing room, and Empire/Jedi were written by others based on rough story outlines from Lucas. Note how when Lucas took sole writing duties, the result was the prequels.

You're trying to find any way to rationalize the preconceived notions you have. LOL by claiming you don't need to "get" someone's point shows you aren't being rational or open minded. And you've completely rejected the very evidenced trend that as Lucas prioritized merchandising and toy sales his storytelling suffered deeply.

But don't let facts get in the way.

[Lambonius]

I remember seeing Attack of the Clones for the first time and specifically thinking, "Who is this Grievous character and why should I care about him.  Did I miss something?"

Apparently, yes.  Yes I had.

Then he whipped out four lightsabers, and I facepalmed.

(Posted on: November 27, 2012, 03:10:54 PM)

I don't really need to "get" the point inm8#2.

That is why you fail. You have made up your mind on a false notion and stubbornly reject all else.

Sometimes people stumble into the better choice by making the choice based on marketing. In this case letting Han Solo live.

Heck I can think of a show or two that were created PURELY for marketing purposes that because they were handed to good writers turned into a good show.

Your claims are deeply flawed and don't remotely refute any facts I've presented. Making a decision for "marketing purposes" then handing off writing duties to competent writers is different than one guy, who happens to be a terrible writer, making decisions for "marketing purposes" then commencing said writing.

Nevermind that Star Wars was saved in the editing room, and Empire/Jedi were written by others based on rough story outlines from Lucas. Note how when Lucas took sole writing duties, the result was the prequels.

You're trying to find any way to rationalize the preconceived notions you have. LOL by claiming you don't need to "get" someone's point shows you aren't being rational or open minded. And you've completely rejected the very evidenced trend that as Lucas prioritized merchandising and toy sales his storytelling suffered deeply.

But don't let facts get in the way.

Uh oh--nerd rage alert!

[inm8#2]

Quite calm, actually.

But if all you have are petty personal attacks to deflect the discussion to something else, it speaks volumes regarding your lack of both maturity and a sensible argument.

Presenting reasoned facts to disprove others' false claims =/= "nerd rage".

[Lambonius]

Quite calm, actually.

But if all you have are petty personal attacks to deflect the discussion to something else, it speaks volumes regarding your lack of both maturity and a sensible argument.

Presenting reasoned facts to disprove others' false claims =/= "nerd rage".

And you're creating an argument where none exists.  Nobody was refuting any of your points.  Nobody said, "George Lucas wasn't concerned about marketing and toy sales while making ROTJ."  Nor did anyone ever claim that he was a brilliant writer.  And then you come up with a wall of text bitching about how we're not properly refuting your arguments.  There was never any disagreement.

[inm8#2]

And who's "nerd-raging"?  

You're again deflecting and using straw man arguments.

Last I checked people were discussing whether EU should count in the movie or not. My points are quite relevant because the emphasis on merchandising and brand sales influenced the writing decision to leave certain things out of the films, so that people could spend more money on other products to "get the back story." I then provided the background for how Lucas evolved on this.

You and another then cherry picked the idea of Han dying while ignoring the actual point of that example, so I clarified it. Then someone said they don't need to get a point that's central to a discussion. So, I brought in even more reason and facts to bring the discussion back to the original point, relevant to the merit of EU, instead of letting it diverge with the false counter claims.

"Wall of text bitching" - if that's what you see you need to try harder instead of becoming emotional and projecting your anger onto me.

LOL I forgot how fun these conversations are, and how rational and calm some SW fans can be.

[Blackthorne]

I think they got the point - but they're saying sometimes "the point" (decisions being made based on merchandising vs. being made for storytelling reasons) doesn't matter, when in the end, it's the right decision.

Killing Han would have been a bad decision; even though it was born from "toy sales", it was a good decision for the story.


Bt

[Lambonius]

I think they got the point - but they're saying sometimes "the point" (decisions being made based on merchandising vs. being made for storytelling reasons) doesn't matter, when in the end, it's the right decision.

Killing Han would have been a bad decision; even though it was born from "toy sales", it was a good decision for the story.


Bt

Right, and though that may have worked in the original trilogy, and ROTJ still turned out to be a pretty good movie, it didn't work for the prequel trilogy.  However, I think it would be oversimplification to say that the prequel trilogy is bad because it was too concerned with marketing.  It was bad because they are terribly written, acted, and directed films, with an over-emphasis on hollow CGI special effects that fail to capture the charm of the practical effects in the original trilogy.  Among other reasons.  

Also, I strongly doubt the only reason Lucas didn't want to kill off Han was because it would have hurt toy sales. 

[KatieHal]

Yeah...there's a balancing point to strike there. Listening to what people loved or hated and incorporating that into your product is by no means a bad idea. Listening to it too much or too little can cause problems, though.

[inm8#2]

My original point was that Lucas' emphasis on creating merchandising opportunities instead of creating strong stories tipped that balance over time. The prequels were the result of too much focus on toys, CGI, and other superficial things with little emphasis on quality writing and directing. Lucas went from having input on the original movies to basically being surrounded by yes men. Lack of peer feedback hurt those movies. The hollow CGI was marketing - the films were sold almost exclusively on the visuals.

So, you guys are agreeing with the end results, but I'm pointing out the causes and longer term evolution that preceded them and somehow it's causing problems.

As for those quotes about Han, they're from Kurtz and Ford. I'd say they're qualified to know the development of the film.